On 10 Jun, 09:50, David Hansen 
wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:19:44 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be BrianW
>  wrote this:-
>
> >How on earth can you say it was the police who censored it, when it
> >was the film makers who had failed to get a certificate?
>
> If the police were that concerned then they would insist that all
> films are classified. However, they don't. One possible conclusion
> is that they picked on this film as it doesn't show them in a good
> light The other possibility is that they were incompetent in the
> past but will insist that all films are classified in the future.
> There is no third option and we already know that the second option
> is not the case (as they have not done the same thing with other
> films).
>
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/27/ethicalliving.activ...>
> has a fuller background, from which the following are the relevant

I read that article last time this came up.  Your argument is akin to
a motorist, pulled over for speeding, saying to the police "there were
loads of other people speeding, and you haven't nicked them, therefore
you should not prosecute me".

I have nothing against the makers of the film in question.  They have
every right to show their film.  However, there is a legal requirement
in this country that all films shown in licensed cinemas must have a
BBFC certificate.  The film in question doesn't, and showing it in a
licensed cinema is therefore a criminal act.  What more is there to
say?