The British Board of Film Classification – that's censors by any other name – have announced their latest guidelines updates, the first since 2009. These are ostensibly done in accordance with public opinion after extensive surveying (at least, more extensive than their widely derided study into attitudes towards sex and violence in 2012); in reality, it's mostly a long-winded and self-congratulatory exercise in which the wording of some ratings guidance is tweaked but little actually changes.

This time, the BBFC received the opinions of over 10,000 people – a large number of them self-selecting through an online survey – and the updated guidance, together with the research document, have been released today. Naturally, various media outlets have chosen to put their own disingenuous spin on things. “The British Board of Film Classification is to more closely scrutinise horror movies under new guidelines for certifying films” shouts the BBC's headline, suggesting a return to the grim days of James Ferman and heavy cutting of 18 rated movies (it's worth visiting that page just to see the BBFC's David Austin trying to explain things to clueless Breakfast TV presenters).

In fact, the BBFC are simply now taking into account the 'psychological' impact of horror in the 12A and 15 categories, spurred on by the complaints of simple-minded idiots who were upset that their brats were able to see The Woman in Black (because, bizarrely, the suggestion seems to be that ex-Harry Potter star Daniel Radcliffe can now only appear in child-friendly films). This is despite the fact that 89% of those polled thought it had the right rating at 12A. We're told that more 'guidance' might be helpful – as if those boxes of spoilers on the back on DVD sleeves aren't bad enough already. “Descriptions of the impact of ‘horror’ used by respondents including ‘disturbing’, ‘stays with me’ and ‘plays on my mind’, were thought to be potentially useful language to consider including in the revised Guidelines.” Really? Are we really about to see “this film might stay with you and play on your mind” added to the descriptions of movies? I imagine a lot of horror film distributors would love such an endorsement, but isn't it just getting rather silly?

But to be fair, it's easy to see how the BBC could be confused. Not only if the BBFC press release rather vague, but the consultation report is contradictory, Time and time again, we are told that the majority agreed with the BBFC's classification of certain films, yet the only people quoted most of the time are those who disagree. One could easily imagine the Board are allowing the vocal but irrational opinions of the minority to hold sway, in search of an easy life – censoring and classifying according to the delusions of the most censorial. But that would be silly, wouldn't it? Surely the Board wouldn't survey so many people, be told – as they continually boast – that they are getting it right, and then still tighten up restrictions because some people are too dumb to realise that Ted isn't a kid's film, too weak minded to be able to tell their kids that ghosts are not real - “When you bring in supernatural, where you can’t explain it away, then you have got problems.” (Female, with children 6 – 10) - or so prudish that they are shocked by the use of “arse” and “crap” in a U rated film?

Interestingly, while this report is supposedly a public survey about classification guidelines across the board, in reality it seems to be only parents who are allowed to have a say, and only the categories below 18 that are under discussion. No one seems to have been asked if the restrictions surrounding R18 movies are too strict, for instance. Instead, the debate is all about sex, nudity, violence, horror, swearing, self-harm and other issues in regard to how much – if any – the under 18s are allowed to see.
But even within this restriction, it's all over the place. Early in the consultation document, we are told that “the explosion of technology, the proliferation of porn sites online, the way in which content can be accessed and shared, has shaped a new media and entertainment landscape.”

What, between 2009 and now? Is there really so much more porn, and so much more accessible, emerging online in the last four years? I very much doubt it. Certainly, as the report points out, parents are more concerned about online porn and sexualisation now - “It was interesting to note that parents seemed to share more worries during the focus groups than they did in the 2009 review”– but this is not a rational concern, it's one that has come about as a result of relentless media bombardment telling people that this is a problem. Should the BBFC really be basing its guidelines on the hysteria stoked by the Daily Mail? And as online porn is outside the BBFC remit (at least until Labour get back in power), why is it even relevant here, other than to show the essential redundancy of the BBFC in the internet age?

There's much here about what kids are watching that they "shouldn't"– a subtle attack on the unregulated wild west of Netflix, torrent sites, YouTube and porn sites, it seems. The report acknowledges that most music videos are outside the BBFC's remit (for now, though the mere mention of them suggests the Board is looking forward to getting that power) but still allows people to fret about what Beyonce is wearing in her latest video. Again, there is no acknowledgement that this is a mostly media-created fear. The report claims “The Bailey review discussed how sexualisation forms the ‘wallpaper of children’s lives’ and this research supports that position.” Well, no it doesn't. It supports the idea that media hysteria about sexualisation forms the wallpaper of parents' lives, and referencing the widely trashed Bailey review hardly backs up your case.

As with the sex and violence report, the public are quoted at length. It's often hard to tell what films (or music videos) they are specifically talking about or which children they are fretting over - “When I watched the Inbetweeners, he told me that he’d already seen it on his Xbox. There’s stuff there I don’t think that he should know about. I was horrified”, says Female, with children 8 – 14 – a somewhat meaningless statement unless we know which kid she is talking about – the 8 or the 14 yr old – or what the 'stuff' was. Swearing, maybe? It's possible, because if you believe the parents quoted here, swearing was only invented in the last few years. “It’s not the norm. Not for our generation.” says 'male with children 15 – 18', who presumably led a very sheltered existence as a child..

Then, there's stuff like this:

“Sex – I worry about it being the wrong idea. Films where sex isn’t about a relationship. One night stands, abusive.” (Female, with children 15 - 18)

“I don’t like the explicit sex and I think certain themes and behaviours that are seen as acceptable, the promiscuity and treating people in a bad way – and what they think may be acceptable and normal which doesn’t really match our attitudes.” (Female, with children 10 – 15)

“I have got a son who expects his bird to be fit and he has attitudes how girls should look.” (Female, with children 10 - 15)

So, two people who want films to conform to their own moralistic code and another who is concerned that her son wants a 'fit bird' – which boys were obviously previously unconcerned about before the dawn of internet porn. Certainly, when I was at school, no boy was interested in 'fit birds' at all... apart from all of them.

But this seems less a concern about harm to children and more a worry that they might, God forbid, grow up with different values to their parents. The report pretty much admits this:

“Parents often linked this issue with normalisation,arguing that they wanted their child to grow up having absorbed their own values and moral centre, rather than being swayed by the world around them.” Or thinking for themselves, presumably. If we lived in such a world of unchanging moral values, then gay sex would still be a crime, of course. Perhaps some of these parents would prefer that.

The report manages to crowbar a bit of sexism in too, commenting “interestingly, family breakdown can play a role too and a number of mothers discussed their disappointment and concern when their ex – partner watched inappropriate films with their child. As avery generalised trend, it would appear that these fathers can be less strict about film classification overall and enjoying the bonding experience of shared viewing.”

Perhaps these fathers have seen the films in question and figure that the kids they know well can cope, regardless of BBFC generalisation. Perhaps they are less influenced by Mumsnet. Or perhaps it's just a continuation of the sexist idea that women are better at raising kids than men. Certainly, 'female, with children 15 – 18' seems to have that attitude:

“If you have got a household where the dad is in control then there may be less rules. Dads don’t care as much as mums do.”

There you go, fathers – you don't give a toss about your kids. You can't be trusted. You're scum.

Of course, it could be a sly ploy by the BBFC to make the public look stupid, and thus justify carrying on as usual once the lip service of this consultation is out of the way. What other reason for publishing comments such as that above, or this magnificent bit of gobbledygook:

“If you don’t want them to think that this is okay, to be treated this way in life. It’s not okay. There’s no such thing as normal in life but you’d hope that they’d have, you know, a good life, and a stable life. It doesn’t really show, you know, I don’t know, just to make it known that it’s not okay for this to happen.” (Female, with children 10 – 15)

And that's the bottom line of this whole exercise. Lip service. Sure, the guidelines might be tweaked here and there – they might allow more use of 'cunt' at 15 or be tighter about sexual stereotyping at 12A, but those are the sort of things you suspect the BBFC would want to do anyway. The truth is that little will change, as all the guidelines are fluid, subject to context and easily ignored if they see fit, be it redefining porn films as serious cinema to pass at 18 (or vice versa), cutting 'harmful' or 'obscene' material without ever having to prove that is is either harmful or obscene and working on the bizarre assumption that editing a few seconds here and there somehow changes the context of a movie and makes a previously dangerous film suddenly safe for younger viewers or 'impressionable adults'. It's a nonsense from an organisation who are desperate to maintain their grip on power in a world where they are increasingly irrelevant.

You can read the press release, with links to the new guidelines and consultation document, here: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/www.bbfc.co.uk/new-classifiction-guidelines