It seems that the British Board of Film Classification is ‘facing controversy’ - the wonderfully malleable term employed by Richard Brooks in The Sunday Times today – over its decision to allow David Cronenberg’s Eastern Promises to be screened uncut. In support of his claim Brooks cites Mike Bor – former BBFC chief examiner – as claiming that the Board’s policy “… is now out of step with public opinion”.

I am moved to ask what possible relevance ‘public opinion’ could have to a decision over whether to allow private adult citizens to view a piece of film. The thought that a government body has the power to decide what I should be permitted to watch is as repugnant to me as the scenes of violence in Eastern Promises seem to have been to the squeamish Mr Brooks. The difference is that he can elect not to watch such material, whereas I would have no such choice should the film have been banned.

Original Article