The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) have today released a press statement rather ominously titled “BBFC is to adjust sexual and sadistic violence policy to take into account key areas of public concern”.

The BBFC, who have made great (and rather disingenuous) play of the fact that they no longer cut films except when absolutely necessary (a necessity caused by their own self-imposed rules rather than any evidence of harm, I should point out), recently carried out what they laughably call 'research' into public attitudes towards depictions of rape, sexual and sadistic violence (so, no leading phrases there...). In this case, 35 people across London. Bristol and Dundee were asked to watched and comment on a number of recent controversial films that had either been passed uncut, cut or banned.

Let's think about that for a moment. 35 people in three cities – two in the South of England and one in Scotland. No serious scientific researcher or public opinion market researcher would consider this to be anywhere near the number and variety required to use to gain any level of information or worthwhile data about public attitudes. You'd probably a get greater mix of opinions and backgrounds in a railway station bar. And presumably, if 40 people email the BBFC to say they have no problem with any of these films, it would invalidate their 'research'...

None of these people were psychologists, film experts or had any interest in or knowledge of the kind of films they were to watch, and yet they were asked questions about how harmful these movies might be. How would they know? What knowledge did they have to go by, other than whatever newspaper headlines and scare stories they might have read recently? The fact that this latest study was announced in the wake of the widely reported (and widely discredited, though of course not by the same sources) Bailey Report into 'sexualisation' is telling.

This is not research. Research is carried out by experts, who the BBFC seem to only want to use when their findings agree with BBFC opinion. This is not even a public opinion survey. It's just a self-fulfilling prophecy. There are no facts here, just opinions. Ill-informed opinions at that, no more relevant or sensible than those of the juries that declared Tenebrae obscene during the Video Nasty hysteria. Significantly, the report does not share the questions asked of the participants, either when recruiting or during the film discussions. A pity, because if a question asks “do you think the sexual violence and sadism in this film was likely to harm certain viewers?”, you'll certainly get a different answer than if you simply ask “what did you think of this film?”. What does become clear is that the viewers knew what the BBFC decision on each film was, which couldn't help but colour their answers.

And what answers they are... if you have any respect for the open minds, intelligence and film-literate nature of the British public, you might want to stop reading now.

The films shown were Wolf Creek, The Killer Inside Me, Antichrist, Martyrs, I Spit On Your Grave, Human Centipede 2, A Serbian Film, Grotesque and The Bunny Game. Several other films were represented by clips only (because of course people can assess the suitability of a film for release by viewing one out-of-context scene) – we'll come to them later. To the surprise of no one, the participants own 'classification' of each film pretty much coincided with that of the BBFC.

Some of the comments are staggering, if only for their incoherence (“I am normally strict about what I consider acceptable, but while it is not acceptable, I was about to let it happen and I could watch it, so it might be acceptable” is one quote the BBFC thought worth singling out, making you wonder what nonsense was too much for them to take seriously).

Some participants seem to get worked up about film titles (“the title is very misleading” says 'Female, 45, London' of Martyrs, while 'Female, 25, Bristol' comments “Why was the film called Antichrist?”). The fact that these comments are highlighted in the report really does suggest the BBFC weren't getting much coherent feedback. Indeed, 'Female, 25, Bristol' says of Antichrist “As soon as it got to the woods, it got weird and I lost interest, I even fell asleep at one point.” You or I might therefore consider her opinion of this film and others pretty irrelevant as far as censorship goes, but apparently bewilderment, the inability to stay awake or, in the case of Grotesque, an inability to follow the story because of 'the Japanese context and language' (as the report states) is no obstacle to deciding what other adults can or cannot watch. Is this why the BBFC banned Grotesque? Because it all seemed too filthily foreign for them?

In fact, lack of understanding a film or a scene seems enough for some participants to demand a ban. If it didn't make sense to them, then it couldn't make sense to anyone else except perverts, rapists and child molesters, apparently. “It should be banned as there is no point for a film like that to exist”, says 'Male, 38, Bristol' of Human Centipede 2. “There is no enjoyment to be derived from watching it.” So if you thought you enjoyed the film, you were wrong. 'Male, 38' knows best.

'Female, 22, London' has the keen insight into the male sexual psyche only normally found in Guardian columnists, as she says (of I Spit On Your Grave) “men get in a frenzy, it's harmful. It shouldn't ever be shown.” I'm sure many of you have seen this film in cinemas packed with men, and I've yet to hear of these chaps foaming at the mouth during it, or any gang rapes at screenings.Perhaps there has been a media cover-up - you know how the press hate to blame films for real life violence. Of A Serbian Film, she says “Men's minds are already aroused. They're at the peak of their arousal and then the child is thrown in.” Seems she has a terror of constantly aroused men. But then men – especially young men – are seen as barely controlled beasts by many of this panel, it seems.

There's also a fear of BDSM and kinky sex that was probably music to the BBFC's ears. “The presence of handcuffs and other things that are already linked to sex are just going to influence and encourage further ideas in the viewers” says 'Female, 25, Bristol' of Human Centipede 2. But most of these fears are reserved for The Bunny Game, which the BBFC report smugly says 'was generally judged as being a poor quality film with little merit' by these movie experts. “Not much ambition to the film, clearly aiming for a cult following” says 'Male, 26, Bristol', presumably disappointed that he wasn't sent The Avengers or something similarly highbrow. 'Male, 51, Dundee' comments that “some guys might masturbate to that if that's their cup of tea”, and perhaps they might, though what harm that would cause is never explained. People, after all, masturbate to fantasies they would never carry out all the time. “People do do this sort of thing but who wants to watch a film about it”, asks 'Female, 45, London' – a question I often ask myself when confronted with a Ken Loach movie.

Interestingly, The Bunny Game section reveals a rare bit of actual questioning, and yes, it's rather leading.

Q: “And do you think any of the scenes glamorised or sexualised violence?
A: Yeah, a little bit.
Q: Which bits?
A: All of it. But because, well if you watch porn they sort of do that don't they? They would tie them up and dog collars and stuff like that, and yeah, it's sadomasochism isn't it? And so yeah. Yeah, I don't find that... there's anything wrong with that” (Female, 41, Bristol).

Apart from offering an intriguing insight into the sort of porn 'Female, 41, Bristol' enjoys, it's notable that despite the questioning, she didn't think this was harmful. Yet her answer was almost certainly taken as saying that yes, the film glamorised sexual violence, and that this was a Bad Thing.

The group were also shown clips from Eden Lake, Seed, Red, White and Blue, Embodiment of Evil, Murder Set Pieces, The New York Ripper, House on the Edge of the Park, Hostel Part II, Dream Home, Break, As If I'm Not There and Sex and Zen – Extreme Ecstasy. Most of these notably failed to appall the panel – some even felt the banned Murder Set Pieces could be passed 15 (again, any judgement made on a single, out-of-context clip is worthless) and could only complain about the awful music and shoddy production values. An interesting insight into how opinions were reached is unwittingly given when - to quote the report – viewers of Sex and Zen responded to a comedy pseudo-rape scene with “a lot of laughter and ridicule of the scene. When the moderator pointed out the potential damage of a scene of rape turning into consensual sex, some participants agreed this could be harmful”. So people had to be told a scene was dangerous to find it so. Fascinating. Again, the idea of 'inexperienced' young men who apparently have reached adulthood without learning that 'no means no' or the difference between fantasy and reality came up.

Similarly, in the conclusion it is noted that “even under repeated questioning (my emphasis), there was little concern for lingering shots or panning images of female nudity in Murder Set Pieces.” Even under repeated questioning... sounds like a police interrogation. Little slips that suggest that the questioning in this study was far from neutral. And indeed, by the end of the report, it would seem that the backsliders and enablers had been made to see the error of their ways and, on reflection, agreed that the BBFC was right to ban this filth after all.

The conclusions of the report are predictably depressing, and notably come down to the BBFC's own interpretation of the conflicting comments they received. There's a lot of talk about the dangers of films that show someone how to commit sexual violence, because clearly no rapist would have a clue what to do without an 'instructional' film to help him. There's an acceptance that the films are not dangerous for 'normal' people, but the BBFC are quick to point out that we don't know who isn't normal, so better safe than sorry, eh? There is also confusion throughout the report between what is upsetting, offensive and 'harmful', but that is quickly washed over. A 'good' storyline and 'moral message' were concluded to be important, but who decides that? Presumably a lot of these people think that soap operas fit into both categories; I'd disagree. Seeing bad guys getting their violent comeuppance was also seen as acceptable – a vigilante approach the Daily Mail will doubtless approve of.

The whole report is deeply depressing reading. Clueless people being led to the conclusions that the BBFC want, to give the Board a reason to exist and an excuse to carry on cutting, while living in a curious bubble where imported DVDs and internet downloads either don't exist or don't matter. There's too much to go into here, but you can download the whole awful thing here.