A start-up says it can ‘end rape’. Read the fine print

If someone forwarded you this email you can subscribe.

Hi Diogenes,

A start-up says it can "end rape". But as our latest investigation shows, the reality is far more complicated.

Enough markets itself as the "breathalyser of rape", offering self-swab DNA kits to survivors and targeting students and parents with promises of empowerment and protection.

But buried in its terms and conditions is a stark disclaimer: the company takes no responsibility for survivors' safety, wellbeing, or the consequences of using its services.

FEATURED STORY

A start-up says it can 'end rape'. Read the fine print

Sian Norris

Enough – the start-up company offering self-swab DNA kits for rape survivors – launched in Bristol in 2024 as the self-described "breathalyser of rape". It claimed to offer a solution to the rape epidemic that survivors want.

The company hands out rape kits to students for free, while selling them online for £20. It specifically targets fathers with its "dads for daughters" product, encouraging men to "channel their inner Liam Neeson" (a reference to the film Taken) and buy five kits for £100.

As well as the kits, Enough encourages survivors to post on its online testimonial platform and offers videos with advice on how to cope with trauma following sexual violence.

But its terms and conditions reveal how Enough is very different from other organisations supporting victims and survivors of sexual abuse. The company absolves itself of any liability for survivors' safety and wellbeing, stating that "while you may have a strong emotional reaction" to using its services, "you expressly agree to assume all risks associated with your use of the Services and not to hold Enough liable for any social, emotional, or legal consequences of such discoveries or encounters."

SUPPORT OUR INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

When I saw that the UK government had seconded an official to work with Rothschild & Co on defence policy, all paid for by you and me, I knew this was something I had to look into. The revolving door between government, private finance and lobbying firms needs to be exposed if we are to understand how money and power work in our politics. Nowhere is this more urgent than on questions of defence and national security, at a time when the government is investing more and more of taxpayers' money on rearming Britain.

You can help keep me on this beat, as I dig into the contracts and cosy relationships between Labour, defence, and big finance. Will you donate to support my work today?

Please donate now

Nowhere was this safeguarding gap more obvious to me than when I spoke to Maria (not her real name). After she was assaulted, Maria used an Enough kit that the company's ambassadors had given her a few days earlier. The kit then went missing in the post on the way to the lab. While Enough's founders apologised, they could not be held liable for the error.

These are not the terms for your phone contract. It's not buying a dress online that the courier never delivers. This is about the safety and wellbeing of a woman who has been sexually assaulted, and whose DNA is now somewhere in a Royal Mail sorting office. How can it be possible that a company dealing with vulnerable individuals – encouraging them to take intimate tissue samples – can absolve itself of all responsibility to that victim? This is the question that has haunted me and driven me in all my investigations into Enough.

Enough is a commercialised and privatised response to the social problem of sexual violence; one that puts the work of ending rape into women's hands. It tells women that taking and using the kits is a way to "deter" rape, overturning decades of work by the violence against women sector to reassure women that it is not our responsibility to prevent sexual violence. At the same time, dads are told to cough up the cash to buy kits for their daughters in order to keep their girls safe – again, putting the responsibility on victims, not perpetrators, to end rape.

Meanwhile, the online testimonials are anonymised and posted on Enough's social media, helping to build its audience so it can reach more people with its product.

And yet, Enough takes no responsibility for a survivor's safety, wellbeing or subsequent legal case should she choose to report to the police. If she feels distressed or traumatised writing her testimonial, Enough is not liable. If her swab returns a false negative because the laboratory analysis misses a second of DNA, Enough is not liable. If the police and courts say her swab is not admissible as evidence, Enough is not liable. The website only says it "could" be admissible, after all.

Is MAGA a religion? Why has protest been criminalised in England and Wales? Who is profiting from anti-immigration sentiment? And how can we engage with young men who've fallen down the alt-right pipeline?

These are just a few of the questions that we've put to leading thinkers, frontline activists, and global experts on our new podcast, In Solidarity, over the past six months.

In Solidarity is a podcast for people who understand that politics doesn't just happen in the halls of power. Every show, we tackle a new theme to uncover how authoritarianism spreads, who is benefiting from fear, and how solidarity is evolving into resistance movements around the world.

To ensure you never miss an episode of In Solidarity, subscribe to get an email notification whenever a new one is released.

Subscribe to episode notifications

I have spent much of my career reporting on men's violence against women and girls. I am fully aware of how the police so often fail victims and survivors. We know the police lose evidence, and the horrific consequences for survivors.

But when the worst does happen, there are structures in place to provide support and compensation. Survivors can complain to the police and the Independent Office for Police Conduct. Reviews and inquiries are launched. People lose their jobs.

The police – for all their many failings – do not have a set of terms and conditions buried on their website informing victims that they are not liable for when things go wrong. They do not absolve themselves of survivors' safety and wellbeing. Neither do rape crisis charities nor Sexual Assault Referral Centres.

Rape and sexual violence are a national emergency. According to the National Crime Survey of England and Wales, which asks members of the public about their experiences of crime over the past 12 months, there were 214,816 sexual offences in the year leading up to September 2025, of which 74,265 were rapes. The conviction rate for rape remains horrifyingly low.

It's no surprise that people want to grab hold of a seemingly simple solution. Wouldn't it be comforting if we could pay £20 to keep us safe, just as it was comforting to think that if we didn't wear the short skirt, or walk home in the dark, or take that drink, we could be safe?

But rape will not be stopped by a commercial solution that puts all the responsibility on the survivor or potential victim, while absolving the company selling the solution of all liability. It's not possible to claim you are ending rape when you shrug responsibility for the wellbeing and safety of sexual violence survivors in order to protect your product.