Her independent review, published in February, cited an account of a 14-year-old boy asking a teacher how to choke girls during sex and warned that people imitating such behaviour "may face devastating consequences".

Speaking to the Today programme, on BBC Radio Four, Baroness Bertin welcomed the government's move but said more action was needed.

"It's only the beginning as there's still so much violent pornography that is completely legal in the online world and completely illegal in the offline world," she said.

"The government has to use this as a first step to try to address that balance."
'Serious form of violence'

A BBC survey carried out in 2019 suggested 38% of women aged 18-39 had been choked during sex.

Bernie Ryan, chief executive of the Institute for Addressing Strangulation, welcomed the government's amendment, saying choking can send "confusing and harmful messages" to women about what to expect in intimate relationships.

"Strangulation is a serious form of violence, often used in domestic abuse to control, silence or terrify," she said.

Andrea Simon, director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, described the amendments as "a vital step" towards tackling the normalisation of violence in online content.

"There is no such thing as safe strangulation; women cannot consent to the long-term harm it can cause, including impaired cognitive functioning and memory," she said.

"Its widespread portrayal in porn is fuelling dangerous behaviours, particularly among young people."

But campaigner Fiona Mackenzie, founder of the group We Can't Consent To This, was less optimistic of the proposed law's effectiveness.

She argued there were already existing laws against showing choking in pornography, but which were not enforced in practice.

This included the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which criminalises the possession of extreme porn, including that showing life-threatening acts.

"More than five years ago, young women told us that social media sold strangulation of women as normal, as an expression of passion," she said.

"The porn sites make this normal for men - and none of those sites have ever felt the impact of the existing law.

"So a change in law or practice is needed. It's possible that this time the government might actually do something about this.

"However until we see otherwise, I don't believe that any new law will actually be enforced."

The government said in June, when the amendment was pledged, that it built on existing laws, including the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

>>1454661
Old news. The Spanner Case already makes it illegal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner

>>1454667
Go back to JIDF, infidel!

>>1454667
Spanner makes actually doing harm illegal. Not only are most online suffociaton/choking videos fake and it'd be impossible to prove which ones are real, but depictions aren't banned at all.

>>1454661
Bongoid taxpayers paid for parliament to watch choking porn. One of the wastes of taxpayer money of all time.

>>1454689
Let's see you convince a certain prime minister of UK then. He was previously Director of Public Prosecutions.
Let /news/ know when you do.

>>1454691
The law originates with the House of Commons more than it does with the PM.

>>1454692
You can let /news/ know when you persuade the PM otherwise, because you're right due to your superior legal knowledge. Certainly with the huge mandate - a 400+ seat majority in the House of Commons - that former Director of Public Prosecutions - has.

This is dumb. Just add choking and bondage play to sex-ed. Or better yet create a license system for it so people can know the person they're going to be engaging with knows what they're doing.

>>1454715
>oi, you got a loicense for that spanker?

>>1454722
They don't have a license for that spanner

Hang on, I thought Britain had implemented some sort of porn loicense years ago, how are these kids getting at it? Shouldn't they be locking them up for looking at porn without calling up the crown's pornographic material certification board to get the block undone for ten minutes or whatever?

>>1454661
Is this true? For ages any time I searched for it I got “… chokes on cock” so I gave up

>>1454738
They’re banning that too.

>>1454661
So what? The same brit government said 4chan was illegal and bong rats still continue to plague this site.

>>1454662
> 14-year-old boy asking a teacher how to choke girls during sex

WTF! When I was 14 I asked my uncle if was okay to choke the chicken. 17 chickens in all

>>1454715
I got me a license to choke, love.

>>1454661
UK is as bad as Australia when it comes to porn. At this point just ban it entirely. At least prostitution is legal in both places but they are propably going after that next. Sigh...

Whelp!
I wonder when they take down bluesky as that place is rife with that stuff.

>>1454844
What? People should already be carding anyone unfamiliar you're fucking if they don't have crow's feet. Humans are demonstrably trash at estimating age.

>>1454715
> A BBC survey carried out in 2019 suggested 38% of women aged 18-39 had been choked during sex.

If these are the numbers, they might have a point in banning this stuff.

If you want to get choked, do helium instead.

>>1455196
Depends on how they conducted the study. How were the questions worded? Is there ambiguity? Did they ask something stupid like "has a man ever touched your neck while being intimate?" and then counted that as choking?

>>1455196
38% choked during sex, 75% asked to be choked.

>>1454661
a nice piece of perfomative propaganda for nu-labour: make some thing illegal which has been illegal for years but either not many people knew was illegal or had forgotten about

the same level of effectiveness: something which had already been done so no real effort or expense involved, involving something they can't police anyways. So the usual zero effectiveness but good publicity