WE often disagree with the classification of films.

Controversy surrounded Jackie Chan’s new movie, deemed too violent to be released under Chinese regulations. Before this, the latest Batman film, The Dark Knight, was also regarded as too violent for its 12a classification.

With this in mind, many might see the positive side to the British Board of Film Classification’s regular reviews of its rules.

The board claims it is committed to “consulting the public every four years” on the ratings of films, DVDs and video games to ensure that the guidelines used “accurately reflect public attitudes and concerns”.

As a result, the views of over 8,700 people across the UK from the age of 16 upwards have formed the basis for the latest set of classification guidelines.

The introduction of “discrimination” as a key classification issue covering race, gender, religion, disability and sexuality is the main change.

Other changes include tightening the horror criteria and relaxing regulations on explicit sexual images in adult films and DVDs rated 18.

One of the first ratings to be affected is a DVD box set of the US comedy Friends in which Rachel (Jennifer Aniston) describes herself as a “laundry spaz” to explain her inability to load a washing machine.

This word, short for spastic, is seen as discriminative under the new guidelines.

Because it features the use of the same word, The Pacifier, a 2005 children’s film starring Vin Diesel, will change from PG to 12a.

Other films that will change in classification include The Others, which will increase from 12a to 15; Date Movie (12a to 15); and Pilgrimage (U to PG).

The BBFC admit that even slight changes to the guidelines will have an impact on both new and old works although historical context will be taken into account.

So what about Monty Python’s Life of Brian?

Surely, it can be argued, the “discrimination” against Christianity cannot be justified by the historical context in which the film was made because blasphemy was tolerated less in 1979 than today.

Sue Clark, head of communications at BBFC, stressed that “the comedy elements of films and DVDs would be taken into account” as well as their historical context, and that whether something was regarded as discriminative or not would depend on “the purpose of the situation”.

She gave the example of the Little House on the Prairie. Although, it has been argued, there is an element of racism within the series, the point is to show that this behaviour is wrong.

Phil Walkley from Dorset Moviola asked: “What’s the definition of discrimination?”

He said: “I think it is rather tricky ground for them to add this category because it is not something that all people will often agree on.”

Sexism could become almost as thorny an issue as racism and religion in the debate.

Feminists argue that many films are sexist in that they present men as “stronger” than women.

Sue Clark said it would be impossible to act on every scene in which women are portrayed as being weaker than men... simply because there would be too many.

But material that was “purposely derogatory” would be a different matter, she added, giving the example of some pornographic films that send out the wrong message.

As the BBFC admits, film classification is not a science and it is impossible to satisfy everyone.

Phil Walkley believes people should be able to use their own judgements more than at present.

“In my opinion, the classification of a film should not be seen as strict rules that have to be obeyed but more of a guide.

“We need to be careful. I think certain things have gone too far in terms of political correctness.”