Censor Watch

Ofcom has issued new censorship rules to broadcasters about politicians presenting news

The guidance, which comes into force immediately, reflects the modern news landscape and sets guardrails for broadcasters who use politicians as presenters in programmes that include news.

Specifically, our revised guidance explains the interaction between our due accuracy and due impartiality in news rule (5.1 under the Broadcasting Code), and the rule which prevents politicians from presenting news programmes (5.3). It also updates the definition of politician to provide greater clarity.

Access to duly accurate and duly impartial news on television and radio is fundamental to a democratic society. As such, broadcast news is afforded a higher level of protection under UK law compared to non-news content.

The news landscape has evolved in recent years. The distinction between news and current affairs content has become more blurred for audiences [3] , and while politicians presenting current affairs programmes isnt new, it has become a more established editorial practice.

Responses to our consultation were polarised, reflecting the broad range of views overall, and there was a high level of consensus amongst broadcasters in favour of retaining the wording of Rule 5.3. Many respondents were concerned that amending Rule 5.3 would introduce significant practical challenges and operational uncertainty for broadcasters, and that it would inadvertently result in a de facto ban on politicians presenting any kind of programmes.

Our decision in detail

The wording of Rule 5.3 will remain unchanged. Instead, we have decided that there is sufficient protection for audiences through the existing combination of Rules 5.1 and 5.3, but we have issued amended Guidance to make the relationship between them clearer, and more relevant to the modern news landscape. Specifically, we have decided to:

update our Guidance to Rule 5.1, which states that news, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.

Our amendments make explicit that if an MP presented news in a non-news programme, then their status as an MP would likely be a relevant factor in considering whether that news was presented with due impartiality. We explain that we would also take into account all other relevant factors -- including, for example, the nature and subject of the news in question and the MPs political position on that issue. The new guidance also signposts that where politicians present news in news programmes, Rule 5.3 applies.

update our Guidance to Rule 5.3 , which states that no politician may be used as a newsreader, interviewer or reporter in any news programmes unless, exceptionally, it is editorially justified . In that case, the political allegiance of that person must be made clear to the audience.

Our amended guidance offers further clarification on the meaning of exceptional circumstances -- defined as those which cannot be controlled or foreseen by the broadcaster. We also make clear that we would expect such situations to be rare, and for licensees who use politicians as presenters to put appropriate contingency arrangements in place to avoid these situations.

update the definition of politician in our Guidance

The new definition now includes a reference to members of the House of Lords and representatives of political parties, while the reference to activists has been removed.

These changes to the Guidance come into force from today. Politicians as presenters in non-news programmes, including current affairs programmes

There is no Ofcom rule that prevents a politician from presenting or appearing on a TV or radio programme -- providing they arent standing in an election taking place, or about to take place, and that the programme otherwise complies with the Broadcasting Code

Graham Linehan Cleared After Heathrow Arrest as CPS Drops Case After Free Speech Controversy

The charges may be dropped but the arrest leaves behind a chilling portrait of a country increasingly turning against free speech.

Graham Linehan, the Irish writer best known for Father Ted and The IT Crowd , says police have now confirmed he will face no further action following his controversial arrest at Heathrow Airport last month. He was accused of using social media to incite violence, a claim now dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Linehans arrest became a flashpoint in a growing concern over the decline of free speech in modern Britain. The image of an airport surrounded by armed officers confronting a comedy writer for tweets struck many as absurd, even dystopian.

He credited the Free Speech Union for its support and vowed to hold the police accountable for what is only the latest attempt to silence and suppress gender critical voices on behalf of dangerous and disturbed men

Ofcom has explained:

Ofcom has determined that 4chan has breached its duty under section 102(8)(a) of the Act to comply with a statutory request for information, on two separate occasions.

We are imposing a fixed penalty of £20,000 on 4chan in respect of both breaches. This penalty was set having regard to our Penalty Guidelines.

In addition, 4chan is now required to take immediate steps to comply with section 102(8)(a) by providing the following:

a copy of the written record of its illegal content risk assessment(s) in respect of 4chan.org as required by the first statutory information request; and information specified in the second statutory information request relating to its qualifying worldwide revenue ('QWR').

Should 4chan fail to comply, a daily rate penalty of £100 per day will be imposed starting from the day after the date of the Confirmation Decision for either 60 days or until 4chan provides Ofcom with the information outlined above (whichever is sooner).

See article from x.com

Preston Byrne is defending 4Chan in US law nad has a few interesting reveals into how Ofcom intend to pursue its censorship citing sovereign imunity.

 

Porn websites too

Ofcom has announced that it will take the next steps in the pursuit of porn website provider AVS Limited.

This in relation to the adult sites www.pornzog.com, www.txxx.com, www.txxx.tube, www.upornia.com, www.hdzog.com, www.hdzog.tube, www.thegay.com, www.thegay.tube, www.ooxxx.com, www.hotmovs.com, www.hclips.com, www.vjav.com, www.pornl.com, www.voyeurhit.com, www.manysex.com, www.tubepornclassic.com, www.shemalez.com and www.shemalez.tube .

Ofcom explains

Following an investigation, Ofcom has provisionally determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe AVS Group Ltd has failed, and is failing, to comply with section 12 of the Online Safety Act ('the Act'). Section 12 imposes a duty on providers of services that fall under Part 3 of the Act, and allow pornographic content, to ensure that children are prevented from encountering pornographic content through the use of highly effective age assurance.

Ofcom therefore issued a provisional notice of contravention to AVS Group Ltd on 10 October 2025 under section 130 of the Act. The notice also sets out our provisional view that AVS Group Ltd has infringed its duties under section 102(8) of the Act by failing to respond to a statutory request for information issued as part of the investigation.

Similarly Ofcom is haranging websites from Youngtek Solutions Ltd The websites under consideration are www.imagefap.com, www.empflix.com www.moviefap.com, www.pornrepublic.com and www.TNAflix.com.

The image-hosting platform Imgur.com has blocked people in the UK from accessing its content. Imgur is used by millions to make and share images such as memes across the web, particularly on Reddit and in online forums.

UK users trying to access Imgur are now met with an error message saying content is not available in your region . Also Imgur content shared on, or embedded in, other websites is also no longer showing.

The website seems to be responding to censorship via the data protection censor, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) rather than the more usual UK internet censor Ofcom. A document published by the ICO alongside the launch of its investigation stated that Imgur did not ask visitors to declare their age when setting up an account.

ICO said in a statement:

We are aware of reports that the social media platform Imgur is currently not available in the UK. Imgur's decision to restrict access in the UK is a commercial decision taken by the company.

Earlier this year, as part of an update on our Children's code strategy, we announced an investigation into MediaLab AI Inc (MediaLab). The investigation relates to how MediaLab's Imgur social media platform uses children's information and its approach to age assurance.

Tim Capel, ICO Interim Executive Director - Regulatory Supervision, said:

We reached our provisional findings on this investigation, and we issued a notice of intent to impose a monetary penalty on MediaLab on 10 September 2025.

Our findings are provisional and the ICO will carefully consider any representations from MediaLab before taking a final decision whether to issue a monetary penalty.

We have been clear that exiting the UK does not allow an organisation to avoid responsibility for any prior infringement of data protection law, and our investigation remains ongoing.

The Financial Times reports that the U.K. is once again demanding that Apple create a backdoor into its encrypted backup services. The only change since the last time they demanded this is that the order is allegedly limited to only apply to British users. That doesnt make it any better.

The demand uses a power called a 'Technical Capability Notice' (TCN) in the U.K.s Investigatory Powers Act. At the time of its signing we noted this law would likely be used to demand Apple spy on its users.

After the U.K. government first issued the TCN in January, Apple was forced to either create a backdoor or block its Advanced Data Protection feature--which turns on end-to-end encryption for iCloud--for all U.K. users. The company decided to remove the feature in the U.K. instead of creating the backdoor.

The initial order from January targeted the data of all Apple users. In August, the US claimed the U.K. withdrew the demand , but Apple did not re-enable Advanced Data Protection. The new order provides insight into why: the U.K. was just rewriting it to only apply to British users.

This is still an unsettling overreach that makes U.K. users less safe and less free. As weve said time and time again , any backdoor built for the government puts everyone at greater risk of hacking, identity theft, and fraud. It sets a dangerous precedent to demand similar data from other companies, and provides a runway for other authoritarian governments to issue comparable orders. The news of continued server-side access to users' data comes just days after the UK government announced an intrusive mandatory digital ID scheme , framed as a measure against illegal migration.

A tribunal hearing was initially set to take place in January 2026 , though its currently unclear if that will proceed or if the new order changes the legal process. Apple must continue to refuse these types of backdoors. Breaking end-to-end encryption for one country breaks it for everyone. These repeated attempts to weaken encryption violates fundamental human rights and destroys our right to private spaces.

Thriller: A Cruel Picture is a 1973 Sweden action thriller by Bo Arne Vibenius (as Alex Fridolinski).
Starring Christina Lindberg, Heinz Hopf and Despina Tomazani.

The Original/Festival Version including director approved hardcore inserts was banned by the Swedish films censors for cinema release and was subsequently significantly cut to obtain a cinema release. The film was also heavily cut in the US for an MPAA R rating. This US Version was banned by the BBFC from a 1974 cinema release. Heavy cuts were then made to obtain an X rated UK cinema release in 1976. The Original Version was submitted to the BBFC in 2026 but the BBFC cut the hardcore inserts for a cut 18 rated Blu-ray release. There are several other versions featuring a mix of material from the above versions.

UK: The Original Version was BBFC 18 rated for sexual violence for sexual violence after BBFC cuts:

• 2025 Screenbound Pictures Blu-ray (rated 28/07/2025)

The BBFC commented in board meeting minutes [pdf] from darkroom.bbfc.co.uk :

The Classifiers discussed Thriller: A Cruel Picture, a Swedish crime drama, from 1973, in which a woman is forced into prostitution and later seeks violent revenge against her abusers

The film was previously submitted to the BBFC, in a pre-cut version, for cinema release in 1974 and found unsuitable for classification. It was resubmitted in 1975 203 following a change in BBFC leadership 203 and classified X in 1976 after further cuts were made to scenes of violence and sexual violence. It has not previously been classified for home video release

The film has now been submitted for a video rating, in its original uncut version.

The Classifiers focused in particular on two scenes of sexual violence, which depict the protagonist participating in sex work with male and female clients while under the control of a pimp who has forcibly addicted her to heroin. The scenes include explicit images of unsimulated masturbation, vaginal and anal penetration, and ejaculation.

The BBFC supports adults' right to choose their own entertainment as long as it remains within the law and is not potentially harmful. However, where a film or video raises issues or concerns that cannot be addressed by classification at a particular category, we may require cuts or other changes as a condition of classification.

Our Classification Guidelines state that such cuts may be required to portrayals of sexual violence that make rape, other non-consensual sexually violent behaviour or sadistic violence look appealing.

The Classifiers noted that the volume and detail of the real sexual activity in Thriller: A Cruel Picture far exceeds previous, and very rare, precedents for unsimulated (or apparently unsimulated) sexual activity during scenes of sexual violence in films classified by the BBFC. They unanimously agreed that the nature and quantity of the explicit and unsimulated images, in the context of scenes of sexual violence, is such that their effect is to eroticise rape in a manner that poses a risk of harm to viewers under the Video Recordings Act 1984.

The Classifiers determined that the scenes breached the BBFC's Guidelines and policy on depictions of sexual violence, and that cuts were therefore required to remove all explicit imagery in order to make the film suitable for classification at 18.