History of the BBFC: 1970s

CHANGES TO THE CATEGORY SYSTEM: 

• The introduction of the 'AA' was finally approved by local authorities and the industry in 1970.
• 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, and a 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 might contain some material which some parents might prefer their children not to see. New System in the US:

A new ratings system in the United States included an uncensored 'X' category, left to the sole control of the criminal law. John Trevelyan, the Secretary at the time, was concerned by this: “We are afraid that this will have the effect of giving certain film-makers the opportunity of going much further than they have done in scenes of sex and sexual perversion, since with the protection of an 'X' category, they can shed personal responsibility”.

The seventies did indeed see the release of a number of provocative films, in particular those that linked sex and violence, for example  Straw Dogs (1971), and A Clockwork Orange (1971), both of which contained controversial rape scenes.

History of the BBFC: 1960s

Challenges to the Obscene Publications Act (1959), suggested a strong shift in public opinion. 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'.

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'.
One of the most commercially successful series of films of the decade began in 1962 with Terence Young's Dr No, the first of the long running James Bond movies. Passed 'A' with cuts, this set a pattern for what followed, with From Russia With Love passed 'A' with cuts to sexual innuendo in 1963, Goldfinger passed 'A' in 1964 with cuts to nudity and violence, and Thunderball passed 'A' in 1965 with a cut to a sexy massage scene.

History of the BBFC: 1950s

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.

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.

Nicholas Ray's 1955 Rebel Without A Cause ran into trouble because of its depiction of what the Board considered to be anti-social behaviour and teen violence, but substantial cuts were agreed for the film's release at 'X'.  

The year 1956 also saw the resignation of Arthur Watkins, who was replaced for the next two years as Secretary by John Nichols. In 1958 John Trevelyan became Board Secretary.
At the end of the decade came Beat Girl, a sort of UK equivalent ofRebel Without A Cause, starring Adam Faith. The Board was not impressed with the script for this film about a teenage girl who seeks to rebel against her father by hanging around with a bad crowd in Soho and considers becoming a stripper. The script was judged to be 'the product of squalid and illiterate minds' and several amendments were made before it was cut for 'X'. It is now classified '12' on video, having lost its appeal to shock.

PCC & BBFC Seminars

Why were they useful?

• Allowed me to grasp the size and importance of organisations by visiting their offices
• Meeting employees from both organisations was useful in getting an idea of the daily activities of the PCC and BBFC
• There was the chance to benefit from the opinions of real examiners/commissioners on the systems and hear their well-informed views on their organisations
• We were able to ask relevant questions about the current state of the BBFC and PCC and have them answered authoritatively

What have I learnt?

• The PCC seems to be a thriving organisation from the look of its expensive office in Holborne, yet is a smaller organisation than i thought, with only 17 members and the chairman wandering around amongst them all in a much more family-like setup than I had envisioned.
• The BBFC examiners are for some reason restricted to watching exactly 5hrs41mins of footage each day as outlined in their job descriptions
• As well as learning new things, I have also deepened and consolidated my knowledge of PCC and BBFC regulations and case studies I was already familiar with

Anything unexpected or surprising?

• Only 3 works were banned by the BBFC in 2009, a much smaller figure than I expected
• The PCC has a surprisingly large amount of influence on the industry considering its size
• The BBFC may cease to classify videogames in the near future, handing the responsibility over to PEGI

PCC Case Studies

1. Man vs Northwich Guardian

• Clause 6 could be relevant because the boy is under 16
• However, the boy himself already posted the video in the public domain, so he has forfeited his right to privacy
• Public interest - dangerous and serious anti-social behaviour and criminal activity

Decision: Complaint Dismissed




2. Man vs Zoo Magazine

• Clause 6 is relevant, as the girl in the photo is 10 years old
• Risk of intrusion into child's life, bullying and ridicule
• Only public interest in general abuse in football crowds which could just be represented with father's picture
• Daughter's face should have been blurred

Decision: Complaint Upheld

3. Man vs Sunday Times

• Clause 4 is relevant as the child is being harassed by journalists. 
• Clause 6 applies as boy is 14 and has the right to complete his education without intrusion, especially as the journalist is trying to obtain photos of other schoolchildren without their or the school's permission. 
• Clause 6 also condemns the paying of children too, as well as clause 15 which outlaws any paying of witnesses in criminal trials.

Decision: Complaint Upheld

4. Woman vs The Independent

• Clause 3 is relevant here, as the article is a breach of the woman's privacy. She had only told her private friends and the information was not public until declared in an official theatre press release
• No public interest - woman's private life
• It must also be taken into account that the information was released less than 3 months into her pregnancy, which adds another layer of insensitivity and uncertainty to the story, as pregnancies cannot ever be reliable until 3 months in. In this case, the woman did indeed have a miscarriage.

Decision: Complaint Upheld

5. A Woman vs The Sun

• Clause 5, very likely to be an intrusion into grief or shock of family.
• However, it took place in a public setting with many witnesses
• Paper insists that the suicide was not treated inappropriately

Decision: Complaint Dismissed

6. A Woman vs Eastbourne Gazette

• Clause 3 applies here, as the privacy of the man's health and life have been breached
• Clause 4 is relevant, as the man and his family are being harassed. Man asked the journalists to desist, but they went on to phone him again and leave another message
• Clause 8 was breached, as journalists must seek permission from an executive before entering a hospital
• No public interest

Decision: Complaint Upheld

7. A Police Officer vs The Sunday Telegraph

• Clause 3 could be in breach, as the man only posted the statement to his own Facebook friends, and the policewoman's right to privacy has not been respected
• Clause 10 applies, as the newspaper admitted to subterfuge in their search for information
• However, the police officer did add the paper on Facebook, thus allowing it to obtain the information legitimately
• Overriding public interest in this case, as the public have a right to know the racist and extreme views/links to nazi ideals of any police officers working for them. The man's position of public power could make him a threat to any social groups he does not approve of.

Decision: Complaint Dismissed




8. Paul McCartney vs Hello! Magazine

• Clause 3 is the issue here, as his complaint regards the breach of privacy of him and his family
• Clause 5 is also very relevant, as the paper is intruding into his family grief at the death of wife and mother Linda McCartney
• However, his celebrity status means that he should expect media interest when seen out in a public place
• No public interest in the private grief of a celebrity over their dead wife.

Decision: Complaint Upheld

PCC: 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

The public interest

There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.

PCC Overview

What does the PCC do?:

• Independent body, which deals with complaints about editorial content of magazines/newspapers and their websites
• 16 clause Code of Practice which editors and journalists must obey
• They investigate complaints from people directly affected
• Tries to help editor and complainant to find resolution to their disagreement (e.g. apology, public correction, clarification)
• If case isn't resolved simply, PCC assesses evidence in an adjudication, deciding whether to uphold or reject the complaint

How does the system work?:

• Not legal or government run, rather a voluntary agreement between editors
• 16 clause Code of Practice devised by editors
• Commission run by majority public ('lay') members (10/17 including chairman) - No members are connected to the industry

What does the Code of Practice cover?:

• 4 main areas: accuracy, privacy, news gathering and protecting the vulnerable
• Editor expected to take responsibility for stories/photographs in their publication and comply with the code
• 'Public interest' a mitigating factor
• Doesn't cover issues of taste/decency as in accordance with free press publications should be free to choose style
• Understands individuals choose to look at a newspaper and can make their own decisions
• More public mediums (e.g. billboards) may be ruled inappropriate on taste

How are they funded?:

• Funded by 'Press Standards Board of Finance' (PressBof) who receive money from newspapers/magazines in UK
• Newspapers pay in proportion to no. of readers in circulation - big publications pay more than small ones
• No funding from government or public

History of the PCC?:

• Set up in 1991, replacing Press Council set up in 1953
• In 1980s, a small number of publications failed to observe the basic ethics of journalism leading to MPs loss of confidence in the Press Council
• PCC set up to show that "non-statutory regulation can work effectively"

Who complains to the PCC and why?:

• People who believe an article involving them breaches the Code
• In 2007, 1.5% of complaints came from celebrities, 95.8% from the general public
• Special protection to vulnerable groups such as children, hospital patients or minority groups.
• Majority of complaints about smaller regional newspapers

Why is the PCC important?:

• Free press is vital in a democratic society
• The PCC works democratically as it is impartial and voluntary
• Fast (deals with complaints in average of 35 days), and costs nothing to use