Britain BANS ‘dangerous' porn trend to help tackle violence against women
SICK FETISH Britain BANS 'dangerous' porn trend to help tackle violence against women
THE Government will ban porn showing strangulation in a bid to tackle violence against women following a shocking rise in men choking their partners during sex.
A review found porn has made choking into a "sexual norm", despite it being "dangerous and degrading".
2
New rules also now require porn websites to have "robust" age verification in place by July at the latest
Credit: Getty
Tory peer Baroness Bertin made the recommendation in a review for the Government.
Advertisement
She said men believe choking their partner is "safe" during sex because it isn't fatal.
But there is no safe way to strangle a person.
Lady Bertin also recommended that online porn which is violent, harmful and misogynistic should be banned if it is being sold in high street shops.
Legal changes will be made as an amendment to the Crime and Policing bill which is going through Parliament right now.
Advertisement
This means the ban will likely be in place by the end of the year.
The Government's Independent Porn Review reads: "Non-fatal strangulation pornography (commonly known as 'choking' in pornography) should be illegal to possess, distribute, and publish.
"Non-fatal strangulation or 'choking' sex is perhaps the starkest example of where online violent pornography has changed 'offline' behaviour.
Toxic influencer Andrew Tate blamed for alarming rise in young men choking partners during sex
By Julia Atherley
TOXIC influencer Andrew Tate and other 'masculinity influencers' are being blamed for an alarming rise in young men choking partners during sex.
The trend is most common in those aged 16 to 34 — with 35 per cent of females reporting being throttled during consensual sex, a government-funded study found.
Tate often promotes the idea of male dominance and sexual control online.
A recent survey by the government-funded charity the Institute For Addressing Strangulation, found that strangling is most common in the 16-34 age group, with 35 per cent responding that they had been choked by a partner during consensual sex.
Non-fatal strangulation (NFS) was made a specific offence in 2022, and can lead to a five year prison sentence.
In the year up to 2023, around 700 offenders were sentenced for the offence.
"Choking sex is now being normalised with a survey showing 38 per cent of women aged 18-39 have been choked during sex.
Advertisement
"So-called 'choking' content is rife on platforms that host pornography and is a very popular category of content.
"The review has evidence to show the influence that media sources, including pornography, have had in establishing choking as a sexual norm.
"People acting it out in their sex lives may face devastating consequences.
"Evidence shows that even a small amount of pressure to the neck can harm the brain, and there is no safe way to strangle a person."
It comes after abusers who strangle their partners will now face jail sentences of up to five years.
Advertisement
New rules also now require porn websites to have "robust" age verification in place by July at the latest.
Non-fatal strangulation (NFS) was made a specific offence in 2022, and can lead to a five year prison sentence.
In the year up to 2023, around 700 offenders were sentenced for the offence.
Many blame "masculinity influencers" and those like Andrew Tate for the rise in choking being seen as a normal thing to do during sex.
Michael Conroy, from anti-misogyny training firm Men At Work, said: 'The rise in choking comes from porn and I see Andrew Tate as part of the porn world.
Advertisement
"He is part of porn world. He is the idea of porn made flesh.
'There's a visual grammar of heterosexual porn, which is that you - the man - are dominant, you are the controller, you are the one who tells them what to do.
"You are at the top and she is at the bottom. And then Andrew Tate says it and reinforces it.
'He is responsible for fuelling the fire of sexual violence by putting that feeling in their stomach. And he refuses to acknowledge accountability and responsibility and that is attractive.'
2
A review found that porn has made choking into a "sexual norm" despite it being "dangerous and degrading"
Credit: Getty
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
20 minutes ago
- ITV News
'A never-ending nightmare': British woman sexually assaulted on a plane but denied compensation
A woman who was sexually assaulted on a flight to London is challenging Government rules that disqualify her from a compensation scheme. Kelly - who is using a fake name for anonymity - had fallen asleep on a Qatar Airways flight from Doha to London Gatwick in September last year, when she was awoken by the man sitting next to her with his hands down her trousers. Kelly was 24 at the time of the attack. She would later find out she had been assaulted by 66-year-old Momade Jussab. "It felt like a never-ending nightmare" "When I saw his hands, I tried to take them off. I said to him, what are you doing? I said, stop. He said, no, please," Kelly told ITV News. "I tried to take his hands out of my trousers. I used both hands forcefully." Frightened and shaking, Kelly ran to the aeroplane's bathroom. When she explained to a flight attendant what had happened, she was moved to a different seat for the remaining two hours of the flight. "They moved me next to a couple who were sleeping. I stayed up most of the flight. Anyone that walked past, I was scared, panicking," Kelly says. "It felt like I was never going to leave the plane. Honestly, it felt like it was a never ending nightmare. "I was just awake, staring into space, in shock, scared, looking at the couple next to me, thinking maybe they would do something. I was paranoid." Jussab was arrested upon landing, and was sentenced in May to six-and-a-half years in prison, after being found guilty of one count of sexual assault by penetration and two counts of sexual assault. But because the assault took place on a plane not registered in Britain, Kelly has been told she does not qualify for compensation, a decision her lawyers say highlights a serious oversight in the law. "I just want help. I felt like I wasn't heard" Kelly had applied for the government's Criminal Injuries Compensation (CIC) Scheme, which provides financial compensation to individuals who have been physically or mentally injured, or whose close relatives have died, as a result of violent crime in England, Scotland, and Wales. "They rejected my application and they said that it wasn't in a relevant place," says Kelly. "I appealed it and said that I'm a British citizen. He was arrested in the UK, tried in the UK, he's in a UK prison. I don't see why I should miss out on compensation just because it wasn't in the British aircraft. And they rejected it again." Kelly says the experience has left her struggling even more with poor mental health. "I felt like I wasn't heard. Honestly, even though I got justice, I still have to go to therapy. There's only so much the NHS can do, and I want to see a psychiatrist. "I know how bad my mental health is at the moment. I know what I want to do. I know that it requires money, money that I don't have. "I just want help and if I'm compensated, I can feel I can get the help that I need." But she says she feels the government doesn't fully grasp the impact of her ordeal. "I don't think they understand the severity of my case," she says. "All they have said is, I'm sorry this has happened to you, but it wasn't on a British controlled aircraft, so we can't help you." "A gap that needs closing urgently" The Civil Aviation Act was updated in 1996 to ensure criminal acts on foreign planes bound for the UK can be prosecuted in UK criminal courts, which meant that Jussab could be arrested and charged when the plane landed in Gatwick. But victims in these cases, like Kelly, still cannot be compensated. Law firm Leigh Day, which is representing Kelly, has written to Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, urging her to close what it believes is a gap in the law. 'Our client was refused compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation scheme simply because it was a foreign flight and the rules have not been amended in line with the updates to the Civil Aviation Act," says Claire Powell, a solicitor at Leigh Day. 'It is a gap that needs closing urgently and we trust the Justice Secretary will agree, particularly in light of this Government's commitment to addressing violence against women and girls.' A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: 'Our thoughts remain with this victim, and we remain resolute in our mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. 'The rules that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority follows, and the values of payments for injuries, are set by Parliament. Other routes are available for victims to receive support.' "More needs to be done" Kelly told ITV News she is not only fighting for compensation for herself, but also to raise awareness for other women. "I never thought I would go on a plane, fall asleep and wake up to someone sexually assaulting me," she says. She says she wants to see more measures put in place to help women who are victims of similar assaults. "That's why I want to speak out. More needs to be done for women that go through things like this. "This is more for the women who are already not as safe as we want to be. I want them to know that it can happen to you. And as harsh as it sounds, it can. I didn't think it would happen to me."
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Asylum seekers to be removed from Essex hotel as council granted injunction
Epping Forest District Council had asked a judge to issue an interim injunction stopping migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel in Epping. The injunction sought by the council meant the hotel's owner, Somani Hotels Limited, would have had to stop housing asylum seekers there within 14 days. The hotel has been at the centre of a series of protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker who was staying there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. In a ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Eyre granted the temporary injunction, but extended the time limit by which the hotel must stop housing asylum seekers to September 12. He also refused to give Somani Hotels the green light to challenge his ruling, but the company could still ask the Court of Appeal for the go-ahead to appeal against the judgment. In his judgment, he said that while the council had not 'definitively established' that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules, 'the strength of the claimant's case is such that it weighs in favour' of granting the injunction. He continued that the 'risk of injustice is greater' if a temporary injunction was not granted. A further hearing on whether the injunction should be made permanent is expected to be held at a later date, and is expected to last two days. Several protests and counter-protests have been held in the town since a then-resident at the hotel was accused of trying to kiss a teenage girl. Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu has denied charges against him and is due to stand trial later this month. A second man who resides at the hotel, Syrian national Mohammed Sharwarq, has separately been charged with seven offences, while several other men have been charged over disorder outside the hotel. The council said last week it was seeking an injunction due to 'unprecedented levels of protest and disruption' in connection with asylum seeker accommodation. Chris Whitbread, leader of the council, said the situation 'cannot go on' but the Government 'is not listening'. At a hearing on Friday, barristers for the council said that the site's 'sole lawful use' was as a hotel and that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules by using it to house asylum seekers. Philip Coppel KC, for the authority, said the situation was 'wholly unacceptable' and provided a 'feeding ground for unrest'. He said: 'There has been what can be described as an increase in community tension, the catalyst of which has been the use of the Bell Hotel to place asylum seekers.' Mr Coppel continued: 'It is not the asylum seekers who are acting unlawfully. It is the defendant, by allowing the hotel to be used to house asylum seekers.' He added: 'It really could not be much worse than this.' Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels, said that 'disagreement with Government policy' did not justify a 'draconian' injunction and that there would be 'hardship' caused to the company and those housed at the hotel. He also said that contracts to house asylum seekers were a 'financial lifeline' for the hotel, which was only 1% full in August 2022, when it was open to paying customers. Mr Riley-Smith said: 'It is clear that recent protests have expanded far beyond the local community and have gone into concerns about wider ideological and political issues from those outside the community. 'Those particular ideological, non-community concerns are not relevant to planning.' Following the ruling, Mr Whitbread said: 'I am delighted. This is great news for our residents. The last few weeks have placed an intolerable strain on our community but today we have some great news.' He continued: 'Home Office policy ignores the issues and concerns of local residents that the council represents. 'Today we have made a step towards redressing the imbalance and showing that local people do have some say, whatever the Home Office thinks.' Before judgment was handed down on Tuesday, barristers for the Home Office asked to intervene in the case, citing the 'substantial impact' caused to the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, in performing her legal duties to asylum seekers. Edward Brown KC, for the department, told the court that moving asylum seekers in 'extremely short order' would cause a 'very significant operational burden' and 'particular acute difficulties' for the Government. But Mr Justice Eyre dismissed the Home Office's bid, stating that the department's involvement was 'not necessary'.
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Asylum seekers to be removed from Essex hotel as council granted injunction
Epping Forest District Council had asked a judge to issue an interim injunction stopping migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel in Epping. The injunction sought by the council meant the hotel's owner, Somani Hotels Limited, would have had to stop housing asylum seekers there within 14 days. The hotel has been at the centre of a series of protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker who was staying there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. In a ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Eyre granted the temporary injunction, but extended the time limit by which the hotel must stop housing asylum seekers to September 12. He also refused to give Somani Hotels the green light to challenge his ruling, but the company could still ask the Court of Appeal for the go-ahead to appeal against the judgment. In his judgment, he said that while the council had not 'definitively established' that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules, 'the strength of the claimant's case is such that it weighs in favour' of granting the injunction. He continued that the 'risk of injustice is greater' if a temporary injunction was not granted. A further hearing on whether the injunction should be made permanent is expected to be held at a later date, and is expected to last two days. Several protests and counter-protests have been held in the town since a then-resident at the hotel was accused of trying to kiss a teenage girl. Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu has denied charges against him and is due to stand trial later this month. A second man who resides at the hotel, Syrian national Mohammed Sharwarq, has separately been charged with seven offences, while several other men have been charged over disorder outside the hotel. The council said last week it was seeking an injunction due to 'unprecedented levels of protest and disruption' in connection with asylum seeker accommodation. Chris Whitbread, leader of the council, said the situation 'cannot go on' but the Government 'is not listening'. At a hearing on Friday, barristers for the council said that the site's 'sole lawful use' was as a hotel and that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules by using it to house asylum seekers. Philip Coppel KC, for the authority, said the situation was 'wholly unacceptable' and provided a 'feeding ground for unrest'. He said: 'There has been what can be described as an increase in community tension, the catalyst of which has been the use of the Bell Hotel to place asylum seekers.' Mr Coppel continued: 'It is not the asylum seekers who are acting unlawfully. It is the defendant, by allowing the hotel to be used to house asylum seekers.' He added: 'It really could not be much worse than this.' Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels, said that 'disagreement with Government policy' did not justify a 'draconian' injunction and that there would be 'hardship' caused to the company and those housed at the hotel. He also said that contracts to house asylum seekers were a 'financial lifeline' for the hotel, which was only 1% full in August 2022, when it was open to paying customers. Mr Riley-Smith said: 'It is clear that recent protests have expanded far beyond the local community and have gone into concerns about wider ideological and political issues from those outside the community. 'Those particular ideological, non-community concerns are not relevant to planning.' Following the ruling, Mr Whitbread said: 'I am delighted. This is great news for our residents. The last few weeks have placed an intolerable strain on our community but today we have some great news.' He continued: 'Home Office policy ignores the issues and concerns of local residents that the council represents. 'Today we have made a step towards redressing the imbalance and showing that local people do have some say, whatever the Home Office thinks.' Before judgment was handed down on Tuesday, barristers for the Home Office asked to intervene in the case, citing the 'substantial impact' caused to the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, in performing her legal duties to asylum seekers. Edward Brown KC, for the department, told the court that moving asylum seekers in 'extremely short order' would cause a 'very significant operational burden' and 'particular acute difficulties' for the Government. But Mr Justice Eyre dismissed the Home Office's bid, stating that the department's involvement was 'not necessary'.
