Ofcom were grilled by Parliament's Culture, Media and Sport Committee on 20th October 2026. The committee is investigated the effectiveness of Ofcom in enforcing internet censorship laws contained in the Online Safety Act.
The act has been in force
for about 15 months and in that time Ofcom have issued 11 fines mostly to porn websites for failing to implement ID/age verification. Other websites targeted were the US based free speech forum 4Chan, and also the widely reviled Sanctioned Suicide forum.
Ofcom boss Melanie Dawes admitted that tech firms have paid just the two smallest of the eleven fines handed out under the Online Safety Act since March last year. She conceded nine remain unpaid, albeit one of these has not yet passed its due date
and another is being appealed.
She did point out that two of the nine have now implemented the required ID/age verification and four have self geo-blocked all users with a UK IP address. Three are totally defying Ofcom by continuing on unchanged.
Dawes added that enforcement measures have run against a brick wall for foreign companies without a presence in the UK. She said:
We won't be able to recover every single fine on online safety. If foreign courts
decide try and get in our way, there will be a point at which we have to accept that we won't be able to recover that money.
The US lawyer representing some of the US victims of the censorship law Preston Byrne had been particularly
vocal about Ofcom's censorship attempts by shredding Ofcom's censorship letters and using them at hamster litter. He continually challenged Ofcom to fight him in the US courts where the famous First Amendment to the US Constitutions guarantees free
speech for all Americans. Byrne colourfully explains:
Unless Ofcom is prepared to sail a British invasion fleet here and land ground troops, enforcement would indeed have to proceed through American courts. Which presents the following problem for Ofcom:
American courts generally
decline to enforce foreign judgments that violate the United States Constitution.
It would be a gift to 4chan if Ofcom decided to show up in an American court after all this, waiving sovereign immunity and thus facing the prospect
of an adverse merits ruling in the process. Filing that lawsuit would be suicidal, leading to virtually certain defeat and total loss of enforcement credibility in the United States. It will almost certainly never happen, not for 4chan, and likely not
for any other American target, either.
What will happen next is that Ofcom is going to go back to Parliament to ask for the authority to obtain interim business disruption measures -- i.e., more or less unilateral censorship
powers to block foreign websites in the UK before starting an enforcement process, rather than after. These powers were explicitly rejected by Parliament the last time around and have even now been repudiated by Nadine Dorries, the former MP who
introduced the Bill, having seen what a mess Ofcom has made of it. These powers will also be easily defeated through the use of a VPN.
The UK thus continues its authoritarian backsliding. Sorting out their own country is,
ultimately, a matter for the British, and opposing the grant of new powers for Ofcom -- an agency which was held off by a pair of American solo lawyers working for free -- on domestic policy grounds is a task for the growing UK free speech movement to
take up, with urgency.
Ofcom bosses also explained to the parliamentary committee that geo-blocking UK users from access to website is as far as censorship actions can go. If a website self-geo-blocks there is little point pursing an
ISP block as that effectively adds nothing further to the censorship. UK VPN users will still be able to access the website either way.
On Monday 2 November, MPs will debate a petition relating to the proposed ban on social media for under 16s.
Tony Vaughan MP, a member of the Petitions Committee, has been asked by the Committee to open the debate. MPs from all parties can take part,
and the Government will send a minister to respond.
The petition reads:
Do not ban social media for under 16s
The petition, which received more than 217,000 signatures, states: I think
the government shouldn't ban social media for under 16s. This is because for many young people social media is how they communicate with their friends. Some people view social media as a lifeline. A community, a supportive network. This is why I think
the government shouldn't ban it.
In its response to the petition, provided on 4 March 2026, the Government said:
The government recognises the benefits of digital technologies, including social
media, for children. We are consulting on how to ensure children have an enriching and positive experience online.
Petitions debates are general debates which
allow MPs from all parties to discuss the important issues raised by one or more petitions, and put their concerns to Government Ministers.
Petition debates don't end with a vote to implement the request of a petition. This means MPs will not vote on
the request of the petitions at the end of the debate. Instead, the aim is to give MPs an opportunity to discuss the issues raised by a petition, and get a response from the Government.
Brief comments on two proposed new criminal offences relating to pornography: strangulation / suffocation, and sex (actually or purportedly) between relatives
As published on: by Neil Brown
A couple of people have asked me about some of the proposed amendments to the UKs Crime and Policing Bill , which is
currently going through Parliament.
Please note that these are proposed amendments and, as such they are not (yet) law. They may never become law, or may be changed, materially or otherwise, before they become law.
This blogpost contains sexual themes
As the title of this blogpost suggests, this blogpost is about legislation which has sexual themes. In particular:
strangulation / suffocation
sex between relatives
These offences relate to images, not acts
The proposed new offences which I discuss below relate to images of acts, and not the acts themselves.
They do not impact ostensibly
the legality (or otherwise) of doing the things depicted in the images.
Pornographic images of strangulation or suffocation Background
media sources such as pornography have effectively established strangulation during sex as a sexual norm, and a belief that strangling a partner during sex is safe because it is believed to be
non-fatal despite overwhelming evidence that is is believed there is no safe way to strangle a person.
It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an image if--
the image is pornographic, within the meaning of section 63 (i.e. that 'it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed
to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal'),
the image portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, a person strangling or suffocating another person, and
a
reasonable person looking at the image would think that the persons were real.
Neither 'strangling' nor 'suffocating' is defined.
My working assumption is that 'strangulation' entails a depiction of putting something (hands or otherwise) around another persons neck which
applies pressure or compression to the throat.
Strangulation does not require a particular level of pressure or force within its ordinary meaning, it does not require any injury and it does not require proof of
a consequence such as impeded breathing or circulation.
My feeling is that 'suffocation' covers any means of adversely impacting someones breathing, or depriving someone of air, making it wider than 'strangulation',
and encompassing what might be termed 'breath play'. It could entail putting something down someones throat, for instance, or covering their nose and mouth. The CPS guidance suggests - again, in a somewhat different context - a broad interpretation.
Since the offence, as currently posited, requires 'a person strangling or suffocating another person', it would appear that an image of a person strangling / suffocating themselves is not covered. As such, I should be surprised if
this prohibited an image of someone wearing a tie or collar (for instance). This outcome would seem to be consistent with the governments focus on partnered sexual activity and violence against women.
'Image' means both a moving
or still image, and data which is capable of conversion into an image, but the portrayal must be 'realistic', and the people depicted must look 'real' to a reasonable person, for the image to be in scope.
This is an image-based
offence, and does not impact text-based pornography / erotica, although one would still need to be mindful of the law of obscenity .
Note that the existing legislation relating to 'extreme pornography' already covers the 'explicit and realistic' portrayal of 'an act
which threatens a persons life', which could include both strangulation and suffocation. This offence would remain in place.
Proposed defences
Of the proposed defences to the offence of possession,
one is:
that the person directly participated in the act portrayed and the act did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person.
It would be a separate
offence to 'publish' such an image, which includes 'giving or making it available to another person by any means'.
One of the proposed defences to the 'publication' offence is:
that the person
directly participated in the act portrayed, the act did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person, and the person only published the image to other persons who directly participated.
Non-consent for adults must be distinguished from consent to relinquish control. The presence of a 'gag' or other forms of bondage does not, without more, suffice to confirm that sexual activity was non-consensual.
As far as I know, 'harm' is not, in itself, defined.
While the defence would permit sharing an image with the other participants, it would preclude the private dissemination of such imagery, outside the
(direct) participants to it, and would prohibit the sharing of the image online or with social media groups.
Possession or publication of pornographic images of sex between relatives, and images where one person is pretending
to be under 18
A separate amendment relates to the possession or publication of pornographic images of sex between relatives.
I understand that this is pretty common subject matter of some 'tube' sites.
The first of
these vital measures will ban anyone from possessing or publishing harmful pornography that shows incest between family members, and sex between step or foster relations where one person is pretending to be under 18.
A further
amendment will criminalise the publication and possession of pornography where an adult is roleplaying as a child.
Because of this 'further amendment', there has been a significant change in the amendment between the
House of Lords and the House of Commons.
House of Lords proposed offence
The House of Lords proposed a criminal offence of possession or publication of realistic images depicting sexual penetration
of one person by another (my paraphrasing) where:
In other words, while the image may be acted, if the context - the title, description, language used by participants etc. - indicated that the participants are related or were pretending to be, and there was sexual
penetration of one person by another, it would fall within scope of this offence.
Given the presence of 'pretending to be', it is possible that someone could look to make a case that use of a term like 'daddy' was sufficient to
formulate the offence.
House of Commons proposed offence, including 'under 18'
The House of Commons has objected to this amendment, proposing its own, slightly tweaked, version:
The HoC proposal is for a criminal offence of possession or publication of realistic images depicting sexual penetration of one person by another (again, my paraphrasing) where:
a reasonable
person--
looking at the image, and
taking into account any sound or information associated with the image,
would think what is set out in subsection (1A) or (1B).
1A is:
That A and B were related, or pretending to be related, such that A was related to B as parent
[(including adoptive parent)], grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.
1B is entirely new, and covers separate subject matter:
That A and B were related or had been related, or were pretending to be related or to have been related, such that A was or had been related to B as step-parent, step-child, stepbrother, stepsister, foster parent or foster child,
and
at least one of A and B was, or was pretending to be, under 18.
As with the offence relating to images of strangulation / suffocation, this is an image-based offence, and does not impact text-based pornography / erotica.
Because of the requirement of multiple
participants ('another person'), images of one person, alone, would appear not to be covered, nor would images (of one or multiple people) which do not depict realistic and explicit penetrative sex.
The comments above about 'non-consensual harm' apply here.
It would appear that, as long as the participants were not actually related, a participant may possess an image in which they pretend
to be related.
In respect of publication, there is an additional proposed limb, that:
the person only published the image to person B or A (as the case may be).
Unlike the drafting in respect of the offences relating to images of strangulation / suffocation, which appear to cater for images depicting more than two participants, I am not sure how the defence proposed here works where there are
multiple simultaneous participants: distribution to all participants, as opposed to one particular participant, could be problematic.
In any case, this too would preclude the private dissemination of such imagery to
non-participants, and would prohibit the sharing of the image online or with social media groups.
The Scottish Parliament has rejected proposed legislation that would have criminalised the act of paying for sex.
The Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill tabled by independent MSP Ash Regan, would have created a criminal offence for
paying for sexual services and repealed the existing offence of soliciting.
It was rejected by 64 votes to 54, with no abstentions. The bill fell at stage one, when MSPs are asked to agree its general principles.
The government did not
support the bill. Ministers said they supported the fundamental principle of the proposals but argued the bill was too flawed to be passed before Holyrood splits up for May's election.
Victims minister Siobhian Brown expressed regret that the
government could not support the bill, but said there was not sufficient time to develop the proposals and address very significant issues they have with the bill. The minister had raised doubts about how the new offence could be enforced, noting
particular concerns over online activity. She also cited concerns that the bill could increase the risk of violence against sex workers because it could reduce their ability to assess the risk of buyers.
