Far from being "glib", examiners must learn that, in this field, there are no easy answers. Arguments must be weighed, and every reasonable point of view likely to be put by the public must first be canvassed within the board itself.
There is no room for "libertarians" at the BBFC, since freedom must always be balanced with responsibility. Above all, there is the duty to prevent harm to potential viewers, especially children, as well as harm by such viewers through antisocial influence. The BBFC reserves the right to impose cuts on adult material where harm is likely, but it prefers to restrict access through classification.
My liberal reputation derives from my belief that, by restricting pornography to those adults who knowingly choose to patronise licensed sex shops, we can justify more sexual explicitness than hitherto. But I would always censor the link between sex and violence. Where media access is more widely available, we must be even more censorious. "Page three girls", which arrive on far too many breakfast tables, are in my view a prime example, since they have probably done more to coarsen and cheapen the tastes of growing boys than the availability to adults of video pornography. Freedom for masculine tastes should not involve abridging the freedom of teenage girls.
Ms Alibhai-Brown quotes the US President Thomas Jefferson. I would instead quote his successor, James Madison: "If men were angels, there would be no need of government." And no need of censorship, either.