U.K. Video Game Critic Keith Vaz Has a New Target: The Dark Knight

Labour MP Keith Vaz, long a critic of violent video games, has taken umbrage to the BBFC’s rating of new Batman flick The Dark Knight.

As reported by The Register, Vaz and Conservative MP Iain Duncan Smith object to the film’s 12A rating, which means that under 12s can see The Dark Knight if accompanied by their parents:

…Vaz said: "The BBFC should realise there are scenes of gratuitous violence in The Dark Knight to which I would certainly not take my 11-year-old daughter. It should be a 15 classification."


Vaz, who has previously railed against video game violence, wants to get the BBFC before his committee’s hearings on knife crime later in the year. Presumably its representatives will be required to explain what they think they’re doing fostering violent knifey rages in children…


The BBFC has defended its rating, admitting that while it was a "borderline" decision, the violence is in over-the-top comic-book fashion and does adhere to the guidelines for a 12A certificate. With a 15 certificate, said spokeswoman Sue Clark, "Younger teenagers would not have been able to see it, and they are the very people who are going to love it. We would have ended up with far more complaints from people who wanted to see the film and couldn’t."

 In light of Vaz’z criticism, it’s interesting to note that the BBFC will soon take over video game rating chores if the British government has its way.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    j0k3r says:

    Thanks good job;

    Btw, I think Atari and Midway will drop out too, but mostly travesti because  these guys have done nothing travesti or little and need to start saving costs. and dizi izle


    Now I don’t have to get off my ass for the important shit anymore!

    Whats next, ordering pizza from Xbox live?

    Wait… I think that sounds like a good idea.

    But I think voting should MAKE you get off your ass, and see outside or a second while you go vote. I mean, your picking the president of the United States of America for God’s Sake… least you can do is drive down there and punch out a card.

  2. 0
    oto kirlama says:

    I’m all for freedom of ttnet vitamin speech and allowing rent a car game makers to put whatever they want in games, but there’s one thing about this app that has me scratching my head.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but from araç kiralama the previous article araba kiralama on this I gathered that players can use Google maps in-game to find the other (real-life?) dealers in their area.  If this is the case, has travesti anyone considered what’s stopping someone from using this app to actually move drugs between hands for reals?

    But majority araba kiralama of their outrage araç kiralama stems from what it could DO TO children, not the content itself.  Talk to one of these people and you’ll find they don’t think any books kiralık araba should be banned from children.  Mention American Psycho and they talk about kiralık araç the redeeming value of using imagination to construct a story.  Reading, no matter what the content, is largely viewed as a consequenceless activity for people of any age.  The reason why I mention American Psycho is because of the content itself.  Gaming never has and likely never will have any scenes where someone has sex with a severed head.  Not gonna happen.  Yet despite this, they’ll fight tooth and nail to protect their children from two boys kissing in Bully but whatever they read is harmless… yeah.

    The entire arguement is kiralık oto based upon a social normality inflicted by luddites who can’t figure out the controls for Halo so it’s frightening and terrifying and obviously the cause of youth violence on the rise even though, in reality, it’s in decline (which is actually a HUGE suprise given minibüs kiralama the economies status).  In  a perfect world, we would have parents that actually parent.  The idea of sales restrictions on media on oto kiralama any form to accomidate parental unwillingness to get involved with their child’s life is the real problem to me.  Here I am, 32 years old, and being held up at a self-scan rent a car needing to show ID before I can buy a $10 M rated game all because Soccer Momthra can’t be bothered to look at the crap Billy Genericallystupidson does in his free time.  It’s too hard for her, so I have to suffer?

  3. 0
    Steve ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    The point of an age restriction is to stop children from getting into inappropriate movies. Whether the parents are there or not is immaterial.

  4. 0
    Chuma-UnableToLoginDueToGPNotSendingConfirmationEmails ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    IF ONLY Labour had control of the transport networks… in 1997 John Prescott promised that the rail networks would be taken out of private hands and failed to deliver.  Sadly we are now left with a train system where tickets from Edinburgh to London cost £80 whereas it costs £35 to fly!  Northern Rock was kinda a forced issue what with the press causing a run on it with scaremongering tactics; if the government didn’t step in then tens of thousands of people would have lost their houses from the collasp.  The classification system has always been under review, and morons like Vaz aside, I think this is at least one issue that has been dealt with properly; the Byron report was very impressive when we thought it would be sensationalist.  Police powers… yeah, there we definitely agree.

    In short, I’m no fan of Labour, but at least let’s get some sense of fact here, yes?

  5. 0
    JustChris says:

    I agree. I also said before that these squeamish moments are cleverly edited. I imagine it’s what kept the movie in its PG-13 rating.

    I think the visceral feel should have little impact on the rating of the movies because everyone has a different reaction to what they see. If I’m not mistaken, some woman actually got a heart attack from watching Passion of the Christ, but it did not prompt theaters to quickly take the movie reels off their screening rooms.

  6. 0
    Steve ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    No, he’s saying that 12A was the wrong age restriction. Even though I hate to say it, I agree with him, and I’m not the only one.

  7. 0
    Steve ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    For the 100 millionth time, voting in the UK does NOT WORK LIKE THAT!!! Please read up on the matter.

    Oh, and take your pills, man. Relaxing makes you live longer :)

  8. 0
    Gift says:

    Worryingly I have to agree (at least in part) with Keith here, the latest Batman film got off very lightly IMO. Ok so you don’t see blood, but the violence is casual, pretty sadistic when it’s not being cold blooded and relentlessly threatening. Besides, in someways the implied gore and violence is worse than graphically showing it (although two-face was grissly enough). Start to finish the movie, is dark, tense and violent in a way a 12 rated video game could never be.

    Personally, much as I enjoyed the film I was pretty surprised to see it rated 12A, and this lax rating of movies appears to becoming ever more common. I first noticed the BBFC’s relaxed standards when Casino Royale got a 12A rating (again despite being very violent), but I’m not sure why. I’m all for giving parents the choice, and indeed think rating should be advisory rather than statutory, but the certificate given should properly inform for the system to work. In that context I think the BBFC really made a mess, TDK’s relentless menace definitely failed the 12A Horror criteria: “Sustained moderate threat and menace are permitted.” (my emphasis).

    As it happens I’m apparently not the only one to think so either. At the very least there’s something of a mismatch requiring a ratings tweek here, as large numbers of people are begining to notice film ratings don’t correspond to their expectations.



  9. 0
    Jezcentral says:

    GP wrote:

    "In light of Vaz’z criticism, it’s interesting to note that the BBFC will soon take over video game rating chores if the British government has its way."

    Eh? The BBFC have been rating games for years! What’s this "will soon take over video game rating" nonsense?

    And they have no link to the government, so there will be no kowtowing to ignorant dicks like Keith Vaz, who doesn’t want to take his daughter to see a film that the BBFC thinks she isn’t old enough for anyway.

  10. 0

    Heh and done in a sort of neat manner that wasn’t literally in all caps and thus a bitch to read.


    I’d like to show Vaz a magic trick….



  11. 0
    mark_n_b says:

    Most film rating boards in countries across the globe have very specific film rating guidlines.  The same reason Batman got a PG vs. PG-13 in North America.

    Dark Knight is quite clever actually, ever notice, for all the face cutting that goes on in the movie, you never even actually see blood pool from any of these wounds?

    It is actually quite a comment on the quality of the writing, acting, and visuals of the film that the viewing populous can have such a viseral reaction to what is going on "off camera".  If more films took this sort of careful approach to the work we would have more Star Wars calibre films (and Batman is beginning to approach that level, Dark Knight was excellent, and I have never said that about a super hero film before)

  12. 0
    M. Carusi says:

    Yeah, a torture scene where someone gets stripped naked and has their testes smacked with a rope knot in order to get them to talk strikes me as graphic. 😛

    M. Carusi

    Capitol Gaming


  13. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    ‘under 12s can see The Dark Knight if accompanied by their parents’

    um.. if accompanied by their parents…. the problem solves itself.

    i wish Vaz would STFU. What he’s basically saying is that parents dont have th right to decide if their 12 year old can see ‘the dark knight’ but for some reason he does.




  14. 0
    MonkeyPeaches ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    You know something strange, I actually agree with him, here in the states it got a pg-13 and if it had been just a little more violent it would have gotten an R. some parents think just because a movie is based off a comic book, it’s ok for little kids, I even once saw a guy take his son to see Blade 2 even though it’s rated r.

  15. 0
    face777 says:

    Yes many of us ARE bothered – we did NOT vote bastard brown in, but right now he and his cronies are trying to regulate EVERYTHNG in UK citizen’s lives, no matter how small. The populace WILL vote Labour out, but heil commandant will squeeze every day he can out of his coup. Statements like that do help, because it shows the feeling that we all aren’t nu-labour brown-nosers, like many of the neds / chavs which seem to have taken over the culture of this once-grand country (red-neck trailer trash, for an American interpretation)


    Hell, the police set-ups and reason for busting up  peaceful protest over ‘lack of emergency exits’ is the weakest facade I have ever read.  IT’S A FIELD, for fucks sake. Labour desires state ownership of everything they can – Northern Rock, transport networks, and now the classification system.  I cannot wait to emigrate and get far away from people who believe statements like you make here. Hell, I’d prefer America than the censoring body arseholes like Vaz would make this country if they had their way.  Yes they would, there is no denying that.


    The people most capable of running this country are far to smart to get involved in politics.

  16. 0
    chadachada(123) ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I’ve seen Casino Royal…I have no idea what your talking about. The Dark Knight is straddling light horror, but Casino Royal is a BA action movie with some sexuality (which, if you’ve seen any other James Bond…), nothing over-the-top…

  17. 0
    chadachada(123) ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Much of the US "soccer mom" population is stupid, hell, a lot of the US population doesn’t know anything ABOUT their own country, let alone the Constitution…Mant just follow the media and rally for that

  18. 0

    Everyone complaining about TDK being rated too low needs to grow a pair, seriously. There was no reason why it needed a higher rating other than prevent mommy and daddy from taking their little brat to a movie that may give them nightmares, which unless your kid already has issues, it wouldn’t. That’s the fault of the parents and I think TDK was all over the place enough to where you could get an idea as to what the movie was like months before it was even released. Hell, maybe ET should have been rated "R" because ET scared the shit out of me when I was little, especially that scene where he gets sick and laying out by a stream or somewhere and having turned white, I even had nightmares/delusions about ET’s head floating above my bed saying he was going to kill me. Oh yeah, I was two years old at the time. 

    I saw movies that were a million times worse than that later on including R rated movies (in the age range of the people who are bitching about taking their kids to see TDK) and none of them had that effect on me.



    Queef Vag is not only an idiot, but a bad father as well and his daughter looks like she’s going to be another one of those poorly adjusted kids if TDK upset her so much, same with the rest.

  19. 0
    Matthew says:

    "The BBFC should realise there are scenes of gratuitous violence in The Dark Knight to which I would certainly not take my 11-year-old daughter."

    If only the BBFC could come up with a rating that would mean parents get the final say in whether their 11-year-old daughter can see it.

    They could call it 12A or something.

  20. 0
    Jeff says:

    I think the rating given to it is fair. To believe otherwise is to assume that a 12 year old has a sensitive and innocent mind that just can’t be corrupted. I don’t know about a lot of you but I’ve been watching R rated movies many years prior to when I technically should’ve been allowed to.

    Yes, there are certain aspects of the movie that may be disturbing but given how little screen time these things get I’d say a higher rating wouldn’t have really been necessary. Though I suppose we all will disagree on what constitutes disturbing material I don’t think I could say this movie was disturbing enough that I wouldn’t let a young child of 11 or 12 watch it. It’s not THAT bad.

  21. 0
    M. Carusi says:

    There’s no one universal standard for movies OR games to have a certain rating and anyone who thinks a different ratings system will fix the problem is delusional.  Casino Royale is rated PG-13, and I didn’t hear anyone crying about it.  I personally think it’s more graphic than The Dark Knight in some ways.  Anyone who’s seen it will know what I’m talking about.

    M. Carusi

    Capitol Gaming


  22. 0
    Kirkburn ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    "In light of Vaz’z criticism, it’s interesting to note that the BBFC will soon take over video game rating chores if the British government has its way."

    Please stop saying things like these. It already does do game ratings to some extent, and it has no-one to take over from. Such sentences massively oversimplify the situation, and mislead those who do not know much about it.

    As per Wikipedia: "Normally these are exempt from classification, unless they depict human sexual activity, human genital organs or gross acts of violence, in which case the publishers should submit the game for classification."

    Phrases like "if the British government has its way" also do not help, because you are saying it as if it is against what the UK populace wants when I think it’s fair to say most are really not that bothered. I remind you the UK is not the US.

  23. 0
    Chuma-UnableToLoginDueToGPNotSendingConfirmationEmails ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    You are quite correct, however Im sure Keith Vaz would have some influence over such as decision.

  24. 0
    Anonymous says:

    My knowledge of local politics is a bit rusty, but if I recall hes the MP but that doesn’t mean hes in charge of the council. There are usually seperate local elections for that position.

  25. 0
    Lex-Man ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Can’t Vas declare and rating he wants for the film inside his own consistency.  I’m sure the same was done for David Croninbergs Crash, Westminster Council, banned the film also the original Spider-Man film was down graded from a 12 to a PG by North Norfolk and Breckland District Councils (Which was the event that caused the creation of the 12A certificate).

  26. 0
    Chuma-UnableToLoginDueToGPNotSendingConfirmationEmails ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    "Moreover, the ‘A’ stands for ‘Advisory’"

    In the context of the rating 12A?  No, no it doesn’t.  It means Adult supervision.  A 12 rating means any 12 year old can walk in and see the film on their own.  12A means that they need an adult with them to be able to see it.

  27. 0
    Chuma-UnableToLoginDueToGPNotSendingConfirmationEmails ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Can I point out that ratings are inherently ALL about taking the general population’s preconceived world view?  When rating they go with the moral majority when drawing the line.  With Manhunt 2, they felt the game had gone beyond that line, but the VAC felt otherwise.  The BBFC have in statements before and since then acknowledged that they have to move that line in accordance to the judgement.

    Where ratings are concerned, you cannot appease everyone as going with the view of the ‘general’ population is merely that.  What they CAN do is follow guidelines and stick to their guns in the face of any criticism if they feel that their decision is the correct one.

    It is worth noting that some of those who complained about the BBFC not originally giving a rating to Manhunt 2 citing political pressure are also complaining about the 12A rating being given in the face of such political pressure.  You cannot have it both ways.  I believe these 2 examples, which contradict the conspiracy theories, merely prove the BBFC’s worth as an independant body.

    Incidently, the 12A rating is relatively new to the cinema ratings.  If it were still 12 or 15, I suspect it would have been given a 15.

  28. 0
    omegaman says:

    You pretty much validate my whole comment even though you clearly did not understand it.

    "this is a rezaction to a complaint, so bringing uip counter-complaints is entirely within context"

    It may be in context but it is not at all admissible. Classification should be a clear process adherent to existing rules and guidelines. It is already subjective enough as is. If you start to consider who might or not complain about it when classifying a game then anything is possible.

    "So you dislike the BBFC for protecting the interests of people who want to go and watch the movie? WTF are you on?"

    I should like them because they let people go and watch this specific movei? It’s not about this specific movie, it’s about the BBFC’s duties and responsabilities and how they justify their actions in general. I think they do a very poor job in explaining their decisions.

    "I think you’re just hating on them ‘cos they don’t neatly fit into your preconceived world view."

    I don’t mean to be confrontational but I could say the exact same thing about you. I explained my reasoning and of course I could be wrong about it.

  29. 0
    SticKboy says:

    No – classification is partly based upon who the intended audience is supposed to be. Also, this is a rezaction to a complaint, so bringing uip counter-complaints is entirely within context.

    So you dislike the BBFC for protecting the interests of people who want to go and watch the movie? WTF are you on?

    Manhunt 2 is a) an isolated incident and b) ultimately to do with the murder of Stefan Pakeerah, neither of which have any bearing on this. I think you’re just hating on them ‘cos they don’t neatly fit into your preconceived world view.

    — teh moominz —

  30. 0
    Chuma-UnableToLoginDueToGPNotSendingConfirmationEmails ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Seems my post was swallowed at some point by GP.  Cant even get a log in at the moment despite using the direct email address asking what is going on and multiple attempts to send password again…

    12A is a film only rating that gaming does not have due to cinema being a single showing and games being play when you want therefore if the decision between 12A and 15 was borderline, then an equivilent game would be 15 for sure.

  31. 0
    SimonBob says:

    Actually, you may be right for the wrong reasons.  I thought much of the violence in Dark Knight was almost classical Greek in its presentation; after the opening sequence, almost all of the major violence was done in an offscreen manner (no blood trails, mangled corpses, or whatnot.)  Take the pencil sequence, for example: the guy just drops out of frame.  It’s almost comedic.

    On the other hand, a video game would certainly demonstrate the violence onscreen due to most of it being performed by the player.  No fun not being able to see what you’re doing, right?  So if the violence is of a level to warrant the higher rating (blood, pummeled enemies, depends what path the designers take) then it would be fair to quantify it as such.

    I’d be quicker to condemn the BBFC if they gave the same rating to a game as to the movie simply on the basis of their sharing subject matter.  That’d be a big disservice to the people who are supposed to be relying on the ratings as a guide to what they, or their children, should and shouldn’t be playing.

    The Mammon Industry

  32. 0
    BunchaKneejerks says:

    Oh spare me, what a load of nonsense. Got any proof of that, or are you just assuming that the BBFC are playing a game called "PEGI" the purpose of which is to hand out ratings without looking at the material?

  33. 0
    omegaman says:

    "We would have ended up with far more complaints from people who wanted to see the film and couldn’t."

    So classification is attribbuted based on how many people will complain about it…

    You see? This is why I hate the BBFC!

    They always come up with stupid reasons to justify their decisions. It’s like the Manhunt 2 / Eastern Promises cases: For Manhunt 2 it was distasteful and risky so it had to be banned. For Eastern Promises it was artistic expression and people know it’s just a movie.

    I wish the games industry would refuse to launch games in the UK and Australia for a few months to see how that would work out.

  34. 0
    SticKboy says:

    You see? This is why we like the BBFC!

    Also, there’s no way the BBFC will kowtow to as inconsequential an MP as Keith Vaz. He really is a laughing stock, almost as maligned as Julian Brazier. If the BBFC were to be forced to acquiece to his demands (a tricky legal conundrum as it is), there would be a public outrcry not last seen since the BBC was almost shackled by the Hutton Report.

    — teh moominz —

  35. 0
    chadachada(123) ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Honestly, I think this movie could be a reason that maybe the MPAA should make a new rating, in between PG13 and R. I’d honestly have given this movie a 15, because it was pretty dark and gruesome, but not gory. Definatly not R, but stronger than PG13. Basically, not for those under 13, but shouldn’t be rated R

  36. 0

    The "attempt" at being made dark agian started in the very late 60s and through the 70s with Denny O’Neil and Neal Adams and their work with Batman. Contrary to what Frank Miller and his followers would have everyone believe.

  37. 0
    BunchaKneejerks says:

    R18 is reserved for hardcore pornography, your run of the mill playboy dvd’s are standard 18 cert which you can buy from any DVD stockist (HMV, Virgin, Zavvi, any airport shop, they all do them). Ben Dover and the super duper whores from bangkok are more likely to be R18 and thus sold in licenced sex shops.

  38. 0
    JustChris says:

    While it does have fantastic elements it’s not a pure fantasy movie.

    Batman was originally serious (in the Detective comics) then made campy in the 60’s, and then attempted to be made dark again starting in the 80’s. However, Batman is still bound by morals and does not try to kill anyone. The movie I’d say walks the line between PG-13 and R.

    I don’t know to what extent they mean when a movie "dwells on violence" but The Dark Knight is definitely up there. It had at least two squeamish moments of injury, though they were cleverly edited so you don’t see much blood. But it does make up for it with Bat-fisticuffs and a whole lot of explosions and gunfire. And those disturbing moments made a point, to show how messed up the Joker is. But I don’t think they were overdone.

  39. 0
    vellocet says:

    Having seen the movie twice, I would have to say that I feel the general rating for The Dark Knight is a bit too young.

    I found the movie to be quite disturbing at points.  Perhaps because younger minds can’t understand the depth of insanity that the Joker represents.  But everyone can understand the horrorific appearance of Two Face.

    In my opinion, it suffers from the same kind of thing that video games did at the beginning of the whole "games are evil" thing.  The Dark Knight gets a bit of elbow room because it’s Batman, and Batman is for kids (right?).  People assume it’s okay for kids, because it always has been… until they actually start paying attention to the content.

    Anyway, ratings are guidelines, they are not rules by which you should raise your child.  That is and always should be up to the parent.

  40. 0
    SticKboy says:

    No, Vaz probably wants such decisions to be taken by Parliament if he had his way. I think what he wants is a State-run ratings body, as opposed to the BBFC which is independent from Givernment (as this case clearly shows).

    — teh moominz —

  41. 0
    Meggie says:

    "Presumably its representatives will be required to explain what they think they’re doing fostering violent knifey rages in children who would otherwise never see a knife nor be able to spell the word*."

    If they went on pencily rages, then we’d know.  I didn’t know the UK had so many movie ratings, the US only has about half that. So Vaz is critical of the BBFC’s rating, but wants them to rate video games?

  42. 0
    Jacob says:

    I feel a bit unclean. Myself and Keith Vaz, agreeing? I never thought I’d see the day. I can’t stand the man, nor his attitudes towards gaming, but I also think The Dark Knight should not be a 12A. Parents can take incredibly young children to see films with a 12A rating, and given the source material ("Mummy, mummy, I wanna see Batman like I saw him on TV!) I imagine that they have. The Dark Knight is a very intense film, and Heath Ledger’s Joker (whilst excellent) can be quite disturbing. Two words: pencil scene.

  43. 0
    BunchaKneejerks says:

    Good to see El Reg getting some love, but heres a larger write up from the BBC from the other day.


    Some Key Points

    * The film regulator’s spokeswoman Sue Clark said the sequel was a fantasy movie with only implied violence.

    * But she admitted that the British Board of Film Classification had carefully considered giving it a 15 rating.

    * The 12A rating states that a film should not "dwell on violence" and "does not emphasise injury or blood".

    * Ms Clark emphasised the fantasy nature of The Dark Knight and its basis in comic books. "Batman can jump off buildings and fly and The Joker is not a realistic character and bounces back with a smile on his face."

    To be fair, its not exactly like the Joker has a choice to have a smile on his face. :)

  44. 0
    Azhrarn says:

    I believe the BBFC has an 18+ rating aswell (not sure if there’s the equivalent of an X rating though)

    By contrast, The Dark Knight was rated at 16+ here in the Netherlands.
    As the only country in Europe I might add, even Germany put it at 13+.

  45. 0
    BunchaKneejerks says:

    You have U for Universal, PG for Parental Guidance, 12 meaning 12 or older, 12A which means 12 or older unless accompanyed by an adult, 15 and 18, you can guess what they mean and R18 which is for hardcore pornography that can only be sold at licenced adult stores.

  46. 0
    JustChris says:

    Is the 15 rating like R? Or is there one beyond that, like 17, but still not to an X rating? I think the American PG-13 rating is good, though it was almost pushing it.

  47. 0
    SticKboy says:

    I think the point they were trying to make is that people between the ages of 12 and 15 make up a consderable proportion of the film’s target demographic.


    — teh moominz —

  48. 0
    Corey says:

    I thought this movie was a R or R equivalent until reading this. The film had a very dark and violent vibe throughout, but I guess there really wasn’t any gore or foul language. This would definately push the border of what a PG13(or foreign equivalent) movie can display. I think the ratings board is wrong though about teenagers being the primary target audience for the film. Most comic book readers are adults and the books themselves, especially Batman, are written for adult tastes.

  49. 0
    JustChris says:

    Protip? I’d say that’s a tip even AMATEURS should be aware of.

    COmmon sense, so rare it’s a super power

    I await the next superhero movie: The Logical Knight

  50. 0
    SticKboy says:

    Anyway, Vaz’s daughter is 11, so she wouldn’t be allowed entry in the first place. Moreover, the ‘A’ stands for "Advisory" so it’s precisely this kind of rating that empowers parents by leaving the ultimate decision up to them.

    — teh moominz —

  51. 0
    kurisu7885 (can't log in) says:

    "The BBFC should realise there are scenes of gratuitous violence in The Dark Knight to which I would certainly not take my 11-year-old daughter"



    COmmon sense, so rare it’s a super power

Leave a Reply