[skyofcrack]

Originally Posted by Inspector Tanzi

I got a reply from the BBFC just now:

Dear Aarron

Thank you for your email and interesting comments.

I should point out that no decision has been made about INFERNO. We have not classified this work, and it would not be appropriate to comment on a title under consideration.

As you know, the BBFC has a statutory obligation under the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 to ensure that no scene "was organised or directed in such a way as to involve the cruel infliction of pain or terror on any animal or the cruel goading of any animal to fury" in regards to works intended for cinema release in the UK. The same consideration is also given to works released on video and DVD. This approach was endorsed by the Home Office at the time of the designation of the Video Recording Act 1984 and subsequently supported by legal opinion.

The BBFC takes its legal obligations very seriously. If our examiners have any doubts or concerns over the treatment of animals in the works they view, assurances of well-being are sought from the distributors and / or film-makers. Expert veterinary advice has also been taken on a number of occasions to determine whether cruelty towards animals has been involved during the making of a film. Cuts will be made to films or DVDs where there is clear evidence of on-screen cruelty, or the makers are unable to provide convincing assurances.

While a cat eating a mice is a natural, real-life occurrence, if such an incident has been "organised or directed" specifically for the purposes of being filmed - rather than captured on film while occurring naturally as in a wildlife documentary - and involves the cruel infliction of pain, we are legally required by the Act to remove the scene.

I hope this explains the situation for you.

Yours sincerely,


J L Green
Chief Assistant (Policy)

Okay, here's the problem with this response. He only sites the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937. In that, it says, "the expression " animal " has the same meaning as in the Protection of Animals Act, 1911. From that:

(a) the expression " animal " means any domestic or captive
animal ;
(b) the expression " domestic animal " means any horse, ass,
mule, bull., sheep, pig, goat, dog, cat, or fowl, or
any other animal of whatsoever kind or species, and
whether a quadruped or not which is tame or which
has been or is being sufficiently tamed to serve some
purpose for the use of man ;
(c) the expression " captive animal " means any animal (not
being a domestic animal) of whatsoever kind or species,
and whether a quadruped or not, including any bird,
fish, or reptile, which is in captivity, or confinement,
or which is maimed, pinioned, or subjected
to any appliance or contrivance for the purpose of
hindering or preventing its escape from captivity or
confinement ;

Elsewhere in the Act it says:

8. If any person-

(b) shall knowingly put or place, or cause or procure any
person to put or place, or knowingly be a party to
the ' putting or placing, in or upon any land or
building any poison, or any fluid or edible matter
(not being sown seed or grain) which has been
rendered poisonous,

such person shall, upon summary conviction, be liable to a fine
not exceeding ten pounds :

Provided that, in any proceedings under paragraph (b) of
this section, it shall be a defence that the poison was placed
by the accused for the purpose of destroying rats, mice, or other
small vermin, and that he took all reasonable precautions to
prevent access thereto of dogs, cats, fowls, or other domestic
animals.

That shows a clear distinction between dogs, cats, etc... as domestic animals and rats and mice as vermin which are okay to destroy with poison. Why would you have to protect vermin by cutting it out of a film (even though it's long since met its maker) even though you can kill them in your home according to these documents?