Censor Watch

On Monday 2 November, MPs will debate a petition relating to the proposed ban on social media for under 16s.

Tony Vaughan MP, a member of the Petitions Committee, has been asked by the Committee to open the debate. MPs from all parties can take part, and the Government will send a minister to respond.

The petition reads:

Do not ban social media for under 16s

The petition, which received more than 217,000 signatures, states: I think the government shouldn't ban social media for under 16s. This is because for many young people social media is how they communicate with their friends. Some people view social media as a lifeline. A community, a supportive network. This is why I think the government shouldn't ban it.

In its response to the petition, provided on 4 March 2026, the Government said:

The government recognises the benefits of digital technologies, including social media, for children. We are consulting on how to ensure children have an enriching and positive experience online.

See full response from petition.parliament.uk

Petitions debates are general debates which allow MPs from all parties to discuss the important issues raised by one or more petitions, and put their concerns to Government Ministers.

Petition debates don't end with a vote to implement the request of a petition. This means MPs will not vote on the request of the petitions at the end of the debate. Instead, the aim is to give MPs an opportunity to discuss the issues raised by a petition, and get a response from the Government.

Casino Royale is a 2006 US/UK/Czech/Germany/Bahamas spy film by Martin Campbell.
With Daniel Craig, Eva Green and Judi Dench.  

Originally cut according to BBFC for a 12 rating. The film was also cut in the US but differently for a PG-13 rating. The uncut version was later released on Blu-ray with a 15 rating in the UK and MPAA Unrated in the US. The uncut version was downrated to BBFC 12A for 2026 cinema release.

Summary Notes

James Bond goes on his first ever mission as a 00. Le Chiffre is a banker to the world's terrorists. He is participating in a poker game at Montenegro, where he must win back his money, in order to stay safe among the terrorist market. The boss of MI6, known simply as M sends Bond, along with Vesper Lynd to attend this game and prevent Le Chiffre from winning. Bond, using help from Felix Leiter, Mathis and having Vesper pose as his wife, enters the most important poker game in his already dangerous career. But if Bond defeats Le Chiffre, will he and Vesper Lynd remain safe?

Cutting Edge

A video and detailed description of the BBFC and MPAA cuts in
Gavin Salkeld's Cutting Edge 11: Casino Royale
See more from Cutting Edge

Versions

uncut run: 144:21s pal: 138:35s		UK: Uncut and BBFC 12A rated for moderate violence, threat, injury detail, language, sex: 2026 Park Circus cinema release (rated 22/09/2026) titled Casino Royale (20th Anniversary Edition) The BBFC commented (with thanks to Joseph): Over the two decades since the film's original release, audience familiarity with the James Bond series' darker, more grounded tone in the Daniel Craig films has grown. Contemporary viewers expect a higher degree of threat and intensity in modern action cinema compared to the expectations of 2006 or 2012. Re-assessing the torture scene under current guidelines revealed that while the extended cut contains a small number of additional close-ups and reaction shots, it does not contain explicit bloodiness, gory detail or sexualised violence. The core elements causing impact, psychological threat and implied pain, remain substantially similar in tone to the theatrical 12A cut from 2006. The violence occurs within a fantastical spy-thriller setting rather than a realistic domestic or real-world context. Crucially, the scene relies heavily on dialogue and actor performance rather than graphic visual harm, and the protagonist ultimately survives and prevails, reducing the overall sense of lingering trauma. Under BBFC Classification Guidelines, the restored footage does not cross the threshold into sustained visual cruelty or graphic injury detail that would require a mandatory 15 rating. Consequently, the 20th anniversary complete international version is classified 12A for moderate violence, threat, injury detail, language, and sex, bringing it into alignment with the original theatrical release. UK: Passed 15 uncut for one scene of torture and strong action violence for: 2020 MGM (RB) 4K Blu-ray at UK Amazon titled Casino Royale (Extended Version) 2020 MGM Amazon Prime VoD [UK only] at UK Amazon 2015 20th Century Fox RB Blu-ray at UK Amazon 2015 20th Century Fox 23 Films Premium Edition RB Blu-ray UK Amazon 2015 20th Century Fox 23 Films RB Blu-ray at UK Amazon 2015 20th Century Fox 23 Films R2 DVD at UK Amazon 2013 Sony [Daniel Craig Triple Pack] R0 Blu-ray at UK Amazon 2012 MGM R0 Blu-ray [Bond 50 Collection] at UK Amazon 2012 MGM R0 Blu-ray at UK Amazon titled Casino Royale (Extended Version) The BBFC noted: Additional material in torture scene The BBFC later commented that not all the cut material was restored. Some material seen during the rough cut stage did not make the final cut, but the UK 15 rated release is now the definitive worldwide version. US: Casino Royale is uncut and MPAA Unrated: 2019 MGM [007 The Daniel Craig Collection] R0 4K Blu-ray at US Amazon US: Uncut for VoD streaming at Vudu (thanks to Neil)
advised category cuts cut: run: 144:08s pal: 138:22s		UK: Passed 12A/12 after BBFC advised category cuts were implemented for: 2015 20th Century Fox 23 Films R2 DVD at UK Amazon 2013 Sony [Daniel Craig Triple Pack] R2 DVD 2012 MGM [22 Film Collection] R2 DVD 2007 Sony R0 Blu-ray 2007 Sony R2 DVD 2006 cinema release The BBFC commented: Cut on BBFC advice in 2006: This film was originally seen by the BBFC in an unfinished version, for advice as to the film's suitability at '12A'. The BBFC advised the company that the torture scene placed too much emphasis on both the infliction of pain and the sadism of the villain for the requested '12A' category. When the completed version of the film was submitted for classification, reductions to the torture sequence had been made, including the removal of lingering shots of the rope, close shots of Bond's facial reaction and the substitution of a more distant shot of the beating compared to the original version. This re-edited version of the scene was considered acceptable at '12A', where the Guidelines permit violence provided there is no dwelling on detail or emphasis on injuries. Thanks to Floyd: The Region 3 DVD is uncut, but there's nothing graphic in the torture scene. There are a couple of lingering shots, most notably where Le Chiffre lands the rope gently on Bond's shoulder. In the cut version when there is a distant shot of him walking around Bond he says 'you've taken care of your body', and then in the next shot he's swinging the rope before hitting Bond. In the uncut version however, he lands the rope on his shoulder, and he leans over to him and says, 'such a waste'. The sound seems to be cut down as well of Chiffre swinging the rope before striking Bond, but nothing really shocking. It seems that the hopes of an uncut US release are premature. The Irish 15A is the same version as the UK release. It appears that the German version has suffered even more cuts than the US/UK versions to achieve a 12 rating. Perhaps the uncut version may have to wait on the (inevitable) Directors Cut.
cut cut: run: 144:10s pal: 138:24s		US: The PG-13 rated US region 1 release was cut. Through the use of numerous techniques including small snips, the shifting of edit points and alternative footage, Campbell re-edited the film's opening bathroom fight and the later stairwell fight to secure a PG-13 rating in the United States.

From 6 November 2026, it will be a criminal offence in England and Wales to possess or publish pornographic images that explicitly and realistically depict:

• strangulation or suffocation

• penetrative sexual activity between people who a reasonable person would think are related, or pretending to be related, in a certain way. This includes depictions of close familial relatives such as father and daughter or brother and sister, and certain step and foster relationships where one person is, or is pretending to be, under 18

• sexual activity between at least 2 people where a reasonable person would think at least one person is, or is pretending to be, under 16

The offences only capture pornography that shows people which appear, to a reasonable person, to be real.

The maximum penalty for possession is:

• 2 years' imprisonment for pornography that depicts strangulation or suffocation, or penetrative sexual activity between certain relatives;

• 3 years' imprisonment for pornography depicting sexual activity involving a person who is, or is pretending to be, under 16

The maximum penalty for publication for all offences is 5 years' imprisonment.

There are defences available for these offences. For example, a person may have a defence to the possession and publication offences if they had not seen the image before and did not know, or have cause to suspect, that it was an image covered by the offences.

There is also a defence where the person who possesses or publishes the image directly participated in the act shown in the image and other criteria are met. For the possession offences, there is also a defence where a person was sent the image without asking for it (either themselves, or through a third party) and did not keep it for an unreasonable length of time.

The offences also attract a defence of legitimate reason for possessing or publishing the image.

What we mean by possession and publication

The term possess is not defined in the legislation and will be given its ordinary meaning. Whether a person possesses an image will be a question of fact for the court in each case. However, we consider that possessing an image will generally mean having custody or control of it. This could include where an image is stored on a device, retained in a personal account or cloud, saved in files, or otherwise kept physically or virtually.

Publish is defined in the offences to include giving or making an image available to another person by any means. This could include uploading, posting, sending, sharing or distributing an image. What we mean by strangulation and suffocation

The term strangulation is not defined in the legislation and will be given its ordinary meaning. Whether an image depicts strangulation will be a question of fact for the court in each case. We consider that strangulation generally means one person applying pressure to another person's neck.

The term suffocation is not defined in the legislation and will be given its ordinary meaning. Whether an image depicts suffocation will be a question of fact for the court in each case. We consider that suffocation will generally mean depriving a person of air in a way that affects their ability to breathe. Unlike strangulation, this does not require pressure to the neck. It could, for example, involve covering someone's mouth and nose or compressing their chest.

What you need to do before 6 November 2026

Possession is a continuing act. If you already possess an image covered by these offences, you will need to permanently delete it or otherwise get rid of it before 6 November 2026 to avoid committing an offence once the offences come into force.

Publication can also be a continuing act. If you have uploaded, posted or otherwise made an image covered by these offences available whether online or offline, you will need to remove it and stop making it available to others before 6 November 2026.

If you possess or are continuing to publish an image covered by these offences, you must stop doing so before they come into force. This means if you possess it, you need to permanently delete it or otherwise get rid of it before commencement. If you are continuing to publish it (whether online or offline), you need to remove it and stop publication before commencement.

The government has commissioned British Board of Film Censorship to test the feasibility of censoring online pornography for violent and abusive content.

The pilot by the BBFC will inform ministerial decisions on the most effective way to censor world wide websites potentially resulting in a formal online censor.

A government commissioned review by anti porn peer Gabby Bertin has resulted in new criminal offences for the publication and possession of certain types of online pornography, including strangulation, incest, step-incest and adults role-playing as children.

The laws will come into force by the 6th November. However Baroness Bertin said for the legislation to be effective there also needed to be more proactive regulation, including spot checking and auditing.

Bertin's review had suggested the BBFC audit websites, given its experience monitoring offline pornography for 40 years. They have previously raised concerns about the disparity between online and offline regulation and said they stand ready to expand their remit.

They were awarded a three-month contract for an Audit of Internet Services pilot in July. The pilot includes generating evidence on the availability of certain online pornographic content and evaluating how it could be monitored and reported on at scale given the huge size of the market.

Such a porn censor would need funding for staff to monitor content as well as new technology. Baroness Bertin proposed a model where porn companies as well as social media companies and search engines pay for it.

Bertin suggested that users would appreciate a BBFC censored website saying:

You are then saying to users, we are tried and tested and if you come into our site you won't see illegal content.

She said as well as monitoring for illegal content, an auditor could draw up guidance to address the grey area of material that is not illegal but would be banned in the offline world. It could also do spot checks for age of performers and consent, and help bring down sites that are not behind an age gate or are showing illegal content - either through having its own statutory powers or working alongside Ofcom.

Ofcom has the power to fines sites that don't comply with new age verification requirements that came into force last year as part of the Online Safety Act, but Baroness Bertin said the system is too slow. It should also be noted that only a couple of websites have actually paid Ofcom fines.

Ali G: Who Iz I? is a 2026 UK/US comedy by Sacha Baron Cohen
Starring Sacha Baron Cohen, Morgana Robinson and Stewart Rodeheaver

Hip-hop journalist Ali G returns after 20 years to make a documentary with real people. Cameras follow him for over a year as he takes classes, walks the streets, and appears on shows, often with his pregnant girlfriend.

The Daily Mail has reported on an AI assisted campaign trying to prevent Ali G: Who Iz I? from being shown at cinemas.

Ali G is returning to cinemas in October following a 20-year hiatus during which, as Ali G puts it, the world went to crap.

In the hours that following the release of the movie trailer, a most peculiar series of events played out. It involved a short-lived but apparently extremely high-profile campaign to have Ali G: Who Iz I? banned from worldwide cinemas. This campaign claimed that the entire film, along with its central character, is somehow racist.

Out of nowhere, people who appeared to be offended by Baron Cohens trailer had launched a letter-writing campaign. Before long, more than 50,000 messages were sent to cinema chains, calling for the film to be blacklisted. The social media accounts of firms such as Odeon were similarly bombarded. Each of 50,000 complaint emails was different. Some were written in the local language, they had a variety of subject lines and, while none were exactly the same length, many were extremely detailed.

The attempt to cancel Baron Cohen was in fact a highly organised Ai assisted campaign. It was also very well financed. The campaign was apparently orchestrated via an internet platform named NewsCord, which devotes most of its resources to opposing Israel. A NewsCord user wishing to join the campaign against Sacha Baron Cohen needs only to enter their own email address in a box. The website will then create 20 unique complaint AI assisted emails in their name and send them out to cinema chains and the BBFC.

The Information Commissioner's Office has formally transitioned its name to the Information Commission.

Under new governance arrangements introduced by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, the work of the ICO is now overseen by a new Information Commission Board. The transition comes as the regulator opens its new headquarters in Manchester.

The Board's non-executive members have now  formally assumed their roles today. One of the Board's first actions was to appoint Maggie Carver as Deputy Chair of the Information Commission.

The legal entity will be known as the Information Commission, which is overseen by the Board. The organisation will be referred to as the Information Commission's Office, or ICO. The transition moves the ICO from a corporation sole (the Information Commissioner) to a collective decision-making Board.