Daily News

Brief comments on two proposed new criminal offences relating to pornography: strangulation / suffocation, and sex (actually or purportedly) between relatives

As published on: 2026-04-16 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

The UK government announced last year that it would seek to ban strangulation in pornography .

The government press release states that:

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.

Proposed offence

The proposed offence is drafted in the following terms ( clause 261, page 67) ):

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.

The CPS guidance on 'strangulation' in the context of domestic abuse and the Serious Crime Act 2015 states that:

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.

In terms of 'non-consensual harm', this proposal relies on the existing definition used in s66 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 :

... harm inflicted on a person is 'non-consensual' harm if--

• the harm is of such a nature that the person cannot, in law, consent to it being inflicted on himself or herself; or

• where the person can, in law, consent to it being so inflicted, the person does not in fact consent to it being so inflicted

In the context of obscenity and consent, the Crown Prosecution Service says :

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 relevant government press release states that:

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:

a reasonable person--

• looking at the image, and

• taking into account any sound or information associated with the image, would think that A and B were related, or pretending to be related, as defined in section 27 (family relationships) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 .

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.

As above, one would still need to be mindful of the law of obscenity .

Edit: Clarifying 'sexual penetration'

I have been asked what is meant by 'sexual penetration'. Here is the text of the proposal itself:

the image portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, a person (A) sexually penetrating--

• the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of As body or anything else, or

• Bs mouth with As penis,

There are three notes:

penetration is a continuing act from entry to withdrawal;

'vagina' includes vulva;

references to a part of the body include references to a part surgically constructed (in particular through gender reassignment surgery)

'sexually penetrating' is not defined; I suspect that it would exclude photography of a medical procedure, for instance.

Proposed defences

One of the proposed defences to the offence of possession is that

• the person directly participated in the act portrayed [by the participants]

• the act did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person, and

• the person is not related to [the other participant as defined in section 27 (family relationships) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 .

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 BBFC has said that it is now using an AI censor tool which scans streaming vidoes and creates reports for humans to review. It has used the tool to classify the entire UK catalogue of HBO Max which has recently started its UK service.

TV shows including Game of Thrones and Euphoria have received age ratings for the first time in the UK using the tool. It identifies content that triggers compliance issues, such as violence, nudity and bad language . The flagged scenes are then passed over to BBFC staff for human review.

As a result, all the HBO Max titles were assigned BBFC age ratings -- with Game of Thrones and Euphoria receiving an overall rating of 18, although some individual episodes were rated 15 -- for the platforms UK launch last month.

David Austin, the BBFC chief censor, described the use of AI for HBO Max content as a major step forward in how we support families to make safe and informed viewing decisions.

The BBFC said it had completed the classification of HBO Maxs entire catalogue in six months, a process that normally would have required 1,570 working days -- or more than four years -- of viewing from a compliance officer. The organisation said the final age ratings and content advice remained the sole responsibility of BBFC staff.

Sorcerer is a 1977 US/Mexico adventure thriller by William Friedkin
Starring Roy Scheider, Bruno Cremer and Francisco Rabal

The European version titled Wages of Fear was shortened. The US version titled Sorcerer is complete

Summary Notes

Four unfortunate men from different parts of the globe agree to risk their lives transporting gallons of nitroglycerin across dangerous Latin American jungle.

UK: The US Version is uncut and BBFC 15 rated for strong violence, injury detail:

• 2025 Spirit Entertainment R0 4K Blu-ray at UK Amazon #ad released on 6th October 2025

Promotional Material

A hallucinatory journey into the heart of darkness, William Friedkin's pulse-pounding reimagining of the suspense classic The Wages of Fear was dismissed upon its release, only to be recognized decades later as one of the boldest auteur statements of the New Hollywood. In a remote Latin American village, four desperate fugitives-a New Jersey gangster (Roy Scheider), a Mexican assassin (Francisco Rabal), an unscrupulous Parisian businessman (Bruno Cremer), and an Arab terrorist (Amidou)-take on a seemingly doomed mission: transporting two trucks full of highly explosive nitroglycerin through the treacherous jungle. Aided by Tangerine Dream's otherworldly synth score, Friedkin turns each bump in the road into a tour de force of cold-sweat tension-conjuring a hauntingly nihilistic vision of a world ruled by chance and fate.

Black Sunday is a 1960 Italy horror by Mario Bava
Starring Barbara Steele, John Richardson and Andrea Checchi  

Banned by the BBFC in 1961. The European Version (Mask of Satan) was uncut but the US Version (Black Sunday) was cut.

Summary Notes

Decades after being executed for witchcraft, vengeful Princess Asa Vajda and her fiendish servant are resurrected and begin a bloody campaign to possess the body of Asa Vajda's beautiful look-alike descendant Princess Katia.

US: Uncut and MPAA Unrated for:

• 2025 SHOUT! FACTORY Collector's Edition [European + US versions] R0 4K Blu-ray at US Amazon #ad released on 7th October 2025

Promotional Material

A Bavarian princess, burned at the stake with her lover for being a witch, comes to life after three hundred years to enact the curse of revenge on her remaining family members.

Bonus Content:

• 4K Restoration from the Original Camera Negative
• International Version
• Audio Commentary with Writer Dr. Rebekah King
• Audio Commentary with Dr. Karen Stallznow, Matt Baxter and Blake Smith
• Audio Commentary with Film Critic Brian Keiper
• Audio Commentary with Film Critic Meagan Navarro
• Trailers from Hell: Interview with Filmmaker Larry Cohen
• International Trailer
• US Trailer
• Poster Gallery
• TV Spot