AWARD-WINNING campaigner Patsy Stevenson has revealed that she was almost the victim of revenge porn.
The 31-year-old claimed yesterday that she was messaged online and told that if she did not pay £3,000 then an intimate image of her would be leaked online.
Stevenson shared her views on the shocking experience after claiming that “no action” had been taken against the blackmailer by police.
She told her followers on social media site X, formerly known as Twitter, that officers had decided that the man hadn’t “intended to cause her distress”.
The campaigner who rose to prominence following her arrest at the vigil for Sarah Everard shared the creepy exchange she endured with a man online.
In the image, a message from the would-be blackmailer reads: “Your photo that you sent me with any photo off your Instagram will verify it’s you.”
Stevenson’s reply makes it clear that she isn’t willing to be threatened, asking: “Are you threatening revenge porn? That’s illegal.”
However, the blackmailer then replies: “Try your luck. Get a lawyer with you [sic] negative £3,000 bank balance.”
The heartless troll then pleads: “Take me to court please.”
Stevenson took to X yesterday to share the vile image, writing: “I’m done being silent about this.
“I was threatened with revenge porn and police have said they won’t do anything because he said he didn’t intend to cause me distress.
“I’m not sharing certain aspects because I know the law and he has also mentioned getting me done for defamation.
“I will be speaking about this today on LBC. Working out what the next steps are. Also, laws around threats can’t be applied retroactively apparently.
“I don’t think it’s difficult. He intended to cause humiliation and distress, which is what he did. I say crying for hours over these messages.”
The post received over 7,900 likes with hundreds of comments as many social media users offered support for the campaigner.
One person wrote: “I thought that we no longer had to prove intent? Or am I stupid? Sending you a big hug.”
Another said: “It`s a difficult one but he knows that if he does share anything now, then the police will have all the evidence that he knew perfectly well what he was doing and that it was premeditated.”
A third commented: “Threatening to commit a crime and causing alarm and distress. I assume this is in the hands of the police? Nobody should be threatened by a scr**t like that.”
Another added: “The Online Safety Act has amended the law by removing the need to prove intention of distress.
“This will make it easier to charge and convict someone who shares images without consent with max penalty six months in custody.”
A fifth responded: “I’m of the opinion that you entirely shame him and share his name along with these messages. What a weak little low life.”
