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

Film Regulation: Thoughts on the Current System

What are the PROS and CONS of the current UK system of film classification?


PROS

• Clear, simple classification system. Gives buyers instant idea of general suitability of the film.
• Parents have a reliable, government-approved authority to trust to rate films correctly for their children.
• The BBFC are not all-powerful - they are answerable to OFCOM and local authorities can overrule BBFC rating decisions in their respective areas.
• The BBFC constantly update their guidelines to keep abreast of the current social climate and any new laws that are passed.

CONS

• The laws against the selling of unsuitable films to children are impossible to enforce and one could argue that the laws primarily exist to protect the government from any damage to society done by films.
• The ratings system is fundamentally flawed in that it assumes all children are the same in terms of sensitivity and fears. It is impossible to quantify what will affect a particular child and what one 6 year-old finds upsetting may not disturb his twin at all.
• The BBFC guidelines and website are not well advertised, so not many parents are aware that extensive information on film classification is available to them. Therefore some of them remain woefully ignorant of film classification guidelines.

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 that the BBFC guidelines are sensible and relevant to modern society. The organisation is very necessary to enforce quality control on all professional films being consumed by the public. The guidelines successfully enforce the law on films passing through the system, making cuts to scenes or even banning works completely. 


However, I do not think the classification system succeeds in its aim of protecting the vulnerable at all. Besides having guidelines that do not take into account different sensitivity levels in children, the UK laws do not stop children watching unsuitable films at all. The internet means that a child can watch anything they want whenever they want, rendering the laws protecting children useless.


Is there anything you think could be done to improve the system?

• Raise public awareness of the BBFC website to reduce parental ignorance
• Police crackdown on illegal video sites - tightening of Digital Economies Bill
• Involve parents more in the rating process. Take public votes into consideration perhaps?

Notable Differences Between Ratings: 18 - R18

18 - R18


While 18s are still ordinary films with adult content, the R18 category exists purely for sex works.

• Clear images of real sex are allowed, unlike at 18.
• May not breach any criminal laws.
• Abusive behaviour is not acceptable.