Wednesday, 30 March 2011

BBFC 1980s

  • Development of the video recorder created new anxieties in home viewing of feature films
  • There was legally no requirement that videos should be classified which meant that films which hadnt been approved or were only suitable for adults, were falling into the hands of children
  • Tabloid press led a campaign against soc aled 'Video Nasties'
  • There were 70 titles that had either been prosecuted by the DPP under the OPA or were awaiting prosecution
  • The Video Recordings Act 1984 made it an offence for a video work to be supplied if it had not been classified or to supply a work to a person under the specified age in the certificate

  • 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
  • Since the mid 1980s, R18 material is mostly released on video and is only available from a limited number of sex shops which must be licensed by local authoritie

BBFC 1970s

  • The introduction of AA was finally approved be the industry and local authorities
  • Principal changes to the cateogry system were raising the minimum age for X certificate films from 16 to 18
  • The old A category was split to create a new A which permitted the admission of children five years and over whether accompanied or not
  • The new AA certificate was for children over 14
  • This would protect adolscents from material of a specifically adult nature and would permit more adult films to be passed uncut for an older, mature audience
  • Recognised the earlier maturity of many teenagers by giving them access to certain films ar the age of 14, without being accompanied by an adult
  • Indicated to parents the difference between films wholly suitable for children of all ages, which would be classified U, and those which whilst not generally unisuitable may contain some material parents would prefer their children not to see
  • Violence and terrorisation in the fim largely directed towards women was unacceptable.
  • This lead to the unclassification of the film

BBFC 1960s

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

  • 'Morbid concentration on fear'
  • Various cuts were suggested and the film was passed X in 1960 with cuts
  • Film was greeted with a torrent of abuse and failed to please the public
  • Video remained an 18 work until 2007 when it was reclassified and passed 15

BBFC 1950s

  • 50s saw the end of rationing
  • Emergence of 'youth' as a group with a defined identity and a target for consumer goods
  • Controversial subjects on film were accomodated in the UK under ther new X category, incorporating the former advisory H category given to horror films. This was introduced in 1951
  • As the growth of television ownership eroded the adult/family cinema audience, films like Rock Around the Clock (1956) drew in teenage audiences
  • This was cut for U and caused rioting in cinemas
  • It fuelled increasing concern about teenage criminality, although there was in fact no evidence of a teenage crime wave as suggested by the popular Press

BBFC 1912-1949

  • At the time, the BBFC did not have any written rules or codes
  • The policy evolved around practical lines, whilst seeking to reflect public attitudes
  • In 1916, T.P.Connor was appointed president of the BBFC
  • He summarised the board's policy by listing 43 grounds for deletion
  • Some of these include cruelty to animals, nude figures, indecorous dancing etc
  • In 1948, Arthur Watkins was appointed secretary to the board under the presidency of Sir Sidney Harris
  • Together they formulated a new term of reference for the board based on 3 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?

Thursday, 17 March 2011

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, if so why?
Could a public interest justification be made in any of these examples?

1. Clauses number 3(privacy) and 6(children) apply however the public interest can overide these. It      mentions that the PCC will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain and the video was uploaded onto Youtube by the boy himself

2. Clauses number 3(privacy) and 6(children) apply however they were already in a public place and drawing attention to themselves. It does however seem unsuitable for a childs face of age 10 to appear in a lads magazine

3. Clauses 6(children) and 4(harassment) apply. The Code says 'journalists must not engage in persistent pursuit' and 'they must not persist in questoning, telephoning individuals'. It also says 'minors must not be paid for material involving children's welfare' and 'a child under 16 must not be interviewed on issues involing their own or another child's welfare'. There is clearly a breach of the code.

4. Clauses 1(accuracy) and 3(privacy) apply in this case. The Code states 'the press msut take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information and that 'everyone is entitiled to respect for his or her private and family life'. Even though the actress is in the public eye, she had not even told her family about the pregnancy.

5. Clause 5(intrusion into grief of shock) applies. The Code states ' approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion' and 'when reporting suicide, care should be taken to avoid excessive detail about the method used'. The photos show the woman standing on the ledge outside a window about to jump and another one during her fall therefore showing detail of the method used and therefore being in breach of the code. Also the fact that they were published before the woman's identity was announced shows there was little sensitivity towards family and friends

6. Clause 4(harassment) and 8(hospitals) apply. The code says 'journalists must not engage in persistent pursuit'. The journalist left messages and telephoned even after being told that the family would call him. The Code also says 'journalists must identify themselves before entering non-public areas of hospitals'. The journalist did not do this and therefore is in breach of the Code.

7. Clauses 3(privacy) and 10(clandestine devices and subterfuge) apply for this case. The Code states ' everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life and home' and 'it is unacceptable to photograph in a private place'. This clause was breached as photos were taken within a private place. Also the journalists gave a misrepresentation this also breaches clause 10.

8. Clauses 3(privacy) and 5(intrusion into grief or shock) apply. It says in the Code that 'private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy'. The photograph was taken in the cathedral which is a place where one would expect privacy so therefore the code has been breached. The code also states that' in cases involving grief or shock, enquiries and appeoaches must be made with sympathy and descretion' which they were not.

Thursday, 10 March 2011

PCC Code Of Practice

  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 *