When I asked the BBFC about whether the Act only applies to films for cinema exhibition, they informed me that at the time of the VRA the Home Office advised them to extend the Act to cover films for home viewing as well. As much as I might get annoyed with the BBFC at times (rarely, though, these days, I might add) they really have no choice in this matter and we can't blame them for having to excise such scenes. I think that as long as the implication of what the child is doing is conveyed well enough then the film will play out just fine. But the implication has to be there, as this is why the child gets a beating, without the implication it would render the sequence a little confusing. I'm confident that if the film has to be altered that the chaps at Arrow will do a good job of it - in fact, most viewers probably won't even know it's cut if it's done well.
To be honest, this wouldn't really be censorship on the BBFC's part, just them adhering to the laws of the land, which they can't be blamed for. As seen with their waiving of the cut to
Inferno, they will go as close to the line as they can, without crossing it, as they possibly can. They should be applauded for that IMO. And, as much as we folks don't like cut films, in instances like this there's no alternative. But....fingers crossed it'll get through unscathed - you never know!
Whilst I think it's a weird policy of cutting old films like this, I also have no doubt that if the Cinematograph Act (Animals) was scrapped that some unscrupulous souls would make films showing cruelty to animals, which is not something I'd like to see happen. That's just the kind of world we live in, unfortunately.
I'm not totally anti-censorship, as that's a ridiculous stance to take, but I am against draconian censorship, which thankfully is no longer the prevailing attitude at the BBFC. In fact, political censorship and media manipulation worries me far more these days than any fear of cutting horror films!