sounds like fun for the whole family!

Local councils can still override the BBFC and screen films if they choose, though I doubt any will bother...

My biggest problem with all of this is that they use subjective terms. They should not call a film "disgusting" or "tasteless". Ratings should be based off of an objective calculated value... or even better they should just give a description of the content of the film and then leave it up to the audience to decide if it is appropriate for them. The only exceptions I have as being when a film should be banned are when it was made using violence or coercion of if children were used in the film in inappropriate ways.

I am an intelligent person and I should be allowed to decide for myself if a movie is appropriate for my viewing.

I am now going to break the law so i can see this film.. Because the BBFC have banned it, it has now perked my interest...The same thing happend with Murder Set Pieces when they banned that, it made me want to see that piece of shit movie...where as if they had released it, i would not have bothered..Banning things just makes people want to see it even more, its extra promotion for the film...

To Todd: I'm not saying that at all and you know full well.

I'm talking about film. The things you've just mentioned are not art. Child porn and the other examples you cite (and are you saying snuff films exist?) are not films at all, they are criminal.

Prepare yourself for an increase in so called "draconian" decisions over the next few years in the UK, the current Tory government are probably going to pass laws that will attempt to protect children from being overly sexualized thru the media, the recent videos by Rhianna et al have caused the government, under pressure from Mumsnet to consider age certification for music videos, restrictions on what ads can be placed in the vicinity of schools and the clothing that is sold to children.
I suspect there will be a ripple effect thru all media, so a return to the good old days of the "Video Nasties" of the 80's may well be on the cards, so you better stock up now if you live in the UK!!!

But on a more serious note, the BBFC have over the past few decades had a pretty good reputation, so I'm not overly concerned at the moment that we are going to disappear into a state controlled media feeding us propaganda on a 24/7 loop.
But I do see a potential increase in governmental interference in film censorship in the UK, as they attempt to stem the tide of media accessible to all ages. Personally, films like this don't float my boat, in any way, shape or form, and I doubt the world is going to rue a lost classic in years to come.

As mentioned before Steven Sheil, writer/director of "Mum & Dad", chimed in on this matter in the censorship article. His answer is so thoroughly thought-out and well-argumented that I can not resist reposting it here in this thread in its entirety. Here's what Steven had to say:

For me, the most interesting aspect of this is the idea that the film “poses a real, as opposed to a fanciful, risk that harm is likely to be caused to potential viewers” coupled with the concerns that the film may be in breach of the Obscene Publications Act, which “prohibits the publication of works that have a tendency to deprave or corrupt a significant proportion of those likely to see them”.

This idea of ‘harm’, the idea of a film that ‘depraves and corrupts’ – the concern here is that the audience need protecting. But which audience are we talking about and what are they/we being protected from?

There’s no evidence that the viewing of Human Centipede 2 harms, depraves or corrupts. The film has already been viewed numerous times by the people who made it – writer, director, producer, cast, crew, sales agents, distributors – and by the BBFC themselves. Have they been harmed, depraved or corrupted? If not, then why should we think that there is the potential for others to be so harmed and corrupted? What sets them apart and why wouldn’t it set us apart too?

It seems to me that the description of the film suggests that it is at the very least a comment on the idea of film corrupting the viewer. We’re told that the lead character masturbates to a viewing of Human Centipede:First Sequence and that he creates his own, more ambitious, human centipede. Surely this is a satire on the whole idea of the imitability of horror films. As far as I know, nobody in real life has attempted to create a Human Centipede, nor is there evidence that the first film harmed, depraved or corrupted anyone. So the only place to see this harm taking place is within Human Centipede 2.
For all those asking ‘Why make something like this’, surely this is the answer, at least in part – the film appears to be about the idea of a ‘corrupting film’, it’s engaging in this debate. (It also seems to tie in with the central idea of the first film – something is passed through one body then excreted into a second and then onto a third. Maybe the mooted third HC film will feature someone ‘inspired’ by HC2…)
So if the film has a central idea about the idea of corruption, does that make it corrupting? Because the central character is depraved, are we in danger of becoming depraved too? What harm will be done to us if we view the film?

No-one is accidentally going to watch HC2 if all the existing laws and classification structures are abided by. If the film were classified 18 it would not be legally viewable by children. It is unlikely that the film – which would also carry a description of its content alongside its classification (eg ‘Contains very strong sexual violence, sex and violence’), which would alert the viewer to any content which might upset them – would be unwittingly viewed by someone who didn’t want to see it.

But there is also a concern that ‘vulnerable people’ might be exposed to the film, with the implied idea that it might do psychological damage (corrupt and deprave). Again, where’s the evidence that Human Centipede or any other horror film does this? Also, are these ‘vulnerable people’, as the OPA states, ‘a significant proportion’ of those likely to see the film? Where’s the evidence for this?

All films seek to affect us – they want to get inside our heads or our guts – they want us to think or feel. Some filmmakers want us to think about unpleasant things, things that trouble us, things that upset us, things that disgust us – and they do this because they know that there is an audience out there that wants to think about these things. They want to see stories about death, murder, mutilation, violence and depravity because they are trying to process the reasons for these things existing in the real world. In real life, torture, murder and sexual abuse are abhorrent, but they happen every day and they affect us and often the reasons for them happening are hard to understand. What’s wrong with producing a piece of work, a fiction, a story that attempts to examine a worldview that is alien to us, a worldview that embraces the abhorrent? Are we really so psychologically vulnerable that we need to be protected from ideas that are troubling?

I haven’t seen Human Centipede 2, so I don’t know whether it has a coherent argument about the potential of film to corrupt or whether it’s just a barrage of extreme sexual violence. The point is that it’s a fiction and its designed to affect the viewer -as all films are – and I can make up my own mind as to whether I want to see it and whether I want its worldview in my head. If I were to watch it in a cinema or at home I could at any point get up and leave or turn it off. I don’t need someone to protect me from it.

To reverse the original question – should the ability to see a woman sexually humiliated - in this case surgically altered and anally raped by a man whose penis has been bound by barbed wire - in the name of entertainment be prevented by law? If no harm were done in the creation of this image, if all parties involved were consensual and fully aware of the context of the image’s creation, then why should we be prevented from seeing it? As yet, we don’t know the context of this image, beyond what the BBFC have told us, but I think we could as individuals decide whether it was something that had creative or entertainment or intellectual value or not, and if not, then we could discuss why not. The film, if released, would find an audience willing to engage with its worldview or it wouldn’t – the same as any other film. I think that denying the film a release under the pretence of protecting the audience from harm grossly underestimates the ability that the vast majority of us have to process fictional images and ideas.