Steph Doughty

I’m sorry, but I feel like I need to make this post. Both my parents suffered sexual abuse. My mother was abused by her stepfather. My father was raped as a child in a care home for orphans. I have a friend who was raped repeatedly by her father telling her how much he loved her and that she reminded him of her dead mother, and another friend raped by her very own uncle. So watching people on 𝕏 defend a convicted rapist and blame the women who came forward genuinely disgusts me. It also makes me question whether they understand the meaning of consent. This isn’t a joke to me. It disgusts me. Before claiming Russell Brand was “set up by the system”, perhaps take five minutes to research the evidence that convicted him. In 2009, Brand met a 21-year-old woman at a comedy show. She subsequently went to his home. Their sexual encounter initially began consensually. But consent to one act is NOT consent to another. She described being subjected to anal rape, leaving her with physical and psychological injuries. She disclosed what happened shortly afterwards. The jury heard evidence from people she told at the time, including family and friends. Medical records and a nurse’s statement also supported her account of seeking medical attention and reporting what happened. This wasn’t simply an allegation invented 17 years later. And the investigation went considerably further. According to the Metropolitan Police: • Over 100 witnesses traced and interviewed. • More than 400 witness statements taken. • Over 1,400 documents reviewed. • Historical photographs, floor plans and timelines examined. • Hundreds of hours of Brand’s interviews, television appearances and performances reviewed. Police also reported that Brand initially claimed not to recognise the women involved, before his account changed as the case approached trial. These figures cover the entire investigation, not just the rape conviction. The jury also heard evidence concerning three other women. Brand was convicted of sexually assaulting an MTV worker, a Choice FM employee and a Channel 4 worker. The jury also ACQUITTED him of three other charges. Think about that before claiming the jury simply convicted him because he was famous or unpopular. They considered separate allegations and returned different verdicts. Brand himself admitted in court to using his fame to facilitate sexual access, while maintaining that his encounters were consensual. But being famous, having a sexual relationship with someone or having previously obtained consent gives nobody the right to sexually assault them. And finally, to those arguing that women shouldn’t be allowed to prosecute historical sexual offences because too much time has passed: As I said yesterday in a previous post. Would you tell a 32-year-old who was raped by their uncle at 12 that they’ve missed their opportunity for justice? Would you say the same to someone who finally found the courage to speak up at 50? Of course, every defendant deserves a fair trial. But victims deserve access to justice too. Russell Brand received a four-week trial. The jury heard the evidence and unanimously convicted him of rape and three sexual assaults. He has not been targeted by the matrix as Andrew Tate likes to put it. You are entitled to question a verdict or support an appeal. But stop blaming victims, dismissing evidence you haven’t examined and pretending that the passage of time makes rape somehow acceptable. Rape doesn’t have an expiry date. Justice shouldn’t either. Very few have done any research on this website. They immediately jump to defend Russell Brand who is now a convicted rapist. And I am adamant many more will come forward now. I might mute the word Russell and brand so I can now move on with my day. I guess having two daughters makes me feel quite emotional about this, as well as what happened to both of my parents and some of my friends. T