Revenge porn: Victim support in NI 'not good enough'
Intimate image abuse, commonly referred to as revenge porn, is the sharing of sexual images of someone without their consent, both online and offline.Hunter, who herself was the victim of a 'deep fake' in which a pornographic video was digitally altered to appear like her, has urged the DoJ to fund a service that proactively finds and removes non-consensual images for victims.Similar services are government funded to operate in England, Scotland and Wales, and in the Republic of Ireland.
'I don't know if those images still exist'
A victim whose intimate images were shared without consent told BBC News NI: "All I wanted was to know they'd been deleted."Olivia (not her real name) reported the incident to police after learning that photos she had sent to a man years earlier had been shown to others in her community.When the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) decided not to prosecute, Olivia said she felt "completely dismissed" and there was no way to ensure those images had been deleted. "Although justice would have been great, it wouldn't help me because I don't know if those images still exist," she said. She claimed one officer told her if she had not shared the images, then she would not be in that position. "There was no empathy towards me, and it was as if the two men were the victims," she added.The PPS said it had concluded "that the available evidence in this case was insufficient", and the Police Ombudsman said it was "unable to either prove or refute" Olivia's allegation that officers "had treated her insensitively".
"This is such a cruel crime," said Hunter. "It's a way of making people feel exposed, humiliated, ashamed, embarrassed."It's horrifying. I've sat in my constituency office with victims who are absolutely devastated."The Revenge Porn Helpline is funded by the Home Office in England and Wales, and by the Scottish government in Scotland.Its manager, Sophie Mortimer said: "Women often come to us and say 'I'm so sorry I'm having to come to you for help, I've been so stupid', and I say, 'no. You haven't done anything wrong, this is someone who has abused your trust'."
How is revenge porn removed?
The helpline's researchers use "reverse image searches and facial recognition" to identify content on behalf of victims, Ms Mortimer said.They then approach platforms to ask them to remove the images. Hotline.ie helps victims in the Republic of Ireland, however no equivalent service receives funding in Northern Ireland. Without support victims must manually search the internet using reverse image tools and scanning social media, forums, and websites themselves. That involves filing separate reports for each image, on each platform often without assurance of swift removal or meaningful support.While the helpline said it wouldn't turn victims in Northern Ireland away, it stressed that resources would have to be prioritised towards cases in England, Scotland and Wales where it is actually funded to help.In a statement, the DoJ said: "Residents of Northern Ireland can avail of the support services of the Revenge Porn Helpline or visit their website."The department is fully engaged with the Revenge Porn Helpline to explore options available to formally extend and promote its service to Northern Ireland."Hunter said the lack of funding for a content removal services was "part of the problem"."A lot of revenge porn is undeniably linked with misogyny and I think it's really important that we speak more about tech-facilitated abuse".
Intimate image abuse was criminalised in England and Wales in 2015, by the Northern Ireland assembly in 2016, and by the Scottish government in 2017. Figures obtained by the BBC under Freedom of Information laws reveal that there were 14 convictions in Northern Ireland in 2024, and 12 in 2023. The latest PSNI figures show there were 91 cases investigated in 2024, and 86 in 2023, but charities argue the issue is much more widespread.Details of help and support with any form of sexual abuse are available in the UK at BBC Action Line.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
11 minutes ago
- Sky News
HMRC 'doesn't know' how many billionaires pay tax in the UK
HM Revenue and Customs does not know how many billionaires pay tax in the UK, according to a new report by MPs. The Public Accounts Committee says this is despite the fact only a small number of people have this status - and the significant sums of money involved. HMRC has been told it "can and must" do more to understand how much the very wealthiest in society contribute to the public purse, as "there is a lot of money being left on the table". 6:36 Artificial intelligence and The Sunday Times Rich List were identified as two ways of getting a clearer picture. The taxman is facing calls to reveal how it plans to increase contributions from billionaires both domestically and offshore, amid a squeeze in the public finances. MPs added: "There is much public interest in the amount of tax the wealthy pay. People need to know everyone pays their fair share." The report pointed to the US, where the Internal Revenue Service links its data to the Forbes 400 list of rich Americans. PAC member Lloyd Hatton added: "This report is not concerned with political debate around the redistribution of wealth. "Our committee's role is to help HMRC do its job properly, ensuring wealthy people pay the correct tax. "While HMRC does deserve some great credit for securing billions more in the tax take from the wealthiest in recent years, there is still a very long way to go before we can reach a true accounting of what is owed." 1:16 Mr Hatton added that the committee was "disappointed" that HMRC could not offer any insights into the tax arrangements of billionaires from its own data - as "any single one of these individuals' contributions could make a significant difference to the overall picture". At present, about 1,000 people within HMRC are focused on the tax affairs of the UK's wealthiest, but funding has been secured to increase this headcount by 400 - with a view to "increasing prosecutions of those who evade tax". A spokesperson added: "The government is determined to make sure everyone pays the tax they owe. "Extra resources were announced in the recent spending review which allows us to significantly step up our work on closing the tax gap among the wealthiest."
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
How the BBC got into a mess over Gaza
On Monday, the BBC released its long-awaited report into its decision to remove the documentary Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone from its platforms. The report determined that not making viewers aware of the fact that the narrator's father was a member of the Hamas-run government of Gaza constituted a breach of its editorial policies, specifically on accuracy. However, the documentary was not found to have breached guidelines on impartiality. As the Guardian's media editor Michael Savage tells Helen Pidd, the release of this report has come after a particularly intense period for the BBC, in which its handling of the war in Gaza has been heavily criticised. In response to the resignation of Gary Lineker, its coverage of Glastonbury performers, and its decision not to broadcast certain documentaries, the BBC has faced heightened criticism from many sides in the conflict. The pair discuss how the Labour government is approaching the BBC, the shrinking number of licence fee subscribers, and whether this string of controversies will change the way the corporation approaches more sensitive issues. Support the Guardian today:
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Gagging order to cover up Afghan leak must never be used again
The Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan in 2021 resulted in a scramble to flee from Kabul airport WAKIL KOHSAR/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES T hat legal abomination, the superinjunction, is traditionally regarded as the last resort of the desperate celebrity attempting to conceal compromising information. It is a draconian device that not only prohibits the media from reporting a court case — an injunction — but prevents the world from knowing that such an injunction even exists (the 'super' bit). It is intended not so much to stifle legitimate journalistic scrutiny of a court hearing as to smother it. The blanket of secrecy a superinjunction confers means that cases involving serious misconduct by individuals and institutions can go unnoticed by the outside world for months or years, or possibly for ever. Disclosing its very existence can land one in jail. When the party seeking to conceal their actions for this length of time is the government, and when the parties being kept in the dark are the public and parliament, it risks becoming a tool of authoritarianism. Yet that is exactly what has occurred in a case revealed by this newspaper. One in which a military data breach that placed tens of thousands of Afghans in jeopardy, and resulted in a covert rescue and resettlement programme potentially costing £7 billion, being hidden for two years in what the judge finally lifting the order called a vacuum of scrutiny. It is the first time a British government has used a superinjunction in this way and it must be the last. In observing its terms, in place for so much longer than intended, ministers misled parliament, if largely by omission, concealing from relevant committees and the Commons as a whole a scandal that should have resulted in heads rolling down Whitehall. It concerned the unauthorised release in February 2022 of a Ministry of Defence database containing the names of tens of thousands of Afghans at risk of retribution from the restored Taliban regime. The list was transmitted by a soldier at a special forces barracks in London to Afghan contacts in Britain as he attempted to verify applications for sanctuary in Britain. The list subsequently found its way to Afghanistan. • Did the risk ever justify the secrecy in this Kafkaesque calamity? When one of the individuals it was passed to threatened to publish it on Facebook it became a potential death warrant for many of those named, and possibly their relatives. As a result, the then Conservative government decided to relocate thousands of Afghans, adults and children, to Britain in a covert programme that was later endorsed by the current Labour government. Incredibly, the existence of this operation, involving some 23,000 people, was kept secret even from the discreet Commons intelligence and security committee. The superinjunction was granted in September 2023, supposedly as a four-month measure to help cloak a rescue. But it would last for almost two years, the MoD continuing to insist that it was necessary to save lives, though there was a possibility that the database had already fallen into the possession of the Taliban. Whatever the reality of this, the superinjunction continued to act as a shield for official incompetence. Due to the continuing secrecy surrounding this fiasco it is not known who, if anyone, was disciplined for the breach. What is clear is the disquiet of a High Court judge involved in hearings in which The Times and Daily Mail sought to have details of the scandal released. At one point Mr Justice Chamberlain warned that it could be perceived as censorship. Concerns were also raised that the government was using the gagging order to control the narrative surrounding the scandal. Unfortunately, he was overruled by a court of appeal again swayed by MoD warnings of potential disaster. Now, those objections have evaporated, the risks apparently being overstated according to a review. So much for parliamentary and press oversight. In terms of free speech the superinjunction is a weapon of mass destruction. No government should be allowed to employ one again.
