I agree.

I don't think many people object to a law on child ratings. The problem is that it's this law that allows things to be banned for adults - even films that are restricted to sex shops. Most of the cuts or bans in fact take place not in the categories for children, but those aimed at adults (18 or R18). Such a law is also an expense for film producers, as you say - ideally they should be free to volunteer for an 18 rating (i.e., they don't pay to have it rated, but they agree to restrict it only to adults). But that doesn't work in this country, as the Government still thinks it should decide what we as adults are allowed to see or not.

I don't think anyone would contest that the idea of age ratings and content symbols/advice are a good guide for parents when choosing something suitable for their younger children to watch. In the Netherlands for instance, such ratings are obtained via an automated system which costs a fraction of that the BBFC charge to rate a film (not to mention all the additional charges for the usual DVD extras).

In Spain, such film age ratings are purely advisory. There is no State censorship. It would likely horrify the deluded anti-porn British mindset to learn that anyone of any age can purchase an uncut hardcore video from a news stand but, they can and do, and no one seems to be throwing hysterical fits about the potential 'harm' this may 'do' to youngsters. Of course the reason there's no moral panic is because none of the supposed 'harm' has been observed in over 25 years of Spain's anti-censorship regime. In fact Spain is one of the safer countries in the world for women and children to live their lives unmolested.

In the year 2000 the BBFC were challenged to provide proof of the harm to children they claim to have been preventing since the VRA 1984 hit the Statute (in a less than complete fashion...!). The BBFC failed to convince both the Video Appeals Committee and the Hight Court of England and Wales that their brand of blanket censorship was at all necessary, indeed, its likely none of the censorship the BBFC believe is 'necessary' is actually required at all. As far as I can tell the BBFC appear to believe the UK population is crawling with mindless robots ready to copy anything and everything that dares merge sex and kinkyness, or sex and violence into an immitable technique.

It strikes me as very odd that something the BBFC, and most viewers, would likely classify 'horrific' should be seen as something 'some men' would want to copycat. I don't profess to know what went on in the minds of people like Peter Suttcliffe or Derrick Bird to name but two but, I do know it had bugger all to do with the missing content of films the BBFC had cut or banned over the past 100 years.

Censorship is a lie by ommission. It cannot be justified without concrete proof the material under the knife actually does what the censor believes it might do. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions and what the BBFC tend to do is make sexualised violence MORE 'accpetable' to viewers - that to me is entirely the wrong message and probably does far more damage than the original horrific, sickening, explicit scene the director (i.e. the cinematic artist) intended to portray.

It is time the British public were given the freedom and responsibility for their own viewing choices. If the material the BBFC cut were as harmful as they claim then it SHOULD be found guilty of obscenity - that outcome is highly unlikely and thus what that BBFC are doing constitutes unnecessary interference and is unlawful according to our basic Human Rights and the UK Constitution.

I think we the public are going to find this very hard to get repealed since tanya byron took control of video games ratings and the asa who says that protecting children is the up most important thing i dont have a problem with video game ratings but we adults dont need protecting from our selfs censorship leads to crime not the other way around the bbfc should stop cutting our films to bits we pay good money for them.

IanG, your comment has persuaded me to give this idea a five star rating instead of four stars.

Why not have mandatory ratings if the film-maker or distributor wants to target an audience with under 18's in it, but voluntary for everything else with "18" being the default and scrap r18 altogether.

I've always believed that child protection is a red-herring, and the real intention is to control what freeborn (?) adults see.

That's also a partial (non ideal) solution - you can either have the work rated at the usual cost, OR have it automatically rated 18. That keeps the 'child protection' part (which I don't agree with but may be a decent compromise in the short term) whilst giving adults choice.