The people who support incest porn are a lot less talkative.
As such our windsock government with no strong beliefs does what the survey says is most popular.
The people who support incest porn are a lot less talkative.
I think there is an argument to made the pornography in general is harmful.
But to single out one single type of porn strikes me as... very odd. Maybe politicians can list, explicitly, all the other porn genres they find acceptable or agreeable to them, as a kind of compare and contrast exercise.
> So-called "barely legal" pornography and content depicting sexual relationships between step-relatives are set to be banned amid efforts to regulate intimate image sharing.
> Peers agreed by a majority of one to ban videos and images depicting relationships that would not be allowed in real life.
> They also agreed by 142 votes to 140, majority two, to bring intimate pictures and videos of adults pretending to be children in line with similar images of real children.
There's actually a 200+ page government review of pornography https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/creating-a-safer-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_interventio...
https://www.salon.com/2026/01/06/department-of-justice-quiet...
Let's say they did. Would you be saying "So what?" then too?
You can be against freespeech restrictions in Britain and the 2024 Trump Administrations braindead military and foreign policy.
If I attack either, I am not taking the people in the countries whose politicians make the decisions.
Legally speaking, British people are subjects, not citizens.
In 1983, the status of CUKC was renamed to British citizen (for those CUKCs resident in or closely connected with the UK: the situation in the remaining colonies was more complicated). At the same time, the status of British subject was officially restricted to those few British subjects who didn't qualify for citizenship of the UK or of any other Commonwealth country in 1949, and who were formerly known as "British subjects without citizenship".
So we are officially and legally citizens, not subjects.
Right to vote was already established before the change of the name (subject->citizen).
So, what changed? Well subjects have “privileges” that are afforded from the monarch, and citizens have “rights” which are given from the state.
Except:
1) In olde english law, the monarch and the state are literally the same thing.
2) Rights seem to be pretty loosely followed if they’re actually, you know, RIGHTS, and not privileges afforded from the state.
I’d say that semantically the difference is how the words make you feel, not the actual applicability of the terms to anything that has been realised.
