What the thing is
A colloquial label for unclassified VHS horror and exploitation films sold in the UK before 1985.
Where it came from
The NVLA popularised it in early 1980s Britain, after Vipco’s full-page ads for The Driller Killer sparked complaints in 1982. Prosecutions were commenced against traders of allegedly obscene videos. The Director of Public Prosecutions released a list of 72 films believed to violate the Obscene Publications Act 1959.
When home video arrived in the UK in the 1970s, the only law that touched it was the Obscene Publications Act, amended in 1977 to cover erotic films. Major distributors held back from the new medium for fear of piracy, and the video market filled with low-budget horror. Cinema releases had long gone through the BBFC, set up in 1912, but tapes did not. A few months after the Vipco ads, Go Video, which distributed the 1980 Italian film Cannibal Holocaust, wrote anonymously to Mary Whitehouse to complain about its own film, hoping to boost sales. The plan backfired: she began a public campaign and coined the term “video nasty”. The Sunday Times took the issue to a wider audience in May 1982, and the Daily Mail ran its own campaign. Conservative MP Graham Bright then introduced a private member’s bill in 1983, at the NVALA’s suggestion, which became the Video Recordings Act 1984.
Enforcement before the Act was uneven. Where a prosecution was brought, it had to be fought case by case, and a backlog built up. Police could also seize videos from retailers if they thought the material breached the Act, and raids on hire shops increased in some forces, notably Greater Manchester under Chief Constable James Anderton. One raid took a copy of the Dolly Parton musical The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, on the mistaken belief that it was pornographic. The Video Retailers Association, alarmed by the random seizures, asked the DPP for guidance. The DPP list was the answer: first made public in June 1983, it was changed monthly as prosecutions failed or were dropped.
What it gets right
It names a real regulatory gap. Unclassified VHS tapes flooded the market because the law did not cover them.
What it gets wrong
It treats 72 films as a coherent category. They shared no aesthetic, origin or intent — only prosecution.
The list itself was not tidy. Of the 72 titles that appeared on it at one time or another, 39 were successfully prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act; the other 33 were not prosecuted or the prosecutions failed. A second list named a further 82 titles that were not expected to lead to convictions but could still be confiscated under the Act’s forfeiture provisions (the “Section 3” titles). A dealer who forfeited a tape under Section 3 admitted it was obscene but escaped personal prosecution. The list also included films that had already been acquitted of obscenity or had BBFC certification.
Why it matters now
The Video Recordings Act 1984 — born from this panic — still governs UK video certification today, re-enacted in 2010. The Act required BBFC certification of video releases, and it imposed stricter censorship on videos than on cinema releases.
The Act came into effect on 1 September 1985. The British Board of Film Censors became the British Board of Film Classification, responsible for both cinema and video. Films released on video earlier had to be resubmitted within three years, and films that had passed uncut for cinema were often cut for video. Supplying an unclassified video became a criminal offence, as did supplying 15 and 18-certified videos to underage people. The Act also caught major films: The Exorcist, which Warner Home Video released in December 1981 without BBFC submission, was withdrawn from shelves in 1986, and Straw Dogs was denied video certification.
The restrictions later eased. The Exorcist received an uncut 18 certificate on 25 February 1999, and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre followed that August. Several of the listed titles were passed in the early 2000s, uncut or with cuts limited to sexual violence or harm to real animals. As of May 2026, seven of the 72 films remain banned in the UK. The re-enactment in 2010 followed a legislative mistake discovered in August 2009.
Is it worth your time
Yes — if you want to understand how UK video censorship was built on moral panic, not evidence.
