CLARE FOGES: The warning I'll be giving my daughters about consent after Russell Brand's conviction

Though Russell Brand now sits in a cell at HMP Wandsworth, dandy waistcoats swapped for a prison-issue grey tracksuit, the reverberations from his case continue.

Most of us now know the grim details about the anal rape for which he is serving most of his ten-and-a-half-year sentence. The way he flipped the woman over, tore off his condom and forced himself on her, causing immense pain.

We know that she was told, horribly, to ‘clear up the mess’ left by the act. We know it has caused her years of suffering.

We heard, too, about the consensual acts the woman had engaged in. After meeting Brand on a night out she and a friend had performed oral sex on him. Days later she went to his house and agreed to vaginal sex before the rape happened.

Many have lauded the Brand verdict as a watershed moment, making clear once and for all that a woman’s behaviour prior to a sex assault is irrelevant.

And it is, according to the law. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes clear that consent means agreeing by choice, with the freedom and capacity to make that choice. A woman can have consensual sex with a man and refuse a different sexual act.

Her previous sexual history does not establish consent. She can say no at any time – including during sex. This is how consent is viewed in the eyes of the law.

But let us be frank. The eyes of the law are different from the eyes of some men – especially when drunk and aroused. And I fear that the high-profile nature of this case may lead some young women to feel a false sense of empowerment. To believe that – just as the jury correctly respected the victim’s right to say no at any time – so will any potential sexual partner. This will lead them into dangerous situations.

Many have lauded the Russell Brand verdict as a watershed moment, making clear once and for all that a woman’s behaviour prior to a sex assault is irrelevant, writes Clare Foges

I can hear the thunder of a thousand fingers tapping out furious responses on social media: You’re blaming the victims! Shaming women!

No, no, I am stating the bleeding obvious, which is that where women can minimise their risk of being assaulted – such as not engaging in sex acts with a man they don’t know well or going home with them – they should do so. We minimise the risk of fraud by not giving out our bank details. We minimise the risk of theft with locks and alarms. And we must minimise the risk of sexual assault by being aware that there are men like Brand who see women as objects to be used.

Given that most sex attacks are perpetrated by someone the victim knows, you cannot eliminate risk but you can minimise it.

This is not a suggestion that those who do go home with a man or indeed start having sex with him are ‘asking for it’ if things turn nasty and a consensual act turns into an attack. The blame always, solely and squarely, lies with the perpetrator. The victim bears not one iota of blame.

But do we serve young women by pretending that every aroused man while engaged in the act of sex is always going to respect your legal right to withdraw consent at any time? Or that those who have had their sexual drives addled by years of watching violent hardcore pornography are going to continually seek a woman’s consent?

This is not in any way to excuse their behaviour. It shouldn’t be the case that ‘no’ doesn’t always work. It is disgusting that ‘no’ sometimes doesn’t work.

But what I will be instructing my own daughters when they are older is this: please do not put yourself in a position of danger in the first place.

Yes, flirt, wear what you want, have a few drinks, have fun. But if you are intending to go home with a man who is not well known to you, be aware that your ‘no’ may not have the power you think it has. Indeed I will be telling them to never, ever go home with a man they don’t know well.

Of course keeping yourself safe is easier said than done. Men you do know well can also be predators. Women are often victims of sexual violence at the hands of their own partners. It’s sadly impossible to eliminate risk altogether but the point is to take sensible measures when you can.

To some, the suggestion that we should even advise women on safety is harmful because, they say, it transfers responsibility from men on to women.

Criticism of ‘victim blaming’ is why a number of police campaigns in recent years have been withdrawn. Like the one Sussex Police ran a decade ago, which advised young women on a night out to ‘stick together and don’t let your friend leave with a stranger or go off on their own’.

To some this was beyond-the-pale victim shaming. A spokeswoman for Rape Crisis said: ‘Those with the real power to prevent sexual assaults in significant numbers [are] those who have sole responsibility for these terrible crimes – that is, the perpetrators.’ The Everyday Sexism movement fumed that ‘focusing on victim behaviour prevents us from placing the blame where it belongs – with the perpetrator alone.’

As with so many other things these days, it’s become a pick-a-side issue. If you’re on the side of victims you must say nothing about how women might protect themselves from the dangerous men we know are out there.

But if you do suggest that women take steps to minimise the risk of sexual attack, you are a ‘rape apologist’.

I refute that binary choice. You can utterly condemn rapists such as Brand and think the blame is entirely theirs, while acknowledging that a woman drunk and alone in some guy’s flat is in a vulnerable position. This is even more important to emphasise in the era of casual sex, when there is enormous pressure on young women to be relaxed about so-called ‘hook-up culture’.

I share the fury that we women have to curtail our movements, watch our backs, shield our drinks from date-rape drugs.

Women should be able to return home with whoever they like, knowing that they can withdraw consent at any moment. We should be able to live in a world without the horrible threat of sexual assault, just as we should live in a world free from all crime, poverty and suffering.

But when it comes to keeping young women safe, I would rather treat the world as it is, rather than how we wish it to be.

It's hard making friends after 30

Georgia Toffolo is ‘embarrassed’ to admit she has only made one friend since moving to Scotland three years ago.

I empathise. When I moved to a new city I assumed I would make a new gang of friends easily but it was difficult. I was 37 and a lot of women my age already had their crew or were too tied up with children, or work.

Nine years on, there are a handful of friends I like very much. Keep your chin up, Toff: stay your friendly self and it will happen in time.

Georgia Toffolo is ‘embarrassed’ to admit she has only made one friend since moving to Scotland three years ago

Why kids' TV should be funny

Paul Whitehouse and his wife are launching a new BBC children’s show which they promise will contain no ‘worthy life lessons’.

Thank goodness for that. I’m tired of children’s ‘entertainment’ that smuggles in a message about inclusion or protecting the environment. Kids want silliness, not moralising.

Travesty of the week: Welcome Break Rotherham has been named Britain’s best motorway service station. Anyone who has sampled the glorious cooked breakfast at Gloucester Services on the M5 knows which pit-stop deserves the crown. 

How do you know for a fact that you are middle-aged?

When Monty Don leaving Gardeners’ World is one of your low points of 2026. Sob.

Stop trying so hard, Gordon 

Gordon Ramsay celebrated his 60th birthday by posting a shirtless picture of himself on Instagram.

While I applaud him for keeping in shape, is pulling a Men’s Health pose in your kitchen really becoming for a man of older years?

Gordon Ramsay recently turned 60 and celebrated with a shirtless photo posted to Instagram