uk.backpage.co.uk
www.backpage.com Jan 2017. The BBFC wrote: Adult services on offer included escorts, strippers, dominatrixes and adult entertainment venues, and there were employment opportunities for work
in the adult industry. We noted that the dating section also contained a considerable focus on adult services. Many of the advertisements contained photos, some of which were pornographic in nature, in addition to sexual text. As
such, we did not consider the sites suitable for people under the age of 18.
|
bbcoheadwear.com November 2019. The BBFC wrote: We noted that the website was a retail site specialising in outdoor head wear and accessories. We found no content which we would
classify 18 or refuse to classify
|
|
Belezy belezy.com July 2020. The BBFC wrote: We noted that the site promotes a French naturist campsite holiday resort. The site features illustrative photographs of nude guests,
including men, women, and children interacting with the resort's facilities. None of the nudity is sexualised and genital nudity is infrequent and discreetly shot throughout the website. As such, we found no material that we would
classify 18.
|
bnp.org.uk September 2018. The BBFC wrote: The website belongs to a far-right group. We noted that the website features information on the group's policies, which included policy areas described as British
Culture, Stropping All Immigration and Local People First. The website also included several news and current affairs blogs, as well as pages which encouraged supporters to donate to the group. Among articles evidenced on the
site, were several references to Muslim rape gangs and to Muslims colonising the UK. The articles made negative comments about Muslims, as evident in text such as Muslim Rape Gangs operate in every town and city in Britain with a sizeable Muslim
community and Muslims have nothing of benefit in the way of culture or trade to bring. We also noted discriminatory attitudes directed towards Muslims in comments left by users of the site. As a result, we did not consider the
website to be suitable for people under the age of 18.
|
|
BritishCannabis britishcannabis.org February 2020. The BBFC wrote: We noted that it detailed the work of British Cannabis, as a producer, manufacturer and distributor of cannabis
derived products. It contained sections relating to the laboratory testing and extraction of produce. It also contained a blog section which included updates on news in the area of CBD. The site made no overt references to any benefits arising from the
consumption of CBD products, and included information specifically about the legal nature of its products in relation to UK and EU legislation. Accordingly, we found no material that the BBFC would classify 18 or refuse to
classify.
|
britishcondoms.co.uk July 2018: The BBFC wrote: The BBFC provided a further adjudication when we viewed a revised version of the website on 2 July 2018. ' As in May 2018, we noted that
the site sold various products related to sexual health. The website also sold a range of products intended to enhance sexual pleasure, many of which featured strong sex references in text descriptions. However, on our sampling of the blog section of the
website, articles providing adult sex education tips, and a blog section called Intimate Stories -- which comprised of a series of erotic posts that included language of a pornographic nature, references to BDSM and very strong language -- were no longer
present. As such we found no content on the site that the BBFC would classify at 18 or refuse to classify.
May 2018: The BBFC wrote: We noted that this was predominantly a retail
site focusing on the sale of sexual health products. However, the website also sold a range of products intended to enhance sexual pleasure, many of which featured strong sex references in text descriptions. On our sampling of a blog section of the site,
we found featured articles and posts which provided adult sex education, offering advice and tips on a range of sexual practices which were described using strong sexual language. Furthermore, a section of the blog entitled Intimate Stories comprised of
a series of erotic posts which included language of a pornographic nature, references to BDSM and very strong language. As a result, we did not consider the website to be suitable for people under the age of 18.
|
|
Broadcast Centre broadcastcentre.com November 2019: The BBFC wrote: We noted that the site related to broadcast events and conferences. The BBFC was only able to access a limited number
of URLs. Based on those urls which were available, the BBFC found no material that requires restriction to adults only.
|
burlesquebaby.com 14 March 2018. The BBFC wrote: We noted that it was a site offering various dance lessons, including burlesque, in class environments and at social gatherings such as hen parties. The site was
clear that no nudity features in any of these classes and there were no nude images on the site. The site contained galleries featuring images of performers and students wearing lingerie or revealing costumes, and text included references to the sexy
nature of the dances being taught, but this was in the generally playful tone of the site in relation to the services being offered. Although the services offered were clearly indicated as being available only to adults, there was
no material contained within the site that the BBFC would classify at 18 or refuse to classify.
|
27 June 2018, The BBFC wrote: We noted that the website focused on the provision of burlesque chair dance lessons. The website placed an emphasis on the health and fitness benefits of the burlesque classes, as well
as promoted additional benefits relating to body confidence and self-esteem. The site contained images of instructors, as well as photographs of class participants, dressed in lingerie and revealing burlesque costumes, but there was no nudity. The
occasional sex references, including descriptions of the dances and performers as being sexy, created a generally playful tone which was unlikely to confound expectation. There was no material contained within the site that the
BBFC would classify at 18 or refuse to classify.
|
callofduty.com November 2017. The BBFC wrote: We noted that it was a site related to the CALL OF DUTY series of videogames withcontent including news, trailers, examples of gameplay and forums. The trailers
andgameplay feature strong violence and bloodshed, whilst the forums contain uses ofstrong and very strong language. However, after sampling the content, we could find no material that we would necessarily classify at 18
under the BBFC classification framework.
|
|
CannaCBD cannacbd.com November 2019: The BBFC wrote: We noted that it was a site selling various CBD products including oil, cream and vaping products. It also featured a blog of reports around the world
highlighting topics such as CBD research and the technology of CBD extraction. The website did not claim any benefits to the consumption of CBD products beyond general references to wellbeing, and in fact included numerous text statements about not being
able to make health claims regarding such CBD products. As such we found no material that we would consider suitable for adults only.
|
cannadonia.co.uk March 2018. The BBFC wrote: We noted that it was a site offering Cannabidiol (CBD) products for sale as a nutritional supplement. The site contained general information on CBD, as well as a
Frequently Asked Questions section which emphasised that the CBD products advertised do not possess any psychoactive properties In addition, in relation to the MHRA's public statement on products containing CBD, Cannadonia was not marketing its products
as a medicine, or claiming any medical benefits for them, but as a food supplement. As such, we found no content which we would classify 18 or refuse to classify.
|
|
CBD Life Products cbdlifeproducts.com May 2020. The BBFC wrote: We noted this is a website offering Cannabidiol (CBD) products for sale as a nutritional supplement. The site
contained general information on CBD, as well as a Frequently Asked Questions section which emphasised that the CBD products advertised do not possess any psychoactive properties. In addition, in relation to the MHRA's public statement on products
containing CBD, Cannadonia was not marketing its products as a medicine, or claiming any medical benefits for them, but as a food supplement. Therefore, we found no content which we would classify 18 or refuse to classify.
|
|
CBDStar cbdstar.co January 2020: The BBFC wrote: We noted that it sold various CBD products including e-liquid, oil and vape kits. It also featured an FAQ section discussing
issues such as the legality of CBD products. The website did not claim any benefits to the consumption of CBD products beyond general references to wellbeing, and included information specifically about the legal nature of its products in relation to UK
legislation. Accordingly, we found no material on the site that required restriction to adults only.
|
chrisalyas.co.uk November 2019. The BBFC wrote: We noted that the website advertised the services of a beauty salon, including microdermabrasion and acne treatments. We found no
content which we would classify 18 or refuse to classify.
|
|
Christogenea christogenea.org May 2020. The BBFC wrote: We noted that the site is a news and current affairs blog - with a focus on Christianity, race and identity - which
features articles and forum discussions on a variety of subjects including 'White Nationalism', Jewish Ritual Murder and The Mein Kampf Project. We noted that there are repeated uses of discriminatory and racist language, both in the blog articles and in
comments left on the forums, which are not condemned. The site also contains articles that make negative generalizations and accusations about particular groups of people, most notably Jews and Muslims, as well as Holocaust denial, which could be
interpreted as having the potential to encourage discriminatory and harmful views. As such, we did not consider the website to be suitable for people under the age of 18 and would classify the site at least 18.
|
|
Cloudflare-DNS cloudflare-dns.com is a website offering an encrypted DNS service (DNS over HTTPS or DoH).This goes a long way towards preventing your ISP from snooping on or controlling which websites you browse. A
mobile network operator contacted the BBFC for advice about the suitability of the website for people under 18. Note. The BBFC misspelt the address maybe to avoid leading you to a censor evading service. January 2020: The BBFC wrote:
We noted that it advertised cloud-based hosting services. Based on the content available on the website, we found no material that was in breach of Part B of the Classification Framework. As such,
we did not find any material that we would restrict to adults only.
|
|
Cyber Ghost cyberghost.com October 2019: The BBFC wrote: We noted that the site contained references to circumventing certain providers' geolocation restrictions, such as
television and video content providers. There was also a section on relating to unblocking pornography online. T he BBFC found no material that was in breach of the Classification Framework. Although the BBFC is aware that VPNs can be used to enable
illegal activity, the website did not contain any overt references to illegal activity, nor did it actively include instructions on how to use a VPN to commit an offence, or promote the use of the service in order to avoid detection when committing an
offence. As such, we found no material that the BBFC would classify 18 or refuse to classify.
|
|
Daiba daiba.uk May 2020: The BBFC wrote: We noted that this is a website offering Cannabidiol (CBD) and other natural wellbeing products, including those which contain mushroom
supplements, as well as organic beauty products. The site contains general information on CBD, as well as a Frequently Asked Questions section which stresses that the CBD based products available for purchase do not possess any psychoactive properties.
The site is not marketing its products as a medicine or claiming any medicinal benefits for them, instead marketing the products as a food supplement. As such, we found no material that we could classify 18.
|
|
Daniel Pipes danielpipes.org July 2020, the BBFC wrote: We noted that the site is a current affairs blog, focussing on American and Middle Eastern politics and culture. While
articles discuss topics such as religion, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, American politics, and Islam and terrorism, we did not find any evidence to suggest the site encourages hate speech, violence or discrimination. As such,
it does not contain material we would classify at least 18 and does not require adult filters.
|
dmovies.org January 2018. The BBFC wrote: We noted that it was a site dedicated to coverage of innovative and challenging cinema which contained articles and film reviews. Following changes made to the site as a
consequence of a previous adjudication on 19 September 2017, the BBFC viewed the site again for confirmation that changes to the most problematic material had been made. We found no material which we would classify at 18
September 2017 The BBFC wrote: We noted that it was a site dedicated to coverage of innovative and challenging cinema from around the world, and contained articles and film reviews from various contributors
that take a serious, informed, but sometimes irreverent, approach to their subject. There were also trailers for various film titles embedded in the site. A sampling of the site's content revealed uses of strong language, as well as examples of visual
and verbal sex references, nudity and violence, although these would not necessarily be classified at the adult category. However, there was also content (for example, in trailers) that the BBFC would not pass below 18. On the
basis of that sampling we were satisfied that the website contained material we would classify 18.
|
|
Duas Revival duasrevival.com May 2020. The BBFC wrote: We noted that the website is an Islamic prayer site containing suggested prayers for use in a variety of situations. The
prayers include verses from the Qur'an and excerpts from Hadith. We found no material that requires restriction to adults only.
|
durex.co.uk January 2019, the BBFC wrote: We noted that the website retailed a range of sexual health products, as well as products which aid sexual stimulation, including lubricants and sex toys. The website
also featured a range of articles which provided sex and relationship advice, including those which focused on sexual health. A proportion of the articles available on the website offered couples tips and advice on ways in which to improve their sex
life, making reference to sexual positions, oral sex and sex toys. Although the text included strong sex references, we found no evidence of any very strong sex references. As such, we do not recommend that the website be
restricted to adults only.
|
|
8ch 8ch.net March 2019, the BBFC wrote: We noted that the website was an online forum. We found pornographic images occurring in both animated and non-animated contexts across
the website. We also found frequent use of racist language, as well as racist threads such as We hate n*ggers and White Cucks Raise Over 6 million for Dead Mudslimes [sic], both of which have the potential to encourage and reinforce discriminatory and
other harmful views. There was also frequent use of very strong language. As such, we found material which we would classify at least 18 or R18.
|
|
Erowid erowid.org February 2020. The BBFC wrote: We noted that it was a site providing information about various psychoactive drugs and plants. There was detailed information
related to experiences while using such substances, some of which were negative and some positive. While the website noted that it did not advocate illegal activity, it did feature extensive detail on drugs, relating in some cases to proposed doses and
preparation along with strong accompanying sex references. As such, the BBFC did not consider the site suitable for people under the age of 18.
|
|
Express VPN expressvpn.com December 2019, The BBFC wrote: We noted that it was a paid-for VPN site. We found no material that breached the Classification Framework. The website
contained no overt references to illegal activity, nor did it actively include instructions on how to use a VPN to commit an offence, or promote the use of the service in order to avoid detection when committing an offence. As
such, we found no material that the BBFC would classify 18 or refuse to classify.
|
|
fdesouche fdesouche.com November 2019: The BBFC wrote: We noted that it was a French website collecting numerous news stories from around the world with particular focus on current
affairs in France. There were sections covering areas such as news, policy, global events and sport, and links to the site's Facebook and Twitter pages. While this news website paid particular attention to issues such as immigration, and did so in a
manner that may cause disagreement or debate over the nature of its presentation, it did not present information in a manner that comprised direct hate speech. Accordingly, the BBFC did not consider it to require restriction to
adults only.
|
FlirtyNotDirty.co.uk April 2018. The BBFC wrote: We noted that it was a site offering dance lessons in a range of styles, including burlesque, for participation in class environments and at social gatherings
such as hen parties. The site contained images of performers in lingerie and/or revealing costumes, but there was no nudity. The text on the site included innuendo and references to the sexy nature of the dances being taught, but these were all used to
create a playful tone. Consequently, we could find no material contained within the site that the BBFC would classify at 18 or refuse to classify
|
|
4chan 4chan.org March 2019. The BBFC wrote: We noted that the website is an online forum. We found pornographic images occurring in both animated and non-animated contexts across the
website. There was also frequent uses of aggressive racist and very strong language evident across the site. Accordingly, we found material which we would classify at least 18 or R18.
|
freelancerfinancials.co.uk December 2019. The BBFC wrote: We noted that the website was a financial services website which offered a range of financial services products, including mortgage broking.
Based on our sampling of the site, we found no material that the BBFC would classify 18 or refuse to classify.
|
futuregeneration.com 10 October 2018. The BBFC wrote: We noted that the website advertised services of a company that designs, builds and manages student accommodation. We found no
content which we would classify 18 or refuse to classify.
|
gamehacking.org We found no material which we would classify at 18 or refuse to classify. February 2018. The BBFC wrote: We noted that it was a mainly forum and chat-based site for the exchange of cheat
and videogame enhancement codes for new and older videogames. The site carried a disclaimer stating We are not involved with piracy (game 'cracking', etc.), and do not condone hacking of online, multiplayer games or unlocking paid content. 'Hacking', in
the context of GameHacking.org, refers to modification of a platform's system memory during game play, or modification of files that comprise a game, to achieve a desired effect during game play. In other words, we make cheat codes here. The Forum Rules
on the site also forbid the posting or linking to illegal content, the posting or linking to adult (pornographic) content, and offers to exchange hack codes for financial remuneration. On that basis, we were satisfied that the site did not promote
illegal activity. As such, we found no material which we would classify at 18 or refuse to classify.
|
|
Gay Men gaymen.co.uk March 2019, The BBFC wrote: We noted that the website was an adult dating service offering those over the age of 18 the opportunity to meet people
online. The home page of the website included prominent links to adult online shops which retailed sex toys, including those used for fetish sex, as well as hardcore pornographic DVDs. Advertising on these pages feature explicit hardcore images.
Accordingly, we found material that the BBFC would classify 18 or R18.
|
grobo.io March 2017, The BBFC wrote: We noted that it was a site whose primary purpose was to sell a Smart Grow Box that can be used to grow plants, and that there was nothing inherently illegal in the
product itself. However, in our opinion the site went further in promoting and normalising the growing of cannabis, including the provision of some detailed instructional material about its cultivation, and an external
link to the purchase of certain kinds of cannabis seeds. Given that such information could be used to aid in illegal activity, such as the cultivation of cannabis, we would classify the site at least 18.
|
|
Guns America gunsamerica.com March 2019, The BBFC wrote: We noted that the website was principally an online exchange allowing individuals to buy and sell firearms and other
weapons, such as knives. The website also included a range of other content such as reviews, classifieds and industry news. While the Classification Framework does not cover sites which supply age restricted goods, such as knives,
we found material on the site that infringed on Part B of the Classification Framework. For example, a video included instructional detail regarding the concealment of knives and effective techniques on how to inflict injuries. Accordingly, we found content on the website which the BBFC would classify at least 18.
|
guntrader.uk 22 January 2018, The BBFC wrote: A mobile network operator contacted the BBFC for advice about the suitability of the website for people under 18. We noted that it was a site
which offered the selling and trade, by private individuals and dealers, of various guns ranging from airsoft guns up to shotguns and rifles, and appeared to be a refreshed version of a site which the BBFC adjudicated on in February 2015. We noted that
the site offered links to both types of vendors. The site stated that its aim was To provide appropriately licensed members of the public with the easiest way to buy or sell a gun and To provide the trade with a simple and new way to increase their
sales. The BBFC Classification Framework does not cover sites which supply age restricted goods or services unless any adult filters in place block on the basis of the types of content listed in Part B of this schedule. Given the
presentation of the site, the BBFC found no material which it would classify 18.
|
|
Hack This Site hackthissite.org March 2019, The BBFC wrote: We noted that the website was an online community focused on white hat hacking. The site included a number of missions
encouraging users to hack the website, in order to enable users to learn about security testing and vulnerabilities. The site did not encourage users to participate in illegal activities, and it is made clear across the website that any suggestion of
such activity in the site's forum is removed by internal moderators. Accordingly, we did not find any material that the BBFC would classify 18.
|
|
Haloway Point halowaypoint.com November 2019, The BBFC wrote: We noted that it was a site dedicated to the Halo series of video games. It included trailers for the re-release of
Halo Reach and the upcoming Halo Infinite games, and a link to purchase the Master Chief Collection on the Xbox One console along with other memorabilia. There were also news and community sections including a forum. The game
trailers included occasional sight of blood during footage from the games, and some sections on the site contained strong language in text comments. While we would not consider such material suitable for young children, we found
no content that we would classify 18.
|
hashtagorganics.co.uk February 2019, The BBFC wrote: We noted that the website retailed a range of products containing CBD. We found no content that we would classify 18 or refuse to classify.
|
Hempen.co.uk May 2018, The BBFC wrote: We noted that the site promoted the work, products and values of the Hempen Co-Operative, an organisation whose aim is to promote and cultivate the use of hemp by
creating and selling a range of sustainable hemp-based products. The online shop offered a range of products to purchase, some of which contained CDB oil. The site was not marketing any of its products as medicine, nor claiming any medical benefits for
them. The site emphasised that none of their products caused any side-effects or contained psychoactive properties. The site reinforced that all of their products are legal and fall within the relevant Government regulations. Consequently, we found no material which we would classify at 18 or refuse to classify.
|
hempura.co.uk 23 January 2018, The BBFC wrote: We noted that it was a site offering Cannabidiol (CBD) products (including oils, vape liquids, chocolates and capsules) for sale as a food supplement. The site
contained general information on CBD, as well as a Frequently Asked Questions section which emphasised that the CBD products advertised do not possess any psychoactive properties and that consuming it will not get you high or cause any altered mental
status changes such as euphoria or hallucination. The site also stated that cannabis oil supplements are registered with the Food Standard Agency of the United Kingdom and that the company is a member of the Cannabis Trades Association (CTA) which works
with the MHRA government entity on our behalf to ensure the industry as a whole is legal and safe for consumption. In addition, in relation to the MHRA's public statement on products containing CBD, Hempura was not marketing its products as a medicine,
or claiming any medical benefits for them, but as food supplements. As such, we found no content which we would classify 18 or refuse to classify.
|
|
Hentastic hentastic.co.uk March 2019: The BBFC wrote: We noted that the website was an event planning website which specialised in organising hen parties. The company offered hen
parties the chance to attend a club night featuring drag acts and male strippers. Images and videos of partially nude men were present across the website, but there was no strong nudity and none of the images were strongly sexualised or presented in a
manner that was intended to arouse. Text on the website, including that found in reviews, described male striptease performers as being, for example, extremely sexy and hot!, but these references occurred within the context of a generally playful and
tongue in cheek tone that was evident across the website. As such, we found no material that the BBFC would classify 18.
|
|
Hide Me hideme.com October 2019: The BBFC wrote: We noted that the site contained references to circumventing certain providers' geolocation restrictions, such as television and
video content providers. There was also a blog on the site with various articles on VPNs. T he BBFC found no material that was in breach of the Classification Framework. Although the BBFC is aware that VPNs can be used to enable illegal activity, we did
not consider the website to contain any overt references to illegal activity, nor did it actively include instructions on how to use a VPN to commit an offence, or promote the use of the service in order to avoid detection when committing an offence.
As such, we found no material that the BBFC would classify 18 or refuse to classify.
|
hg-hydroponics.co.uk January 2019, The BBFC wrote: The BBFC provided a further adjudication when we viewed a revised version of the website on 5 March 2019. As in September 2014 and
April 2019, we noted that the site sold various products related to hydroponics, including lighting equipment, feed and grow cabinets. However, there was no longer any evidence which strongly suggested that the hydroponic items were being sold primarily
with the intention of growing illegal drugs. The content on the website did not overtly encourage, glamorise or promote drug misuse or other related illegal activities. Accordingly, we found no content which we would classify 18.
April 2018, The BBFC wrote: As in September 2014, we determined that the site sold various products related to hydroponics, including lighting equipment, feed, grow cabinets, tents and so on. Although
the website advertised such products for growing fruit and vegetables, there was an implication that such items could be used to grow cannabis. On our most recent sampling of the site there appeared to be no material changes. As
such we would continue to classify the site at 18.
|
honeybirdette.com May 2018, The BBFC wrote: We noted that it was a retail site selling an array of lingerie, sex toys and accessories, including those for fetish play. Although we found no evidence that the
site was pornographic, in our view, the site was still intended for a mature audience and contained material which was only suitable for adults. As such, the BBFC would classify the site at 18.
|
|
Hotspot Shield hotspotshield.com October 2019: The BBFC wrote: We noted that the website provided free and paid-for VPN services, and contained articles relating to using a VPN
for various activities, including secure browsing and protected public wifi use. It also contained an article on the Tor network in comparison to a VPN. While the BBFC is aware that VPNs can be used to enable illegal activity, the website contained no
overt references to illegal activity, nor did it actively include instructions on how to use a VPN to commit an offence, or promote the use of the service in order to avoid detection when committing an offence. Therefore, we found
no material that the BBFC would classify 18 or refuse to classify.
|
www.infantilespasms.com November 2017, The BBFC wrote: We noted that it was a site providing information and support, through articles, medical research reports and forums, to the parents of children with the
epilepsy-related condition of infantile spasms. We found no material on the site which we would classify 18.
|
July 2018. The BBFC wrote: We noted that it was a political website which featured articles and blogs on a variety of subjects related to the issue of men's rights, including male genital mutilation and
feminism. While the views expressed may be subject to debate, and some people may disagree strongly with the positions of the articles and blogs, they were nonetheless expressed in the spirit of providing a legitimate side to an argument. Our sampling of
the site did not discover examples of overt hate speech. As such we found no content on the site that the BBFC would classify at 18 or refuse to classify according to the Classification Framework
|
kegel8.co.uk January 2019. The BBFC wrote: We noted that the website was an online retailer of a range of products, including pelvic floor toners and trainers, as well as accessorises such as vaginal and anal
probes, intended to improve pelvic health. The website also featured a range of articles about pelvic health, which offered support and advice for those suffering from conditions such as prolapses, incontinence and pelvic pain. The website included
strong references to sex, including to orgasms and sexual positions, but these all occurred within the context of sexual health and did not feature any very strong sex references. Based on our sampling of the site, we did not find
any material which we would classify 18.
|
|
Kinky Kink kinkykink.com April 2020. The BBFC wrote: We noted the site is an information resource for BDSM practitioners. The site includes links to various retail websites
specialising in adult toys, as well as reviews of sex toys that are accompanied by images of the products being reviewed. Across the website, there are strong sexual images seen in advertising. There are also links to explicit images of sexual activity
hosted on pornographic websites. Accordingly, this website contains material that we would not classify below 18.
|
lgbt-training.org.uk November 2017. The BBFC wrote: We noted that it was a site for a service providing training and consultancy for companies and organisations to improve accessibility to LGBT customers,
employees and communities. The site contained articles and links to research reports on identity and diversity in LGBT communities, sexual health and other related issues, as well as educational and training toolkit resources. We
found no material on the site which we would classify 18.
|
lovecbd.org Jan 2017. The BBFC wrote: We noted that it was a site offering CBD (Cannabidiol) oil / balm products for sale as a food supplement. The site also contained articles relating to legal issues around
CBD oil in the UK, US and Canada, and a Frequently Asked Questions section that outlined information such as the legality of CBD oil in the UK, and its THC content. While articles on the site, and links to other websites, may have advocated a change in
legislation concerning CBD oil and cannabis in different parts of the world, we found no content which overtly glamorised the recreational use of cannabis or encouraged illegal activity. In addition, Love CBD was not marketing its products as a medicine,
or claiming any medical benefits for them, but as food supplements. Therefore, we found no content which we would classify 18 or refuse to classify.
|
medipen.co.uk 18 January 2018. The BBFC wrote: A mobile network operator contacted the BBFC for advice about the suitability of the website for people under 18. We noted that it was a
site offering products related to a Cannabinoid Vaporizer, including a range of CBD oils. The site contained a Frequently Asked Questions section which outlined information such as the legality of CBD oil in the UK, emphasising that the cannabinoid
extracts used are completely legal, non-psychoactive and don't induce any mind-altering effects since they do not contain THC and are not subject to any legal restrictions on their import, sale, possession or use. In addition, in relation to the MHRA's
public statement on products containing CBD, the site was not marketing its products as a medicine, or claiming any medical benefits for them. As such, we found no content which we would classify 18 or refuse to classify.
|
|
Mediweed mediweed.com November 2019: The BBFC wrote: We noted that it was a website developing and selling h emp-based products within the UK. Various products for sale included
hemp flowers, seeds, CBD oil and flower buds. While it is not illegal to sell hemp seeds in the UK, it is illegal to grow plants from them without a licence, most particularly if they have high THC levels. The website contained information such as the
type of crops that are growable from such seeds (and how long it will take to grow them before harvest), and how high some of the THC levels are. The site also contained text relating to the supposed narcotic and psychoactive effects of certain plants.
Accordingly, the BBFC considered the site to contain material that we would classify at least 18, or refuse to classify.
|
www.mightyaphrodite.co.uk August 2017. The BBFC wrote: A mobile network operator contacted the BBFC for advice about the
suitability of the website for people under 18, following a complaint from the site owner that it had been placed behind adult filters despite containing no material that in the complainant's opinion would cause access to be restricted to adults only.
The BBFC viewed the website on 7 August 2017.We noted that it was a site offering Erotic or Boudoir Photo shoot services. The site contained various galleries featuring still and moving images of sexualised nudity and erotic
posing. We were satisfied that the website contained material we would classify 18.
|
|
Millicast millicast.com June 2020: The BBFC wrote: We noted that the site is a technology website promoting a video streaming product. The website contains a range of detailed
information about the product, including video demos. Although we were unable to play the video demos, based on the evidence available on the site, we found no material that we would classify 18.
|
minichan.org July 2018. The BBFC wrote: We noted this was a message board on which people post pictures and discuss a variety of issues. It included repeated uses of aggressive very strong language, and
numerous photographs which depicted strong sexualised nudity. We also found material which could be interpreted as having the potential to encourage discriminatory and harmful views, such as comments and blogs which suggested a link between paedophilia
and homosexuality. As such, we did not consider the website to be suitable for people under the age of 18.
|
moodle.peterborough.ac.uk 9 February 2018. The BBFC wrote: We noted that it was a site dedicated to Peterborough Regional College offering various resources to students and staff. The appeal for an adjudication
came from a site supervisor who stated that College staff and students are unable to access https content on the College virtual learning resource website due to blocking by adult filters. Access to the majority of the links on the site required
pre-registration and the provision of usernames/passwords, and so this content could not be viewed for assessment. However, based on our sampling of what could be accessed on the site, we found no content which we would classify 18 or refuse to classify.
|
mostholyfamilymonastery.com 5 April 2018. The BBFC wrote: We noted that it was a site which promoted a strictly traditional interpretation of the teachings and belief of the Roman Catholic Church. It contained
articles, posts and videos which express criticism of other Christian and non-Christian religious teachings, sexuality and issues such as abortion. While the views which are expressed may be subject to debate, and some people will disagree with the
positions taken by the site, they are made in the spirit of religious belief and our sampling of the site did not discover examples of overt hate speech. As such we found no content on the site that the BBFC would classify at 18 or refuse to classify
according to the Classification Framework.
|
My-Addr my-addr.com November 2019. The BBFC wrote: We noted that it was an online rope and rigging shop , with the facility to buy different types of rope and reel fittings, and order custom rigging as
required. We also noted that the site contained a news section and a link to its instagram posts. We found no content that required restriction to adults only.
|
|
MyKeepSolid there was no sign of this website by July 2020.
March 2020. The BBFC wrote: We noted that it was a site providing information on IP
identification and WHOIS lookups, as well as a paid-for proxy service. While the BBFC is aware that VPNs (or in this case a proxy server) can be used to enable illegal activity and to avoid detection when a criminal offence is
being committed, they are not themselves illegal under UK law. This website contained no material listed in Part B of the Classification Framework, and contained no overt references to illegal activity - for example, including instructions on how to use
a VPN to commit an offence, or promote that service in order to avoid detection when committing an offence. Therefore we would not classify it 18.
|
