Responding to the Byron Report, David Cooke, Director of the BBFC, said in a press release:

I warmly welcome Dr Byron’s report. She has listened very carefully to all the arguments, and exercised her independent and expert judgement.

It is clear from Dr Byron’s report that games classification is less well understood that that for films and DVDs. We all need to work hard to bring understanding up to the same level, and help parents and children make informed choices. Games like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas are for adults, and should be treated in the same way as ‘18’ rated films and DVDs.

Dr Byron says that when it comes to content, parents want better information on which to base their decisions. I welcome the film-style classification system and greater role for the BBFC which she recommends in paragraph 7.47 of her report.

At the BBFC we provide symbols which are trusted and understood; thorough, independent examination by skilled games players; individually tailored health warnings, and also the full reasoning for the classification covering all the key issues; a cutting edge approach to online film and games content, including independent monitoring.

We co-operate closely with the Pan European Games Information Systems (PEGI) and will continue to do so. Unlike PEGI, the BBFC has the power, in exceptional cases, to reject films, DVDs and games which have the potential to pose real harm risk. We reject an average of two to three works a year (mostly DVDs) and will continue to do so where it is necessary to protect the public. At the adult level, we respect the public expectation that adults should be free to choose except where there are real harm risks. But we do not think it would be right to remove the reserve rejection power and we are pleased that Dr Byron agrees with this.

The BBFC has been able to handle a major expansion of the DVD market over the last few years, and we are ready and able to take on the extra work envisaged by Dr Byron. We attach great importance to providing a speedy and effective service, primarily to the public, but also to the creative industries who produce films, DVDs and games. We will be talking to the Government, PEGI and the games industry about how to implement Dr Byron’s recommendations.

We are also studying very carefully Dr Byron’s recommendations on the risks children face from the internet, and believe we have a significant contribution to make in this area too.

Games Companies not so Impressed

See full article from the Financial Times

Computer games companies have warned the government that the proposed overhaul of the classification system could impose an unfair economic burden on the industry.

The industry is concerned that the BBFC would not be able to cope with rating games fast enough, slowing production and putting the country at a disadvantage.

We are concerned about whether the BBFC could do the job. We hope this wouldn't result in a slow and costly accreditation process, said Richard Wilson, chief executive of Tiga, the body representing independent games developers.

It may increase the layers of bureaucracy and expense for the industry, which has already invested time and effort in creating something they think works, said Robert Bond, games law specialist at Speechly Bircham.

Tiga is concerned that the cost of promoting a new rating system will fall solely on the shoulders of games companies, adding an extra cost they can ill afford.

The government must not burden the games industry alone with the cost of executing an information campaign about the ratings system for games. Games developers already face intense competition from government-subsidised Canadian games developers. The last thing the games industry needs is for the UK government to impose additional costs on it, Wilson said.

Jason Kingsley, chief executive of Rebellion, a games developer, said: It could be the straw that breaks the camel's back for some of the smaller, more marginal UK developers.

The games industry is calling for the government to retain the existing PEGIi system used across Europe.

The director general of the Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association, Paul Jackson, said the proposals needed more work: We have a concern about the detail of the classification system she's outlined. Games publishers believe PEGI is better placed to deliver a "future-proof" system.

The first national strategy for child internet safety, including a streamlined system for classifying computer video games and codes of practice for social networking sites, will be set out today in a ground-breaking report for government.

The six-month study prepared by the child psychologist Dr Tanya Byron, reflects her concern that parents and children are struggling with the impact of the internet and computer games.

Her report will argue that industry and government must do more to provide information to parents on how to set timers on computers, video games and console games. She will propose:

• New codes of practice to regulate social networking sites, such as Bebo and Facebook, including clear standards on privacy and harmful content
   
• A gold standard for the use of console games, including clear set-up guidance for parents on issues such as pin codes and locks
   
• Better information for parents on how to block children accessing some websites. Byron has been struck that the technology exists to impose timers and filters, but there has been little take-up, knowledge or development of the technology
   
• A new law based on a 2006 Law Commission recommendation making it unlawful to assist suicide on the internet
   
• A national council to implement her strategy, with a fixed timetable for industry experts; a parents' panel and child development experts to implement her recommendations.

She will also concede that academic research on the impact of the net on children and their lifestyles is inadequate.

The debate about the internet had, however, been hampered by excessive anxiety, she said, and the issue now placed great challenges before government to do more to protect and educate.

Her research has shown that parents are most worried by predators and children are most concerned by cyberbullying.

Another of her proposals is an overhaul of the video game classification system. Classifications are likely to be refined on the basis that what may be deemed appropriate for someone approaching 18 may well not be appropriate for someone of nine or 10.

The new classification system will be clearer, with one set of logos and much more explicit descriptions of content and context on the packaging. She is also likely to propose a clearer law stating when games cannot be sold under that age. The BBFC system gives no indication about contents of games or detail of why an age rating has been given.

Although social network sites have community guidelines or acceptable use policies, these are not always properly enforced. The most popular video on the website Pure Street Fight was called Girl Beat Up In Street and had been viewed 1,349,046 times.

Byron said she wanted these self-generated and hugely profitable sites to be asked to agree codes of practice on harmful content, and for an independent body to evaluate whether the site is meeting the standards it has set for itself.

Current head of the Irish Film Censor's Office (IFCO) John Kelleher recently replaced the decision to ‘censor’ movies and video games with age-related classification. But what exactly does this mean for parents, their children and a wider audience? There needs to be logical transparency on the issue, which is presently lacking in the public arena.

There is a perfectly safe and suitable solution for protecting children against violent images in relation to violent video gaming and film; that is simple classification and certification. Cinematic exhibition is heavily regulated; Miscreants cannot rewind violent images over and over again in this environment. The same is applicable for children. If that hypothesis is deemed correct, it must also be applicable to other areas such as video gaming. All this was suggested by British film critic Dr. Mark Kermode in 1995, which he followed by stating that ‘existing obscenity laws should be repealed with new legislation which makes it an offence, punishable by heavy fine, or a prison sentence to distribute, or show obscene material, to children’.

In relation to cinema, the position proposed almost fifteen years ago by Dr. Kermode has not changed. The failure of various democratic governments though-out the world to move on this position is a complete logical fallacy. In the case of video gaming, it is also possible for regulation to be imposed in an environment away from children. Arcades could be set up which regulate certificates (or zones) to play adult video games.

This is a feasible solution to take violent video gaming out of the home and placed in highly regulated areas away from children. It also generates a vast infrastructure which creates further jobs for the workforce, which is vital for both the video gaming industry and government. In the case of Arcades, the time is immediate to move on such an issue, as these particular institutions are almost extinct. This might ultimately make adults who do not have children of their own unhappy because it takes extremely violent video games out of their homes.

...Read full article

The Byron report, to be unveiled on Thursday, will call for action to close the "digital divide" that is exposing children to the dangers of explicit content, internet grooming by paedophiles and "cyber-bullying", without the protection of their parents. Dr Byron said: "Kids know more about the technologies than adults. They are using them more and they understand how to use them."

She will recommend that both parents and children should receive lessons in internet safety, including the use of security software, and advice on limiting the amount of personal information released. Her first simple suggestion will be that computers are positioned in shared areas of homes, such as living rooms, so that parents can keep an eye on what their children are viewing.

The classification of video games quickly emerged as a central concern among parents. The majority of new games are given a rating under a voluntary system maintained by Pan-European Game Information (PEGI). Manufacturers have to apply for a statutory BBFC rating only if their product depicts sex, gross violence, criminal activity or drug use.

Dr Byron told representatives of the gaming industry that restructuring the classification system was a fundamental "housekeeping issue".

The review is expected to recommend that all computer games are given the BBFC movie-style classification, with the possibility that the task of rating and regulating the products should be handed to a new organisation with tougher powers to prosecute offenders.

27th March

The Department for Children, Schools and Families has told MCV that Tanya Byron’s Review into violence in modern media is to be published next Thursday, March 27th.

The paper is widely expected to recommend a 'cinema style' unified ratings system for games – which could spell the end for either the current PEGI or BBFC classifications on software.

See full article from Spong

April 3rd, BAFTA, Piccadilly, London

Dr Tanya Byron, who leads the review process, will be speaking about it at the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) headquarters in London's Piccadilly on April 3rd.

According to BAFTA: Dr Byron will be coming to BAFTA to present the thinking behind her report and take questions.

The evening is co-presented by BAFTA and Showcomotion Children’s Media Conference, reflecting the conference's role in exploring the creative, business and regulatory issues facing the entire children’s media and entertainment industry. The moderator for the evening will be Marc Goodchild, Head of Children’s Interactive and On-Demand at BBC Children's.

Rockstar’s lawyer Lawrence Abramson not only feels that the BBFC's approach to video game classification is flawed, but that the appeals system is a major problem as well.

The Video Appeals Committee overturned the BBFC’s ban of Rockstart title Manhunt 2, but Abramson still thinks the lack of game players in the process is troublesome.

He continued on the theme but later came up with an interesting snippet: I understand that Tanya Byron is expected to recommend that the regulation of games is taken outside of the BBFC/VAC procedure altogether and that instead the role of PEGI should be enhanced.

A BBFC spokesperson told TechRadar: The BBFC spent many hours examining Manhunt 2. This involved experienced game players playing the game at every level. Both VAC decisions were by the narrow margin of 4:3. PEGI has no power to reject a game. The BBFC and PEGI co-operate closely.

The VAC decision was a close call. Of the seven members sitting on the Video Appeals, four members of Committee voted in favour of classifying the game against three that voted against Rockstar.

But who were these seven members of the Video Appeals Committee? We asked the BBFC, who informed us that the VAC in the Manhunt 2 case was made up of the following seven people:

• John Wood, VAC president – former director of serious fraud office
• Biddy Baxter, TV producer
• Barry Davies, former deputy director of social services and chair of area child protection committee
• Pauline Grey – district chairman of the tribunal service and member of the gender recognition panel
• Prof John Last – former lay member of the press council, lay member of bar standards board, visiting professor at City University
• Dr. Neville March-Hunnings, lawyer, author of ‘Film Censors and the Law’
• Dr. Sara Levene, Paediatric safety consultant

The cut M rated version has been passed uncut after a successful appeal to the reconvened Video Appeals Committee:

The BBFC issued the following press release:

The Video Appeals Committee announced that the result of their reconsideration of the Manhunt 2 appeal remains that the appeal against the rejection of the work by the BBFC is upheld.

The Board’s decision to refuse a certificate to Manhunt 2 was successfully challenged on appeal to the Video Appeals Committee. The Board challenged the VAC’s decision by way of Judicial Review before the High Court, which quashed the decision on grounds of errors of law. The VAC has now reconsidered the appeal in the light of the High Court’s directions on the law but has decided, again by a majority of four to three, to allow the appeal on the basis that Manhunt 2 should be given an ‘18’ certificate.

In the light of legal advice the Board does not believe the VAC’s judgement provides a realistic basis for a further challenge to its decision and has accordingly issued an ‘18’ certificate.

David Cooke, Director of the BBFC said: As I have said previously, we never take rejection decisions lightly, and they always involve a complex balance of considerations. We twice rejected Manhunt 2, and then pursued a judicial review challenge, because we considered, after exceptionally thorough examination, that it posed a real potential harm risk. However, the Video Appeals Committee has again exercised its independent scrutiny. It is now clear, in the light of this decision, and our legal advice, that we have no alternative but to issue an ‘18’ certificate to the game.

The BBFC also provided a statement about the 18 certificate:

MANHUNT 2 is a violent action game based on a psychological-horror theme. The player takes on the role of Daniel Lamb, a seemingly disturbed patient in a mental facility, who escapes from the institution in an effort to discover who he really is. As he progresses through various environments collecting clues and information about his identity, he is confronted by numerous thugs employed by "The Project"; a secretive experimental organisation, whom he must either evade or kill in order to ensure his own survival.

MANHUNT 2 has been classified '18' for very strong bloody and sadistic violence, which takes the form of stealth executions. In order to successfully despatch a target, the player-character must creep up behind the victim quietly and kill before he is discovered. The killings are achieved through a number of common items such as syringes, glass shards, pens, crowbars, spades, power-saws, clubs, baseball bats, axes, pliers and, later on in the game, firearms. Each killing is graphically portrayed as a brief video scene where weapons are seen to impact on various parts of the victim's body coupled to realistic sound effects and blood spurts. The cumulative effect of these killings creates a very strong impression of almost continuous violence and horror which is too strong to be contained at any category below '18'. The game is entirely unsuitable for anyone below this age.

Rockstar Pleased

See full article from GamesIndustry.biz

Rockstar is now working towards a new release date for the title in the UK.

We are pleased that the VAC has reaffirmed its decision recognizing that Manhunt 2 is well within the bounds established by other 18-plus rated entertainment, a company statement read.

The version of the game to be released in the UK has been confirmed as the cut version currently available in the US under a Mature rating - the version which was rejected by the BBFC the second time around.

A Rockstar spokesperson told GamesIndustry.biz that due to the news of the VAC's decision only breaking earlier today, no official decision had yet been made on a release date, but discussions were expected to take place shortly.

Government Staying Out of It

See full article from GamesIndustry.biz

The UK government's Department for Culture, Media and Sport has told GamesIndustry.biz that it has no plans at the moment to intervene in the planned release of Manhunt 2 in the UK.

"The classification of Manhunt 2 is a matter for the BBFC and the Video Appeals Committee," said a spokesperson, after today's news that the VAC had reaffirmed its decision to back Rockstar in an appeal over the BBFC's refusal to certify the game.

"It is important to note that there is no conclusive evidence of any link between playing computer games and violent behaviour in real life," the spokesperson continued. "Our concern is to make sure that inappropriate material is kept away from children.

A Bully computer game sends out the wrong signals and should be withdrawn from sale, say UK teachers.

They are part of a global coalition concerned about the impact of the game, which has been released in new formats.

Bully: Scholarship Edition trivialises and glorifies bullying in school, say opponents from eight international teacher groups.

UK retailers say they will not act as censors and will continue to sell the game to children over the age of 15.

The National Union of Teachers (NUT) and the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association (SCTA) are part of an international group which thinks the game could encourage bullying.

Although it carries a BBFC 15 rating, campaigners fear Bully could get into the hands of much younger children. The idea of a game that rewards bullies and those who engage in brutal and savage attacks is irresponsible in the extreme
Steve Sinnott, general secretary, NUT

The game, designed by US-based Rockstar Games was originally launched in 2006 but has been updated for the new generation of games' consoles - Xbox and Wii.

NUT general secretary Steve Sinnott said: At a time when there is a growing concern about bullying in schools and the increasing violence shown towards teachers, the idea of a game that rewards bullies and those who engage in brutal and savage attacks is irresponsible in the extreme. I call upon Amazon, Game, Play and HMV to withdraw this product from sale immediately.

The Australian Education Union's federal president Angelo Gavrielatos said: We were disappointed when the game was first released in 2006 and we are appalled this new version is said to be more realistic, featuring new methods to torment and bully. The coalition of countries calling for the game to be withdrawn from shelves includes Canada, South Korea and the Caribbean.

HMV told the BBC News website they would not actively promote the game by placing adverts in national newspapers and that their approach would be more discreet, but they would not remove it from sale.

The BBFC explain their uncut 15 rating as follows:

BULLY: SCHOLARSHIP EDITION is a third person 'beat em up' game for the Xbox 360 console. The player character is Jimmy, a new pupil at a tough boarding school. He has to complete various missions, attend lessons and fight his way to the top of the pecking order in order to progress through the game.

This game received a '15' classification because it contains strong violence. Jimmy has a range of weapons available to him, including a catapult, fire crackers, aerosol sprays and a firework gun. Fighting does not result in blood or visible injuries, but it is a frequent part of the game play. While the frequency of the violence places it at the '15' category, the lack of detail and the way the game makes it very difficult for Jimmy to attack vulnerable characters (girls, younger pupils, etc) by sending prefects to apprehend and punish him with boring tasks helped to keep it out of the '18' category. The '15' classification was also felt to be the most appropriate category for the imitable behaviour in the game, such as using the items listed above as weapons. While the dangers may be expected to be obvious to players aged 15 and above, it was felt that this may not be so clear to younger gamers.

BULLY also contains some moderate bad language including 'bitch' and 'slut', and some mild sexual innuendo

Nine disks of the Young Indiana Jones sets have been classified as 12, which raises the possibility that Lucasfilms won't be insisting on always having a PG rating for Indy... So there is hope for an uncut Temple Of Doom when the new re-releases come through...

UK Xbox boss Neil Thompson has said he reckons PEGI would do a better job of rating videogames than the British Board of Film Classification.

There's been much talk about whether the UK should have a single ratings system lately. (Sometimes we talk about it in the office. "Do you think the UK should have a single ratings system?" "I don't care. It's your turn to make the tea.") It's thought that Tanya Byron could make such a recommendation in her forthcoming Government review on violence in games, though nothing has been decided. Two sugars.

"We made it very clear to the Byron Report team, both as an industry and as Microsoft, strongly believe that PEGI has a lot more benefits for customers, parents and for everyone involved in the industry really," Thompson said.

"PEGI has been established for quite a few years now as the industry standard, so the industry has got behind it and invested a lot of time and effort in it, and it offers a level of in-depth information as well as a level of expertise to be honest, that the BBFC doesn't."

According to Thompson, PEGI rated nearly 2000 games last year - while the BBFC managed just 100. That's not including Manhunt 2, which was refused a rating by the BBFC for being likely to turn us all into homicidal maniacs.

"There's just a scale difference in terms of industry knowledge and industry insight that goes into these things," Thomspon observed.

The BBFC has claimed the symbols used by PEGI aren't meaningful enough, but Thompson reckons they help consumers to quickly ascertain which age groups games are suitable for. The key, he argues, is for the industry and Government to educate parents about ratings.

To read the full interview with Thompson, visit GamesIndustry.biz - where freshly squeezed information and organically grown fact are whisked up in the blender of truth to produce piping hot news soup.
 

Julian Brazier has failed in his bid to increase censorship of video games and films containing extreme violence.

Julian Brazier's plan would have allowed more appeals against BBFC rulings. He argued standards had been "watered down" and explicit films and games were fuelling a "tide of violence".

He was supported by several Tory and Labour MPs, but both front benches opposed it. The Lib Dems said it gave MPs undue influence over censorship.

Brazier's private member's bill failed when the debate ran out of time. Private member's bills allow individual MPs to introduce legislation on a subject of their choice.

Brazier's plan would have allowed an independent jury to reverse a ruling, if 50 MPs signed a Commons motion - even after the film or game was released. During a Commons debate, he cited the example of a previously banned video, SS Experiment Camp, which was re-examined by the BBFC and released in 2005. Another film, Irreversible, featured a nine-minute rape scene he said, adding: If this is not glamorising rape then it is difficult to imagine what would be.

His bill was supported by Labour MP Keith Vaz, who represents a seat in Leicester where the mother of murdered 14-year-old Stefan Pakeerah blamed his killer's obsession with the Manhunt video game - a view not supported by the trial judge.

Vaz said video games were different from films because they were "interactive": When they play with these things they are able to interact, they can shoot people, they can kill people, they can rape women and that's what is so wrong about the situation we have at the moment.

Another Labour MP, Stephen Pound, said there was a danger that in extremely violent films the sanctity of life becomes diluted, particularly when dealing with the young and impressionable.

Conservative MP John Whittingdale dismissed SS Experiment Camp as pretty tasteless and offensive but said scenes of sex and violence were mild compared to many mainstream films.
He said Mr Brazier's bill could do damage to the film industry and that the BBFC largely did a reasonably good job.

Lib Dem spokesman Don Foster suggested if MPs were to start signing a motion to get a title banned sales would absolutely rocket. I believe the proposals contained within this Bill would give politicians an undue and dangerous influence over these sorts of issues.

Culture Minister Margaret Hodge said the BBFC, while not getting it right every time did an extremely good job in incredibly difficult circumstances. She said the government had responded to concerns by asking Dr Tanya Byron to review whether more regulation to protect children was needed - due to report back next month. Urging MPs to await that report next month, she said legislation would not be effective on its own. Parents, internet service providers and others would also have to take responsibility.

She was still speaking as time ran out at 1430 GMT and the bill now stands no chance of becoming law.

Comment: Democracy Out of Time

From emark on SeeNoEvil

I'm wondering why this private member's bill on the single issue gets debated for five hours, but the entire CJIB has slightly less for its second reading, and there wasn't enough time for people to debate the extreme porn clauses at all in the 3rd reading!

Comment: Foolish Brazier

Thanks to Wynter

Mark Kermode successfully made Brazier look like a fool when he was interviewed on R5 Live on Friday afternoon.

Thanks to DarkAngel

Listen to the interview between Brazier and Kermode

Skip forward to the 2 hr mark, its only about 10 mins long, Brazier rehashes his tired old arguments that had only been debunked that morning, ie Manhunt being responsible for the death of a young lad, Mark Kermode rubbished his argument about films like Irreversible and pointed out to him that nobody knows more about classifying films than the BBFC who are already transparent and by allowing MP's or whoever to interfere wouldn't prevent these films from being released, it would just muddle up the classification process.

One thing Kermode should have rebuked was Braziers claims that rape and violence is going up as a direct result of the media. Which of course is nonsense!

Mediawatch-UK have commissioned a poll to show support for Julian Braziers BBFC Accountability Bill to be debated in Parliament today. They asked:

Anyway the press release reads:

British Public Demands Accountability for Film Censors

Mediawatch UK, the UK broadcasting watchdog, today publishes an important survey showing that 80% of the British public wants the BBFC to be fully transparent and accountable to Parliament.

The results of the survey, carried out by ComRes, coincide with a Private Members Bill introduced by Julian Brazier MP (Canterbury), which is receiving a second reading in the House of Commons today. The Bill attracted publicity earlier this month when the Board classified a number of video works, banned by the Director of Public Prosecutions, such as ‘SS Experiment Camp’.

John Beyer, director of Mediawatch-uk, comments: “The results confirm what we have always believed. The British public continues to retain a high degree of common sense and is not impressed by the self interested demands of the film industry. We again call upon the BBFC to review its guidelines on violence, call upon the games industry to act more responsibly on violence and call upon the Office of Communications to enforce the terms of the Broadcasting Code much more vigorously, particularly with regard television programmes that condone and glamorise seriously antisocial behaviour and violence.”

With 76% of respondents wanting the amount of violence permitted in films, games and on television to be more tightly regulated, and 68% believing there are links between violent crime and the level of violence in films and on television, there is great public concern that the BBFC’s classification decisions should reflect broad public opinion and suggests that the general public is dissatisfied with the current system.

Beyer continues: We believe that the Prime Minister, who has expressed personal concern about all the violence and pornography that children can so easily see, was wrong to exclude film and television from the remit given to psychologist Dr Tanya Byron whose report is due next month. Film is a very powerful global influence and it is astonishing that the Board has escaped proper scrutiny for almost 100 years. It is right that Parliament should represent public concerns and we hope very much that Mr Brazier’s Bill will go through unopposed.

Murder Set Pieces is a 2004 US horror film by Nick Palumbo (TLA Releasing)

The BBFC has rejected the DVD Murder Set Pieces. This means that it cannot be legally supplied anywhere in the UK. The decision was taken by the Director, David Cooke and the Presidential Team of Sir Quentin Thomas, Lord Taylor of Warwick and Janet Lewis-Jones.

Murder Set Pieces is a feature with a single-minded focus on the activities of a psychopathic sexual serial killer, who, throughout the film, is seen raping, torturing and murdering his victims. Young children are among those terrorised and killed, and their inclusion in this abusive context is an added concern. In relation to the adult victims, there is a clear focus on sex or sexual behaviour accompanied by non-consensual pain, injury and humiliation.

David Cooke, Director of the BBFC said:
It is the Board’s carefully considered view that to issue a certificate to Murder Set Pieces, even if statutorily confined to adults, would involve risk of harm within the terms of the Video Recordings Act, would be inconsistent with the Board’s Guidelines, and would be unacceptable to the public.

Rejecting a work outright is a serious matter and the Board considered whether the issue could be dealt with through cuts. However, given the unacceptable content featured throughout, and that what remains is essentially preparatory and set-up material for the unacceptable scenes, cutting the work is not a viable option in this case and the work is therefore refused a classification.

Under the terms of the Video Recordings Act distributors have the right to appeal the Board’s decision. Murder Set Pieces also raises potential legal questions, for instance in relation to the Protection of Children Act 1978, as well as possible breaches of other legislation such as that on obscenity. Having concluded that the work would in any case have to be rejected on grounds of harm and unacceptability to the public, the Board did not think it necessary at this stage to reach a final view on these legal issues, but they would have to be considered in the event of any appeal.

See full article from Reuters

Richard Ross, TLA's executive director sales for North America and the UK, said the company was "shocked" by the ban, and was considering whether to appeal: We wanted to retain the director's original version. When we bought it, we hoped to release it unedited and thought we'd be able to do that in the UK We don't want to release the same version that Lionsgate released (in the US).

The film was released in North America in January 2007 by Lionsgate with an "R" rating. It was, however, an extremely truncated version, Palumbo said on his MySpace page: They cut 23 minutes from the film, rendering it incomprehensible.

Palumbo said the uncut version has been released in Scandinavia, Spain and the Netherlands.

His film revolves around a Las Vegas serial killer who dispatches 30 or so victims in a variety of sadistic ways. According to the publicity materials, it was banned from every film festival in North America.

Comment: Gobstruck

Thanks to Alan, March 1st 2008

Reading about Beyer's dodgy poll and the ban on Murder Set Pieces, I wonder whether there is any mileage in simply campaigning on the basis that censorship is wrong and that the state should not abrogate to itself to control what we watch in our own homes.

I am sure that Nick Palumbo knows rather more about film-making than BBFC jobsworths like Sir Quentin Posh, Lord Muck and Janet Double-Barrel.

I don't even LIKE bloody horror films, but the arrogance of these pillocks leaves me gobstruck.

The BBFC has hit back at suggestions that it doesn't provide a more effective ratings system than the PEGI version, as suggested by Microsoft's UK head of corporate affairs Matt Lambert, at a CMS Select Committee hearing yesterday.

Speaking to GamesIndustry.biz the BBFC has rejected those claims, and stated that while the body uses the same symbols as for films in order to enable a greater understand of the level of content to be expected in games, it doesn't classify games in the same way that we classify films, because we physically play the game.

The fact is, we provide consumer advice about the content - and extended information - on our Parents website about exactly the sort of things you can expect to encounter in the game, in all of the games we classify - and we do it in words, which people understand, they don't understand the pictograms.

We know this - in January we did research and the public really couldn't get their heads around what a spider meant. That is not sufficient information for them to make a decision.

What people think about the PEGI system is that it's a difficulty rating, said the spokesperson. One of the parents in our research groups was complaining that she had bought a game with a 3+ on thinking it was suitable for her child, and it turned out to be a complicated sports game - whereas if they see a PG12, they know it's going to have the sort of content (and here you can argue that the system is similar) as they would expect from a 12-rated film.

Just like when they get a film that's an 18, and says 'Strong bloody violence' they have an idea of what that is, because they've seen it in 18-rated films…The fact is, sticking a spider on the back of a box is not going to help a person make the kind of decision that they ought to be making about games.

The BBFC also underlined that during its review process it employs people that actually plays through the games, and noted the contrast with the PEGI methodology.

Unlike the PEGI system, which is purely a tick-box system filled in by the distributor themselves, the BBFC has very well-qualified games examiners - who are games fans themselves - to play the games right through all the levels, with the cheat codes, and spend a lot of time playing them so that they know what the content is.

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee held its first oral evidence session as part of its inquiry into harmful content on 26th February 2008.

Videogame developers should dis-incentivise gamers from long periods of play by allowing players to achieve the highest scoring aspects of a title early on in the game's life cycle. That's according to John Carr, executive secretary at the Children's Charities Coalition for Internet Safety.

He raised the argument that there were a number of concerns over videogames, other than the issue of violence – including reports of children "dying at their consoles" – that need to be addressed.

While fellow panellist at the hearing Professor Sonia Livingstone, from the London School of Economics, pointed out that there is no clear evidence that videogames provide benefits to children, she also pointed out that there is no clear evidence that they harm children either - but there was evidence suggesting repetition of actions could be a problem.

Professor Livingstone also raised the subject of age ratings in games, and highlighted reports that large numbers of children played games at home that according to the ratings were not appropriate.

Carr then added his belief that some parents misunderstood the nature of age ratings, believing them to relate more to a general skill level suggestion, instead of advice on potentially damaging content.

The consensus among the panel was that parents needed more help and better tools to educate themselves and their children about the potential dangers online.

See full article from GamesIndustry.biz

Matt Lambert, Microsoft's head of corporate affairs in the UK, stated his belief that the PEGI ratings system was better than the BBFC version.

When committee chairman John Whittingdale asked Lambert about the apparent confusion for parents over age ratings for videogames – particularly the belief that they represented skill levels instead - Lambert replied that he hadn't seen any evidence of such confusion, and that internal research indicated that 96% of parents were in fact aware of the presence of age ratings.

Instead he pointed to anecdotal evidence which led him to believe parents instead weren't concerned about applying those ratings. And on the question of which of the two ratings systems that exist in the UK was preferable, Lambert indicated that he believed PEGI was more effective.

If there's going to be one ratings system, it should be PEGI. With PEGI, they think very carefully about age appropriacy…but the BBFC is set up to rate films, and it takes that approach for games when a different approach is required.

PEGI breaks it down to a different level. If there's bad language it will give you a specific symbol, if there's gambling there's another symbol, and some games will have a whole raft of symbols on the back. It's a different depth, it's more sensible, and it also has a European aspect to it.

The chairman then responded to the answer by pointing out that the BBFC itself would contradict such a view – that it believes the PEGI methodology to be inferior, and employs specialists who look at hours of gameplay when coming to a decision: I'm not saying that's wrong, and I apologise if I gave the impression that that's not what they do - though they would say that they are the best. But I do believe that the BBFC's thinking clearly comes from the world of film [and not games], that's definitely true.

The Politics Show for the South East on Sunday 24 February at 12:00 on BBC One.

Film censorship is hitting the big screen again, as Canterbury MP, Julian Brazier, believes violent films and video games could be responsible for acts of violence.

The Bogey Man, Death Trap, The Evil Dead and Zombie Flesh Eaters. Just a few films that over the years have been called 'video nasties'.

The Canterbury MP Julian Brazier believes films like these, and also violent video games could be responsible for people committing acts of violence.

He quotes the case of Warren Leblanc who admitted murdering his 14-year-old friend Stephan Pakeerah with repeated blows from a claw hammer and knife.

Stephan's mother has publicly attributed the murder to Leblanc's obsession with playing the video game Manhunt, although the trial judge did not confirm her view.

Brazier also talks about the film Eastern Promises. This, he says, includes graphic scenes of throat slitting, child prostitution and a man having an eye gouged out.

So next week Julian Brazier's Private Member's Bill to make the BBFC accountable to Parliament will get its second reading. He claims that in the last few years the BBFC has followed a policy of allowing increasingly violent and sexual material onto the market.

There are several points to Brazier' s Bill:

• He wants Parliament to choose the four main officers of the BBFC. At present the BBFC makes all it appointments internally.
• He believes Parliament should have powers to force the BBFC to tighten its guidelines
• He wants MPs to have the right to appeal against a classification. At present only the industry can appeal a decision - either to restore cut material or to lower a classification, but not to raise it or to have it banned.

So on Sunday we hear from Julian Brazier himself, and we get the views of a leading academic on whether there is any link between violence and the movies.

Update: No Accountability for BBFC Accountability Bill

25th February 2008

Thanks to DarkAngel on the Melon Farmers Forum
See Brazier on The Politics Show on YouTube

John Beyer was on there spouting the usual bollox. For those who haven't seen it I uploaded it to YouTube. I also tacked on the email replies at the end of the programme which, if they are anything to go buy, shows who is in touch with public opinion (and it ain't Brazier or Beyer).

Regarding public accountability, if I write to Brazier in opposition of his bill he would simply reply that I am not one of his constituents and I should write to my own MP about it.

So I write to my own MP and he tells me that he's not even going to be in Parliament on the day its being discussed.

So how exactly are MPs accountable to their public who's freedoms they are trying to restrict?

The VAC is due to begin reconsidering its Manhunt 2 decision on March 11

Censors are trying to ban a violent video game, but flouting the law is easy.

A few clicks of a mouse was all it took to buy one of the most unpleasant, gruesome video games that has ever been released.

It is so grim that the title has been banned by the BBFC, despite which it’s readily available to purchase on the internet. I found it on eBay for £32 including delivery.

For what it’s worth, the game is dreadful, with bad graphics, jittery camera work and simplistic gameplay. However, the unrelenting, sadistic violence and the fact that it is so easy to buy (despite it currently being illegal to sell the game in the UK), raises disturbing questions about the process by which video games are classified.

Last month a High Court judge ordered the VAC to rethink its verdict on the premise that the committee had misinterpreted the law. The VAC is due to begin reconsidering on March 11, but there’s no guarantee it will change its mind. If it sticks by its decision, you can expect to see Manhunt 2 on sale legally shortly afterwards.

Julian Brazier returned to the stage in Prime Minister's Question Time and asked about reform of the BBFC and implicitly for support of his BBFC Accountability bill.

Julian Brazier (Canterbury, Conservative):

Following the Prime Minister's reply to the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) a few weeks ago, does he now accept that there is an urgent need for reform of the British Board of Film Classification? What possible justification can there be for the board's decision to release into British high street outlets videos and DVDs such as SS Experiment Camp, which shows in voyeuristic detail women being tortured to death by SS camp guards?

Gordon Brown (Prime Minister):

I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I think it is true to say, as I have looked at it, that the British Board of Film Classification has put a higher category on many films in a different way from that recommended by the distributor, but it is also true to say that he expresses the concerns of many people among the general public. That is why I have agreed to meet him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) to talk about the issues, and why we set up the review headed by Dr. Tanya Byron. It will report very soon, and on the basis of that we can make recommendations for the future. As for the Conservatives who say it is wrong to review the issues, I say that the right thing to do is to review them and then make a decision.

I interpret Gordon Brown's reply as telling Brazier that he is jumping the gun and should wait on the Government commissioned Byron report.

But the Daily Mail interpreted this somewhat differently and present Brown's support for the Byron Review as if it were support for Braziers effort

See full article from the Daily Mail

Gordon Brown yesterday signalled his support for a crackdown on the sale of films, DVDs and video games containing appalling scenes of violence.

The Prime Minister said he shared the concern of MPs from all parties who want new controls on increasingly violent and sexual material.

A bid to impose new legal curbs is to be launched in the Commons next week amid concerns that they could trigger attacks by impressionable teenagers and adults.

A review ordered by Brown is expected to lead to reform of the BBFC, which is responsible for classifying films and games.

Critics say that in recent years, it has adopted a policy of allowing virtually anything to be shown to adults and increasingly offensive material to be shown to adults.

The mainstream media has been pretty rife over the past week with speculation that an upcoming study into violent video games will lead to all games requiring classification from the BBFC

Last weekend, The Guardian newspaper reported the government is likely to subsequently rule all games are rated using the uniform 'cinema style' method as opposed to the current BBFC/PEGI shared system.

A PEGI spokesperson from the Interactive Software Federation of Europe has spoken out about the possible ruling, telling industry website MCV that any move to back the dropping of the PEGI ratings would be a 'mistake' and a 'backwards step' for the UK.

Director general Patrice Chazerand said the body's research shows that the current PEGI/BBFC shared system is trusted and understood by parents and also voiced concerns the UK would regret the decision if games distribution evolves online. He added: I would resent that idea of equating games to movies – it's not the same experience.

Naturally, the BBFC sees things differently. It says it would back any move that makes it responsible for rating every game and that it recognises flaws in the PEGI system. Its own research shows parents can be confused by some of PEGI's ratings. BBFC is a rating people understand from film and DVD, so it might give parents a bit more piece of mind, said spokesperson Sue Clark.