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.
1977 US/Mexico adventure thriller by William Friedkin just released on UK 4K Blu-ray in the US verdsion
16th April 2026
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.
1960 Italy horror by Mario Bava, once banned by the BBFC, just released on US 4K Blu-ray
16th April 2026
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
Apple is introducing ID/age checks for all iPhone and iPad users in the UK.
Once UK users accept the latest iOS 26.4 software update, they will be asked to verify their age to access age-restricted features and services. Onlly if they perform an ID
check will their account will be configured to enable age-appropriate services.
If they choose not to, web content filters will be turned on automatically.
Apples support documentation on the change says that, depending on your country or region,
different options might be available to confirm that yo'ure an adult. Potential options include using a credit card to verify age, using existing Apple account information, or uploading an identity document for age verification.
Privacy groups have
been rightfully appalled; the BBC quotes Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch , who says the measure is more like ransomware.
