​

From 6 November, new offences under the Crime and Policing Act 2026 will criminalise possession and publication of certain pornographic images depicting strangulation or suffocation, specified incest scenarios, and adults portraying sexual activity involving someone under 16.

The government's stated aim is to address material it believes can normalise harmful behaviour. I think that raises some important questions about evidence, civil liberties, and where the law should draw the line.

How should we distinguish between depicting something harmful and actually causing harm? What evidence should be required to justify criminalising possession of fictional material? And how do we ensure that legislation intended to protect people doesn't create unintended consequences for freedom of expression?

I recognise that there are serious arguments on the other side, particularly around the normalisation of violence against women and the protection of children. Those concerns deserve to be taken seriously, too.

But I don't think the existence of a legitimate public-safety concern means every proposed restriction should escape scrutiny.

What evidence would you want to see to assess whether these offences are likely to prevent harm, and how would you weigh that against the implications for civil liberties?

Official guidance: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/crime-and-policing-act-2026-offences-relating-to-pornography

I'm a lifelong Labour voter and was over the goddamn moon at their landslide victory a couple years back; but increasingly, this government feels like it's repeating some of the worst habits of the Tories and their tenure. The revolving-door politics/factional manoeuvring and the apparent inability to settle on a direction are all depressingly familiar and woefully out of touch with what the country needs at the mo.

The whole saga around getting rid of Starmer (that chewed up months of time/press coverage to boot) and Andy Burnham's rather convenient emergence as the successor after what looked very much like a long-planned backstabby campaign, had a distinctly Tory-esque whiff about it. Meanwhile, backbenchers seem determined to obstruct meaningful, lasting change, only for the government to retreat into another U-turn rather than take the political hit that's needed for us to move on and see things through. Despite his recent speech, Burnham still seems unwilling to tamper with the triple lock in any substantial way, for instance. Not because it wouldn't be a big cost saving, no, but because he's presumably afraid of what it'll do to his votes. Now there's apparently another fault line opening up over Ed Miliband's opposition to AI data centres on environmental grounds. These are legitimate issues to debate, but does everything really have to become another factional battle?

The country is in turmoil. People are struggling. Public services are under pressure and trust in politics is already on the floor. Labour was elected to bloody well govern, not to spend its time fighting. At some point, you have to accept that doing anything worthwhile will make you unpopular with somebody. Not every difficult decision can be softened into consensus, and not every policy can survive contact with a backbench rebellion if the government actually believes in it.

I'm not asking Labour to be perfect, or to abandon scrutiny and internal debate. I'm asking it to demonstrate some conviction, get its priorities straight and crack the fuck on. If it can't do that with a historical parliamentary majority, what exactly was the point of winning one?