Mary Poppins rating raised from U to PG

THE rating of Mary Poppins has been raised from U to PG over “discriminatory language” – 60 years after the film’s release.

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has now deemed parts of the 1964 classic about a magical nanny unsuitable for children to watch alone.

The rating has been upgraded from U, meaning it is suitable for all, to Parental Guidance (PG) because of the use of the derogatory term “Hottentot”.

First coined in the late 17th century to refer to the Khoekhoe, a group of people who were among the first inhabitants of southern Africa, the term is now considered to be racially offensive. Admiral Boom, a neighbour of the Banks family, says the word “Hottentots” twice in the film – first about people off-screen and then when talking about the two children whose faces are blackened with soot.

A BBFC spokesman told the Daily Mail: “We understand from our racism and discrimination research … that a key concern for … parents is the potential to expose children to discriminatory language or behaviour which they may find distressing or repeat without realising the potential offence.”

The live-action and animation film, which stars Julie Andrews as the nanny who transforms the lives of two children who feel neglected by their parents, is being re-released in select UK cinemas next month to celebrate the film’s 60th anniversary.

Classifiers picked up on the dated and racially offensive term – historically used by Europeans to refer to the Khoekhoe but later used to refer to all black people – and deemed it necessary to reclassify.

The rating means that “some scenes may be unsuitable for young children”, according to the guidelines. “Content with immediate and clear condemnation is more likely to receive a lower rating,” the BBFC spokesman added.

It is understood that the rating only affects the cinema version of the film.

People on the Right really should stop accusing the Left of “virtuesignalling”. Not because it’s boorish, but because it’s insufficiently precise. A more accurate term would be “status-signalling”. Fundamentally, what modern Leftists are most eager to demonstrate is not their moral superiority. It’s their social superiority.

This is a point made by the young American writer Rob Henderson. In his new book, Troubled, he describes the rise of what he calls “luxury beliefs”: misguided political views that are espoused by well-heeled progressives purely because they’re fashionable. “In the past,” he explains, “people displayed their membership of the upper class with their material accoutrements. But today, luxury goods are more accessible than before.

This is a problem for the affluent, who still want to broadcast their high social position. But they have come up with a clever solution. The affluent have decoupled social status from goods and reattached it to beliefs.”

As an example, he cites “Defund the

Police”, a slogan popular among cosseted US Leftists. The slogan isn’t quite so fashionable over here, perhaps because cutting police budgets is something the Tories do. None the less, British Leftists have plenty of “luxury beliefs” of their own.

Take, for example, their insistence that the Government should restore Shamima Begum’s citizenship. “She was only 15,” they protest – as if leaving the country to join the terrorist group Islamic State were a normal and ultimately harmless teenage folly, like drinking alcopops or spraying rude graffiti on the walls of a Scout hut.

With similar righteousness they claim that Begum would be treated more leniently if she were white – overlooking the fact that the Government also removed the citizenship of Jack Letts, aka “Jihadi Jack”, for joining Islamic State. Letts is white, middle class and from Oxford.

Still, never mind. Defending Begum makes these people feel good about themselves, and that’s all that really matters. You can almost hear their internal monologue.

“God, I’m just so COMPASSIONATE and KIND! Look at me, showing all this mercy and forgiveness! I’m practically Jesus! Not that I believe in Jesus, obviously. Only very uncool people do that.”

At a meeting over the weekend to discuss the Church of England’s “action plan” to tackle racial inequality, the Rev Rachel Webbley – a vicar from the charming seaside town of Whitstable, in Kent – said she was shocked by how much “white resistance” there is to “feeling discomfort about racial injustice”. A noble sentiment. And the Rev Webbley knows how problematic “white resistance” can be. Because, according to yesterday’s Telegraph, she said she herself is a “recovering racist”.

I must admit, “recovering racist” is a term I’d never previously come across. Is it like being a recovering alcoholic? And if so, do groups of recovering racists meet up once a week for meetings of Racists Anonymous? I wonder what it’s like.

“My name is John, and I’m a racist. To begin with, I was just racist socially. But then I started being racist alone as well. Soon I was being racist all day long. I was even racist at breakfast. Eventually my family staged an intervention, and told me I had to give up racism immediately. Not being racist is really tough, but I’ve made some good progress. It’s now 400 days since I quit the Labour Party.”

At any rate, I’m sure worshippers will wish the Church every success with its “race action plan”. And there’s plenty that the rest of us can do to help.

For example: by banning our children from watching Mary Poppins.

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), it was reported yesterday, has raised the age rating for the 1964 film from U to PG – because it contains “discriminatory language”. Fans of this beloved family classic may be surprised to be told that it’s racist. But apparently the problem is the script’s fleeting use of the word “Hottentots”. Formerly employed to refer to the Khoekhoe, an ancient nomadic people indigenous to southern Africa, the term is today considered racially insensitive.

Of course, you might argue that, since absolutely nobody nowadays uses the word “Hottentots”, or even knows what it means, it’s unlikely to offend anyone. You might also argue that, if the word is really all that shocking, the BBFC might as well go the whole hog and make Mary

Poppins an 18. Changing its age rating from U to PG suggests that, while exposure to the word “Hottentots” could traumatise a six-year-old, it’s perfectly fine for a 10-year-old. Which suggests that it can’t be so very offensive, after all.

Then again, if that is indeed your view of the issue, it’s probably best to keep it to yourself. Otherwise a vicar might overhear, and order you to attend Racists Anonymous.