The Film Censors of Soho show their commitment to keep things as Ferman-Gestapo as they possibly can, despite the fact that Hollywood has put out nothing controversial over the last decade, in that they want to get rid of seasoned, mature examiners with a wealth of experience who might just debate convincingly on contentious matters, to replace them with........ (Da da dahhh....) "Compliance Officers."
Compliance Officers....
Think about that title for a minute.
Tell me you cannot hear them already, "Ve are ze Compliance Officers, you cannot view zis material. It is verboten!"
They say that "unacceptable sex and violence might slip through due to the tidal wave of sexually explicit and very violent films and videos available in 2016...." Whaaaaat??? Which films?? Certainly nothing released in the UK in the last 10/15 years and in my experience, the younger the person, the more likely they are to be "offended" by anything as they try desperately to prove how PC they are.
They also state that their guidelines are founded on large scale public consultation.... is that the 28 people they canvassed to watch some of the worst films they could find, then when no one complained about anything they decided to bring in dubious research to accredit their ridiculous censor guidelines? That large scale public consultation?
But, hey, things are so much better than they used to be, eh?
The Belfast Telegraph reports that the BBFC wants to get rid of five of its current examiners by the end of the year and replace them with younger, less experienced, cheaper compliance officers.
The trade union Unite has responded with the unlikely claim that the staff economies would risk material slipping through the censorship process. Unite's general secretary Len McCluskey has written to the BBFC's president Patrick Swaffer about the planned staff changes. He wrote:
It has always been my impression that the BBFC has maintained the trust of the public, particularly in relation to its child protection responsibilities, through the recruitment of mature and experienced individuals who have come from a variety of backgrounds, both personal and professional.
It seems to me that to replace those individuals with young, inexperienced graduates is both unfortunate in terms of the BBFC's public persona, and, quite possibly, a case of age discrimination.
Furthermore, I do not believe the public's trust, and especially that of many parents, will be enhanced by the knowledge that the BBFC is willing to lose the few examiners who view material on a day-to-day basis who are themselves parents, a status that brings an unimpeachable knowledge and understanding of child development.
The examiners are being given a choice of leaving on voluntary severance terms or being redeployed as compliance officers with a reduction in status and £20,000-a-year drop in salary.
Unite is arguing that the cost savings are not necessary because the BBFC's most recent accounts revealed an operating surplus of more than £1.2 million and that turnover is up by 2%, and operating costs down by the same amount. The union's regional officer Rose Keeping said:
You can't put a price on protecting children and young people from the tidal wave of sexually explicit and very violent films and videos that are available in 2016.
With less experienced examiners, there is an increased possibility that an unacceptable sex scene and/or one of extreme violence sneaking past the censors' net - this would be detrimental to the promotion of child protection that the Government is actively supporting.
We are also investigating whether what the BBFC is proposing for our members contravenes the age discrimination provisions in the 2010 Equality Act.
The BBFC responded in a press release saying:
The BBFC's classification standards protect children and empower families.
In making classification decisions, the BBFC has in place a structure that ensures consistency of approach and is based on published Classification Guidelines that are founded on large-scale public consultation.
The BBFC is currently in consultation with Unite in relation to this phase of the reorganisation of its examining and compliance functions, which began in 2013. The BBFC must respect the privacy of the ongoing formal consultation process.