To be angry that a 12A certificate film is shown to primary children in school

You think they'd be OK with Shindler's List then?

Was that put out for kids?

Or Jaws? Or Poltergeist?

My daughter [can't remember her age at the time] wouldn't go near the sea for a long time after seeing Jaws on the telly. And, after seeing a trailer for ET that was on round about children's programmes time, was afraid to go upstairs on her own. All children are different. The whole point about films is that each parent knows their own child and what that child will be frightened of and it's not right for a school to decide that for them. The film was rubbish anyway. Speiberg 'Speilberged' it as he is prone to do.

My grandsons would be fine with Jaws.

I am absolutely certain.

I've not heard of Poltergeist. I'm not big on films.

The seven year old would probably equate Jaws with the Sea Monster books they are on at the moment.

Are any of your grandchildren frightened of wardrobes?

The school has put itself in a vulnerable position. 12a is a clear guide and they should have either asked parents if they could show an age appropriate 'clip' of the film that helped the class work they were doing or chosen a different film!

My DD2 (6/7)spent the whole of ET under the cinema seat..her daughter (just 7) watched part of it with me the other week at home. She hid behind a cushion. We turned it off!

Not the wardrobe but the scary queen !

Perhaps it's a girl/boy thing.

Actually think the 4yr old (girl) would have been more blase about the films! She is less of a sensitive flower!

I think crimson makes a very good point. If you decide to let your child watch a film which has an older certificate, you do it on the basis that you know your child. And the film! Did anyone read the interview with Daniel Radcliffe where he said he got complaints from parents who took their children to see The Lady in Black?

Woman, not Lady!

Yes, quite, Lilygran! Parents have a responsibility to check the content of a play or film before they take their children to see it - not just assume it's suitable because the leading actor used to play Harry Potter!

My thirty year old son who never gets scared by anything was really spooked by The Lady in Black. I'm still scared by The Omega Man [the early film with Charlton Heston] and I've never watched Blair Witch Project because I know it will stay with me. If I'd been watching that Crickley House series at the weekend my hair would have been white today after my power cut in the early hours....oh; it's white already...however, I can watch Alien because I'm not in a spaceship.

(I missed Crickley House as I was away on holiday so bought it as my holiday reading. Really, really scary. I just had to keep reading and hope for a happy (ish) ending.)

I still think Warhorse is something which shouldn't be shown to a class. Every child is different and only a parent would know what their child can cope with.

Personally, I still can't watch documentaries on the holocaust. It leaves me in tears of horror and despair for mankind, I leave the room when nature films do that slow motion bit when the gnu cross the crocodile infested river. DH on the other hand can detach himself and watch objectively.

I love nature documentaries so have hardened myself to the killing bits but I've been watching the excellent series about David Attenborough's career and it showed clip from a programme about lions hunting elephant at night. That upset me terribly at the time and it did so again this weekend. Probably because it's far from a 'quick kill' and I'm a bit soft on elephants. I usually reason that, unlike us, animals only kill when necessary, either for themselves or their young. It's what we, as human beings [and supposedly the most intelligent creatures on the planet] are capable of doing that distresses me.

Yes, it's very good - even if it means rushing off to make impromptu cups of tea!

The 12A classification doesn't mention the word 'parent' but responsible adult - and heyho that's what teachers are! If you don't like the teachers move the children elsewhere otherwise let them get on with their jobs without all the threats of retribution. As for the school putting itself in a vulnerable position, that sounds very like a threat - do it my way or else! And imagine trying to work under those conditions. What sort of message does it send out to a child, that if there's something they don't like about their education, their parents will go storming in on their behalf and they can be got out of it. Or even worse they are made aware that the teacher is hauled over the coals in reaction to their complaint, how bad is that.

Nanban it's common sense! Would you really want your own grandchildren to be possibly traumatised by viewing something that they, personally, find extremely distressing? No one here is denying that teachers do what can be a difficult and stressful job with inadequate recompense or thanks, but in this case someone has made an error of judgement, in my view. Surely viewing 'Warhorse' is not on the curriculum for 9-year-olds?

Yes jO5 I have grasped that your grandson is learning abut World War 2, but the OP was about the suitability of showing Warhorse, rated 12A, to a nine-year-old. Those three years are huge in a child's life.

PS to Nanban. Have you seen the film?

Sorry. Should have said responsible adult.

Surely it's down to a child's responsible adult to judge whether that particular child at nine is emotionally mature enough to cope with a film rated 12A? What proportion of a class had to be considered 'adult' enough to view the film for the teacher to override the feelings of the more tender hearted?

Teachers are in loco parentis when children are in school. And they are trained and qualified to judge.

'They are trained and qualified to judge'? For up to 30 children of diverse temperaments and as much as a year apart in age? A parent knows his or her own child and what he or she is capable of understanding and absorbing without feeling emotionally disturbed. So in this case, I do dispute the 'in loco parentis' label.