UK Parliament Watch

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 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.

Baroness Benjamin Liberal Democrat;

To ask His Majesty's Government what measures have been put in place to prevent children using virtual private networks to avoid age verification to access harmful material online.

Baroness Lloyd of Effra Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology),

The Online Safety Act requires services to use highly effective age assurance to prevent children in the UK from encountering harmful content. ofcom's guidance makes it clear that age assurance must be robust to prevent circumvention. Services must also take steps to mitigate against circumvention methods that are easily accessible to children. Providers that do not comply with their child safety duties by deliberately promoting the use of VPNs could face enforcement action under the Act.

Baroness Benjamin

I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, Childnet has discovered an increase in the use of VPNs by children in the last three months. While younger children are deterred by age-verification checks, teenagers actively seek out and share methods to circumvent them. Many minors are downloading free VPN applications that often monetise user data and expose devices to viruses. Also, by relocating to countries with few or no internet safety Laws, children can be exposed to more extreme, illegal or unmoderated content. Perhaps children under 16 should be banned from social media altogether. What action will the Government take to address the increasing number of children using VPNs? Will they instruct ofcom to follow the lead of the Australian e-safety commissioner and require that digital services check VPN traffic for technical and behavioural red flags that suggest a user in the UK may be a child? Let us act sooner rather than later.

Baroness Lloyd of Effra

We recognise the international efforts to better protect children online, including in Australia, and we are working with the Australian Government to understand the impact of their policies, including that one. There is currently limited evidence on how many children use VPNs, and the Government are addressing this evidence gap. We welcome any further evidence in this area, such as that quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, to complement our understanding. The Government will ensure that we act where we need to, as we have seen in other areas, and that future interventions are proportionate and evidence based.

...

Lord Carlile of Berriew Chair, Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee

On the Radio 4 Today programme this morning, ofcom admitted that none of the three fines levied so far has been paid. Is it not right that Ofcom should be encouraged to take much stronger enforcement action against those who do not pay by making it clear that within a very short time, they will lose their right to appear on any screen in the United Kingdom unless their enforcement is fit for purpose?

In an ideal world inhabited by politicians and children's campaigners, social media companies would work though all postings and treat each on its merits as to whether it requires age gating or not.

In the real world where commercial reality make this approach too expensive, coupled with a safety first approach mandated by ludicrously massive fines for transgression, the social media play safe and implement age gating around entire forums or even whole websites. For smaller companies it is often make sense just to self block the whole website to UK users.

Of course this reality leads to many more posts being blocked or age gated than maybe simple minded politicians envisaged. Now there seems to be a widespread disquiet about how the Online Safety Act is panning out.

Apart from just the 498,000 people that have signed the petition to repeal the Online Saety Act,  LibDems MP Victoria Collins and peer Lord Clement-Jones wrote a letter to the censorship minister Peter Kyle saying:

There remain significant concerns about how the legislation is currently being implemented, including concerns that:

• age-assurance measures may prove ineffective, as children and young people may use VPNs to sidestep the systems,

• political content is being age-gated on social media

• educational sites like Wikipedia will be designated as Category 1 services, requiring them to age verify moderators

• important forums dealing with LGBTQ+ rights, sexual health or other potentially sensitive topics have been age gated, and that

• age assurance systems may pose a data protection or privacy threat to users.

The implementation of the Act must be flexible, and respond to those emerging concerns. The intention behind this legislation was never to limit access to political or educational content, or to important support relied on by young people.

It was intended to keep children safe, and we must ensure that it is implemented in a way that does that as effectively as possible.

They then go on to talk about how parliament needs the chance to review it and make legislative changes where necessary.
 

Ofcom on over blocking

Online security expert Alec Muffet has tweeted that he has spotted a few hints that Ofcom has recognised that over blocking will be an inevitable characteristic of  Soi cla media's attempts to live whith the censorship rules:

Ofcom *may* be starting to understand that platforms are free to label entire forums as 18+ but that this conflicts with the OSA leading to overblocking pic.twitter.com/znbcfHhg4B

— Alec Muffett (@AlecMuffett) August 5, 2025

 

Of course MPs use VPNs themselves, its basic internet security

See article from reclaimthenet.org

Meanwhile it is interesting to see that when Peter Kyle has called for people not to use VPNs for the sake of the children, then it is intereting to see that MPs themselves are using VPNs as a matter of course. After all it would be stupid not to, for people in public life.

Speaking on BBC Breakfast, Peter Kyle warned:

For everybody out there whos thinking about using VPNs, let me say this to you directly: verifying your age keeps a child safe. Keeps children safe in our country, so lets just not try to find a way around.

Politico reported that official spending records show parliamentarians across party lines have been billing the public for commercial VPN services. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds charged taxpayers for a two-year NordVPN subscription in April 2024. Labour MP Sarah Champion, who in 2022 pressed the government to investigate whether teenage VPN use could undermine online safety rules, also has a subscription on record.

The government says it has no intention of outlawing VPNs but admits it is monitoring how young people use them. This comes after a sharp increase in downloads following the rollout of mandatory digital ID checks under the new censorship law, the Online Safety Act.

So I wonder how many porn using MPs prefer to dangerously hand over their ID data for age verification, and how many play it safe and use a VPN.