Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hubbie was casually planning to take our 9yr old to see the latest Harry Potter at the cinema when he noticed it was rated 12a (she has seen the others on DVD not at the cinema). Neither of us are comfortable taking her now we know this and she was mildly cross as many of her friends have seen it. What do others think about the rating and would you / have you ignored it?
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/18816-under-12s-seeing-harry-potter/
Share on other sites

My understanding is that children who are under 12 can see 12a rated films if accompanied by an adult. I would have taken my son if he was 9 - he is 6 now and actually isn't that interested in Harry Potter. But I took him to see the Green Latern which is rated PG 13 with another mum friend and her 6 year old boy and they enjoyed it (except for the kissing scences - wherby they both went 'yuck!' and hid their eyes) and suffered no ill consquences. I think these things are guidance and if you know your child and what they will and will not be affected by you can follow your own wisdom - if she isn't ready or would be scared you made the right decision for sure!

BBFC classification document here might help with your decision. All but one of the previous HP films was a 12a (if seen at the cinema) or 12 on DVD.


I suppose it all comes down to how emotionally mature your 9 year old is. Mine was very emotionally mature at 9 so he saw Part 1 and at 10 has now seen Part 2. It is also worth while looking at details of the classification to find out why it was rated 12A and then perhaps talking those issues through with your daughter before the film.


It was a great film!

Personally I think that all the films and books after no 4 are pretty dark. We both love the series and have been conjecturing on when our v little one will be ready for them. I think the original generation reading the books as they were published had an advantage, a 7 year old reading the first book would be ready as each year went past for a new book.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Hey Sue, I was wrong - I don't think it would just be for foreign tourists. So yeah I assume that, if someone lives in Lewisham and wants to say the night in southwark, they'd pay a levy.  The hotels wouldn't need to vet anyone's address or passports - the levy is automatically added on top of the bill by every hotel / BnB / hostel and passed on to Southwark. So basically, you're paying an extra two quid a night, or whatever, to stay in this borough.  It's a great way to drive footfall... to the other London boroughs.  https://www.ukpropertyaccountants.co.uk/uk-tourist-tax-exploring-the-rise-of-visitor-levies-and-foreign-property-charges/
    • Pretty much, Sue, yeah. It's the perennial, knotty problem of imposing a tax and balancing that with the cost of collecting it.  The famous one was the dog licence - I think it was 37 1/2 pence when it was abolished, but the revenue didn't' come close to covering the administration costs. As much I'd love to have a Stasi patrolling the South Bank, looking for mullet haircuts, unshaven armpits, overly expressive hand movements and red Kicker shoes, I'm afraid your modern Continental is almost indistinguishable from your modern Londoner. That's Schengen for you. So you couldn't justify it from an ROI point of view, really. This scheme seems a pretty good idea, overall. It's not perfect, but it's cheap to implement and takes some tax burden off Southwark residents.   'The Man' has got wise to this. It's got bad juju now. If you're looking to rinse medium to large amounts of small denomination notes, there are far better ways. Please drop me a direct message if you'd like to discuss this matter further.   Kind Regards  Dave
    • "What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???" Why is it perceived, Reeves is responsible for doubling the "black hole" to £20b through the public sector pay increases. You can't live beyond your means and when you try you go bankrupt pdq. In 4 yrs time if this Govt survives that long and the country doesn't go bust before then, in 2029 I dread to think the state the country will be in.  At least Sunak and co had inflation back to 2% with unemployment being stable and not rising.   
    • He seemed to me to be fully immersed in the Jeremy Corbyn ethos of the Labour Party. I dint think that (and self describing as a Marxist) would have helped much when Labour was changed under Starmer. There was a purge of people as far left as him that he was lucky to survive once in my opinion.   Stuff like this heavy endorsement of Momentum and Corbyn. It doesn't wash with a party that is in actual government.   https://labourlist.org/2020/04/forward-momentum-weve-launched-to-change-it-from-the-bottom-up/
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...