QotD: “The moral and rational case for a full judicial inquiry is unanswerable”
Yet in reality Starmer introduced a series of reforms when he was Director of Public Prosecutions that led to many of the rapists finally being brought to justice, including establishing a new national network of over 80 specialist prosecutors, a Child Sexual Abuse Review Panel and a ‘victim’s right to review’, which finally gave the abused the right to challenge any decision not to prosecute.
But the ranting of Musk, and cynical politicking of Badenoch, cannot obscure a basic truth. Which is that the abuse of thousands of white, working-class children by predominantly Muslim, Pakistani-heritage men is one of the worst and most shaming events in our nation’s history. And the moral and rational case for a full judicial inquiry is unanswerable.
[…]
And we can see it most of all in the mealy-mouthed response of Jess Phillips, putative Minister for Safeguarding And Violence Against Women And Girls.
There is no politician of any party who has a more formidable track record of highlighting and combatting gender-based abuse than Phillips. During her time working for Women’s Aid, she helped protect countless women and girls from domestic abuse, sexual exploitation and human trafficking.
But at the Election, her majority was slashed by the pro-Palestinian crusaders. So even she has now been cowed.
QotD: “How the grooming gangs scandal was covered up”
Safeguarding minister Jess Phillips’ decision to block a public inquiry into the Oldham grooming gangs seems, from the outside, to be almost inexplicable. Children were raped and abused by gangs of men while the authorities failed to protect them.
A review of the abuse in Oldham was released in 2022, but its terms of reference only stretched from 2011-2014. Survivors from the town said that they wanted a government-led inquiry to cover a longer period, and catch what the previous review had missed. In Jess Phillips’s letter to the council, revealed by GB News, she said she understood the strength of feeling in the town, but thought it best for another local review to take place.
This is a scandal that should be rooted out entirely, and investigated by the full might of the British state. Voices ranging from Elon Musk to Kemi Badenoch have joined the calls for an inquiry. Yet the Government seems curiously reluctant to dig into the failings of officials.
This reluctance is not new. Across the country, in towns and in cities, on our streets and in the state institutions designed to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, authorities deliberately turned a blind eye to horrific abuse of largely white children by gangs of men predominantly of Pakistani heritage.
Over time, details have come to light about abuse in Rotherham, in Telford, in Rochdale and in dozens of other places. But with the stories released in dribs and drabs, and the details so horrific as to be almost unreadable, the full scale of the scandal has still to reach the public.
QotD: “Choking allegations in rape cases on the rise, says lawyer”
Most rape cases going before Scotland’s high courts deliberately include allegations of choking as prosecutors seek to highlight how “insidious” the practice has become.
Tony Lenehan, one of the country’s leading lawyers, said as many as three fifths of serious sex-crime indictments he sees feature allegations of non-consensual strangulation.
The KC, who is vice-dean of the Faculty of Advocates, also pointed to a rise in spitting claims as evidence that younger suspects may have been influenced by internet porn culture.
Officials at the Crown Office confirmed that they add throttling allegations to rape indictments to reflect the gravity of the life-threatening behaviour.
“There has been a striking increase in rape charges which include choking, said by the accused to be consensual, over the last five to ten years,” Lenehan said. “I have also observed an increase in allegations involving spitting, but perhaps less so than choking. I’d say of the indictments I see, perhaps as many as three fifths will include allegations of choking during sexual activity. Spitting appears in one fifth or more.”
Politicians have become so concerned about the prevalence of non-fatal strangulation that Michelle Thomson, the SNP MSP, has suggested a standalone law may be needed to outlaw the practice, sometimes referred to as “breath play”.
She received backing from Conservative and Labour colleagues while John Swinney, the first minister, last week said legislation deserves “serious consideration”.
England and a number of other jurisdictions have specific laws against choking. Fiona Drouet, whose daughter, Emily, took her own life in 2016 after she was choked and slapped by her ex-boyfriend, is among campaigners calling for Scotland to follow suit. She has met Swinney.
Lenehan has no views on legal reforms but warned throttling and spitting allegations were most frequently aimed at younger accused and that more debate was needed about why this was happening.
“I think these aspects tend to appear in cases of men in their teens, twenties and thirties,” he said. “They appear more densely in the younger half of that age spread. It looks like an emerging problem, rather than one that is receding. Choking purely as a form of violent attack [strangling] was occasionally present from my early years in court and likely long before, but the change struck me certainly by five years ago.”
Lenehan added: “The frequency increased and choking was commonly asserted to be part of a consensual activity, rather than simply a violent attack [strangling versus sexual choking]. The same for spitting. I suspect empirical research may find that sexual choking and spitting are two sides of the same increasingly common coinage.”
Lenehan suggested that these behaviours might have become normalised for some young men — but juries were not buying that they were consensual.
He said: “I’m conscious that I’m a lawyer and not a social commentator, but for what it is worth, the observed generational correlation strengthens my suspicion that this is a consequence of exposure to a promotion of misogyny in ‘laddish’ internet content.
“I’m in my mid-fifties, and so I emerged into adulthood long before the internet. I’d be surprised if modern internet immersion wasn’t an important factor in promoting this misogynistic behaviour inwards from the margins. I don’t think it is yet widespread, because I have the barometer of jury verdicts to go on. Juries are not generally receptive of the assertion that choking and spitting accompany genuinely consensual sexual behaviour.”
The recently retired advocate Frances McMenamin KC — the most senior woman at the Scottish bar — echoed Lenehan’s view that choking allegations were on the rise.
She said: “In almost four decades of both defending and prosecuting in serious sexual offence cases in the High Court, choking only began to feature in cases within about the last 15 years and, even so, such allegations were, in the early days, rare.
“However, it gradually became not so unusual to see such an allegation feature in rape charges, with the defence being, if choking was not, or could not, be disputed, that it was all part of the couple engaging consensually in ‘rough sex’ in order to heighten the pleasure for both.”
Katrina Parkes, the procurator fiscal for High Court sexual offences, said: “Prosecutors recognise the seriousness of non-fatal strangulation and seek to have this reflected in charges.
“Having your hands around someone’s neck and the ability to stop their breathing is an insidious form of control, which often leaves victims terrified and fearing for their life.
“While we recognise that anyone can be affected by this type of offending, research has found that domestic abuse victims are eight times more likely to be murdered by their partner if there has been non-fatal strangulation beforehand.”
Thomson said she was getting wide cross-party support for a campaign for a law which specifically criminalises choking. She said: “Firstly, we need routes to ensure proper data collection, secondly we need to raise awareness and there must be a considerably more robust response than common law assault.
“The Institute for Addressing Strangulation estimates that 35 per cent of people within the age range of 16 to 35 have been non-consensually choked during consensual sex — the vast majority of them women.
“That equates to around 200,000 people in Scotland alone. Doing nothing cannot be an option.”
QoTD: “Pelicot horrors are waking world up to porn”
When Thibaut Rey was radioed by a colleague to say a man in the cosmetics department was behaving suspiciously, he went to the CCTV room to watch. It was late summer in Provence, so many women browsing the E.Leclerc hypermarket were bare-legged. Walking among them a man was carefully positioning a cool box beneath their skirts. Out of it poked a mobile phone.
The man, in his sixties, was deftly moving from woman to unwitting woman, and Rey, a security guard, was incensed. He ran on to the shop floor and grabbed the man’s arm. “You are a disgusting person,” he said. “I swear if she was my mother, I’d rip your head off.” One woman shrugged: she needed to finish her shopping. But Rey implored another to press charges and called the police.
Rey didn’t see the man’s snaps as a bit of fun. He thought of his responsibility for women’s safety and did his job. When police officers arrived they didn’t just reprimand this dirty-minded pensioner (as Paris cops had when they caught him in 2010) they scrolled through his phone, then went to his home and seized his computer. They too did their jobs. Because of Rey, who will now receive the Légion d’honneur, Dominique Pelicot was caught and he, along with 50 of the rapists he recruited to violate his wife, Gisèle, was brought to justice.
This act of diligence by a decent man was pivotal. Yet so too was an act of dereliction by a careless woman in a key British case. Called to a drive-through McDonald’s in Swanley, Kent, where a man had exposed himself to female staff, PC Samantha Lee was handed CCTV footage, a car registration and credit card receipts. But shoving these in her pocket, Lee — who sold semi-clad selfies on the OnlyFans website as “Officer Naughty” — did not inquire further. Three days later that man, Wayne Couzens, killed Sarah Everard.
One question was always in my head as I attended the Pelicot trial: could this happen here? There are many differences between French and British sexual mores. Neither country has a good record in prosecuting rape but a UK defence lawyer would not mock an unconscious victim on TikTok or call feminists outside the court “hysterical shit”. Both countries — indeed every country — could learn from the Angiolini report following the Couzens case, which recommends that “minor” sexual offences such as voyeurism, “upskirting” and indecent exposure are always fully investigated because they often prefigure or are part of even graver crimes.
So what would stop a British Dominique Pelicot setting up shop in, say, a Cotswolds village? He might have more trouble stockpiling prescription knockout drugs on the NHS, but virtual pharmacies make fewer checks. What about recruiting men online? The infamous Coco.fr was unusual in being an open, non-dark web forum, but German officials have just uncovered a chat room with 70,000 members on Telegram where men discuss how to sedate their wives, mainly in English. There will be others.
And anyone wondering if British men would participate in a degrading mass sexual encounter should consider the queue in the London Airbnb rented by an OnlyFans performer, Lily Phillips, in her quest to have sex with 100 men. Phillips was of course, unlike Gisèle Pelicot, fully consenting, although the stunt left her shaken and crying. But these men were waiting for a designated five minutes’ joyless, mechanical grind on a bed strewn with used condoms. What drew both groups of men to such depravity? The answer, no surprise, is online porn.
The grisly service Pelicot provided for the world was to reveal porn’s hidden workings, how ostensibly “normal” men with jobs and kids were pushed by an algorithm to ever more extreme material, until they acquired a “sleeping beauty” fixation. The obscure minor fetish “somnophilia” has become so prevalent that the rapes of thousands of drugged, unconscious women were uploaded on to PornHub, which eventually removed them after an outcry and has now banned “sleeping” as a search term. But some men don’t just fantasise about enjoying what Pelicot called “a body treated as an object”, they seek out a real one.
Last year at a misconduct tribunal a Metropolitan Police officer, Warren Arter (who later killed himself), was heard to have drugged his wife, Rebekah, so she could be raped by men at parties. Victim support charities find many women who believe the only explanation for how events unfolded is that they were drugged. Some have drinks spiked in bars but others suspect coercive partners are using what the French now call “chemical submission”.
Porn not only piques latent appetites for once unimaginable horrors, it creates them. It is why, according to the National Crime Agency, 600,000 to 800,000 British men — nine times the prison population — have viewed child sex images. These, like the Mazan rapists, are ordinary men. One, Huw Edwards, was so mainstream he announced the Queen’s death. There are so many now that eight out of ten found with the most serious images are not jailed.
Yet until recently even discussing porn’s influence marked you out as an old-school, Andrea Dworkin, no-fun feminist or a religious moralist.“C’est le machisme qui tue, pas le porno” (It’s machismo that kills, not porn) said graffiti in Avignon by a young liberal feminist collective. That is the conventional “sex positive” case: those who’d cry violence if a man used an offensive word will give the most debasing material a free pass.
But now voices are increasingly speaking up. Young people view the Lily Phillips stunt not as a sexy adventure but porn-addled self-destruction. Connections are being made between what Dominque Pelicot watched online, what he made with his cool-box camera in E.Leclerc, and the fate of his wife Gisèle.
QotD: “Until this point, very late in the trial, the influence of internet pornography has barely been explored”
Charly A is the youngest of all the defendants, just 22 when he first entered the Pelicot house. Small, bearded, now 30, we learn his childhood was chaotic, his father an alcoholic, his mother had many sexual partners; there are hints of abuse. “This is a family of secrets,” concludes the personality profiler. A psychiatrist adds he is immature, struggles to sustain relationships and instead consumes porn, “especially the Milf [Mother I’d like to f***] category with mature women”. In 2016, he made contact with Pelicot via Coco: “He said his wife would be lying there pretending to be asleep, he doesn’t tell me more.”
Over time Pelicot asks Charly if he knows anyone they could drug for sex and he proffers the only woman in his life — his own mother. Pelicot gives him pills (which Charly claims to have thrown away), shows him how to crush them, keeps pressing him to use them. “When can I come and we f*** your mother?” he asks in one video, but Charly keeps stalling, saying his brother is at home. Yet he returns to violate Gisèle, always with Pelicot, once with another man, a total of six times. “Did you feel like you were in a porn film?” asks Babonneau. Charly shakes his head.
Until this point, very late in the trial, the influence of internet pornography has barely been explored. The court only notes paedophiliac images, not “normal” usage. Yet Mathieu Lacambre, a psychiatrist who evaluates Charly A, remarks how porn sites not only push users to more extreme content but to enact porn fantasies in real life. “Until now Charly A was behind the screens,” he says. “Now [in Gisèle] he has an object served up on a platter a few miles from home. The sleeping princess Milf, voilà.”
[…]
All the while the camera rolled. Why did these men agree to have their crimes recorded? They say it was part of the deal, that Pelicot told them Gisèle was shy and liked to watch the sex later. But perhaps also because, in taking part, these men were promoted from porn consumers to creators. Filming was central to their fantasy. When Christian L finally climaxes he turns to give the camera a cheery thumbs-up.
For Pelicot, each film added to his oeuvre. Police discovered a carefully curated archive of 20,000 images and videos on hard drives and memory sticks showing 200 rapes. He gave each film a title like “Squirt on the ass”, “Cock in mouth” or “Jacques fingering”. This man, once caught by his daughter-in-law masturbating at his computer, was now a porn impresario.
QotD: “She can show the wounds she has suffered and the wounds she has caused — but she can’t fully acknowledge what they mean”
Roden Winter tells the story of her childhood self and alludes to its parallels with her current situation. But she also seems not to acknowledge the full picture she has painted. Her desire to maintain her relationships with Stewart, her mother, her children, and her father (who, it is implied, has had several extramarital affairs) means that she can show the wounds she has suffered and the wounds she has caused — but she can’t fully acknowledge what they mean. Roden Winter spends the book agreeing to things she admits she hates, while hoping that someone notices she is lying, but also takes her teenage son’s outward acceptance of her marital situation as evidence of his “cosmic maturity” rather than a similar act of family-preserving self-sacrifice.
While reading More, I couldn’t help wondering when I was going to get to the part where it all worked out. Surely, given the media rollout and cheery accolades, I was going to get some form of happy ending. But the end is as ambivalent as the rest of the preceding chapters. On the final pages, a boyfriend breaks up with Roden Winter and she calls Stewart, yet again, in tears. Her triumphant display of psychological growth and healing is that, for the first time, when Stewart asks if she wants his company in her sadness, she admits that she does. “Stew has offered to cancel his plans with Kiwi before — on other nights when I burned with rage or cried myself to sleep. I’ve always steeled myself and told him to go, lied and said I’d be fine. But tonight is different.” If, after twenty years, Roden Winter has learned through her open-marriage journey when it’s okay to admit her feelings to her own husband, I can only say good for her. But it can’t help seeming like there are perhaps easier paths to the same destination.
Someday, surely, probably someday soon, someone will write the book that More was marketed as: an upbeat, sassy, tale of a woman’s sexual awakening and how great opening her marriage was for her. In the meantime, we are left to wonder why people were so eager to see victory in a story with so much suffering, why the story of a woman’s relentless capitulation to male desire was sold as a feminist feat. And to note that, in a harsh irony, the media treatment of More was yet another time that Roden Winter finally got the nerve to say what she wanted from her marriage and her sex life — and nobody listened.
QotD: “Pornhub challenges EU over online content rules”
One of the world’s most popular pornography websites, Pornhub, is contesting new EU rules.
The adult site is facing new obligations under the Digital Services Act (DSA), including strict requirements on age verification.
The new rules apply to what the EU designates a Very large Online Platform (VLOP) – which Pornhub says it is not.
“We believe the European Commission erred in its calculation of our user numbers”, the firm said.
The challenge was filed to the EU’s General Court in Luxembourg on March 1 for Pornhub by its owner, the Canada-based Aylo.
Technius, the parent firm of another adult site, Stripchat, has also registered a case, as has WebGroup Czech Republic, which operates XVideos.
To be designated a VLOP, a site needs to be visited by more than 45 million Europeans on average every month – a threshold the EU says Pornhub meets.
“The Commission stands fully behind its calculations of the user numbers of Pornhub and Stripchat,” a spokesperson told the BBC.
But Aylo says as of January 31, 2024, Pornhub had 32 million monthly active users – so it is filing an application to have its VLOP status annulled.
It said it looked forward to the facts “being fully and fairly aired” in court.
The DSA aims to give people in the EU greater protections online, with VLOPs facing what the European Commission calls more “diligent content moderation.”
Among its measures are new responsibilities to take down illegal content, such as non-consensual videos.
Sites can also be asked to have a publicly accessible database of advertisements – a requirement Aylo says it considers “illegal”.
The platforms are expected to give detailed plans by April 20 about how they limit major risks like violence against women and protection of minors.
Breaching the new law can lead to fines of up to 6% of a company’s global turnover.
The websites’ owners had until this month to contest the decisions.
QotD: “The Woman Who Stood Up to the Porn Industry – and Won”
In April 2021, Schlegel won the seat [in Louisiana’s House of Representatives] with 52 percent of the vote, and immediately planned to address the usual concerns of the 45,000 residents in her district, such as crime and education. But a few months after she took office in May 2021, she decided on a different agenda: taking on online porn.
What she has since achieved—after two years in office—has made international news. Not only has Schlegel curbed the billion-dollar online porn industry for the first time in history, forcing websites to protect kids in Louisiana and pull out of at least three U.S. states, she has offered a legislative blueprint for others across the country.
“I am truly humbled to see that we began a movement that has swept the country and began a long overdue conversation about how we can protect kids from hardcore pornography,” she says.
Schlegel’s crusade started back in December 2021. She had listened to The Howard Stern Show and 21-year-old pop sensation Billie Eilish talking about online porn. Eilish told Stern that she began watching “abusive” images at the age of 11, and that this had warped her sense of how to behave during sex and what women’s bodies look like.
“No vagina looks like this,” Eilish told Stern. “I feel incredibly devastated that I was exposed to so much porn.”
Schlegel was struck by Eilish’s openness, that she was “just a young girl being vulnerable enough to share those details with the world.”
The singer’s story also chimed with Schlegel’s professional experience both as a sex addiction therapist and a court-appointed special advocate for abused and neglected children in the foster care system. She knew the issues facing young clients raised on unlimited free online porn—the decoupling of intimacy from sex; the inability to get aroused without porn playing in the background; a warped idea of what your partner actually wants.
“If you’ve never had your first kiss but you’ve seen hardcore pornography, it’s going to mold the way you view sexuality,” Schlegel said. “You’re not dealing with a fully formed adult brain that’s like, ‘Oh, so I shouldn’t strangle my partner?’ ”
If Schlegel understood the damage pornography causes, she also knew how easy it is for children to access it. And she realized that now she was a state legislator, she was uniquely positioned to do something about it.
She soon settled on the idea of legislation that, if passed, would require porn sites to confirm their customers were 18 or older before they could click through to their content.
“You can’t be 10 years old and go into Mr. Binky’s—that’s an adult bookstore in my district,” she says. “This is public policy we’ve accepted across the board in brick-and-mortar stores, but we’ve just been giving a pass to the internet.”
[…]
Meanwhile, Schlegel began researching legal precedent. She was looking for a sweet spot where a law would limit minors’ access to pornography without being struck down as unconstitutional. She says she got in touch “with constitutional lawyers, people who can take a look at my ideas and the language and ask, ‘Could this pass constitutional muster?’ ”
There was also the technical question of how exactly to verify someone’s age online. During the pandemic, an electronic age verification system, called LA Wallet, had been authorized to accept digital driver’s licenses and ID cards as legitimate forms of identification in Louisiana. After getting assurances that LA Wallet could provide the technology to “verify someone’s age without giving any other identifying information,” Schlegel crafted Louisiana House Bill 142.
The legislation requires online publishers of porn sites to require age verification, via an LA Wallet program called VerifyYou Pro, Anonymous edition, that users are over 18.
By February, Schlegel had introduced the legislation in the lower chamber. HB-142 sailed through the Louisiana House (96–1) and State Senate (34–0) in June 2022. And when the law went into effect this past January, Pornhub, the world’s largest porn site, lost 80 percent of its traffic in Louisiana.
Soon after, two dozen states proposed copycat policies; Arkansas, Montana, Mississippi, Utah, Virginia, and Texas have now all passed similar legislation. This summer, Pornhub chose to pull out of Mississippi, Utah, and Virginia entirely rather than comply with the new age verification requirements.
QotD: “Online Safety Bill: Crackdown on harmful social media content agreed”
Peers have passed a controversial new law aimed at making social media firms more responsible for users’ safety on their platforms.
The Online Safety Bill has taken years to agree and will force firms to remove illegal content and protect children from some legal but harmful material.
Children’s charity the NSPCC said the law would mean a safer online world.
But critics argued it would allow a regulator, and tech firms to dictate what may or may not be said online.
The nearly 300-page bill will also introduce new rules such as requiring pornography sites to stop children viewing content by checking the ages of users.
While the act is often spoken about as a tool for reining in Big Tech, government figures have suggested more than 20,000 small businesses will also have to comply.
Platforms will also need to show they are committed to removing illegal content including:
child sexual abuse
controlling or coercive behaviour
extreme sexual violence
illegal immigration and people smuggling
promoting or facilitating suicide
promoting self-harm
animal cruelty
selling illegal drugs or weapons
terrorismNew offences have also been included in the bill, including cyber-flashing and the sharing of “deepfake” pornography.
And the bill includes measures to make it easier for bereaved parents to obtain information about their children from tech firms.
The technology secretary Michelle Donelan told the BBC the bill was “extremely comprehensive”.
Asked when there would be evidence of tech firms changing their behaviour she said: “We’ve already started to see that change in behaviour happening.
“As soon as this bill gains Royal Assent, the regulator will be working even more hand in hand with those social media platforms and you’ll see them changing the way that they’re operating”, she added.
QotD: “The UK is becoming an outlier on pornography”
Last week, Arkansas became the latest US state to introduce age verification checks for adult websites. Pornhub, the world’s largest porn site with over 115 million visits a day, retaliated by blocking all traffic from IP addresses in the state in protest. It has also done the same in Utah, Mississippi, Virginia and Texas — all of which have enacted similar policies — while in Louisiana, traffic on the site has fallen by 80% since age verification checks were introduced earlier this year. Montana is following suit in January 2024, with dozens of other copycat bills also being debated.
The UK is increasingly looking like an outlier in not enacting age verification legislation for adult content. From Canada to Australia to South Korea, more and more countries are putting pressure on the porn industry to make sure they restrict access to underage users. Earlier this year France introduced “digital certificates” for people to prove their age online; any porn website that does not comply risks being shut down or fined. These are now being extended to social media websites with an age limit of 15, unless minors can prove they have authorisation from their parents. Last year Germany’s biggest porn site, xHamster, was banned for refusing to verify the age of its users, while a judge in the Netherlands has ruled that the site must remove all its amateur videos unless it can demonstrate that everyone has consented.
By contrast, the UK’s policies towards the porn industry are not just laissez-faire but non-existent. Revenge porn has been a sexual offence since 2015, and the Domestic Abuse Bill recently made even threatening to share sexual images illegal. However, in 2023 there are still no legal frameworks in place to stop children watching porn. Any child with an internet connection in the UK simply needs to click a box saying they are 18 and suddenly they have access to “adult” entertainment — the clue is in the name.
Ironically, the UK was actually the first country to pass a law containing a legal mandate for an online age verification system with the 2017 Digital Economy Act. Yet, after various setbacks, these plans were dropped in 2019, on account of technical difficulties and concerns from privacy campaigners. Last year, the Government revived the proposal as part of the Online Safety Bill, and in February 43 MPs wrote to the Culture Secretary to ask for this to be formally incorporated into the Bill — yet there has been no further clarity over how and when any age verification systems may come into place. In England the average age children first see pornography is 13, with nearly 80% viewing violent pornography before they are 18. One in 10 have watched it by the time they are 9 years old.
It’s telling that the Government is quick to crack down on underage vaping — a relatively new fad — but so slow to deal with something that has been proven, time and time again, to be far more dangerous. Of course there are security and privacy questions, but the fact that Pornhub would sooner stop doing business altogether than verify that its users aren’t children gives a pretty telling insight into the morality of the pornography industry. Some may argue that teenagers will get around these blocks by using VPNs to change their location, but that often requires payment. Besides, the goal is not to make access impossible but, rather, more difficult, and this will be even more effective if we have more international uniformity.
Pornhub promotes itself as the poster child for internet freedom, and the age verification debate as a binary choice between protecting one’s privacy and succumbing to a surveillance state. Ultimately, though, this is about child safeguarding, and the sooner the UK catches up the better.
Anti-Porn Feminists 
Recent Comments