PCC hits back at disturbing government response to revenge porn campaign
A police and crime commissioner (PCC) has criticised the Government for not offering more protection to victims of revenge porn because it doesnt view the offence as sexual.
A police and crime commissioner (PCC) has criticised the Government for not offering more protection to victims of revenge porn because it doesnt view the offence as sexual.
Last year, North Yorkshire PCC Julia Mulligan launched the No More Naming campaign in collaboration Ms Keeley Richards-Shaw, a former victim of revenge porn.
They want the Government to close a legal loophole that allows the names of victims to be published by the press bringing the offence in line with other sex crimes.
Despite their petition receiving more than 15,000 signatures, Policing Minister Mike Penning said there was no need to change the law, as revenge porn was more akin to blackmail.
In a written reply, he explained that as the intent behind the crime was to cause distress, it is not categorised as a sexual offence.
He added: The behaviour itself is also not sexual, although the material disclosed may be sexual in nature, the offence committed requires, for example, no element of sexual contact, sexual intent or sexual gratification.
He recognised that the ordeal of having to attend court following the disclosure of intimate photographs can be upsetting, but pointed out that anonymity is not granted for victims of blackmail or malicious communications.
Mrs Mulligan said: Weve always seen the failure to provide anonymity to victims of revenge porn as a horrible legal anomaly. But to hear from the Government that it does not regard revenge porn as a sexual offence is disturbing.
Frankly I cannot agree with the minister that revenge porn is not a form of sexual offence. While I understand the legal points he makes, I think to compare revenge porn with blackmail is to completely overlook the uniquely intimate nature of the crime.
Revenge porn is about shaming women primarily and inflicting psychological distress.
Ironically, as things stand, the system that aims to bring perpetrators to justice appears to be colluding with them in the harm it causes victims.
Ms Richards-Shaws ex-boyfriend became the first person to be sentenced under the new revenge porn laws after he shared intimate photos he had taken without her knowledge.
The day before he was to be sentenced, she received a text message saying the press were planning to cover the story.
She told the BBCs Victoria Derbyshire Show: “It just went from bad to worse. My picture, my name, my job, they`d gone on my Facebook page and published that, they were waiting for me outside court, I had them at my doorstep the next morning. It was horrible – I had gone from being stalked by him to being stalked by the media.”
Ms Richards-Shaw said: How anyone can fail to see revenge porn as a sexual crime is beyond me. And of course the worst thing about it is that it is almost always done by someone who is trusted by the victim.
For me that makes it a sexual crime and I truly believe that any reasonable person would view it in the same light.
Both Mrs Mulligan and Ms Richards-Shaw have been invited to enter further discussions with Mr Penning, which Mrs Mulligan described as a matter of urgency.