Censorship laws need revising to ban nasties

ACCORDING to the British Board of Film Classification, "there is nothing in this film that anybody should have any concerns about". I'd sack whoever came to this conclusion about a film set in a Nazi concentration camp with a storyline featuring rape, torture and murder committed in hellish ways.

Our censorship laws, mirroring public attitudes, have come a long way since the film censor banned films featuring a man, a woman and a bed, unless it was shot in such a way that movie fans could easily see that either the man, or the woman, had one foot on the floor . . . thus rendering impossible what men and women have done in bed since Adam and Eve started the ball rolling.

But as the movie industry matured, so society was becoming less puritanical, and more pluralist and tolerant of different beliefs and behaviour, possibly because experience of two world wars broke down the hypocrisies of the Victorian and Edwardian eras. Books, films and stage productions became much more representative of real life.

My generation, today's grandparents, thought censorship of films, etc, to be unnecessary and illiberal. And we were right . . . up to a point. It was healthier and more honest that actors should express themselves, and the characters they portrayed, as humans whose traits, both admirable and unattractive, would be absorbed by audiences.

Films have influenced our behaviour and the fashions we've adopted ever since Al Jolson first gave voice to art imitating life and vice-versa in The Jazz Singer. That's why it's not a bad idea to have somebody classify films to try to ensure, for example, that young people don't see very explicit sexual or violent scenes before they have sufficient experience of real life to put such screen behaviour into perspective.

Such judgement, or censorship, will always involve sensitivity, and inevitably sometimes some subjectivity, on the part of the person deciding what is appropriate. Everyone has their own opinion on what is acceptable dramatic behaviour, and the point at which it becomes too removed from reality, too cruel, too violent or too antisocial to be portrayed in films, TV or DVDs. Some people think there should be no censorship whatsoever. But evidence of uncontrollable bad behaviour in schools may indicate that such liberalism is now a thing of the past.

Discussing the extent to which violent and crude computer games played by today's kids influence their opinions and relationships with their peer age-group and adults alike, a friend recalled yesterday's youngsters watching very violent Tom and Jerry cartoons.

But there's a quantum leap from cartoon animals to robots resembling the boy, or girl, next door getting up to no good. Children don't identify with Tom's cruelty however much they enjoy it, but they can identify with the twisted characters in Grand Theft Auto, and become de-sensitised to murder, and casual and cultivated violence.

The boorish, undisciplined and violent behaviour experienced by teachers suggests that we've gone too far in the relaxation of laws designed to protect children from copycat behaviour.

That's not to suggest video nasties and decadent DVDs are the only reasons for the presence of police officers in playgrounds or the shocking number of physical attacks on teachers. But to deny a possible link is to deny the effect of TV, video and DVD on fashions, attitudes and behaviour.

It's indisputable that much of the economy is dependent on the success of TV advertising. Viewers' identification is proved when Vera Duckworth's death is reported as though the Coronation Street character is a real person. It stretches credulity beyond belief to deny that electronic means of communication don't influence behaviour .

So the SS Experiment Camp DVD that was banned for 20 years has now been judged harmless by dopes at the British Board of Film Classification, and should be cleared from shop shelves ASAP.

And Gordon Brown should instigate an investigation into the need for a better, modern system of screening out the nasties.


Don't skimp on Capital's cash

SO FAR, so good. Finance Minister John Swinney promised to include a Capital City Supplement in his next year's budget, following a study of Edinburgh's special needs undertaken along with the council.

MSPs know I've been pursuing this for years and, by and large, they seem to have finally got the message that it's not clever to starve the engine of the Scottish economy of funds, and not fair to expect Capital council tax payers to shell out for services that benefit the whole country.

The latter fact is easily overlooked, because Edinburgh does create such a favourable impression of success. But a very high percentage of the city's residents work for nationally agreed pay scales, or fairly low leisure and tourist industry wages, but have to live with Edinburgh prices.

So now the trick will be to get enough of a CCS to make a difference to Edinburgh people, and make possible an even greater contribution to the Scottish economy.


Obama's view of east is best

MY vote would go to Barak Obama. I don't buy into the "lacks experience" line. Whether he or Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, and goes on to win the White House, there will be a fair number of the same advisers and policy wonks who'll work for either.

The tipping point for me is the difference in their Middle East policies – and Barak's are better.