AssortedKinks - Kinky Buffet

Guy in South Yorkshire with a multitude of kinks.

[AssortedKinks - Kinky Buffet @AssortedKinks]

@brown_fide27642 2/2

Banning a depiction in porn changes nothing. The act is still legal between consenting adults. Mainstream cinema can display it freely. Using one or more community label isn't "concealment"—it's defining it.

Safe practice exists, whether you understand them or not.

[AssortedKinks - Kinky Buffet @AssortedKinks]

🧵1/8

Long rant incoming regarding the stupid fucking UK government being arse-ended fuckwits without a braincell between them.

Under the new rules, the government has essentially made it a crime to look at, own or film depictions of things you can legally do in the UK.

[AssortedKinks - Kinky Buffet @AssortedKinks]

@brown_fide27642 1/2

Saying "there is no safe way" ignores the difference between hazard and risk. A hazard is the inherent potential to cause harm; risk is the likelihood of it happening. Practitioners know the dangers and actively mitigate them through strict consent and communication.

[AssortedKinks - Kinky Buffet @AssortedKinks]

@HidingSmith @Timmay1Timmay I concede with a VPN possession is more likely, but is still a high bar as the CPS would need to prove that you used a VPN for that express purpose and that any incidental viewing was not purposeful.

But there are legit uses to having a VPN on all the time.

[AssortedKinks - Kinky Buffet @AssortedKinks]

@JXenophon40231 @HidingSmith I admit censorship is no novelty, and I do not subscribe to rigid absolutes. Yet, prohibition demands a foundation sturdier than mere moral philosophy. It requires founding rationality, sound logic, and clarity of purpose. Every boundary drawn must articulate precisely why.

[AssortedKinks - Kinky Buffet @AssortedKinks]

@NubbHBD 2/2

And whilst it add the caveat;

(b)at least one of A and B was, or was pretending to be, under 18.

That can be determined by;

(d)a reasonable person—

(i)looking at the image, and

(ii)taking into account any sound or information associated with the image, would think it

[AssortedKinks - Kinky Buffet @AssortedKinks]

@NubbHBD 1/2

Actually it states;

(3)That—

(a)A and B were related or had been related, or were pretending to be related or to have been related, such that A was or had been related to B as step-parent, step-child, stepbrother, stepsister, foster parent or foster child,

[AssortedKinks - Kinky Buffet @AssortedKinks]

@JXenophon40231 @HidingSmith Yes, but that was to protect minors from exploitation. Here the subjects are consenting adults engaging in roleplay, no play where other people's subjective perception is a deciding factor of criminality.

[AssortedKinks - Kinky Buffet @AssortedKinks]

@HidingSmith @Timmay1Timmay Not going to deny the fallout or possession. But this was all done to stop people viewing it, well that's not going to work.

You can't retweet such content from abroad but you will be able to view and like it on here still.

[AssortedKinks - Kinky Buffet @AssortedKinks]

@HidingSmith I know it's a lot to ask isn't it.

But it feels like the ghost of Mary Whitehouse is haunting the British Isles these days.

The new porn ban is pure political virtue signalling, with no real proactive enforcement means.

It just makes MPs look like they have morals suddenly.

[AssortedKinks - Kinky Buffet @AssortedKinks]

@Timmay1Timmay @HidingSmith The enforcement will be joke. We saw it in 2025 with the last ban.

VPN searches on Google went from 500% to 700% overnight. With one VPN signup I think jumping up 1,400%.

Ofcom even saw VPN usage go from 650,000 to more than 1.4 million.

It won't work this time either.

[AssortedKinks - Kinky Buffet @AssortedKinks]

@SwitchUK_v3 £100k a year and the best MPs can give us are vague clarifications on what is and isn't legal, and definitions like "reasonable person" or "fanciful" as a legal defence.

Total joke. I hope the lot of them get caught with it on their government laptops and phones.

[AssortedKinks - Kinky Buffet @AssortedKinks]

@lostt0neverland Not necessarily since it states;

(3)A person is not to be taken as pretending to be under 16 if it is fanciful that they are actually under 16 in the way pretended.

However, and understandably, no one wants to risk prison testing how well such an clause protects them.

[AssortedKinks - Kinky Buffet @AssortedKinks]

@HidingSmith Even if it’s an extension of old lists, the logic is 🐎💩 here. There’s no rationale for:

• Criminalising media showing something that is perfectly legal to do

• Banning content on adult sites that is legal elsewhere

• Replacing objective facts with subjective "perception"

[AssortedKinks - Kinky Buffet @AssortedKinks]

8/8 By shifting from actual physical harm to moral filters—and trading biological truth for visual "perception"—this Act tomorrow creates a legal minefield for regular people, whilst a simple VPN and deleting your cache, images and/or videos makes it completely unenforceable.

[AssortedKinks - Kinky Buffet @AssortedKinks]

7/8 📱 THE OWNERSHIP TRAP

✔️ Legal: Committing these acts privately.

❌ Criminal Liability: Retweeting the media from a foreign account or privately owning it on your device, without distribution can land you in court.