How is the BBFC different?

When the BBFC was first set up, the guidelines which they orignally followed were more strict. However, as the understanding of the target audience has vastly improved, the BBFC have been able to adapt these guidelines, and have become more lenient, based on society and people's views developing and changing.
The classifications of films are now more understandable, and the public have a better idea of what to expect from films based on the rating they've been given.
Websites have been set up in order to provide extra and more detailed information for people with concerns. There is now a parents, students and children's website.

2000's

New Guidelines 2000

• In 1999, the Board embarked on an extensive consultation process to gauge public opinion before the compilation of new Classification Guidelines.
• The process involved a series of public presentations across the UK, two Citizens' Juries, surveys and questionnaires.
• The film and video industry and other interested groups also contributed their views.
• The major outcomes were that the depiction of drugs and drugs use was the cause of greatest concern to parents, as was the issue of violence in the lower classification categories.
• Use of bad language on screen provoked a range of responses, reflecting varying tolerances in the general public. Portrayal of sexual activity, however caused less concern than previously.

Controversy

• In 1999 the BBFC had received three European films that challenged the Board's standards on sex.  These were The Idiots, Romance and Seul Contre Tous.  All three films contained scenes of unsimultated sex that would not normally have been be acceptable at '18'.  In the case of Seul Contre Tous it was decided that the images in question were too explicit - and of too great a duration - to be acceptable at '18' and the images were removed.  
• However, in the cases of Romance and The Idiots, it was decided that the comparative brevity of the images, combined with the serious intentions of the films, meant that both films could be passed without cuts.   
• A whole generation of European film makers seemed determined to push the boundaries of what was sexually acceptable on the screen.

  

The DCMS and Ofcom

• In June 2001, governmental responsibility for film and video classification moved from the Home Office to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). 
• Ofcom is the new regulator for television, radio, telecommunications and wireless communications services. The regulation of films, videos and DVDs does not fall under Ofcom's remit and remains the responsibility of the BBFC.
• The BBFC is still the only regulator which regulates material before it is seen by the public .

The '12A' rating

• In 2002, the new '12A' category replaced the '12' category for film only, and allows children under 12 to see a '12A' film, provided that they are accompanied throughout by an adult.
• The Board considers '12A' films to be suitable for audiences OVER the age of 12, but acknowledges that parents know best whether their children younger than 12 can cope with a particular film. 
• The first '12A' film was The Bourne Identity. For more information about the '12A' rating see the Spider-Man case study.

 

Consumer Advice

• A single line of information about the film's content indicates what viewers can expect to encounter in the film and therefore why it was given its rating.  This is particularly helpful for parents deciding what films are suitable for their children, and in particular whether to take children younger than 12 to a '12A' film. 
  

New Guidelines 2005

• On 9 February 2005, the BBFC published a new set of Guidelines based on an even more extensive research programme than the one which resulted in the 2000 Guidelines. 

Educational Websites

• Educational website created by the BBFC with the aim of helping primary school children better understand Film and DVD classification, this website,
• (Students' BBFC) was launched in June 2005. .

Important 2006 Decisions

• In 2006, landmark ‘18’ certificates were awarded to two high-profile films containing explicit images of real sex, e.g. Destricted, Shortbus. The Observer’s Philip French stated that ‘The award of 18 certificates by the BBFC to Shortbus and Destricted has brought close the abolition of censorship, but not of classification.’
• The latest film in the 007 franchise, Casino Royale, received critical and commercial success and a ‘12A’ certificate from the BBFC. The film was seen on advice and the distributor was asked to reduce the impact of a torture scene in order to obtain the requested ‘12A’ certificate.

Moving on in 2007

• 2007 saw the introduction of Parents’ BBFC, a website designed to help parents and guardians make what they consider to be sensible choices for their children’s viewing.
  

New Guidelines 2009

• On 23 June 2009, the BBFC published its most recent set of Guidelines based on another detailed public consultation exercise conducted in 2008-2009.  Over 8,700 people contributed their views on the BBFC's Guidelines, in the form of lengthy questionnaires and focus groups.  

1990's

Despite the statutory regulation of video since 1984, public concern about the influence of videos has continued and there have been periodic calls for stricter standards, most notably following the Jamie Bulger case. The trial judge linked this murder of a two year-old by two ten year-old boys to the viewing of violent videos, with the media singling out the horror video Child's Play 3 (1991). 

Parliament supported an amendment to the Video Recordings Act, contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which requires the Board to consider specific issues, and the potential for harm, when making video classification decisions. 

The Board has always been stricter on video than on film. This is partly because younger people are more likely to gain access to videos with restrictive categories than such films at the cinema (where admissions can be screened).  But it is also because, on video, scenes can be taken out of context, and particular moments can be replayed.

  

In 1995 further controversy erupted about Larry Clark's film Kids, which some critics described as 'child pornography'.  The BBFC considered the film very carefully and, after seeking proof of age for all the actors concerned (all the main performers were in fact over 18), minor cuts were made to two scenes featuring younger performers in situtations that might be considered 'indecent' under the Protection of Children Act.  Not long after the release of Kids in 1996, there were calls for the banning of David Cronenberg's film, Crash. Once again, the BBFC considered the film very carefully - including screening the film for lawyers and for a group of disabled people - but found that there was no case to answer.  The film was passed '18' uncut.

1980's

'Video nasties'

• Development of the video recorder created new anxieties about the home viewing of feature films. Legally, there was no requirement that videos should be classified, which meant that films that had not been approved by the BBFC or which were suitable for adults only, were falling into the hands of children. 
• Led a campaign against so called 'video nasties'. 
• 70 titles that had either been prosecuted by the DPP under the Obscene Publications Act, or were awaiting prosecution. Some of these were horror films that had never been submitted to the BBFC. Others had been cut for their cinema release, and the video versions sometimes included restored cuts.
• The Video Recordings Act 1984, makes it an offence for a video work to be supplied if it has not been classified, or to supply a classified work to a person under the age specified in the certificate. 

1982 - Review of the category system

In 1982 'A' was changed to 'PG', 'AA' was changed to '15' and 'X' became '18'. A new category 'R18' was introduced which permitted more explicit sex films to be shown in members-only  clubs.  Previously, such clubs had shown material unclassified by the BBFC, but a change in the law closed this loophole.  Since the mid 1980s most 'R18' material is released on video, only available from a limited number of sex shops which must be specially licensed by local authorities.

Further changes to the category system in the 80s

In 1985, at the request of the industry, the 'Uc' was introduced for video only, to identify works specifically suitable for very young children to watch alone.

In 1989 the BBFC introduced the '12' certificate on film, to bridge the huge gap between 'PG' and '15'. This was extended to video in 1994. The first film to be given a '12' rating was Batman.

1970's

1970 - CHANGES IN THE CATEGORY SYSTEM

Teenagers had specific concerns of their own which ought to be reflected in the category system. 

The introduction of the 'AA' was finally approved.

The principal changes to the category system were the raising of the minimum age for 'X' certificate films from 16 to 18.  

The old 'A' (advisory) category was split to create a new advisory 'A' which permitted the admission of children of five years or over whether accompanied or not, but which warned parents that a film in this category would contain some material that parents might prefer their children under fourteen not to see, and a new 'AA' certificate which allowed the admission of those over 14, but not under 14, whether accompanied or not.

The idea was that this would protect adolescents from material of a specifically adult nature and would permit more adult films to be passed uncut for an older, more mature audience.  It recognised the earlier maturity of many teenagers by giving them access to certain films at the age of 14, without being accompanied by an adult.  It also indicated to parents the difference between films wholly suitable for children of all ages, which would continue to be classified 'U', and those which, while not generally unsuitable, might contain some material which some parents might prefer their children not to see.

Release of a number of provocative films, in particular those that linked sex and violence.

E.g. Straw Dogs (1971), and A Clockwork Orange (1971), both of which contained controversial rape scenes. 

Number of controversies The Devils(1971), which was accused of blasphemy, Last Tango in Paris (1972), which was accused of being 'obscene' and The Exorcist (1973), which was accused of having a psychologically damaging effect on young people. 

In the case of each of these films, the decision of the BBFC to award an 'X' was overturned by a number of local authorities. 

Prior to 1977 the Obscene Publications Act did not apply to cinema films and films were judged on the basis of whether any individual scene might be considered 'indecent', regardless of context. Notably, this led to the seizure of Pasolini's Salo from a Soho cinema club in 1976 on the grounds that it was 'indecent' (the BBFC itself had refused to classify the film on exactly these grounds).  However, the extension of the OPA to films in 1977 gave the BBFC more latitude when considering depictions of sex in films since they now had to be considered 'as a whole'.  Therefore, the BBFC was able to waive, in 1978, a cut for sexual explicitness made in 1973 to Last Tango in Paris.  On the other hand, the OPA required that the Board consider whether a scene might deprave and corrupt its likely audience. 

1960's

THE 60s AND LIBERALISATION

• Challenges to the Obscene Publications Act (1959).
• John Trevelyan, as Secretary to the Board, responded to the new spirit of liberalism by stating: "The British Board of Film Censors cannot assume responsibility for the guardianship of public morality. It cannot refuse for exhibition to adults films that show behaviour that contravenes the accepted moral code, and it does not demand that ‘the wicked’ should also be punished. It cannot legitimately refuse to pass films which criticize ‘the Establishment’ and films which express minority opinions".
• New submission of  'kitchen sink' dramas from the British New Wave directors - Karel Reisz's Saturday Night And Sunday Morning in 1960, Tony Richardson's The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner in 1962, both passed 'X', the latter with cuts.
• Saturday Night... had been submitted to the Board at script stage. Concerns were expressed about the language, violence and the theme of abortion, and the script was modified to meet these concerns This might have been the 'swinging Sixties', but in spite of the film's BBFC uncut release at 'X', Warwickshire Council deemed it too strong and demanded that cuts be made for a local certificate. The film was passed 'PG' on video in 1990.
• As public tolerance increased in the sweeping social change of the sixties, films became more explicit, but in practice the Board still requested cuts, usually to verbal and visual 'indecency'. 
• Violence in Walter Grauman's Lady In A Cage proved too strong for the Board in 1964 and the film was rejected on the grounds that it could 'invite and stimulate juvenile violence and anti-social behaviour by young people'.
• It was for years the Board's stance that the film presented LSD use as normal and legitimate, rather than as a dangerous and criminal, practice. It was finally passed '18' on video in 2002 under Guidelines that allowed for a balanced and realistic depiction of class A drugs use at the adult category,

1950's

• End of rationing.
• Emergence of 'youth' as a group with a defined identity and as a target for consumer goods.
• New 'X' category, introduced in 1951.
• Incorporated the former advisory 'H' category given to horror films. 
• As the growth of television ownership eroded the adult/family cinema audience, films like Rock Around The Clock (1956) drew teenage audiences. 
• Cut for U, this film caused rioting in cinemas and fueled increasing concern about teenage criminality, although there was in fact no evidence of a teenage crime wave as suggested by the popular Press.
• New 'X' category, which excluded children under 16.
• Concerns about 'juvenile delinquents' - delayed classification of The Wild One (1954) for 13 years due to unbridled hooliganism. 
• Rebel Without a Clause (1955) caused problems due to content including anti-social behaviour and teen violence. Film finally got an 'X' rating due to substantial cuts. 
• The Blackboard Jungle (1955) - first reaction was to reject it. "if shown in this country, provoke the strongest criticism from parents...and would have the most damaging and harmful effect on...young people" - BBFC's secretary: Arthur Watkins. Cuts were made. Given an 'X' rating finally. 
• The Garden of Eden (1955) - film about a mother and daughter who become nudists. BBFC had a long-standing policy against screen nudity, due to the fact that it encouraged nudity on screen, it would be inviting sexual exploitation. Large number of local authorities overturned the BBFC's decision. Resulted in the film being given an 'A' rating in 1958. 
• The Man with the Golden Arm (1955) - story about a recovering drug addict who has a relapse. Home Office had no objection to the issue of the subject, which was dealing with addiction as long as drug-taking was not glamorized and that the profits from dealing were not emphasized. Was given an 'X' rating in 1956 with cuts to details of drug-preparation. Code was amended in 1956 to allow for the treatment of narcotics as a theme. Film later classified as a '15'. 

1912-1949

1916: T.P. O'CONNOR

• Appointed President of the BBFC.
• Summarised the Board's Policy around 43 grounds for deletion, as guidelines for examiners. 
• This list was taken from the Board's annual reports between 1913-1915.
• The Board felt that these set of rules would gain the public's trust and relevant bodies due to the strictness. 

43 Grounds for Deletion:

1. Indecorous, ambiguous and irreverent titles and subtitles
2. Cruelty to animals 
3. The irreverent treatment of sacred subjects 
4. Drunken scenes carried to excess 
5. Vulgar accessories in the staging 
6. The modus operandi of criminals 
7. Cruelty to young infants and excessive cruelty and torture to adults, especially women 
8. Unnecessary exhibition of under-clothing 
9. The exhibition of profuse bleeding 
10. Nude figures 
11. Offensive vulgarity, and impropriety in conduct and dress 
12. Indecorous dancing 
13. Excessively passionate love scenes 
14. Bathing scenes passing the limits of propriety 
15. References to controversial politics 
16. Relations of capital and labour 
17. Scenes tending to disparage public characters and institutions 
18. Realistic horrors of warfare 
19. Scenes and incidents calculated to afford information to the enemy 
20. Incidents having a tendency to disparage our Allies 
21. Scenes holding up the King’s uniform to contempt or ridicule 
22. Subjects dealing with India, in which British Officers are seen in an odious light, and otherwise  attempting to suggest the disloyalty of British Officers, Native States or bringing into disrepute British prestige in the Empire 
23. The exploitation of tragic incidents of the war 
24. Gruesome murders and strangulation scenes 
25. Executions 
26. The effects of vitriol throwing
27. The drug habit. e.g. opium, morphia, cocaine, etc
28. Subjects dealing with White Slave traffic 
29. Subjects dealing with premeditated seduction of girls 
30. 'First Night' scenes 
31. Scenes suggestive of immorality 
32. Indelicate sexual situations 
33. Situations accentuating delicate marital relations 
34. Men and women in bed together 
35. Illicit relationships 
36. Prostitution and procuration 
37. Incidents indicating the actual perpetration of criminal assaults on women
38. Scenes depicting the effect of venereal disease, inherited or acquired 
39. Incidents suggestive of incestuous relations 
40. Themes and references relative to 'race suicide' 
41. Confinements 
42. Scenes laid in disorderly houses 
43. Materialization of the conventional figure of Christ

THE YEARS BETWEEN THE WARS

• During this time, horror, gangster and those featuring aspects of sexuality caused the most concern. 
• Films classified 'A' banned children from seeing them, even though the BBFC had removed scenes in order to gain a certificate. 
• e.g. Frankenstein (1931) was banned from being shown to children by the Manchester and London Council, even though a scene where a girl was drowned was removed. 
• This resulted in a new advised classification, 'H' which warned audiences, especially children, of the horror theme.

1947: ARTHUR WATKINS

• Appointed Secretary to the Board in 1948 by Sir Sidney Harris.
• Both men came from the Home Office. 
• Film-makers came to the BBFC during the script-writing process, for advise before their film went into production. 
• Watkins and Harris therefore formulated three new principles;
  

1. Was the story, incident or dialogue likely to impair the moral standards of the public by extenuating vice or crime or depreciating moral standards?
2. Was it likely to give offence to reasonably minded cinema audiences?
3. What effect would it have on children?

Children were a huge cause for concern, and apart from the 'H' category which was only advisory, there was no category which would exclude children. Therefore, and 'adults only' category was becoming highly desirable, in order to protect children, as well as giving film-makers the freedom to treat adult subjects in an adult fashion. 

Case studies

#1 - A Man V The Northwich Guardian

• Clause 6 - A child under 16 must not be photographed. The boy featured in the stills was 15 and should have been protected as they didn't have the parent's consent. 
• Public right to know - The video contains footage of teenagers committing a serious crime, so it's in the interest of the public to be aware of their behaviour.
• Clause 3 - Everyone is entitled to respect for his private life. The fact that the boy decided to upload the video onto Youtube, which can be accessed by the public, meant that this clause had no effect. 
• Does the publication of the video on the newspaper's website and of the stills in the print version improperly identify a 15 year old boy? I don't think it does, as this boy decided to take a video of his actions and therefore, should have been aware of the consequences and people's opinions. 

#2 - A Man V Zoo Magazine 

• Clause 6 - A child under 16 must not be photographed. The girl featured was 10 years old. 
• Clause 3 - Everyone is entitled to respect for her private life. Were photographed in a public area, at a Premiership football match. 
• However, as she was only a child, her face should have been blurred, which all the other publications did, as it wasn't in the public interest. 
• Should the magazine have obscured the child's features? Yes, because she is still a child, and I think the photograph would have been as effective if her face was blurred, as the audience would have still been able to recognise that it was a child doing this which was the most shocking part. 
• Did the father's behaviour suggest that that he did not want to draw attention of the press to his child? The behaviour of the father suggested that he wasn't preventing drawing attention to his daughter, and should have been responsible and more concerned before making rude gestures. 

#3 - A Man V The Sunday Times 

• Clause 6 - Pupils should not be approached without the permission of the school authorites.  As this incident was related to the school, the journalist shouldn't have made any contact with the boy. 
• Clause 6 - Minors should not be paid for material involving children's welfare. Asking for a photograph of the suspect went against this code, as it involved the suspects welfare. 
• Clause 4 - Journalists must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing individuals once asked to desist.  We don't know if the boy rejected the journalist from giving any information. 
• Does this mean there is no complaint to answer? Has the code been breached? I think that yes, the code has definitely been breached based on the fact that the journalist was trying to obtain information about the suspect through a pupil attending at the school. 

#4 - A Woman V The Independent 

• Clause 3 - Everyone is entitled to respect for her private and family life, home, health... The fact that she only told three people whom she assumed that she could trust, showed that she didn't want the public to know.
• Clause 1 - The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. Even though they might have been told by one of those three people who knew, they shouldn't have published anything until it was confirmed by the actress herself. 

#5 - A Woman V The Sun

• Clause 3 - Everyone is entitled to respect for her private life... This image was taken in a public area, and the fact that there were other people present meant that the lady wasn't concerned about people not knowing. 
• Clause 5 - When reporting suicide, care should be taken to avoid excessive detail about the method used. It was pretty clear from the images about how this lady killed herself just from the photographs. However, they should have considered reactions from people who personally knew the lady, as they would have been affected to see someone that they knew in the newspaper, killing themselves. But the newspaper treated this tragic event appropriately, and they didn't dwell on unpleasant details. 

#6 - A Woman V Eastbourne Gazette

• Clause 3 - Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individuals private life without consent. This journalist entered the hospital without identifying himself. He had no permission as well, as the family had firmly denied it previously. 
• Clause 4 - Journalists must not engage in intimidation harassment or persistent pursuit. The fact that the journalist kept wanting to speak to the family, leaving messages, and again telephoning suggested that he was being persistent breaching this code. 
• Clause 8 - Journalists must identify themselves and obtain permission from a responsible executive before entering non-public areas of hospitals. He entered the hospital without identifying himself and questioned the man despite his fatal condition.

#7 - A Police Officer V The Sunday Telegraph

• Clause 3 - Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individuals private life without consent. The fact that they entered the house without clearly identifying themselves suggested that they intruded. However, based on the fact that the Nazi memorabilia belonged to the policewoman's husband, meant that it was in the publics interest based on the role that the policewoman had within the community, especially because she was responsible for investigating racially-motivated crimes. 

#8 - Paul McCartney V Hello!

• Clause 3 - Everyone is entitled to respect for his private and family life. This was an intrusion into his private life, as they were pictured near a cathedral in a distressed time as he paid respect to his late wife. 
• It wasn't in the public's interest to know, as this was a very private matter even though he is a celebrity and should be expected to have been taken photographs of. 
• Clause 5 - Intrusion into grief. They were paying respect to their late wife/mother. 
• The newspaper should have been more considerate and been more respectful to him as he was going through a hard time. 

BBFC Seminar

In the afternoon, we returned to school to attend a seminar given by a BBFC spokesperson. She was one of the people who classified films. She said that on average, she'd watch 5 hours and 41 minutes of footage every day, and that the genres and type of films she came across were completely random. She later went through the guidelines that she had to always follow, which we had already learnt. She showed us various clips from films, and one was 'The Expendables' where one of the guys is seen to cut off someone else's arm. This was a clear example of the producers dwelling on the violence, and the BBFC had asked them to re-edit the the clip. The edited clip worked just as fine, and was more appropriate for the viewing audience, as it was given a classification rating of 15.

PCC Seminar

After attending the seminar, based in Central London, the talk reinforced facts that I had previously learnt. The seminar was really interesting as I had finally understood the process of making complaints, and that the PCC would also encourage affected individuals to complain to newspapers/magazines which published negative articles about them, and made them realise that they could take action against them. I think that this is because, currently, a majority of the public are unaware about who the PCC are and what they do.
Also, when the PCC comes across a complain, there's a wide range of factors which they must consider. For them to decide whether the complaint should be upheld or not, is sometimes difficult. The decisions that they make are very subjective, which has made them build up a bad reputation unfortunately.

The Press Complaints Commission

What does the PCC do? 

• Independent.
• deals with complains about editorial content in newspapers & magazines in the UK (including websites). 
• 16 clause Code of Practice. 
• Deals with complaints about content which someone believes has breached the code. 
• The editor usually resolves the complaint e.g. published correction, apology or clarification. 
• If problem cannot be solved, the PCC will assess the evidence from both sides and issue an adjudication (formal judgement) which has to be published in the newspapers/magazines pages. 

How does the system work?

• Not legal. Not run by the government. 
• Run on a voluntary agreement by the newspaper/magazine industry.
• Code of Practice drawn by the committee of editors.
• Commission itself consists of public 'lay' members.
• 10 out of the 17 have no link to the newspaper/magazine industry. 

What does the Code of Practice cover? 

• Covers four main areas: accuracy, privacy, news-gathering, protecting the vulnerable.
• Editor is expected to take full responsibility of the content that they produce. (e.g. articles, photographs etc...)
• Content should comply with the Code of Practice.
• Code of Practice doesn't cover issues of taste and decency purely because of the democratic society that we're in, newspapers feel they have the freedom to publish in a style which they choose as long as it complies with the Code of Practice. 
• Most people choose what style of newspaper they buy, hence can expect content which agrees to their specific taste, unlike billboards, which everyone can see, so rules on taste must be appropriate. 

How is the PCC funded? 

• Funded by the Press Standards Board of Finance (PressBof).
• Collect money from newspapers and magazines. 
• Each newspaper and magazine contribute based on the number of people who buy their papers.
• Not funded by the government. 

What is the history of the PCC?

• Set up in 1991 replacing the Press Council which started in 1953.
• Their aim was to maintain high standards of journalism whilst protecting press freedom. 
• In 1980's, MP's started to lose their faith in the Press Council based on the fact that some publications failed to observe the simple ethics of journalism. 
• Government appointed a Departmental Committee to consider the matter.
• Later, proposed a new PCC which would have to prove "that non-statutory regulation can be made to work effectively".

Who complains to the PCC and what do they complain about?

• Accepts complaints from anyone who believes that an article is in breach of the Code of Practice. 
• The Code provides special protection to particular vulnerable groups. 

Why is the PCC important? 

• In a democratic society, the press should not be subject to strict controls by law or by government. The PCC being an independent, voluntary organisation protects against this possibility simply by its existence. 

16 Clauses

1. Accuracy
2. Opportunity to reply
3. Privacy*
4. Harassment*
5. Intrusion into grief or shock
6. Children*
7. Children in sex cases*
8. Hospitals*
9. Reporting of crime*
10. Clandestine devices and subterfuge*
11. Victims of sexual assault
12. Discrimination
13. Financial journalism 
14. Confidential sources
15. Witness payments in criminal trials
16. Payment to criminals*

Public interest

May be exceptions to clauses marked with *. 

Differences between the ratings.

U & PG


Can be more frightening but still cannot be prolonged and fantasy is treated less strictly.

The themes at PG can be a little more mature, but the nature of how they are presented is still very mild.

Stronger violence, but still will not focus on detail. Must be justified by it's context.Sexual content can be allowed more at PG however its treatment is still discreet and infrequent.
At PG mild drug use/reference is more acceptable but still must carry an anti-drug message overall.
Discriminatory language can be used at PG however must have an educational or historical context.
No drug references in both these ratings.

PG & 12A


Stronger violence accepted without strong detail. 
Nudity is allowed but must still be brief and discreet.

Moderate physical and psychological threat may be permitted at 12A but cannot be sustained.
Imitable behaviour accepted. Glamorisation of weapons still not permitted. 
Moderate language permitted. 

Discriminatory language/behaviour is stronger but must not be encouraged.
Drug mis-use can be shown at 12A [it cannot at PG]  but must be infrequent and not glamorised.

12A/12 & 15

Horror can be stronger and more threatening. 
Glamorisation of easily accessible weapons is not acceptable.
Nudity is more acceptable. Can be shown in a sexual context but not with strong detail.
Strong verbal references to sexual behaviour.

Language is more frequent and stronger however, context is important.

Drug references are shown, but anti-drug message still enforced. 

15 & 18 

Risk of harm to society is not acceptable.
Sexualised violence is allowed at 18.
Can include sexual relationships. 
Clear images of real sex is not permitted at 18.

18 - R18

Cannot breach any criminal laws.
Sexually abusive behaviour is not acceptable. 
Real sex is allowed at R18.