BBFC - 1950s

1951

The new ‘X’ category is introduced to deal with controversial subjects. It incorporates the former ‘H’ category. The category excludes children under the age of 16. Many films are still cut to get into this category for things such as nudity, sex and drugs.

An increase in television ownership erodes the family cinema audience and causes teenage audience to increase. The popular Press suggests that certain films cause teenage criminality.

1954

‘The Wild One’ is rejected until 1967 because the BBFC describes it as ‘a spectacle of unbridled hooliganism’. Some authorities overturned the rejection and allow local releases. The Board cites 1964 riots in English seaside towns (Margate and Clacton) as justification for their decision.

1956

John Nichols replaces Watkins for two years before being replaced by John Trevelyan in 1958.

1960

‘Beat Girl’ fails to impress the Board with the film’s script about a teenage girl considering becoming a stripper to rebel against her father. It is judged to be 'the product of squalid and illiterate minds'. The film is cut several times to get an ‘X’ classification. It is currently a ‘12’ on video.

BBFC - 1912-1949

1912

The British Board of Film Censors is established.

1916

T.P. O’Connor is appointed President of the BBFC. He lays down 43 grounds for deletion for examiners. The list was so strict to earn the trust of the public.

1918 – 1939

Between the First and Second World Wars, several film genres and themes cause concern. These include horrors, gangster films and films dealing with sexuality.

Some councils bar children from ‘A’ rated films in this period.

1948

Arthur Watkins is appointed Secretary to the Board. He was a successful playwright coming from the Home Office. They give advice to many film-makers on scripts.

Watkins and the new President, Harris formulate terms of reference for the BBFC on based on the following:

• 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?

Besides the ‘H’ (for horror) category (which many councils used), there was no category excluding children. An ‘adults only category was seen as desirable to protect children and to allow film-makers to deal with adult subjects.

‘Frankenstein’ (1931) had a sequence cut from it in which the monster drowns a small girl. The film received the ‘H’ category in 1932 to suggest its unsuitability for children. The London County Council and Manchester City Council banned children from seeing it.

PCC Seminar Reflections

This useful aspect of this seminar was to get a better understanding of why the PCC does what it does today. Also, getting to see some case studies really demonstrated the thought process that goes into whether a complaint if upheld or not.

5 interesting facts I learnt from this seminar:

• Newspapers owned by Northern & Shell (Daily Star, Sunday Express, OK!, etc.) have not been regulated by the PCC since January
• If the PCC sees a breach of code but does not receive a complaint from the person in question, the PCC will inform them
• Each year, the PCC receives several complaints from people about things that do not breach the code, e.g. complaining about photographs being published that reveal a dangerous act of public interest
• The parts of the code that are breached the most often are accuracy and privacy
• The PCC can ask contact all press publications, to tell them not to harass a person, etc.

BBFC Seminar Reflections

I think that this seminar was particularly useful because I got a better understand of how the actual process works, as opposed to just the final result. It was also very useful to hear about the BBFC from a personal angle.

Although I learnt a lot from this talk, I have 5 interesting facts:

• The BBFC used to be about censoring films, not classifying them, hence why the C stood for Censors
• BBFC board members are much public than they used to be in the past, they now stand for transparency
• Every country’s classification system, including ours, is mainly based around people’s values
• Films must be watched in the same way that audiences would see them (in 3D, with subtitles, etc.)
• If somebody believes a film was classified incorrectly, that classifier must reply and justify their rating

The PCC Code of Practice

The PCC Code of Practice or The Editor’s Code consists of 16 clauses:

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

Clauses marked * may be permitted if it is in the public interest to know.

Considerably more information about these clauses and the public interest can be found here.

Why is the PCC important?

The PCC believes that "in a democracy, the press should not be subject to stringent controls by law or by government” although the press should also remain unaccountable.

The PCC thinks of themselves as a mechanism which can right wrongs when people’s expectations of the press are gone against.

Their motto is made up of three words:

• Fast – dealing with complaints in ~35 days
• Free – doesn’t cost to use the service
• Fair – independent from the industry

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 2007, 1.5% of complaints came from public figures but 95.8% came from ordinary members of the public.

The Code provides special protection to particularly vulnerable groups such as:

• Children
• Hospital patients
• Those at risk of discrimination

The majority of complaints are about regional newspapers, perhaps because readers attach importance to papers which will be read by people in their locality.

What is the history of the PCC?

1953

The Press Council is set up with the aim of ‘maintaining high standards of journalism as well as protecting press freedom’

1980s

A number of publications fail to observer basic journalism ethics. Consequently, many MPs believe the Press Council to be weak and ineffective. Some politicians believe it would be better to have a government controlled regulatory authority to enforce legal punishments. A Departmental Committee was given the task “to consider what measures are needed to give further protection to individual privacy from the activities of the press and improve recourse against the press for the individual citizen”. The Committee recommended a new Press Complaints Commission for non-statutory regulation.

1991

The PCC is set up and replaces the Press Council. It continues to grow in respect and influence. It is clearly supported by the current Government.

2007

The House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee states that: "We do not believe that there is a case for a statutory regulator for the press, which would represent a very dangerous interference with the freedom of the press. We continue to believe that statutory regulation of the press is a hallmark of authoritarianism and risks undermining democracy. We recommend that self-regulation should be retained for the press, while recognising that it must be seen to be effective if calls for statutory intervention are to be resisted."

How is the PCC funded?

The PCC is funded through PressBof, the ‘Press Standards Board of Finance’. They are a board responsible for collecting money from newspapers and magazines in the UK.

The amount of money that a particular newspaper or magazine contributes is proportional to its readership. The larger a newspaper the more it has to pay.

Neither members of the public or the government pay for the PCC.

How does the press regulation system work?

The press regulation system is administered by the PCC. It is not a legal system and it is not run by the government.

It is a voluntary agreement by the press industry, allowing itself to be regulated by the independent PCC.

The Code of Practice is drawn up by a committee of editors due to their knowledge of the press industry and law. The PCC mostly consists of ‘lay’ members. Even the Chairman, Baroness Buscombe has no connection to the industry.

What does the PCC do?

The Press Complaints Commission deals with complaints about the editorial content of UK newspapers, magazines and related websites. They are a free and fast service for everyone, especially members of the public.

There are a body independent of the government so that we have a free press. The PCC administer a 16 clause Code of Practice which should be adhered to by journalists and editors. If the PCC receives a complaint about press, they investigate to see if the Code has been breached. If a problem is found, they mediate between the editor and complainant to resolve the dispute. Usually a correction, apology or clarification will be published.

If a problem remains unresolved, the PCC assesses all of the evidence and will issue a formal adjudication. This adjudication sets out the reasons why the complaint was either upheld or rejected; if it is upheld, the adjudication must be published in full.

Occasionally the PCC will decide that no other action is necessary if, for example:

• A correction is published
• The complainant receives an apologetic letter from the editor
• A follow-up letter from the complainant is published

Ways to improve the film classification system

The two main problems I have with the way films are classified are that:

1. It doesn’t necessarily work for everyone
2. Not enough people know about it

In relation to my first point, I don’t actually think there is another practical way to classify film for people; the system we have isn’t perfect but it’s the best one we have.

Concerning the fact that not enough people know about the BBFC and that they can access information on ratings, I believe this can be solved with some promotion.

For a start, the BBFC’s website gives information as to why every film receives the rating it does. If this information was available in cinemas or placing selling films, I believe this would drastically reduce the number of complaints with the BBFC’s guidelines (from parents who take their child to see a more mature film).

Alternatively, an advertising campaign in cinemas, on TV or otherwise encouraging parents to check the BBFC site for classification information would definitely benefit the BBFC.

Does the film classification system work?

I believe that the system should work but due to the nature of people, it doesn’t completely.

Although I believe to an extent that children must be protected to an extent, the fact that there is no evidence for films causing harm makes me believe that the vulnerable must be protected in other ways.

For example, I don’t believe that somebody would witness criminal activity, drug – taking etc. in a film and then go to do it unless they already had plans to do it in the first place. If anything, society needs to be protected from these people instead of the films that allegedly made them think and act this way.

I do however believe that a young child should not see certain things in case they start to develop concepts such as profanity from an early age but I don’t see why films must be one of the few media that actually has to teach them morality. There are other media; books, art, music that very rarely compromise in a similar way.

Pros and cons of current film classification

For

• It is relevant our modern culture and society
• The system is regularly updated based on audiences’ views
• Focuses on protecting younger generations from harm
• People (local councils) are able to act against guidelines
• The BBFC takes the work very seriously

Against

• Not upheld very effectively in the real world
• Unable to completely protect children
• Encourages production of ‘safe’ but ‘dull’ movies (for a wider audience)
• Can’t be applied to everybody because people are different
• The BBFC is relatively unknown, parents don’t seek out information
• No evidence that films actually cause ‘harm’
• Films may be classified with only the working classes in mind

18 > R18

‘18’ and ‘R18’ are very similar except that ‘R18’ may have:

• Unjustified sexual context
• Explicit images of sexual activity

15 > 18

‘15’ and ‘18’ are very similar except that ‘18’ may have anything acceptable in a movie unless it serves to stimulate.

12a > 15

‘12a’ and ‘15’ are very similar except that ‘15’ may have:

• Drug taking but not generally encouraged in the film
• Strong threat and menace
• Frequent use of strong language and the strongest terms, e.g. ‘cunt’ if justified
• Any nudity if educational or non-sexual
• Nudity in a sexual context without strong detail
• Detailed sexual activity
• Strong verbal references to sexual behaviour
• Any theme suitable for the age group
• Detailed references to sexual violence
• Portrayal of sexual violence if justified

PG > 12a

‘PG’ and ‘12a’ are very similar except that ‘12a’ may have:

• Aggressive discrimination if clearly condemned
• Misuse of drugs, but infrequent, criticised and not shown in detail
• Moderate physical and psychological threat
• Dangerous behaviour (but not dwelled upon or shown to be harm free)
• Moderate language and infrequent use of strong language e.g. ‘fuck’
• Brief nudity in a sexual context
• Discreet portrayal of sexual activity
• More mature themes
• Gory moments if justified by context
• Implied sexual violence if justified

U > PG

‘U’ and ‘PG’ are very similar except that ‘PG’ may have:

• More serious themes
• Discreet mentions of sex and relationships
• Stronger violence and threat
• Scary but not prolonged horror
• Discrimination, if given context

R18

Very little is not permitted for ‘R18’ films although they must be distributed in specialist locations.

‘R18’s must still not breach the BBFC’s guidelines obviously.