1912-1949

• In the past, the BBFC did not have any written rules or code of practice.
• Policy evolved along practical lines, whilst seeking to reflect public attitudes. Since 2000, the BBFC has operated under a series of published Guidelines, available on the BBFC's websites. These Guidelines are flexible and stress the importance of taking into consideration the context of each individual work. They are reviewed on a regular basis, which entails a period of extensive public consultation, the most recent of which took place in 2008.
• Standards have evolved throughout the Board’s ninety seven year history. 
• The shifts in standards are linked to external changes - new legislation, developments in technology, the social and historical climate of the period, and the accompanying changes in social attitudes. This evolution must therefore be examined in the wider cultural and historical context. Here are some key stages in the Board’s early history.

 1916, T.P.O'Connor 

When T. P. O’Connor was appointed President of the BBFC, one of his first tasks was to give evidence to the Cinema Commission of Inquiry, set up by the National Council of Public Morals in 1916. He summarised the Board's Policy by listing forty-three grounds for deletion laid down for the guidance of examiners.
 
1. Indecorous, ambiguous and irreverent titles and subtitles

2. Cruelty to animals

3. The irreverent treatment of sacred subjects

4. Drunken scenes carried to excess

5. Vulgar accessories in the staging

6. The modus operandi of criminals

7. Cruelty to young infants and excessive cruelty and torture to adults, especially women

8. Unnecessary exhibition of under-clothing

9. The exhibition of profuse bleeding

10. Nude figures

11. Offensive vulgarity, and impropriety in conduct and dress

12. Indecorous dancing

13. Excessively passionate love scenes

14. Bathing scenes passing the limits of propriety

15. References to controversial politics

16. Relations of capital and labour

17. Scenes tending to disparage public characters and institutions

18. Realistic horrors of warfare

19. Scenes and incidents calculated to afford information to the enemy

20. Incidents having a tendency to disparage our Allies

21. Scenes holding up the King’s uniform to contempt or ridicule

22. Subjects dealing with India, in which British Officers are seen in an odious light, and otherwise attempting to suggest the disloyalty of British Officers, Native States or bringing into disrepute British prestige in the Empire

23. The exploitation of tragic incidents of the war

24. Gruesome murders and strangulation scenes

25. Executions

26. The effects of vitriol throwing

27. The drug habit. e.g. opium, morphia, cocaine, etc

28. Subjects dealing with White Slave traffic

29. Subjects dealing with premeditated seduction of girls

30. 'First Night' scenes

31. Scenes suggestive of immorality

32. Indelicate sexual situations

33. Situations accentuating delicate marital relations

34. Men and women in bed together

35. Illicit relationships

36. Prostitution and procuration

37. Incidents indicating the actual perpetration of criminal assaults on women

38. Scenes depicting the effect of venereal disease, inherited or acquired

39. Incidents suggestive of incestuous relations

40. Themes and references relative to 'race suicide'

41. Confinements

42. Scenes laid in disorderly houses

43. Materialization of the conventional figure of Christ

 The Years Between the Wars

•  During this period the kind of material that caused concern included horror and gangster films, as well as those that dealt with aspects of sexuality.
• Some councils were beginning to bar children from films classified 'A', even when they had been cut by the BBFC to achieve a certificate.
• For example, the London County Council and Manchester City Council banned children from Frankenstein (1931), although a sequence in which the monster drowns a small girl had already been cut. In response to such material, the advisory category 'H' (for horror) was agreed in 1932, to indicate the potential unsuitability for children of the horror theme.

 1948m Arthur Watkins

 

Arthur Watkins was appointed Secretary to the Board in 1948, under the Presidency of Sir Sidney Harris. Many film-makers sought the Board's advice on scripts before films went into production. Watkins and Harris formulated new terms of reference for the Board based on three principles:

 

• was the story, incident or dialogue likely to impair the moral standards of the public by extenuating vice or crime or depreciating moral standards?
• Was it likely to give offence to reasonably minded cinema audiences?
• What effect would it have on children?

The effect on children was of major importance since, apart from the advisory 'H' category, from which some councils already chose to bar children, there was no category that excluded children. An 'adults only' category was increasingly seen as desirable, not only to protect children, but as an extension of the freedom of film-makers to treat adult subjects in an adult fashion.

1950s

• The Fifties saw the end of rationing and a gradual increase in prosperity.
• One development that stemmed from this apparent affluence was the emergence of 'youth' as a group with a defined identity and as a target for consumer goods, as young people with disposable income became an attractive proposition for those selling records, clothes and all the trappings of the teenager.
• Controversial subjects on film were accommodated in the UK under the new 'X' category, introduced in 1951and incorporating the former advisory 'H' category given to horror films. As the growth of television ownership eroded the adult/family cinema audience, films like Rock Around The Clock(1956) drew teenage audiences. Cut for U, this film caused rioting in cinemas and fuelled increasing concern about teenage criminality, although there was in fact no evidence of a teenage crime wave as suggested by the popular Press. 
• The new 'X' category excluded children under 16.
• The Board did not allow anti-social behaviour and teen violence, and also had a long-standing policy against screen nudity, partly on the grounds that if they encouraged more nudity on screen, they would be inviting sexual exploitation. This nudity policy was overturned in 1958.
• The topic of drugs exercised the BBFC to a considerable degree during the decade. The Code was amended in 1956 to allow for the treatment of narcotics as a theme. Devil's Weed was rejected in 1951, because the Board felt that the moral lessons about the evils of drugs use were not made sufficiently clear.

1960s

Liberalisation

• Challenges to the Obscene Publications Act, in cases such as the successful defence in 1960 of the novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover, suggested a strong shift in public opinion, when a jury acquitted this work.
• John Trevelyan, as Secretary to the Board, responded to the new spirit of liberalism by stating: "The British Board of Film Censors cannot assume responsibility for the guardianship of public morality. It cannot refuse for exhibition to adults films that show behaviour that contravenes the accepted moral code, and it does not demand that ‘the wicked’ should also be punished. It cannot legitimately refuse to pass films which criticise ‘the Establishment’ and films which express minority opinions".
• However, the decade began with a challenge in the form of Michael Powell's Peeping Tom, which had been seen by the Board at the script stage and provoked a remark from Trevelyan about its 'morbid concentration on fear'. Various cuts had been suggested at script stage, and the film was passed 'X' in 1960 with cuts. Critics greeted the film with a torrent of abuse and it failed to please the public, damaging Powell's reputation. The video remained an '18' work until 2007 when it was reclassified and passed '15'.
• New realism took hold in British films
• As public tolerance increased in the sweeping social change of the sixties, films became more explicit, but in practice the Board still requested cuts, usually to verbal and visual 'indecency'. Ingmar Bergman's 1964 The Silence created a stir because of its treatment of sexual matters . After extensive consultation with the distributor and the director, Trevelyan passed the film 'X' with 35 seconds of cuts to sex scenes.  

 

1970s

Changes in the Category System

• During the sixties it was recognised that teenagers had specific concerns of their own which ought to be reflected in the category system.
• The introduction of the 'AA' was finally approved by local authorities and the industry in 1970.The old 'A' (advisory) category was split to create a new advisory 'A' which permitted the admission of children of five years or over whether accompanied or not, but which warned parents that a film in this category would contain some material that parents might prefer their children under fourteen not to see, and a new 'AA' certificate which allowed the admission of those over 14, but not under 14, whether accompanied or not.

Sexual Violence and Other Controversies

• A new ratings system in the United States included an uncensored 'X' category, left to the sole control of the criminal law.
• The seventies therefore saw the release of a number of provocative films, in particular those that linked sex and violence, for example A Clockwork Orange (1971), which contained controversial rape scenes. In the case of this film the decision of the BBFC to award an 'X' was overturned by a number of local authorities. 
• Stephen Murphy, who became Secretary of the Board in July 1971, resigned in 1975 and was succeeded by James Ferman. In an early interview, Ferman remarked that it wasn't sex that worried him but violence and, in particular sexual violence.  During his time at the BBFC, Ferman permitted increasingly explicit sexual material whilst clamping down on sadistic and sexual violence. One of the first films Ferman looked at was The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, which his predecessor had already refused to classify shortly before his departure.  Ferman agreed with Murphy that the violence and terrorisation in the film (directed largely towards a woman over a sustained period) was unacceptable.
• Ferman's attitudes and policies reflected a more general shift of public concern during the 1970s, away from arguments about the explicitness of screen representations towards a consideration of any possible corrupting influence. 
• Prior to 1977 the Obscene Publications Act did not apply to cinema films and films were judged on the basis of whether any individual scene might be considered 'indecent', regardless of context. The extension of the OPA to films in 1977 gave the BBFC more latitude when considering depictions of sex in films since they now had to be considered 'as a whole'. 
• The OPA also required that the Board consider whether a scene might deprave and corrupt its likely audience.

1980s

Home Viewing

• The development of the video recorder created new anxieties about the home viewing of feature films. Legally, there was no requirement that videos should be classified, which meant that films that had not been approved by the BBFC or which were suitable for adults only, were falling into the hands of children.
• In particular the tabloid press led a campaign against so called 'video nasties'. This term was not always clearly defined, but there were 70 titles that had either been prosecuted by the DPP under the Obscene Publications Act, or were awaiting prosecution. Some of these were horror films that had never been submitted to the BBFC. Others had been cut for their cinema release, and the video versions sometimes included restored cuts.
• The outcome of this concern was new legislation,The Video Recordings Act 1984, makes it an offence for a video work to be supplied if it has not been classified, or to supply a classified work to a person under the age specified in the certificate.  
• One example is The House On The Edge Of The Park. It was rejected by the Board in 1981 for serious violations of the sexual violence standards. It was formally submitted on video for the first time in 2001 and cut for '18'.  Most of the cuts were made for sexual violence under the BBFC's Guidelines.
• When former 'video nasties' like those above are submitted to the Board, they are examined under current Guidelines, and their legal history considered.  It is usually possible to make cuts to ensure a modern release, although many of them continue to test the Guidelines for sexual violence.

 1982 - Review of the category system

• In 1982 'A' was changed to 'PG', 'AA' was changed to '15' and 'X' became '18'. A new category 'R18' was introduced which permitted more explicit sex films to be shown in members-only  clubs. 
• Previously, such clubs had shown material unclassified by the BBFC, but a change in the law closed this loophole.  Since the mid 1980s most 'R18' material is released on video, only available from a limited number of sex shops which must be specially licensed by local authorities.
• In 1985, at the request of the industry, the 'Uc' was introduced for video only, to identify works specifically suitable for very young children to watch alone.
• In 1989 the BBFC introduced the '12' certificate on film, to bridge the huge gap between 'PG' and '15'. This was extended to video in 1994. The first film to be given a '12' rating was Batman.

1990s

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act

• The 1990s saw public concern about the influence of videos over aspects such as violence increasing, most notable following the Jamie Bulger case, which the media claimed was linked to the film Child's Play 3.
• Subsequent enquires refuted this connection, but public opinion rallied behind calls for stricter regulation. This was supported in Parliament with a new act (the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994)introduced to the Video Recordings Act. It requires the Board to consider specific issues, and the potential for harm, when making video classification decisions. 
• At the time that the new legislation was being discussed and implemented, the BBFC was being asked to look at a number of extremely violent and drug-filled films, which further fuelled the debate about media effects. 
• While the Board waited to see what form the Criminal Justice Act would take, decisions on the video releases of a number of films were held up, although all five films were eventually classified, in some cases with additional cuts, reflecting the requirements of the new tests.
• Perhaps the film that provoked the most controversy at the time was Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers, whose video release was held up by its own distributor (despite having been classified by the BBFC) until 2001. 

 Other controversies

• In 1997 the BBFC's President, Lord Harewood, stepped down after 12 years in the job.  His replacement, Andreas Whittam Smith, announced his intention to steer the BBFC towards a greater 'openness and accountability'. 
• This included the publication of the BBFC's first set of classification guidelines in 1998, following a series of public 'roadshows' in which public views were canvassed and the launching of a BBFC website. 

Digital Media

• The 1990s also saw rapid developments in the world of computer games, which seemed to become more realistic and sophisticated with each passing year.  Although the majority of video games were automatically exempt from classification, those that featured realistic violence against humans or animals, or human sexual activity, did come under the scope of the Video Recordings Act. 
• From 1994 the BBFC started to receive some of the stronger video games for formal classification, which necessitated a different way of examining (because it was impossible to see everything that might happen in a game). 
• In 1997, for the first time, the BBFC refused a certificate to the game Carmageddon, on the grounds that it encouraged anti-social behaviour.  This decision was later overturned on appeal, subject to the provison that the game must be fitted with a parental lock to prevent it being accessed by children.

 1999, Robin Duval

Robin Duval became the Director on the retirement of James Ferman who had held the position since 1975.

• Standards continued to evolve, with due consideration of recent relevant research, shifts in public attitudes, and the developments in comparable media such as terrestrial, satellite and cable television and the internet.  
• 1999 also saw the removal of the BBFC's controversial policy on oriental weaponry (most notably chainsticks), originally implemented by Stephen Murphy in the early 1970s but continued zealously by James Ferman. Whilst the refusal to allow sight of exotic - and potentially easily manufactured - weaponry had been a reaction to real concerns back in the 1970s a total prohibition on sight of such weapons was no longer considered necessary or particularly constructive.  Such weapons were less prevalent than they had been in the past and information on them was in any case widely available in books, magazines and on the internet.
• Emphasis was accordingly changed from removing all evidence of unusual weapons towards a policy of being concerned about the glamorisation of any weapons (but especially knives), particularly at the junior categories. 

2000s

New Guidelines 2000 

New Guidelines were introduced in 2000, following extensive public consultation in 1999. The process involved a series of public presentations across the UK, 2 cititzens' juries surveys and questionnaires as well as contributions from the film and video industry. Major outcome was that drugs/drug use was parents' greatest cause of concern, as well as violence in lower classification categories. Portrayal of sexual activity however caused less concern than previously.

Controversy

In 1999 the BBFC received three European films that challenged the Board's standards on sex.  All three films contained scenes of unsimultated sex that would not normally have been be acceptable at '18'.  However, as the Board moved into the new millennium it soon became clear that these were not to be isolated examples.  A whole generation of European film makers seemed determined to push the boundaries of what was sexually acceptable on the screen. Fortunately, the 1999-2000 consultation exercise had revealed a general desire on the part of the public that the BBFC should relax its attitudes to sex at '15' and '18'.  Accordingly the new guidelines stated that real sex may be permitted at '18' in the future, provided that the images were exceptionally justified by context (ie not purely there for titillation).

However, once sexual violence entered the equation, things became more complicated. One example was Baise-moi which included not only scenes of explicit sex but also a horrifying rape scene, which incorporated explicit detail.


The DCMS and Ofcom

In June 2001, governmental responsibility for film and video classification moved from the Home Office to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Ofcom is the new regulator for television, radio, telecommunications and wireless communications services. The regulation of films, videos and DVDs does not fall under Ofcom's remit and remains the responsibility of the BBFC. The BBFC is still the only regulator which regulates material before it is seen by the public .

The '12A' rating

In 2002, the new '12A' category was introduced, allowing children under 12 to see a '12A' film, provided that they are accompanied throughout by an adult. This decision to was taken after a pilot scheme and research had been conducted to assess public reaction. The new category was also conditional on the provision and publication of Consumer Advice for '12A' films.  The Board considers '12A' films to be suitable for audiences OVER the age of 12, but acknowledges that parents know best whether their children younger than 12 can cope with a particular film. 

Consumer Advice

While the BBFC has been producing Consumer Advice for films which appeared on the website, it was the introduction of the '12A' category which saw its appearance on film posters, TV advertisements and in cinema listings for '12A' films.  A single line of information about the film's content indicates what viewers can expect to encounter in the film and therefore why it was given its rating.  This is particularly helpful for parents deciding what films are suitable for their children, and in particular whether to take children younger than 12 to a '12A' film.  In 2004, the majority of film distributors agreed to include the Consumer Advice in publicity for all films.

New Guidelines 2005

On 9 February 2005, the BBFC published a new set of Guidelines based on an even more extensive research programme than the one which resulted in the 2000 Guidelines.  Over 11,000 people contributed their views on the BBFC's Guidelines, Public support for the BBFC went up from 59% in 2000 to 63% in 2004.

Important 2006 Decisions

In 2006, landmark ‘18’ certificates were awarded to two high-profile films containing explicit images of real sex. The Observer’s Philip French stated that ‘The award of 18 certificates by the BBFC to Shortbus and Destricted has brought close the abolition of censorship, but not of classification.’

2007


2007 saw the introduction of Parents’ BBFC, a website designed to help parents and guardians make what they consider to be sensible choices for their children’s viewing. The website provides up -to -date information about films and video games in the junior categories, offering a brief plot summary and details of why the film or game received its U, PG or 12A/12. The purpose of the website is to take the guesswork out of making an informed decision about what is suitable viewing for any particular child, a decision best made by a parent or guardian.

New Guidelines 2009

On 23 June 2009, the BBFC published its most recent set of Guidelines based on another detailed public consultation exercise conducted in 2008-2009.  Over 8,700 people contributed their views on the BBFC's Guidelines, in the form of lengthy questionnaires and focus groups.  82% of the general public felt that the BBFC was ‘effective’, which is around the same figure as that produced by the 2004 research.

PCC Case Studies

• Which clauses of the Code are relevant to these cases?
• Do you think that the Code of Practice was broken in any of these cases?
• Could a public interest justification be made in any of these examples?

Case Study 1: A man vs. The Northwich Guardian

• Clause 6 Children, Clause 3 Privacy and Clause 9 Reporting of Crime are all relevant to the case.
• In my opinion, the Code of Practice was not broken in any of these cases: a * next to each of these clauses clearly states that the public interest is strong enough to overrule in cases involving the detection or exposion crime, and the protection of public health and safety.
• It also states that "The PCC will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain" (which the YouTube video undisputably already was, and was uploaded by the boys themselves).
• For this reason I think that the comlaint was upheld.

Case Study 2: A man vs. Zoo magazine

• Clauses 3 and 6 are the most relevant to this case.
• I do not think that Code of Practice was broken - their loud behaviour and obscene gestures meant that they were already drawing attention to themselves, and that the father was not at that point concerned about other members of the public or who else could see them. Furthermore, her welfare is not in concern, and they were in a public place.
• For this reason I think that the complaint was upheld.

Case Study 3: A man vs. The Times

• The relevant clauses are Clause 4, Harrasment, and Clause 6. Clause 4 states that "journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent persuit", and Clause 6 goes on to state that "A child under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child's welfare unless a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents".
• This therefore means that the journalist was clearly in breach of the code, as he persisted in following the boy to an internet cafe and allegedly texted and called him, and I do not think public interest would overrule in this case. None of his comments or photographs were published, however.
• Upheld

Case Study 4: A woman vs. The Independent

• Clauses 1 Accuracy and 3 are the most relevant, stating that "everyone is entitled to his or her private and family lives, home, health and correspondence. Editors will be expected to justify intrustions into any individual's private life without consent", and that "the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information".
• She had not told her family so the report was in breach of both of the above clauses.
• Upheld - they offered to print an apology, and apologized privately.

Case Study 5: A woman vs. The Sun

• The relevant clause is Clause 5, Intrustion into Grief or Shock.
• The coverage was brief and factual, treating the matter sensitively, and the event occured in a public place.
• For this reason I believe that the complaint was not upheld.

Case Study 6: A woman vs. The Eastbourne Gazette

• Harrassment, Hospitals, and Intrustion into Grief or Shock are the relevant three clauses.
• The journalist was very firmly in breach of all three of these clauses - he was asked several times to desist, and persisted in telephoning and visitng, and enters the hospital without indentifying himself.
• For this reason I believe that the complaint was upheld.

Case Study 7: A Police officer vs. The Sunday Telegraph

• Clandestine devices and subterfuge is the Clause in question, however public interest could be perceived to be a mitigating factor.
• I think that although, yes, the police offer is in the public eye and it is in public interest to obtain details about anything that may "sit uneasily" with members of the public, this is no excuse for the way in which the journalists acted, which I think was shameless, and asking to use the toilet in no way makes the information publicly available.
• I think personally that the complaint should have been upheld - although I'm not sure if it would have been.

Case Study 8: Paul McCartney vs. Hello! magazine

• Privacy and Intrustion into Grief or Shock is the Clause in question, although the fact that he was in a public place could be mitigating.
• I think that at such a difficult and sensitive time of their life however should have been respected and the journalists behaved shockingly.
• For this reason I believe that the complaint was upheld - an apology was sent directly to McCartney.  

BBFC Seminar

Caitlin, a lady who works on the BBFC board of comissioners who came to speak to us about her job, was extremely friendly and I learnt alot from her about the way film classification works. I was not aware that the BBFC are also responsible for the classification of games (although this responsibility is being transfered to Pegi next year, which Caitlin said she was disappointed about), and that they receive cheats and "god-modes" to help them unlock all of the levels when they test them out. It was a lot of fun debating our own opinions on age-ratings for recent films, and voicing our own views about the system. It was interesting to learn that the cheif comissioners' decision can overrule that of all of the other comissioners, and to find that they do not always get it right - for example with Juno, which they rated too low. A lot of the clips we had already been through in class so the seminar was also useful for revision and securing the basis our knowledge of the BBFC, and it was helpful and informative to receive an inside opinion.

The PCC Trip

I found the trip to the PCC really useful and informative. Because it is a voluntary set-up which the public don't pay for it came as a suprise for me to realise just how high-profile it was. We were given a talk in a board room by one of the commissioners. It was interesting working through the case studies with her and learning that the conclusions that they came to were not always obvious, and to learn just how many factors come into play during deliberation. What I found the most surprising of all is that there is no set precedent to determine whether freedom of expression, privacy, or public interest overrules. I was impressed to learn that they deal with requests over a maximum of 35 days, and also that editors subscribe up quite voluntarily, and on the whole do not attempt to breach the code, although in some instances they take large risks.

Code of Practice

The Code of Practice was updated in 2011.

1. Accuracy
2. Oppurtunity to reply
3. Privacy *
4. Harrassment *
5. Intrusion into grief and shock
6. Children *
7. Children in sex cases *
8. Hospitals *
9. Reporting of crime *
10. Clandestine devices and subterfuge *
11. Victims of sexual assult
12. Discrimination
13. Financial journalism
14. Confidential sources
15. Witness payments in criminal trials
16. Payment to criminals *

* = There may be exception to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interst.

The Press Complaints Commission

What does the PCC do?

• An independent body which deals with complaints about the editorial content of newspapers and magazines in the UK and their websites.
• It administers a sixteen clause Code of Practice which acts as the "rules" to which editors and journalists must adhere.
• They investiage complaints from people believe that the Code has been breached, either in a published article or in the way a journalist obtained the material.
• When there is a problem under the Code of the PCC acts as a mediator to help the editor and the comaplainant agree on a way to resolve the dispute, for example, by way of a published correction, apology and clairification.
• If the problem cannot be settled in this way, the Commission will assess the evidence and information provided by both sides in the dispute and will issue a formal judgement ("adjudication") on the complaint. The adjudication sets out the reasons why the complaint, the newspaper or magazine in question must publish the text of the PCC's critical adjudication in full, and in a prominent place in the newspaper.
• In some cases, the PCC will consider that during the course of its investigation, the publication has made an offer of remedial action that is satisfactory under the terms of the Code, and that therfore no further action is necessary. This might, for example, include the publication offering to publish a correction; writing a private letter from the editor to the complainant; or publishing a follow-up letter from the complainant.

How does the system work?

• The system of regulation administered by the PCC is not a legal one, nor is it run by the government.
• It is based on a voluntary agreement by the newspaper and magazine industry to allow itself to be regulated by an independent body.
• While the Code of Practice is drawn up by a committee of editors, the Commission itself has a clear majority of public members.
• 10 of the 17 Commissioners including the Chairman have no connection to newspapers/magazines.
• None of the PCC's staff are connected to the industry either.

What does the Code of Practice cover?

• The Code of Practice has 16 sections and covers four main areas:

1. Accuracy
2. Privacy
3. News Gathering
4. Protecting the Vulnerable

• An editor is expected to take responsibility for all the stories and photographs that appear in his or her publication and to ensure that they comply with the Code.
• Sometimes an editor may want to defend his publication or the behaviour of a journalist as being in the "public interest".
• The Code sets out the circumstances in which an editor may mount such a defence.
• The Code does not cover issues of taste and decency because the PCC recognises that in a democratic society, newspapers must have the freedom to choose the style in which they publish material in keeping with the Code of Practice.
• The Commission understands that people choose to look at a newspaper. They can therefore make an informed decision about which newspaper fits their own tastes.
• By contrast, advertising billboards, for instance may be on public view and so rules on taste may be appropriate.

How is the PCC funded?

• The PCC is funded through a body called the Press Standards Board of Finance which is responsible for collecting money from newspapers and magazines in the UK.
• The press has agreed that each newspaper or magazine should contribute an amount in proportion to the amount of people who buy it and read it (circulation) - so a large, national newspaper like the Sun will have to pay much more money than a small, local paper like the Stourbridge News, for example.
• Members of the public do not have to pay for the service either directly or indirectly through their taxes.
• The PCC does not receive any money from the government.

What is the history of the PCC?

• The PCC was set up in 1991 and replaced the Press Council, which had been set up in 1953 with the aim of maintaining high standards of journalism as well as protecting press freedom.
• During the 1980s, a small number of publications failed to observe the  basic ethics of journalism and this led many MPs to lose confidence in the Press Council, which they thought was weak and ineffective.
• Some politicaians believed it would be preferable to introduce a new regulatory authority which would come under government control and would have the power to enforce legal punishments.
• The Govermnets appointed a Departmental Committee under David Calcutt QC to consider the matter. Its task was "to consider what measures (whether legislative or otherwise) are needed to give further proection to individual privacy from the activities of the press and improve recourse against the press for the individual citizen".
• The report that followed did not recommend new statutory controls but proposed a new Press Complaints Commission which would have to prove "that a non-statutory regulation can be made to work effectively".
• A committee of national and regional editor was duly set up. They produced a formal Code of Practice for the Press Complaints Commission to administer. The Press Standards Board of Finance was set up to organise funding.
• Despite some inital teething problems, the PCC has continued to grow in respect and influence. The current Government has made it clear its support for effective self-regulation and for the work of the Press Complaints Commission.

Who complains to the PCC and what do they complain about?

• The PCC accepts complaints from anyone who believes an article involving them breaches the Code in some way. A number of celebrities have used the PCC's service in recent years, but most complaints are ordinary people.
• In 2007, 1.5% of complaints came from people in the public eye,  but the vast majority (95.8%) came from ordinary members of the public.
• The Code provides special protection to particularly vulnerable groups of people such as children, hospital patients and those at risk of discrimination.
• The majority of complaints to the Commission are about regional  newspapers, perhaps as a demonstration of the importance readers attach to the publication which will be seen by most people in their locality.

Why is the PCC important?

• In a democracy, the press should not be subject to stringent controls by law or government. The PCC, being an independent, voluntary organisation, protects against this possibility simply by its existence.
• However, being free does not mean the press should not be accountable - there has to be a balance. It is vital that there be some mechanism which sets out what people can expect from the press; and by which wrongs can be righted when the occur. The PCC is committed to protecting the public by ensuring that when the rules are broken it can put things right as soon as possible. It is fast (dealing with a complaints in an avergae of 35 days); it is free (it costs complainants nothing to use the service) and it is fair (the Commission is independent fom the industry it was set up to regulate).

The UK's Current Classification System

Do you think the way films are regulated is sensible, useful to society, and acheives its aim of protecting the vulnerable and upholding the law?

I think film regulation is completley necessary, most importantly because it is the easiest way for parents to decide for themselves what they will and won't allow their children to see, both in the cinema and on DVD. The certificates are sensible in that they provide a rough guideline based on what most children would be comfortable with at given ages, gaging the distress that is likely to be caused to children at each age group. I believe that the law is upheld effectively, as breiching of criminal law is strictly forbidden at all age ratings, and further to this any complaints that an audience or viewer may have may be taken up with their local council who, with enough complaints, can decide to prevent a cinema from screening a film Ultimately, however, film regulation can only be viable as regulation for parents to a certain extent: parents cannot expect to follow these guidelines religiously, as it is down to them to decide what they think will affect their child. The BBFC cannot regulate what parents allow their children to watch in the home.

What are the pros and cons?

Pros:

• Gives parents information so they can decide what to let their children watch.
• The vulnerable are protected.
• Local authorities can overthrow decisions made by the BBFC and prevent a film from being screened.
• The guidelines are updated and maintained in keeping with society's constantly changing beliefs.

Cons:

• Regulation is not enforced strictly (often shops and cinemas do not demand ID)
• What children will be affected by is subjective. You cannot generalize about the mental state of a child at a given age and what will/won't distress or upset them.
• It could be argued that regulation is in place to protect governments and companies rather than the people.
• Books, newspapers and other media are not censored.. why film?
• "Nanny state" - people relying on film companies to tell them what is suitable for their child.

 How do you think the system could be improved?


There are obvious flaws in the system but I find it hard to point out exactly where it is that these flaws should be improved - having a set certification system is obviously an extremely difficult and subjective task, and given the complexity of the issue, I think that BBFC have done a reasonable job. I think it is unfair to assume that age determines maturity, and for this reason perhaps there should be more information provided on actual content (perhaps a "H" for horror, an "S" for Sexual Behaviour, and so on). I also think that the parents website is not at all well advertised, and if parents were more aware of it this would be helpful. Aside from this though, I think that it is not down to the BBFC to act as parents - they merely provide a rough guideline. I do not think that they can be held accountable for the minute percent of the population who would, for example, watch an 18 film and imitate dangerous or violent behaviour they saw, or for a young child who watches an 18 film behind their parents back.

Differences Between Ratings

U > PG
- Discrimination may be allowed in an educational/historical context
- Infrequent drug references are allowed where an anti-drugs message is clear
- Unprolonged horror scenes are acceptable. Fantasy settings are mitigating.
- Where treated appropriately, or when clearly condoning behaviour, more adult themes are acceptable
- Violence is permitted but must lack detail and be justified by context.
- No imitable behaviour
- Mild bad language and very occasional natural nudity is acceptable


PG > 12A
- Where condemned, discriminatory behaviour or language can be more aggressive
- Infrequent and unglamorized drug misuse can be portrayed
- Prolonged horror is acceptable, as long as it is infrequent
- Mature themes are acceptable
- Violence can be stronger, but not dwelled upon. Sexual violence (with strong contextual justification) may be referred to.
- No imitable behaviour
- Discreetly portrayed sexual activity is acceptable, as well as brief and discreet nudity (including nudity in a sexual context)
- Moderate bad language is acceptable (eg. infrequent use of the "f" word)

12A > 15
- Discrimination is allowed, as long as it is not endorsed
- Drug use can be more frequent (although it still must not be glamorized, encouraged, or shown in detail - imitable behaviour)
- Stronger threat/horror is acceptable (as long as it is not sexualized/sadistic)
- No theme is prohibited, as long as it is treated in a way that is suitable for 15 year olds
- Frequent violence is acceptable where it does not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury (sexual violence can be strongly referred to, but any portrayal must be discreet and justified strongly by context)
- Nudity in a sexual context is permitted although it cannot be dwelled upon
- Strong language is acceptable, (for example the "c" word) but must be justified by context

15 > 18
- Viewers are now adult and so are at liberty to choose what they watch
- Illegal drug use is not acceptable
- Clear images of real sex are still not permitted
- No criminal laws may be breached, and there must be no footage that causes risk of harm to society (particularly in relation to Sexualized Violence)

18 > R18
- No criminal laws may be breached
R18s are only for sale in licensed sex shops and may only be viewed in licensed cinemas.They normally involve explicit works of consenting sex, and sexual fetish material.