Does a reasonable person think the familial relationship paff on the porn sites is real? No, therefore it should be a protection for some vulnerable section of society I’d think which is why it is there. I may be way off but reasonable person is a pretty normal and sensible bar right?

”…it will become illegal, with a potential jail sentence, to possess images of adults pretending to do something legal.”

This seems crazy, but of course this has been the situation for age of consent for a long time: a two-year period where it’s perfectly legal to have sex, but imprisonable if you photograph it.

The mother of my child starting sleeping with her stepbrother, anything i can do about this?

Thanks for writing this out so succinctly. I think they’ve ended up in a mess by trying to reuse existing parts of law to be clever, but it’s certainly not the first time. On the other hand, some of the push may well come from a moralistic view that all porn should be banned, and pushing step by step (ahem).

I suspect in reality, it will hardly every be prosecuted as a stand alone offence – however, I expect it will be added onto other offences quite often, rather like how the existing extreme pornography offences often are. Not because it makes much difference to the overall sentence when there are indecent images of children involved for example, but because they will have done the digital forensic work.

It might also be used when they can’t find evidence of an offence they were investigating, but want an offence to justify the months/years it may have taken for devices to be fully examined. I am sure there will be lots of videos in old collections that will technically be illegal when/if this passes.

Since the offence is written as „possession“, it will probably not cover videos in a browser cache (from visiting a porn site front page for example), but it would cover whatsapp videos being sent (unless you can prove you haven’t seen them).

Certainly doesn’t seem like a good use of limited resources to have police investigating moral standards. Distributing such videos could have been made illegal to go after sites,etc – if their intention was to stop it being spread.

There will no doubt be legal test cases about the specific meanings of words (for those who have the funding to take it that far).

At least a possession offence won’t get one on the Sex Offenders Register (has to be more than 2 years sentence for that as I read it), but it will mean people having an „Extreme Pornography“ offence on their CRB which might take some explaining.

I’m not sure our current system is fit for purpose to create laws that take into account the modern world. This sort of way of getting amendments through that aren’t necessarily intended, is no better than the US system of tying funding for things to completely unrelated and positive things, so that they can claim that the other side is blocking X, because they won;t also accept Y.

„Keir your numbers are slipping again, the polls indicate people want to see strong leadership!“

[Starmer types in strong English leaders into Google]

„I’ve got an idea, maybe if I take a leaf out of this Cromwell chap’s book, the people will love me…“

Can you imagine having to show a court full of _mostly_ professional people porn to have them charged.

This county is slowly becoming very silly.

Let people be people, focus on things that affect day to day things like inflation, cost of living, lack of housing

This is such a weird thing to ban *possession* of.

I get production, I get distribution, I don’t really understand why we’re banning possession of this.

It seems to me that there are laws made to protect against obvious dangers and problems whose enforcement is properly funded and actively pursued.

And that there are laws made that exist purely to give those in power the legal cover to crack down on those they don’t like. Such laws are not properly funded nor actively pursued and basically exist as a legal „Gotcha!“ for the Establishment who will blithely ignore, even break it themselves until they find someone they want to jail for one reason or another.

I for one can’t imagine there will be a job opening in the police for „Step-Porn Viewer Investigator“ any time soon. That would involve the Government actually creating a job instead of throwing a bunch of money at a scheme so that’s right out.

So it would be impisonable to possess an image depicting (even fictionally) two ex-stepsiblings fucking each other.

Okay then, so would possessing an image include an image left in some background part of your device in your cookies or wherever else? Not just an image saved in your gallery, but a trace left behind from browsing a page where that video is present?

As a massive wanker myself, I am deeply concerned that just scrolling down the home page of pornhub could leave traces of now illegal porn on my device, and leave me (and potentially other wankers) susceptible to prison or blackmail, because over half the content of the homepage is simulated step related dynamics.

Wankers all over the UK must tug themselves together to defeat this draconian approach to self pleasure policing.

It should be clear to anyone that Labour don’t care about civil liberties. Up to 2 years in prison for depicting something that isn’t even illegal.

I wonder if it’d be easier for the government to launch a nationally owned smut site so that I can feel safe and confident that the nanny state endorses what I tug off to

Ideally with categories for each minister, I bet Miliband is in to some right weird shit

Just a day ago Reddit was confident this only included scenarios with someone pretending to be underage

As usual, think of the children wins out

The marriage of first cousins is legal and widespread with a high percentage of those children being born with disabilities.
Banning this practice would have a positive effect on the lives of children. Banning actors pretending they are related doesn’t seem to have as much of an impact.

„What are you doing ex step bro who I never lived with?“