Miss Hannah Blake

Opportunity to support us and educate the government who are trying to mute us sex workers. 1. Write to your local MP's by copying the email below. Put in your postcode here and get your local MP's email addresses. members.parliament.uk/FindYo… Also submit a request to the Ministry of Justice here contact-moj.service.justice.… 2. Write to the Human Rights Act authority by copying the email below. [email protected] [email protected] 3. From the 6th November report the crimes of scenes in mainstream media which relate to and would qualify as crimes under the new draconian UK law "Crime and Policing Act 2026: Offences relating to pornography" More information at the bottom. Support sex workers! Email for MP's top Email for Human Rights Breaches Bottom Email for Reporting Crimes Bottom 1. Email your MP's To your local MP and to submit to the ministry of justice Put in your postcode here and get your local MP's email addresses. members.parliament.uk/FindYo… Also submit a request to the Ministry of Justice here contact-moj.service.justice.… Subject - Urgent Concerns About the New Sexual Content Law: Legal Uncertainty, Human Rights and Freedom of Expression Email Body - Dear [MP’s Name], Dear [MP’s Name], I am writing as your constituent to express serious concerns about the new UK legislation restricting certain forms of sexual content, particularly its implications for legal certainty, freedom of expression, human rights and the livelihoods of independent adult-content creators. I believe the legislation raises significant questions about proportionality, consistency and whether ordinary people can reasonably be expected to understand and comply with its requirements. 1. A lack of clear definitions and practical guidance My primary concern is that the legislation leaves substantial uncertainty about exactly what material is prohibited and how its provisions should be interpreted in practice. Creators need clear definitions, accessible guidance and practical examples explaining what is lawful and what is not. Without these, people are left trying to interpret complex legal wording, relying on speculation or potentially conflicting advice, or paying for specialist legal advice simply to determine whether their work can legally be published. This is particularly problematic for independent creators and small businesses, who may not have the resources to obtain individual legal advice for every production or item in their existing content libraries. The consequences of uncertainty could be severe, including criminal liability, removal of content, loss of income and the destruction of legitimate businesses. It may also encourage widespread self-censorship, with creators avoiding lawful material because they cannot confidently establish where the boundaries lie. A law should not merely state what people must not do. It should provide sufficiently clear and foreseeable boundaries that people can understand their obligations and comply with them. 2. Potential human-rights implications I am concerned that the legislation raises questions under several provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 10 — Freedom of expression Restrictions on the creation and distribution of sexual content interfere with forms of artistic and commercial expression. Although freedom of expression is not absolute, the Government should demonstrate that the restrictions are necessary and proportionate to their stated objectives. Article 7 — No punishment without law Criminal offences must be sufficiently clear and foreseeable. If creators cannot reasonably determine whether particular material falls within a prohibited category, this raises questions about legal certainty and the foreseeability of criminal liability. Article 8 — Right to respect for private life Restrictions involving the private possession of certain material raise questions about personal autonomy and the proportionality of state interference in private life. I recognise that the Government may argue that these restrictions pursue legitimate aims, including preventing harm and protecting others. However, I believe it is important to examine whether the measures go further than necessary, whether less restrictive alternatives were adequately considered and whether the safeguards are sufficient in practice. I am not asserting that the legislation has already been established to breach human rights. I am asking whether its compatibility with those rights has been adequately scrutinised, particularly in light of its potential effects on consenting adults and independent creators. 3. Contradictory treatment of mainstream media and adult content I am concerned about the apparent inconsistency between the content being restricted and material that remains available through mainstream television, films and social media platforms. Depictions of choking, strangulation, breath play, incest-related sexual activity and other controversial sexual themes have appeared in mainstream entertainment for years, including programmes broadcast by major UK broadcasters such as the BBC. I appreciate that context, classification and the precise statutory provisions can create legitimate distinctions between different types of material. My concern is that these distinctions must be clearly explained and justified. If a depiction is considered sufficiently harmful to warrant criminal restrictions in one context, but a comparable depiction remains accessible in another, the Government should explain the objective criteria that justify this difference. Why should independent adult-content creators face restrictions that may not apply in the same way to comparable depictions in mainstream entertainment? What evidence demonstrates that these distinctions are necessary and proportionate? This apparent inconsistency undermines confidence in the coherence of the legislation and deserves greater public scrutiny. 4. Inconsistent standards for sexual content and depictions of violence I am particularly concerned about the apparent inconsistency in how the law treats sexual content compared with depictions of violence in mainstream entertainment. British television, films and streaming services routinely make depictions of murder, torture, rape, physical assault and other forms of extreme violence available to audiences. Some scenes are presented in considerable detail, subject to the relevant classification and broadcasting rules. Yet consensual sexual activity between adults, including acts such as face-sitting depicted within a scripted fantasy scenario, may face restrictions that do not appear to apply in the same way to comparable depictions of violence. This raises a fundamental question about the principles underpinning the legislation: why is certain consensual sexual expression considered unacceptable to depict, while graphic representations of brutality, sexual violence and murder remain permissible forms of mainstream entertainment? I recognise that fictional violence and sexual content raise different legal and ethical questions, and that context, classification, consent and the nature of a depiction all matter. I am not suggesting that every scene should be treated identically. However, the Government should explain why these distinctions justify the restrictions imposed and demonstrate that its approach is evidence-based and proportionate. For example, a scripted scene depicting one adult sitting on another consenting adult's face is not automatically evidence of abuse, coercion or real-world harm. It may simply represent a consensual sexual fantasy performed by adults. By contrast, mainstream dramas can portray rape, brutal murder and other serious violence in graphic detail. Although those scenes are fictional, their inclusion is generally assessed within a framework that considers context, classification and the work as a whole. Why should consensual adult sexual expression be subjected to a different standard without a clear explanation of the evidence and reasoning behind that distinction? If the Government's concern is the potential normalisation of harmful behaviour, it should explain how that risk is assessed across different categories of media. If the concern is physical harm, it should explain why the restrictions are appropriately targeted and proportionate. And if the concern is the protection of audiences, it should explain why classification, age restrictions and other less restrictive measures are insufficient in the circumstances covered by the law. This inconsistency also raises questions about freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Restrictions on sexual expression should be justified by a legitimate aim and should be necessary and proportionate. The fact that content is controversial or sexually explicit should not, on its own, remove the need for that assessment. I therefore ask the Government to explain the evidence supporting this distinction, the criteria used to determine which depictions are prohibited, and why comparable scrutiny is not applied consistently across mainstream entertainment and adult content. A coherent regulatory framework should be based on clearly articulated principles, not on an unexplained distinction between sexual expression and other potentially disturbing fictional material. 5. The impact on sex workers and independent creators For people whose livelihoods depend on creating and distributing adult content, these restrictions are not merely an abstract legal issue. They can affect existing content libraries, future productions, income, business viability and the ability to work lawfully. Unclear rules may also lead platforms to remove material excessively to avoid regulatory risk, even where its legal status is uncertain. I am concerned that the burden may fall disproportionately on independent creators, who often lack the legal and financial resources available to larger media organisations. Any legislation affecting people's livelihoods should be assessed not only by its stated intentions but also by its real-world consequences. 6. Questions I would like you to raise with the Government I would appreciate your response to the following questions: What detailed, authoritative guidance will be provided to help creators determine exactly what material is prohibited, including practical examples of borderline cases? How will the Government ensure that the legislation is sufficiently clear and foreseeable to satisfy the principle of legal certainty? What assessment has been made of its compatibility with Articles 7, 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights? What evidence supports the proportionality of the restrictions, and were less restrictive alternatives considered? What objective criteria explain the different treatment of comparable depictions in adult content, mainstream television, films and social media? What assessment has been made of the potential effects on independent creators, sex workers and small businesses, including loss of income and excessive removal of potentially lawful content? Will the Government commit to reviewing the legislation after implementation, with particular attention to legal uncertainty, inconsistent enforcement and unintended consequences? Will you support further parliamentary scrutiny of the legislation's human-rights implications and its effects on lawful adult expression? I want to make clear that I am not arguing against legitimate measures to prevent exploitation, coercion or harm. I am arguing for legislation that is clear, evidence-based, proportionate and consistently applied, while respecting fundamental rights. The Government should not expect people to comply with criminal restrictions without providing a reasonably clear understanding of what those restrictions mean in practice. Nor should the burden of resolving substantial legal uncertainty fall entirely on individuals who may lack the resources to obtain specialist advice. The apparent disparity between restrictions on consensual adult sexual expression and the availability of graphic violence in mainstream entertainment also deserves a clear, evidence-based explanation. If the Government believes these categories warrant different treatment, it should explain why and demonstrate that its approach is justified. I therefore ask you to raise these concerns with the relevant minister and seek substantive answers. I would welcome your support for further parliamentary scrutiny, clearer statutory guidance and a review of any provisions that prove ambiguous, disproportionate or difficult to comply with in practice. Please confirm whether you will raise these issues with the Government and let me know what response you receive. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your reply. Yours sincerely, [Your name] [Your postcode] 2. Report a Human Rights Breach [email protected] [email protected] Subject - Request for Human Rights Scrutiny: Crime and Policing Act 2026 – Sexual Content Restrictions Email Body - Dear Members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I am writing to raise concerns about the human-rights implications of the sexual-content provisions in the Crime and Policing Act 2026, particularly the new offences relating to the possession and publication of certain pornographic depictions of strangulation, suffocation and incest. I appreciate that the Government has set out its justification for these provisions. However, I believe there are important questions about legal certainty, proportionality, freedom of expression and the practical impact on independent adult-content creators that merit further consideration. 1. Legal certainty and Article 7 ECHR My primary concern is whether the boundaries of the new offences are sufficiently clear for people to understand what material they may lawfully create, possess or distribute. Creators may struggle to determine whether a particular depiction falls within the statutory definitions, particularly in borderline cases. The consequences of misinterpreting the law could include criminal liability, loss of income and the removal of existing work. I would welcome scrutiny of whether the statutory wording, available guidance and relevant safeguards provide sufficient clarity and foreseeability in practice. 2. Freedom of expression and Article 10 ECHR The restrictions engage freedom of expression, including artistic and commercial expression. I recognise that this right is qualified and that the state may restrict expression to protect legitimate interests. Nevertheless, I believe it is important to examine whether the restrictions are proportionate, whether less restrictive alternatives were adequately considered, and whether the legislation creates an unnecessarily broad chilling effect on lawful expression by consenting adults. 3. Private life and Article 8 ECHR I am also concerned about the implications of criminalising possession of certain material, rather than limiting the restrictions to its publication or distribution. I would ask the Committee to consider whether the interference with private life and personal autonomy is justified and proportionate in the circumstances covered by the legislation. 4. Consistency and differential treatment Comparable depictions of choking, strangulation and controversial sexual themes have appeared in mainstream television, films and online media. The legal treatment of a particular scene may differ according to its context, classification and the precise statutory provisions that apply. My concern is whether the Government has adequately explained these distinctions and demonstrated that they are based on clear, principled and proportionate criteria. If similar depictions are treated differently depending on the context in which they appear, the rationale for that distinction should be transparent and understandable to those expected to comply with the law. 5. Practical impact on independent creators Independent adult-content creators may lack the resources to obtain specialist legal advice on every production or item in their existing content libraries. Uncertainty about what is prohibited could lead to excessive self-censorship, the removal of potentially lawful material, loss of livelihoods and inconsistent decisions by online platforms. I would welcome consideration of whether the Government has adequately assessed these practical consequences and whether more detailed, accessible guidance is needed. I recognise that the Government's stated objectives include preventing harm, and I am not suggesting that all sexual material should be exempt from regulation. My concern is whether the means chosen are sufficiently clear, necessary and proportionate to achieve those objectives while respecting fundamental rights. I understand that the Committee's formal inquiry into the Crime and Policing Bill is closed to evidence. I am therefore writing to ask whether these concerns can be considered in any future scrutiny of the Act, related regulations or the Government's implementation of the provisions. In particular, I would be grateful for any guidance on how members of the public can raise concerns about the compatibility of these provisions with Articles 7, 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and whether the Committee anticipates further scrutiny of their practical effects. Thank you for considering these concerns. Yours faithfully, [Your name] [Your postcode, if desired] 3. Report crimes from the 6th November Report the crimes of scenes in mainstream media which relate to and would qualify as crimes under the new draconian UK law "Crime and Policing Act 2026: Offences relating to pornography" gov.uk/guidance/crime-and-po… met.police.uk/ro/report/ocr/… reporting.reportfraud.police… crimestoppers-uk.org/give-in… Copy and paste the email below. Add your name. Email it to anyone in the police and your local MP. Also report via Ofcom Complain to the BBC bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints… Complain about another channel ofcomlive.my.salesforce-site… Subject: Request for Assessment of Broadcast and Streaming Material Under New UK Legislation Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to request an assessment of the television programmes and films listed in the accompanying document, which contain depictions of choking, strangulation, breath play, incest-related sexual activity and face-sitting. I am concerned about whether the material identified may fall within the scope of the new UK legislation coming into effect, or recently brought into force, concerning the depiction and distribution of certain sexual acts. I appreciate that the programmes in question may have been produced as mainstream television or dramatic entertainment rather than pornography. However, I would ask that their classification as mainstream entertainment not, in itself, prevent consideration of whether particular scenes meet the relevant statutory definitions. I respectfully request that the police assess the identified scenes against the applicable legislation, including any relevant provisions concerning the depiction, publication, distribution or availability of prohibited material, and consider whether referral to the appropriate regulatory or prosecuting authority is warranted. Where relevant, I would also ask that the circumstances of the material's broadcast or online availability be considered, including the broadcaster or streaming service responsible, the original transmission date and whether the content remains accessible to viewers in the United Kingdom. I have included programme titles, episode details, dates and descriptions to assist with identification. I recognise that a scene's inclusion in this list does not, by itself, establish that an offence has occurred. I am seeking an informed assessment of the material under the applicable law. Thank you for your time and consideration. I would appreciate confirmation of receipt and advice on whether this matter falls within your jurisdiction or should be referred to another appropriate body. Yours faithfully, [Your name] [Your contact details, if appropriate] 10 TV Shows and Films Featuring Choking, Breath Play, Incest or Face-Sitting Sex on the Edge – “Breath” Broadcaster: BBC Three Original date: 8 December 2016 Category: Breath play Scene: Documentary exploring erotic breath restriction, the motivations behind it and associated risks. Availability: Current BBC iPlayer availability unconfirmed. Anne Boleyn – Episode 1 Broadcaster: Channel 5 Original air date: 1 June 2021 Category: Sexual choking Scene: Anne straddles Henry VIII and places her hand around his throat during a sexual encounter. Availability: UK streaming listing previously associated with Apple TV; current availability unconfirmed. Rules of the Game – Episode 4 Broadcaster: BBC Episode date: 7 March 2022 (date requires verification) Category: Choking and sexual violence Scene: A man attempts to choke and strangle a woman. The storyline explores abuse and sexual misconduct. Availability: Current UK streaming status unconfirmed. Smother – Episode 4 Broadcaster/distributor: Irish drama distributed by BBC Studios Episode date: 31 May 2024 (date requires verification) Category: Domestic violence and choking Scene: A husband chokes his wife, leaving bruising on her neck. Availability: Current UK streaming service unconfirmed. The White Lotus – Season 3, Episode 6, “Denials” Original release: 2025 Category: Incest Scene: A disturbing sexual encounter involving brothers Saxon and Lochlan, followed by discussion of incest and group sex. Availability: UK streaming platform and exact episode date require verification. EastEnders – Bernadette and Keanu's paternity storyline Broadcaster: BBC One Date previously identified: 7 July 2017 (requires verification) Category: Incest Scene: A storyline reveals a pregnancy involving half-siblings Bernadette and Keanu. Availability: BBC archive availability unconfirmed. Mandy – “Holiday for One” Broadcaster: BBC Episode date: 30 May 2024 (requires verification) Category: Choking Scene: A character chokes to death in an absurd, darkly comic situation. Availability: Current BBC iPlayer availability unconfirmed. The Handmaid's Tale – “Surprise,” Episode 6 Original release: Exact date requires verification. Category: Strangulation Scene: A flashback depicts a character being strangled to death amid the show's broader themes of sexual violence and brutality. Availability: Current UK streaming platform unconfirmed. Heat – Episode 4 Original release: 2023 Category: Strangulation and sexual threat Scene: A man grabs a woman by the throat and pins her against a wall. Another storyline involves a teenage girl fighting off an attempted sexual assault. Availability: Current UK streaming status unconfirmed. Entitled – Episode 3 Original release: 2023 Category: Chokehold Scene: A chaotic fight involves a man putting a woman into a chokehold, with the encounter presented as physical comedy. Availability: Current UK streaming status unconfirmed.