Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest UK Debt Slave

Liverpool City Council Plans To Make All Films That Depict Smoking

Recommended Posts

Guest UK Debt Slave

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/60...stingId=6024059

Send for the Sanity Inspector – quickly. There is work for him among the denizens of Liverpool city council. The council is proposing to use its powers to upgrade to an 18-certificate the classification of films "if they depict images of tobacco smoking", in order to protect the vulnerable youth of Merseyside from exposure to such depravity.

Utter fekkn insanity

As for existing films, if this policy caught on across the country, it would mean the demise of 101 Dalmatians, The Little Mermaid, Pinocchio and Peter Pan, unless there is a larger adult audience for those classics than is generally supposed. There is no point in objecting that Cruella de Vil, with her signature cigarette in a long holder, is a baddie: villainy is "cool" and therefore appealing.

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Parry aka GOD

. . . and to think it used to be run by Degsy or what ever his name was.

All smoking is blotted out on TV over here. But I've seen videos available showing TV's . . . smoking! :blink:

How wierd is that!? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Parry aka GOD
But images of war and of people being shot to death will be available for under-18s? :blink:

Band of Brothers ???

I think films/TV that dramatise the horror of war without glorifying it are essential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest joeschmo

I would need something stronger than a Rothmans if I had to live in Liverpool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest joeschmo

I would need something stronger than a Rothmans if I had to live in Liverpool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to one of my PhD supervisees who is researching the 1909 Cinematograph Act and its implementation by local authorities, I've become moderately interested in this topic.

Thanks to our arcane censorship system, local authorities have the legal power to determine what is and isn't shown. The 1909 act requires cinemas to be licensed by their local authority, which can impose pretty much whatever conditions it likes on the licence. Local councils started censoring individual films more or less immediately. The film industry resisted this, because the result was chaos. Filmmakers had no way of knowing how many councils would pass or ban their films. And besides, if town A banned a film, people who wanted to see it usually wouldn't have to travel very far to find somewhere that had passed it. So the industry established the British Board of Film Censors in 1912 (renamed the BBF of Classification in 1985), the idea being to standardise the process. They persuaded the councils to stop examining films themselves routinely, and to put a clause in the standard licence saying that everything shown had to have been passed by the BBFC.

This is what happened. The BBFC was and still is a private company. It funds itself by charging filmmakers to examine and certificate films. As far as films shown in the cinema is concerned, it has no legal status or authority. It derives the latter from councils officially but unofficially delegating the censorship (or 'classification' as they now like to call it) function to it.

As far as video is concerned, though, it does have legal teeth, as it is designated the classifying authority under the Video Recordings Act 1984. But local authorities do still occasionally overrule a BBFC decision. Usually this happens when a council in a religious (North Wales is a hotbed) or blue rinsey area bans a film that the BBFC has passed. When I worked in the industry in the late '90s, Crash and Romance were each banned by 20-30 councils despite the BBFC having given them 18-certificates. So we have the bizarre situation whereby Monty Python's Life of Brian is still banned from being shown in cinemas in a few places, but you can quite legally buy the DVD from a shop on the same high street.

I can only assume that this silliness by Liverpool City Council will hasten the day when this legal anomaly is cleared up. And as for requiring you to be 18 to see smoking on a screen but only 16 to perform the act yourself...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Parry aka GOD
And to think, Woodbine Willie died in Liverpool.

Somebody's willy died in Liverpool. I struggle to think of a more fitting epitaph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Somebody's willy died in Liverpool. I struggle to think of a more fitting epitaph.

:lol:

I think Fag-Ash Lil may have been involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They wouldn't live in that dump, they're all over the water on the wirral or in southport.

In that case, there are far too many Labour voters . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But images of war and of people being shot to death will be available for under-18s? :blink:

Exactly mate.

If you notice in oceans 11 and 12, Clooney and Pitt were hardly seen without a fag in hand, but in oceans 13 you never see them smoke once.

And I suppose their cool characters could promote smoking, so yeah I see that point.

But then its ok we watch them robbing casinos?

Someone is taking the f*ckin plss here.

In America you can hardly smoke anywhere, but you can have a gun <---- WTF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely pointless policy. In our local cineworld - and I guess the design is the same everywhere - there is only one point where your ticket is checked before you go in to the corridor where all the screens are. The local underage teenagers (and younger) just buy a ticket for a 12 cert film to get past the check, then go into the 18-cert film screen. Sometimes there's more kids in the 18-cert screens than there are adults.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AuntJess
Thanks to one of my PhD supervisees who is researching the 1909 Cinematograph Act and its implementation by local authorities, I've become moderately interested in this topic.

Thanks to our arcane censorship system, local authorities have the legal power to determine what is and isn't shown. The 1909 act requires cinemas to be licensed by their local authority, which can impose pretty much whatever conditions it likes on the licence. Local councils started censoring individual films more or less immediately. The film industry resisted this, because the result was chaos. Filmmakers had no way of knowing how many councils would pass or ban their films. And besides, if town A banned a film, people who wanted to see it usually wouldn't have to travel very far to find somewhere that had passed it. So the industry established the British Board of Film Censors in 1912 (renamed the BBF of Classification in 1985), the idea being to standardise the process. They persuaded the councils to stop examining films themselves routinely, and to put a clause in the standard licence saying that everything shown had to have been passed by the BBFC.

This is what happened. The BBFC was and still is a private company. It funds itself by charging filmmakers to examine and certificate films. As far as films shown in the cinema is concerned, it has no legal status or authority. It derives the latter from councils officially but unofficially delegating the censorship (or 'classification' as they now like to call it) function to it.

As far as video is concerned, though, it does have legal teeth, as it is designated the classifying authority under the Video Recordings Act 1984. But local authorities do still occasionally overrule a BBFC decision. Usually this happens when a council in a religious (North Wales is a hotbed) or blue rinsey area bans a film that the BBFC has passed. When I worked in the industry in the late '90s, Crash and Romance were each banned by 20-30 councils despite the BBFC having given them 18-certificates. So we have the bizarre situation whereby Monty Python's Life of Brian is still banned from being shown in cinemas in a few places, but you can quite legally buy the DVD from a shop on the same high street.

I can only assume that this silliness by Liverpool City Council will hasten the day when this legal anomaly is cleared up. And as for requiring you to be 18 to see smoking on a screen but only 16 to perform the act yourself...

Quite. But LAs were ever inconsistent. I think that since films stopped having an X rated cert. and such films became available to a wider public, it has ushered in a nasty sort of violence. I have always believed that children seeing these films when they ARE children, has significantly contributed to the callous attitudes and criminal acts that abound today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should ban under-18s from watching Liverpool football club.

It can't be good for their self-esteem to be exposed to losing year after year after year. It will become a self-reinforcing meme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   287 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.