History of the BBFC; 2000s

New Guidelines 2000;- In 1999, the Board embarked on an extensive consultation process to gauge public opinion before the compilation of new Classification Guidelines
- Many surveys and questinaires were done involving a wide range of people and The major outcomes were that the depiction of drugs and drugs use was the cause of greatest concern to parents, as was the issue of violence in the lower classification categories. Use of bad language on screen provoked a range of responses, reflecting varying tolerances in the general public. Portrayal of sexual activity, however caused less concern than previously

 

Controversy

• In 1999 the BBFC had received three European films that challenged the Board's standards on sex.  These were The Idiots, Romance and Seul Contre Tous.  All three films contained scenes of unsimultated sex that would not normally have been be acceptable at '18'.  In the case of Seul Contre Tous it was decided that the images in question were too explicit - and of too great a duration - to be acceptable at '18' and the images were removed.   However, in the cases of Romance and The Idiots, it was decided that the comparative brevity of the images, combined with the serious intentions of the films, meant that both films could be passed without cuts.  This was in line with earlier 'exceptional' decisions in the cases of WR - Mysteries of the Organism (passed 'X' uncut in 1972) and L'Empire des Sens (passed '18' uncut in 1991).  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'

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 replaced the '12' category for film only, and allows children under 12 to see a '12A' film, provided that they are accompanied throughout by an adult.

- 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.  The first '12A' film was The Bourne Identity.

 

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.

- 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

 

Robin Duval's retirement;

- In late 2004, David Cooke was appointed Director, following Robin Duval's retirement

 

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, 7000 more than in 1999/2000.

Moving on in 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

History of the BBFC; 1990s

- Since the regulation of video in 1984, there was since public concern about the influence of videos in the 90's
- 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

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).  
- 1999 also saw the removal of the BBFC's controversial policy on oriental weaponry

Child's Play 3 (1991)
- The Jamie Bulger case - the trial judge linked this murder of a two year-old by two ten year-old boys to the viewing of violent videos, with the media singling out the horror video Child's Play 3
- Though subsequent enquiries refuted this connection, public opinion rallied behind calls for stricter regulation. Parliament supported an amendment to the Video Recordings Act, contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which requires the Board to consider specific issues, and the potential for harm, when making video classification decisions.
- The Board has always been stricter on video than on film. This is partly because younger people are more likely to gain access to videos with restrictive categories than such films at the cinema (where admissions can be screened).  But it is also because, on video, scenes can be taken out of context, and particular moments can be replayed.

History of the BBFC; 1980s

Home Cinema;
- 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.
- The outcome of this concern was new legislation, introduced as a private member’s Bill by Conservative MP, Graham Bright. 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.
- The Board was designated as the authority with responsibility for classification in 1985, with a consequent increase in staff to deal with a massively increased workload consisting of a backlog of titles already on the market and all new titles

Review of Category System;
- In 1982 'A' was changed to 'PG'
-  'AA' was changed to '15' 
-  '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.

Scandal - Another film based on real-life was Michael Caton-Jones' Scandal, an account of the Profumo affair, a political scandal of the 1960s.  Although for some the events were considered too recent for comfort, the problem for the BBFC was of a different kind.  An orgy scene revealed the presence of an erect penis in the backgound of the shot.  The image was obscured by soft-focus lighting and the film released with an '18' certificate.

History of the BBFC; 1970s

- 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

New Catergories

The principal changes to the category system were;

• -the raising of the minimum age for 'X' certificate films from 16 to 18. 
• 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
• New 'AA' certificate which allowed the admission of those over 14, but not under 14, whether accompanied or not.

- The idea was that this would protect adolescents from material of a specifically adult nature and would permit more adult films to be passed uncut for an older, more mature audience
- It recognised the earlier maturity of many teenagers by giving them access to certain films at the age of 14, without being accompanied by an adult. 
- It also indicated to parents the difference between films wholly suitable for children of all ages, which would continue to be classified 'U', and those which, while not generally unsuitable, might contain some material which some parents might prefer their children not to see.

70s 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 did indeed see the release of a number of provocative films, in particular those that linked sex and violence
- Pressure groups such as The Festival of Light, and Lord Longford’s Committee on Pornography also placed immense pressure on the BBFC, in a backlash against what was perceived as liberalisation having gone too far.
- Stephen Murphy, who became Secretary of the Board in July 1971, resigned in 1975 and was succeeded by James Ferman

Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) - This was one of the first films Ferman looked at, 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.  In an early interview, Ferman remarked that it wasn't the sex that worried him but the violence and, in particular sexual violence.  During his time at the BBFC, Ferman permitted increasingly explicit sexual material whilst clamping down on sadistic violence (especially when perpetrated by heros) and sexual violence (particularly where it seemed that the portrayal of rapes and assaults were intended as a 'turn on' to viewers). 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.

History of the BBFC; 1960s

- Challenges to the Obscene Publications Act (1959),  suggested a strong shift in public opinion
- New spirit of liberalism;
"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"
- New realism took hold in British films
- Public tolerance increased in the sweeping social change of the sixties, films became more explicit, but in practice the Board still requesated cuts, usually to verbal and visual 'indecency'.
- In the decade of tuning in, turning on, and dropping out, The Trip fell foul of BBFC concerns about drugs and was rejected in 1967

Peeping Tom (1960) - this film had been seen 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 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'.

Alfie (1966) - Lewis Gilbert's Alfie was passed uncut, with the remark  that it contained a 'basically moral theme' in spite of some misgivings at the Board about the abortion theme. Attitiudes to sexuality were on the change in the wake of the 1957 Wolfenden Report which recommended a relaxation of the laws concerning homosexuality, although no new legislation was to appear for another ten years. Trevelyan claimed that the BBFC had never banned the subject of homosexuality from the screen but 'the subject was one that would probably not be acceptable to the British audience'. Basil Dearden's Victim contributed to the debate in 1961, containing the line 'they call the law against homosexuality the blackmailer's charter'. The film was passed 'X' with a brief cut. It was then passed '15' on video in 1986 and reclassified to '12' in 2003. When the film version was submitted for a modern classification in 2005, it was passed 'PG'.

History of the BBFC; 1950s

- The Fifties saw the end of rationing and a gradual increase in prosperity
- One fevelopment that stemmed from this affluence was the emergence of 'youth' as a group with a defined identity and a target for consumer goods. Young people with a disposable income became an attractive proposition
- Controversial subjects on film were accomodated in the UK under the new 'X' category introduced in 1951, incorporating the former 'H' category
- The new 'X' category excluded children under 16

Rock Around The Clock (1956) - cut for U, the film drew teenage audiences, partly due to the growth of television ownership, and caused rioting in cinemas, fuelling increasing concern about teenage criminality - although there was in fact no evidence of a teenage crime wave as suggested by the popular Press.

The Wild One (1954) - concerns about juvenile delinquents delayed the classification of this film for thirteen years because the Board described as 'a spectacle of unbridled hooliganism'. Repeated attempts were made to secure a classification and eventually some local authorities overturned the Board's rejection, allowing local released. The riots in seaside towns involving Mods and Rockers were cited as providing justification for the Board's continuing objections to the film. The Board maintained its stance until 1967, when the dangers associated with film's release were judged to be over.

The Garden of Eden (1955) - this film was rejected for its treatment about a mother and daughter who decided to become nudists. The film, which showed bare breasts and buttocks, was deemed unacceptable due to the BBFC's long-standing policy against screen nudity. Their justification came from the grounds that on screen nudity would encourage further sexual exploitation. The decision was again overturned by the majority of local authorities, eventually leading to the Board's decision to classify the film at 'A'.

History of the BBFC; 1912-1949

1912-1949
- In the past, the BBFC did not have any written rules or code of practice like the Motion Picture Production Code
- Policy evolved along practical lines, whilst seeking to reflect public attitudes

1916
- 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. Reference 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

Frankenstein (1931) - The London County Council and Manchester City Council banned children from seeing Frankenstein, despite a scene in which the monster drowns a small girl being cut. In response to such material, the adisory category 'H' (for horror) was agreed in 1932, to indicate the potential unsuitability for children of the horror theme

1948
- 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

History of the BBFC; Introduction

The British Board of Film Classification is an independent, non-governmental body, which has exercised responsibilites over cinema for more than ninety years, and over video since 1985

Cinema
- The British Board of Film Censors was established in 1912 by the film industry when local authorities started to impose their own, widely varying, censorship standards on films
- The Board was set up in order to bring a degree of uniformity to those standards, aiming to create a body which could make judgements that were nationally acceptable
- To gain credibility, the Board had to earn the trust of the local authorities, Parliament, the press and the public
- It has always aimed to remain unbiased towards the film industry's requirments, whilst also trying to classify fairly
- Local authorities have the right to overrule the BBFC's classifications, although it has become common practice to accepts their judgement

Video
- In light of the 'Video Nasties' in the early 1980's, Parliament passed the Video Recordings Act in 1984
- This act states that video recordings offered for sale or hire in the UK must be classified by an authority, a role later given to the BBFC

BBFC Seminar

On Wednesday afternoon, a speaker from the BBFC came to speak to us about their job in the industry and allowed us to ask questions. The woman was part of the BBFC's examining body and I found it really interesting to get an inside opinion on how things are run and what her job entails. I was surprised with the short turn around it took from them receiving a video work, and the work being classified - however, she explained that the BBFC are always trying to shorten this time as they are providing a service to the industry and the longer it takes, the more disruptive to the film industry it becomes. I was surprised to hear how often different examiners have conflicting opinions on the classification of a film, and this showed me just how subjective the guidelines are, and that it really comes down to personal interpretation. We were shown clips of films and had to classify them based on what we thought was a suitable rating, a task I found helpful as the examiner could then show us how the particular scene would be interpreted by the BBFC. I also found it surprising that the board had made mistakes in the past when classifying films (for example The Dark Knight).

PCC Seminar

On Wednesday we went to Chancery Lane, where the Press Complaints Commission is based, for a seminar on their policies and a question and answer session. I found it really interesting to see where the Commission was based, the offices were really nice and the seminar took place in a professional board room. The talk was given by one of the members on the complaints commision - it was very informative and I found it interesting to hear about the different case studies, which we were asked for our opinion and whether we thought the complaints had been upheld or rejected. We also sturied the code in more detail which I found really helpful as it helped me have a better understanding of the commision's role in the industry. I was surprised at how quickly the commision dealt with complaints, and how the context of each complaint made a difference in whether it was upheld or what punishment is suitable.

PCC Code of Practice Summary

1 Accuracy
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving the Commission, prominence should be agreed with the PCC in advance.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.

2 Opportunity to reply
A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given when reasonably called for.

3 *Privacy
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. Account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent.
Note - Private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

4 *Harassment
i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.
ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on their property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.
iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.

5 Intrusion into grief or shock
i) In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings, such as inquests.
*ii) When reporting suicide, care should be taken to avoid excessive detail about the method used.

6 *Children
i) Young people should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion.
ii) 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.
iii) Pupils must not be approached or photographed at school without the permission of the school authorities.
iv) Minors must not be paid for material involving children’s welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their children or wards, unless it is clearly in the child's interest.
v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child’s private life.

7 *Children in sex cases
1. The press must not, even if legally free to do so, identify children under 16 who are victims or witnesses in cases involving sex offences.
2. In any press report of a case involving a sexual offence against a child -
i) The child must not be identified.
ii) The adult may be identified.
iii) The word "incest" must not be used where a child victim might be identified.
iv) Care must be taken that nothing in the report implies the relationship between the accused and the child.

8 *Hospitals
i) Journalists must identify themselves and obtain permission from a responsible executive before entering non-public areas of hospitals or similar institutions to pursue enquiries.
ii) The restrictions on intruding into privacy are particularly relevant to enquiries about individuals in hospitals or similar institutions.

9 *Reporting of Crime
i) Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they are genuinely relevant to the story.
ii) Particular regard should be paid to the potentially vulnerable position of children who witness, or are victims of, crime. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.

10 *Clandestine devices and subterfuge
i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held private information without consent.
ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.

11 Victims of sexual assault
The press must not identify victims of sexual assault or publish material likely to contribute to such identification unless there is adequate justification and they are legally free to do so.

12 Discrimination
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.
ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

13 Financial journalism
i) Even where the law does not prohibit it, journalists must not use for their own profit financial information they receive in advance of its general publication, nor should they pass such information to others.
ii) They must not write about shares or securities in whose performance they know that they or their close families have a significant financial interest without disclosing the interest to the editor or financial editor.
iii) They must not buy or sell, either directly or through nominees or agents, shares or securities about which they have written recently or about which they intend to write in the near future.

14 Confidential sources
Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.

15 Witness payments in criminal trials
i) No payment or offer of payment to a witness - or any person who may reasonably be expected to be called as a witness - should be made in any case once proceedings are active as defined by the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
This prohibition lasts until the suspect has been freed unconditionally by police without charge or bail or the proceedings are otherwise discontinued; or has entered a guilty plea to the court; or, in the event of a not guilty plea, the court has announced its verdict.
*ii) Where proceedings are not yet active but are likely and foreseeable, editors must not make or offer payment to any person who may reasonably be expected to be called as a witness, unless the information concerned ought demonstrably to be published in the public interest and there is an over-riding need to make or promise payment for this to be done; and all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure no financial dealings influence the evidence those witnesses give. In no circumstances should such payment be conditional on the outcome of a trial.
*iii) Any payment or offer of payment made to a person later cited to give evidence in proceedings must be disclosed to the prosecution and defence. The witness must be advised of this requirement.

16 *Payment to criminals
i) Payment or offers of payment for stories, pictures or information, which seek to exploit a particular crime or to glorify or glamorise crime in general, must not be made directly or via agents to convicted or confessed criminals or to their associates – who may include family, friends and colleagues.
ii) Editors invoking the public interest to justify payment or offers would need to demonstrate that there was good reason to believe the public interest would be served. If, despite payment, no public interest emerged, then the material should not be published.

* There may be exceptions where clauses are marked, referring to public interest

The Press Complaints Commission (PCC)

- The PCC was set up in 1991 to replace the Press Council
- It's an independent body that deals with complaints about editorial content for newspapers and magazines in the UK, this includes their websites
- The PCC is not a legal system, it is a voluntary organisation which allows the newspaper and magazine industry to be self-regulated without government interference
- The commission has a code of practice which is drawn up by a committee of editors, establishing what is acceptable conduct
- The commission primarily consists of public members - with 10/17 members having no connections to the press industry
- The PCC administers a 16 clause Code of Practice which acts as rules that editors and journalists must adhere to. They can be broken down into 4 main sections;

• Accuracy
• Privacy
• News gathering
• Protecting the vulnerable

- The PCC investigates complaints from people who believe that the code has been broken - either in a published article or in the way a journalist obtained material

- The PCC acts as mediator to help the editor and the complainant agree on a way to resolve the dispute where there is a problem (For example; apology, correction)

- If the problem cannot be settled in this way, the commission will assess the evidence from both sides in the dispute and will issue a formal judgement on the complaint  

- If the commission upholds the complaint, the newspaper or magazine in question must publish the PCC's critical adjudication in full in a prominent place in the newspaper

- Sometimes the PCC will consider during the course of its investigation if the publication offers a remedial action and does not need further action - this could include publishing a correction or writing a private letter

- The PCC's code doesn't cover taste and decency as it's a democratic society (Freedom of speech etc.)

- The PCC is funded through the Press Standards Board of Finance (PressBof) which collects money from newspapers and magazines in the UK

- Each newspaper and magazine contributes in proportion to the number of people who buy and read it (Circulation)

- The service is free to members of the public and no contributions come from the public

- In 2007, 1.5%of complaints came from people in the public eye, with 95.8% from ordinary members of the public

- The Code provides special protection to particularly vulnerable groups such as children, hospital patients and those at risk of discrimination

- The majority of complaints regard regional newspapers as readers care about stories in their locality

The UK's Current Classification System

What are the pros and cons?
 Pros;
- It is a clear, simple classification system, giving consumers a clear idea of the suitability of the film
- The BBFC update and renew their guidelines to keep up with changing public perceptions of what is acceptable, meaning the classification is up-to-date with society
- The 13 main issues they take into account when classifying a production are modern and in-keeping with societies values
- The BBFC only provide a guideline rating, local authorities can over rule their decision if they think the classification is incorrect
- Parents have a reliable, government approved classification system which they can trust - this means it is easy for them to know what is acceptable for their children to see

Cons;
- It could be argued that the classification system is only there to stop the public blaming the governement for damage to society caused through young children watching inappropriate films
- The BBFC can only classify the films, it is up to cinemas and parents to ensure the films are only seen by the appropriate audience - no one is accountable for what a child watches at home accept the parents
- It could be argued that it is not right to classify films based on age ratings - people mature at different ages and you cannot judge how a film will affect someone
- Most people are unaware of the information that is on offer - parents generally judge purely based on the rating, the BBFC parents website is not advertised so most people don't know of its existence


Do you think the way films are regulated is sensible, useful to society and achieves its aim of protecting the vulnerable and upholding the law?
I think in some ways the way films are regulated is sensible, without a classification system there would be no way of parents judging what is suitable for their children to see. Ratings provide a general idea of whether a film will cause distress or harm to a person of a certain age or state of mind which is useful when deciding on whether to watch a film. It is also necessary to prevent the government or film production companies from being sued - if the correct information and classification is given to the film, it is down to the public to decide whether to watch it. If a film is in breach of the law or in danger of harming the public then certain scenes will be cut and in the past whole films have been scrapped altogether.

 Having said that, the classification system can only prove useful to a certain point. Whilst cinemas and film distributors do their best to enforce the ratings system, there are ways around this and they cannot enforce what is watched by people at home. It is the parents responsibility to prevent their children from watching a film work that may scare or harm their child, and if the parents is not a responsible individual then a lot of the time this does not happen. The classification system cannot judge the way a film will be perceived an individual either, people will take what they want from a film and if they are mentally unstable then a film that followed the guidelines may still harm them and society.


Is there anything you think could be done to improve the system?
In my opinion there isn't much that could be done to improve the system. Perhaps films could instead be rated by their content rather than by being given an audience age guideline - this would be useful as children mature at different ages based on their circumstances. However, there would be no way of enforcing this system as it couldn't be judge just by looking at someone. Personally I don't think there is a foolproof way of stopping films reaching the 'wrong' people, mainly because once you are over 18 you can watch any film you want. This means that people that are potentially harmful to society can be influenced by films that are not deemed suitable for those under 18, even if they are likely to be less damaged by it. I think the information that is out there needs to be better promoted to give people an idea of the film they are going to see. The Parents BBFC website could be advertised at the beginning of U and PG films where parents are most likely to see it and this would give them a good idea of what is suitable for their children, as they know them best.

Differences Between The Ratings

Below I have summarised the differences between classification ratings;

U -> PG
- Themes in a PG can be more grown up, but must not condone the behaviour and their treatment must be appropriate
- Sexual references can be joked about and mentioned in a PG, but only discreetly and infrequently
- Violence and Threat can be more frequent and stronger in a PG, but must be justified by its context
- Discriminatory Language may be allowed in a PG, but only if educationally or historically justified
- Drug use can be shown infrequently in a PG, but only with a suitable anti-drugs message
- Horror scenes are allowed in a PG if they are brief, horror in a fantasy world is more acceptable

PG -> 12A
- Themes in a 12A can be more mature, as their audience is young teenagers rather than children
- Sexual Activity can be portrayed in a 12A, but must be infrequent
- Drug Misuse can be portrayed in a 12A, but must not be glamorised or frequent
- Nudity can be portrayed in a sexual context at 12A, but must be brief and discreet
- Violence can be stronger in a 12A as long as it isn't dwelled upon. Sexual violence can be referred to
- Moderate Language can be used in a 12A as opposed to Mild Language in a PG, but must still be infrequent
- More dangerous imitable behaviour is allowed in a 12A as long as it is not dwelled upon or in detail
- Discriminatory Language can be more aggressive in a 12A as long as it is not dwelled upon or endorsed

12A -> 15
- Drugs Use can be shown more frequently in a 15 as long as it is not glamorised, promoted or shown in instructional detail
- Any level of Discriminatory Behaviour is allowed at 15, as long as it is not endorsed by the film as a whole
- Imitable behaviour is similar for 12A and 15 - weapons can be shown but not glamorised
- Nudity is allowed in a sexual context at 15, but must not be dwelled upon or detailed
- Strong verbal references to Sexual Behaviour is allowed at 15
- Stronger Threat and Horror is allowed, as long as it is not sexualised
- Violence is allowed more frequently in a 15, but must not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury
- No Theme is prohibited at 15, although the treatment must be suitable for the audience

15 -> 18
This shows the biggest jump in my opinion, as the audience is now adult and free to choose what they watch and consume;
- No criminal laws must be breached in an 18
- Risk of harm to society is still not allowed in an 18
- Sexualised Violence is allowed at 18
- Sexual Relationships are much more acceptable in an 18
- Clear images of real sex are forbidden in an 18

18 -> R18
- Clear images of real sex are allowed, unlike at 18
- Similar to all classification, no criminal laws must be breached
- Sexually Abusive behaviour and Sexual Violence is still not allowed