@Mr Blackett

I think I understand what you mean, but that's a bit of a stretch, isn't it, to say that "the legal system is independent of the government"? Isn't it the U.K. government that is promising to put the Byron Report suggestions into law? Maybe we are using different definitions of "legal system" and "government."

In any case, although incorrect, please understand that it's easy for us to consider the BBFC a government agency (even though technically it is not -- I do understand that). In the U.S., it is hard for us to imagine any law being made or enforced, directly or indirectly, by an authority that is not somehow accountable to the people, either directly or indirectly.

As odd as it seems to us to have the government make rules that restrict free expression, it seems even odder that these rules would be based on the recommendations of an independent organization that doesn't have any direct accountability to the electorate.

[...] has the fullreport. [...]

To those asking about the "intended for" thing in limiting games being purchased...

How do you think it works for alcohol, or smokes, or infact existing violent media rules?

If you have good cause to suspect they are going to give it to a child, you say no.

British gamers are screwed. I´m deeply sorry for them. I really hope someday they can make a stand to reject this ridiculous report and laws.

@Buncha I think the overhaul bit is more to do with parent's perception than changing the system. Or that's the impression I get from reading the report.

Gift.

@ Buncha Kneejerks

"In the UK, movies at the cinema and DVD’s have to be classified by the BBFC. The ratings are enforced through law. In the UK a parent cannot take a 15 year old into an 18 cert movie."

How about buying an 18 cert DVD and bringing it home and showing it to your 15 year old child? Is that illegal in the UK?

I'm referring to the period where African's were removed from their homes and sent around the world. You know, the famous 'time'. Of course you're right that slavery has existed throughout history and it's always been disgusting but it's never been anything like the BBFC rating video games. The comparison is, at best, melodramatic and, at worse, crass and offensive.

I'm not interested in arguing the other points any further. Rest assured, I see your argument and still disagree...and sometimes you're just plain wrong. I also think you should put more care into your analogies. I still love you though.

Speaking of people in the US being unable to comprehend it, how long before some wise guy supporting such things in the US brings this up as a reason that [The US] should do the same?

@Dick Ward

Trust me, I worked in a store that sold games of all kinds... I would regularly see kids come in with money their parents had blindly handed them before they walked out the door that day, just because the said "hey mom, I want to buy a game, can I have some money?"

These parent's need, badly, to be educated that "game" does not equal "kids toy" and that they should actually be paying attention.

@ GusTavToo

Dude, I'm a Londoner - I get the difference, trust. And I;m sure most Americans will too. But from what I understand of American media, the word "state" tends to be used mostly in the context of socio/communist countries like China and Cuba. And that won't sit well with their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Rather than get caught up in the US vs UK way of doing things, it might be better to just emphasise that the major changes are:

Current practice:
BBFC review all games that are certified 18 and 15.. PEGI do the rest.

Proposed practice:
BBFC review all games that are certified 18 and 15 and 12. PEGI do the rest.

Of course, how they pick the ones that will have the 12 certificate in advance seems a bit odd. I guess the game devs will go through the PEGI checklist first. But the thing to understand is that there are no new legal/regulatory processes being put in place. This is no new Videgame Censorship bill.

Saying that "Parents should be able to show horror/porn films to their children if they want to, it my right as an American" should understand that the UK has had this debate, and decided that this shouldn't be the case*. The BBFC is a respected institution that is almost 100 years old. We are quite happy to let them get on with their jobs. I understand some Americans might be aghast at this, but the fact that they have this power doesn't mean they abuse it. They've a good record so far, over a very long period of time. Yes they have banned films they considered obscene, and demand cuts from some films, but they have not interfered with Political Free Speech, which is the central issue here.

*Of course, those Brits who are under 18 probably feel differently, I know I did, all those years ago. :)

@ Buncha Kneekerks: I don't know why you bother sometimes, BlackIce and BoodRobotUs stopped trying to educate/pacify every American new poster spoiling for an argument. Can you imagine the reaction if we trolled USA-orientated threads in the same style, with corresponding comments of "our system is way better than yours, you're mad/bad/wrong to disagree"? [shudder]

Anyway for those unable to make up their own minds (looks @ DarrelBT), you should find the following interview both interesting and relevant, originally found on Next-Gen.biz.

Next-Gen: "One of the fears for the games industry or for adult games players is that somehow your recommendations might stop people from playing adult games. Is there any way that this might come out as a result of what you’re recommending?"

Byron: "Absolutely not. That’s certainly not what I’m recommending. I’ve worked with a lot of gamers throughout the review and I do believe that adults have the right to make decisions about the content that they access, whether it’s viewing or interacting.

There’s a huge moral debate around content in videogames. I’m very clear, that wasn’t the remit of my review to pass judgment on that and I do believe that content for adults is content for adults. It should be rated that way.

I can understand that gamers fear that there will be a ‘you can’t play these games anymore.’ I’ve not said that, I’d never say that, and certainly if I heard people beginning to use my review to try and imply that I will be very quick to say that that was not and will not be a recommendation of mine."

Next-Gen: "I don’t want this question to sound facetious, but what makes a game appropriate for a twelve year old as supposed to say a ten year old? Give me an example of something that would trigger that."

Byron: "When I started I looked at the way the classification system changes [in movies] around twelve you begin to get more realistic violence, you begin to get sexual innuendo. For me it’s really about not just the age rating but the content description on the back of the game. If a parent sees a game they evaluate it against what they know about their child, that’s their choice.

Some ten year olds are more mature than twelve year olds and some twelve year olds are less mature than some ten year olds. For me it’s not about having a Nanny-State approach and saying this is exactly what you have to do, but it’s about providing enough information and support for industry, retail, and parents to make the right choice for the individual child that’s standing in the shop asking for the game."

Next-Gen: "You said you went over to the United States recently. Do you think your ideas will be looked at carefully over there or is that just not relevant, what those guys are doing?"

Byron: "It’s entirely relevant. The internet, the online space, and videogaming, it’s global. It’s about children living in global landscapes now, you know? This is what the online landscape gives children. It’s amazing, it’s a fantastic opportunity for children to grow, for communities to develop in a way that’s positive."

On an interesting side note, there is an article that discusses the issue of British teens on TIME's website.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725547,00.html

Yeah, but some of them aren't happy here. They get antsy when they are forced to think for themselves.

The feared Byron report. The document detractors claimed would bring about sweeping change. A document that would be critical of the games industry and be used as fodder for destroying the videogames industry. What does it say, the BBFC should include a 12 certificate. Woe is us.

"The evidence on video games is discussed in Chapter 6. There are some possible negative effects of violent content in games, but these only become ‘harmful’ when children present other risk factors:

There is some evidence of short term aggression from playing violent video games but no studies of whether this leads to long term effects.

There is a correlation between playing violent games and aggressive behaviour, but this is not evidence that one causes the other."

How dare she say something so well balanced and informed!

Judgment day............so to speak

Ok, So, lemme put it in easy to understand terms for us supposedly (according to Jt) Brain damaged kids.

1. Games may have some effect, but no real evidance supports.
2. Theres no need for major change, but some minor, very logical recomendations are suggested.
3. The report recomends more Parental involvment, not government regulation.

That about right everyone?

@Darrel

Thanks for confirming that.

Sad to think this was what we were all so worried about.

Can someone clear up a question for me? Why does this doctor have a seemingly endless supply of glamor headshots? Is she one of those television &/or book-world celebrity doctors?

Not that this automatically affects how seriously her work should be taken, I'm just curious about it.

@ Shaesyco

It's ok Shae, I"m to busy playing Ultimate ninja 3 to care right now about this this report anymore. Read it, laughed, and went back to being a ninja.

@Shaesyco

Whinge whinge whinge. Seriously mate, get over it.

It sounds like she is applauding the ESRB in chapter 7

@Campion
She's hosted a couple of TV shows about dealing with problem children. I don't really watch that sort of thing, so thats as much as I know

WHAT? Thats it. Can't read the now as I'm college but it sounds very lack luster after all that was being said about it. I was even fearing that I'd need to go and move else where to get freedom to play games cause this report would destroy gaming in the UK, and it turns out to be an anti climax!!!

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad she's being sensible over it, and gaming will be relaivly untouched\will not need to worry about only being able to play barbie games for the rest of my life (or time in the UK) but FFS, she had me worried.

Could common sense prevail in Parlament after this. Stayed tuned.

I've only read the areas that are of interest to me but it seems on the whole perfectly reasonable and sensible.

Dennis, can I suggest sticking a link to here up.
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/byronreview/
Amongst other things its got the appendices and lit reviews which make for further reading. Of interest is the documents covering the replies to the Call for Evidence.

Going around looking for stories while glancing through the report... not enough coffee in my system to haul through 200+ eerie powerpoint-esque pages just yet.

The BBC focuses on the "overhaul" and throws in one of those glamour shots that Campion mentioned -- I had no idea Dr. Byron was such a fox. Meanwhile, Darren Waters' blog presents it as forcing the gaming industry to undergo "a dramatic increase in workload" while the general area of online activity is left up in the air.
The international news community doesn't seem to be picking up on it yet, although CNN has a bit of alarmism about something called "Miss Bimbo."

You guys need to get to the findings part. Thats where her recommendations are. She is obviously a big government proponent despite her admissions that video games have barely been shown to cause short term increases in aggression.

"I recommend that the Entertainment Retail Association and the Video
Standards Council work together to review and align their Codes of Practice. I also recommend that this work should include:
-Consideration of using specific and prominent shelf level notices where 18+ rated games appear, in order to support the message that ‘not all games are for children’
-Consideration of punitive measures for non-compliance with these codes
-Agreement on formal, independent monitoring of what information shops provide, the results of which is made available to consumers"

"I recommend that the Government should commission and oversee research to examine (1) if video games are being advertised responsibly, in line with age-ratings, and (2) the role of marketing in stimulating children and young peoples’ desire to play video games which are not appropriate for their age."

"I... recommend that there should be periodical monitoring by Trading Standards of retailers’ compliance in not selling video games to underage
children and young people, which would need to be properly resourced by
Government."

"I recommend a hybrid classification system:"

You can make your own conclusions about how even handed this woman is, but she is proposing things that have been fought by the industry in the states and declared unconstitutional.

I'm looking forward to hearing Leland Yee (and Schwarzenegger) complain when his appeal is denied. ..I can respect Dr. Byron's effort though, because it's not full of sound bites and leading questions for starters.

Most of what's in the report doesn't seem that bad. Inconvenient, perhaps counterproductive (putting two ratings on a game, when they are saying parents are unable to understand the one?), but not that bad. Except for this:

It also recommends that new PCs be sold with software that will help prevent children seeing harmful online content.

Later:

Work should also be done to see if there are technical means that can oversee where people go online and warn them about illegal or harmful sites they may visit.

It also called for the creation of kitemarked filtering software that is installed on all new PCs sold for use in the home and which is given away with all new net contracts.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7314751.stm)

Not directly game related, but scary nonetheless. The wording is not exactly clear as to whether or not the report is recommending that the government -require- such software on all PCs sold for home use. Making it voluntary is still iffy, because who really wants the government, or software created/influenced by the government, constantly monitoring their internet activity? There are plenty of content filters, that block out pornographic or otherwise age inappropriate material, already available. Why does there need to be a government created one?

This leans a little too far in the Big Brother direction for comfort. Especially as the report says the governments accepts and will act on -all- the recommendations.

(From the same source)
Schools secretary Ed Balls "... said the government would legislate where necessary to bring some of the recommendations into force."

I'm still not convinced Byron was the best person to do this... what does she do?

I sadly expect more games to be banned now. I also expect games to take even longer to come out in the UK, and some smaller games wont come out at all.

@ me

Shes a child psychologist. Shes more known however for hosting the BBC3 UK show 'House of Tiny Tearaways' where various terror infants are calmed down through both dicipline of the kids and also by sorting out any problems the parents are having. Its more of a 'help' show than a showcase of bad children though (like supernanny).

The only real problems this report generated were the reactions of the newspapers. I get The Times, which overstated that all games would receive 'health warnings', which I immediately envisaged as being like "THIS GAME WILL MAKE YOUR CHILD CRAZY" stickers on the cover, but further reading showed what they actually meant was that a BBFC classification had to be shown on the front of games.

Hmm, that sounds like an extreme measure - I'll just look at my games collection to see what covers will look like with these on the front. Hmm, Oblivion; no wait, it already has one. BioShock! Nope, that already has one too. F.E.A.R? World in Conflict? Company of Heroes? Gears of War? The Witcher? Half Life 2? Splinter Cell Double Agent? All of them ALREADY HAVE THE BBFC RATING ON THE FRONT.

In addition, the paper said that Byron called for consoles to be made with parental controls. For someone doing a report for the government, surely she'd know that all three consoles already do?

Meanwhile, The Times had a column along the side giving examples of controversial games. GTA IV - players are encouraged to run over pedestrians, murder policemen and drink drive! Are they? I get the feeling most players will be perceptive enough to realise that driving gets harder if they make Nico drink.

The column continued. God of War - players are encouraged to burn prisoners alive and slice women in two. No mention of the execellent narrative of your character being an obvious bastard I guess.

While I bet the red top tabloids were quite a lot less even handed, I think the only argument here needs to be with right wing lunatics in the media who.

Well, I've had abit of a read.. no way I'm reading all of it, I got dailies in WoW to do.. but overall it seems excellent, well balanced, and something I can defiantly get behind.

I especially liked her references to how our culture seems to be trying to avoid any risk or perception of harm to children.. and of how she mentioned that the internet and video games may be forcing adults to face the realities of childhood that they may not like.. that children need to take risks and explore things that sometimes adults, quite naturally, don't want them exploring.

It seems like Matt Peckham,in his blog, is reacting to a poor headline about this instead of responding to the actual report.

@ jon:

"You can make your own conclusions about how even handed this woman is, but she is proposing things that have been fought by the industry in the states and declared unconstitutional."

This is what worries me; how the US politicos are going to try to use this. "Look, the UK made it illegal to sell games to people below the ratings, we should do it too!"

On the one hand, she points out there's no evidence to support the "games cause violence" argument, but then goes on to recommend what I feel is a pretty high level of direct government interference/regulation of the sale of games. That doesn't quite jive in my mind.

And yeah, about that "intended for" bit... HOW, pray tell, do you plan to divine just who a game is INTENDED FOR when it is purchased? If the person handing the cashier the money is of the age required to purchase the game, who the hell are they to say "no, can't do it"? Where would that sort of behavior fly in ANY other industry?

@ me

No, she states, clearly, in her report that she understands that the majority of gamers in the UK are in thier late twenties, and that there is a section of games designed with adult gamers in mind.

She basically states that those games should be for adults, she just thinks that kids should have access to those games restricted, but not that the games should be banned from sale. At least thats how it appears to me.

@ Haggard:

"In addition, the paper said that Byron called for consoles to be made with parental controls. For someone doing a report for the government, surely she’d know that all three consoles already do?"

Forgot to mention that part. Every tech-related "recommendation" she made up there is already in existance. All three current-gen consoles have parental controls available. Web browsers already have security settings to keep children from viewing "high risk" web sites, and they already have browser histories to show where users have been. I have a bad feeling that those "recommendations" are going to be warped by the time they actually see legislation.

So, is anyone going to tell the PC World's Matt Peckham that the "cigarette styled Warning labels" was fabricated by the newspaper and was not in the original report?

I feel that the mainstream media are blowing this out to be more than what it seems,

also it will be hard to penalise someone like a retailer trying to sell a 12 rated game to a 10 year old, it seems to be a little insane if the kid is mature enough to understand it...

Also this kind of law is also unconstitutonal and will be hard to pass in the UK as it has been in the US.

I feel that what Byron says is true, but what the politicians and the media are saying 'so called' recomendations are perhaps over the top and generally have not read the Byron report yet.

anyway, I am going to read it now.

Also, you can't protect children from everything, also they need to know how to handle their own problems too, like you can't ban bullying because it is a socitey issue and no one can control it except for those individuals themselves...

Also I thought that the PEGI symbols were really clear and they reach a wide European audience that does not always speek English...

That is why symbols are there for...

Anyway, it is obvious that the real problem is that parents never grew up with these ratings so any change will be useless because there will be some parents will never understand them anyway no matter how hard you try,

sorry to rain on the parade but that is my own opinions before I read this...

I have read what others in the mainstream say, and now I am going to read this report for myself and reply back saying a few things about it...hopefully positive things...

I, for one, am less worried about the content of the report, but how the government will interpet it. The government have made no bones about how they want to bring down increased censorship on the artform, and I can see them taking the recommendations and implementing them 110%- dangerous for the more heavy-handed recommendations.

I'd also like to know what effect this will have on the BBFC's ratings- will they go more draconian than they already are, or will a greater number of games running through their offices cause them to understand the medium better and as such provide better ratings?

Having skimmed through the report, it's not wound up bad, but then it's far from good. I think it'll be a while before we truly find out, either way.

/b

Read the entire thing this morning.

It is extremely well balanced, and many of the recommendations she makes are simply enforcing things that developers, publishers and games companies do already voluntarily anyway.

Ive read it, and Im not worried, it's a superb piece of investigation and conclusion IMO.

The media are, as usual trying to make a headline, and sadly "Respected child psychologist says games should be rated like movies." isn't as attention grabbing as "Evil Video Games will need cigarette style health warnings!!" So they twist things.
The byron report seems well balanced and curiously calm mannered. From the brief look I've had and the comments here, I think that the general consensus is right in thinking she's done a good job and more or less agreed with people.

I'm very intrigued by the comments of a few US posters who seem concerned by games being regulated like films here, I understand the 1st ammendment makes this bizarrely illegal in America, but it blatantly hasn't killed the film industry here and is unlikely to have a major impact on the games industry. What is the real concern?

@Bill

It isn't in the report. Its in an interview I believe.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/mar/27/digitalmedia.childprotection

Those may reflect her personal views and as such why they weren't included in the report.

I really like that she is promoting parental controls.... and education as well... her recommendations that ISPs and Console companies should include step by step, idiot proof, instructions as to how to set things up are excellent.

One problem with it though, how she is suggesting that "all new computers" include it.. since PC sales are not that simple, when you consider self built machines.

Although.. I suppose if you don't know how to set up a piece of software, chances are you are not building your own machine.

@Colonel Finn:

It's not killed the UK film industry, but it's not done it any favours- not only does indigenous film development lag massively behind foreign output, our retail shelves are not quite as diverse as that of other nations due to the prohibitive cost of getting a rating- distributors of niche content (anime, for one) complain that getting a BBFC rating eats into a disproportionately high amount of their revenue, reducing their potential UK output.

I would also point out that the UK film industry gets huge tax breaks from the government that the games industry does not.

/b

I'm not a parent, so if anyone is, please explain to me why it seems that people become retarded when they sprout offspring.

"When a child goes on to the computer and on to the internet or on to a video game we should be thinking in the same way. It’s really difficult for parents because we didn’t grow up in the computer age, many of us."

Seriously, people, what the hell? Common sense will dictate to you how to handle things. I'm for providing information on a game's box and elsewhere to determine how a game is rated, but seriously, if you can't make a decision based on what is provided, you don't need to have kids anyway.

@Bill

You're right, my mistake, that's an opinion, not a recommendation, it did confuse me somewhat, I'll admit.

To be honest, there's not much there that I wasn't already expecting, though, I'm not sure of the cost of having Video Games rated by two separate systems when films etc are only rated by one, the Industry may baulk a little at having to pay out twice for ratings compared to other media formats.

"I’m asking the prime minister to change legislation so that from 12 upwards children or parents can’t buy games unless it’s for the right age of the child."

So, under the reports recommendations, it would be illegal for me to purchase a game rated 12+ for my 11-year-old child? Am I misunderstanding?

This is not the way it works for movies in the UK as well, is it? I know there are "12+" BBFC age restrictions for films, but currently, U.K. parents aren't fined or imprisoned for allowing their 11-year-old children to watch Revenge of the Sith, are they?

Does the Byron report suggest that the 12+ recommendation be changed to legally prevent parents from allowing their under-aged children to watch "12+" movies as well, as well as "12+" games? It looks to me like maybe the rule would apply to games only. Is that fair, considering the ?

I don't get what's up with all the "this report just states the obvious" and "this is no big deal" posts. That "12+" enforcement recommendation seems radical and wrong. And it seems like a pretty big deal to me.

Maybe it's just my U.S.-bred sense of individual accountability and civil libertarianism, and maybe these would be out of place in the U.K. Maybe you guys over there are totally cool with this sort of thing? Seem wrong to me, and seems like a pretty big deal.

Sorry, it's just that from a UK standpoint, it seems odd that it's illegal to enforce a rating. Seeing as it's standard practice here. As you said in your last sentence, "at least not here in the US".
You see the BBFC here rate things and classify them according to a set of ratings which stand with the full weight of the law behind them. Which is why I'm trying to get the US mindset as to why, being able to prosecute people for selling rated games to underage kids is seen as a bad thing. The question of banning aside.

@KayleL

To be honest, the only kind of regulation they can really enforce would be something like a passworded firewall that blocks sites like Facebook, iirc, the servers aren't even in the UK, so no direct action can be taken to regulate the site itself, however, I think what Byron is recommending falls more under the 'parental controls' section than anything else, contrary to popular belief, it's actually extremely difficult for our government to get permission to invade someone's' personal Emails etc.

Points of interest:

-She seems to imply in her comments farther down the blog that parents should be banned from buying the games for the kids as well. That takes parenting out of the hands of the parents. Not sure if I like that idea (tend to be a parenting first type)

-Her hybrid classification system, one on front, one on back, is possibly more confusing than helpful. What if they conflict? They mention a simple and easy to read system to get this information out to parents and this is not the way.

-They want film like treatment of this material? It was my understanding, though I might be wrong, that the film industry is self regulated (at least in the US) and that allowing someone into an R movie isn't illegal, just a violation of industry standards/generally accepted moral practices.

Just some thoughts, need more time to process the whole report.

@Colonel Finn

UK here, too :)

My problem with the US approach is not the fact they want to regulate, it's the fact that they want to single out games. It's so obviously influenced by the fact that both Film and Music industries have massive lobbying powers in Washington. I wouldn't be surprised if the furor dies down once the ESA lobbying gets a few years old.

Personally, I wouldn't get involved if a law was suggested that covered all media types, as I've said before, but the way it is being approached in the US just stinks of opportunism, soap-boxing and going for the 'low-hanging fruit', as it were.

I'm a big fan of 'fair', just as I thought it was unfair that all films, but not all games had to be rated in the UK, and I'm glad to see that hole going a long way towards being fixed, I think a rating system is only going to be effective if it is applied to all media at the same time.

@Marc

BBFC certificates are legally enforceable. If a game has a 12, 15, 18, PG, U (which most games already do by the way) then they are legally enforceable. Films are similar in this country, however individual councils can certify, they usually leave the BBFC to it.

Once again... BBFC certificates are LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE.
Films, DVDs, Games - Doesn't matter... and its the retailer that has to make sure.

@Buncha - I doubt a retailer would accept a fist full of dollars in the UK. They prefer Pound sterling and besides, dollars aren't worth very much.

Thank you. Thank you. I'm here all week.

@Mr Blackett

Your such a card ;)

In my first draft of that post I was going to say $40 instead of fist full of dollars, but then I realised I have no idea how much games are in the states and that with the strength of the pound against the dollar it was all up in the air. ;)

@Rodrigo

Care too elaborate on that fud you just posted?

The Times' front page today:
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/448/frontpagewt2.png

The Lie:
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/9748/thelieex6.png

The Truth:
http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/185/thetruthbo1.png
"Dr Byron wants a single statutory classification system. Ratings would have to be displayed prominently on all packaging materials, like health warnings on cigarettes, as well as on shop display cases."

BBFC-rated games from my stash (over half of it):
http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/9273/stashid8.png


-Hope this helps, apologies for a bit of blur

@rodrigo

explain or die plz

If I want my kids playing an M-rated game when they're 12, that's my business. Screw Bryon and anyone else who says that's not good for the kid, the only people that think it isn't are the same idiots that stomp over the founding elements of their country (I'm looking at you, PTC and FCC). And Facebook regulation is just insane. I don't get where the internet-suicide thing came from...

@PeterWDawson

I think your taking the wrong end of the stick. No one is saying you can't. What they are saying is that your kid can't walk into a store and buy it. You would need to buy it for them. Sorry if that sounds unreasonable.

@Rodrigo - Please don't waste your sympathy. I'm sure if those laws were being used against us, we would make a fuss. They're not. They give parents that care about their kids the knowledge they need to make informed decisions on the media their kids consume. They also provide an incentive to parents that couldn't care less NOT to buy games with mature content.

The UK is not China. The BBFC is not stifling political dissent. The only games banned so far have been banned because of lurid, graphic violence and both bans were overturned on appeal. If a game was banned over a political message then I'll join you in your concern. Violence that is childish in it's gratuitousness (I'm looking at you, Manhunt 2) won't be missed by me.

The BBFC is very liberal, particularly when compared with the US equivalent. This isn't an end to freedom of expression for the UK. It's a reminder to parents that they might want to keep an eye on what their kids are doing.

@Peter Dawson: If more parents thought like you, then we wouldn't have this problem at all.

On the note about Internet Assisted Suicide, alot of people encourage acts of suicide online. Spend some time in video game chat rooms. You don't even need to go near facebook. You'll see so many directions for users to "Kill yourself" or "Go die in a fire" that it's just rediculous. I believe this is what they refer to.

@Papa Midnight

Actually it is more likely to do with various "suicide cults" and "suicide clubs" that have been springing up... websites actually trying to organize groups of people to kill themselves at the same time.. really disturbing stuff.

I believe the internet sucide thing is a reference to a suicide epidemic that happened in Bridgend, Wales. I haven't followed the story so I can't comment with any level of accuracy but IIRC there may have been fears that the people involved were in contact via facebook, bebo etc.

@Zerodash

Rubbish, a classical kneejerk reaction. This is a minor adjustment to a system that has been in place for sometime now. Funny that GTA, one of the top 5 selling and popular gaming franchises is developed in Scotland UK. If only the evil BBFC weren't there to stomp on their creative freedoms, they could be number one.

@Zerodash - No it isn't. Have you even read the report? It's asking for minor changes to a system that's already in place. No precedent is being set. There''s no vast government conspiracy to crush creativity. If the British government wanted to do that, it would stop funding the arts.

When a child goes on to the computer and on to the internet or on to a video game we should be thinking in the same way. It’s really difficult for parents because we didn’t grow up in the computer age, many of us.

That's the core problem - you are giving Video Games much more 'power' than they really have.

I used to play 'violent' games as a child before I ever touched a video game. I'm in a good position as Video Games came out while I was growing up, so I know both sides of this.

Most kids out there - dealing drugs and carry guns in real life - are learning it from the environment they are brought up in - not video games. The video games - like GTA - are fashioned after REAL LIFE - not the other way around - at least in that specific case.

Violence existed long before Video Games, that's for damn sure.

Actually - when I went to school - and I'm sure most can agree - the most aggressive, violent kids in school were the sport's nuts.

@Zerodash

My point is that your response is just as unbased as the antigamers arguement that Bully will cause highschool shootings.

@My Blankett

I was wondering that myself, its refreshing to meet someone with the same viewpoint as me on these forums :)

"In the same way you wouldn’t let your 11 to 12 year-old watch the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which is an 18-rated film, you really shouldn’t be letting them play 18-rated video games."
I'm sorry, who gave you or anyone authority over any parent's child?
Who is anyone to dictate what I or anyone would or should let their children to be exposed to. Just as some let their children have wine at a certain age, or expose them to birds and the bees at a stage deemed acceptable by the parent.
Just because you think a 12 year old shouldn't see Texas Chainsaw Massacre doesn't mean everyone else should step in line with you.
I actualy do agree with some regulation preventing kids from buying on their own, but the ultimate decision lays with the parent, if a parent wants to take a kid to an r rated movie, not anyone, not the government nor the queen should prevent them from doing so.
Regulation isn't the answer, the answer is an industry lead improvments to the awarment system.

Yes, I think the Non-UK members need to realise that we've had this system here for a long time and as of yet it's really made no palpable difference in the gaming over here and over there.

The system works, it just needs some modifications to make it up to date and more smoothly running.

Can I clarify something about how the BBFC currently work with regards to games. As is my understanding, game developers only submit to the BBFC if they believe their games may be within the bounds of a 15 or 18 certificate. Any other submission is voluntery. This is why some games have already been released with a lower cert i.e. Tony Hawkes with a 12. The recommendation is to drop this back a step and make minimum submission for a 12.

This will mean games like Medal of Honour, which have so far not received a classification, will be required to do so.

Re: Jon
The BBFC classification takes place BEFORE the games are released, just as they see films before they are done. You can try to make it sound like we're the victims of some fascist right reduction here, but you're just making yourself sound silly.

@ Colonel Finn

Here Here

(And the fact we are already regulated on advertising, sale, and censorship)

You do that jon, you are aware the reason it takes so long for games to be released outside of the US and Japan is because a) localisation and converting the engine from NTSC and PAL and b) Contempt certain companies have for Europe (I'm looking right at you Nintendo), its nothing to do with the BBFC or government intervention.

I could just as easily turn round and ask if your happy for your country to market and allow unrestricted access of mature media to kids but its not because thats what I believe to be true, it would only be to make an exaggerated and caustic comment as you did.

[...] Filed under: NewsAs you all probably know, following the whole Manhunt 2 thing, noted psychologist in the country Dr. Tanya Byron was knee-deep in an investigation into the effects of games and internet media on children in the UK. Her verdict? The BBFC should have a bigger role in rating games (right now, they only intervene on games flagged with violent, sexual and criminal content).Her solution involves a new 12+ classification, as well as the BBFC handling just about all duties involving rating games. But, as anticipated, she's also endorsed the PEGI system, as well. She hopes that the PEGI ratings can go on the back of the game's box, with the BBFC classification being displayed on the front.This is all just the tip of the iceberg, however. Her report has lots more interesting information, so for the rest, head on over to Game Politics.[Via Joystiq]Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments Ads by Google [...]

“Kids don’t need protection we need guidance. If you protect us you are making us weaker we don’t go through all the trail and error necessary to learn what we need to survive on our own. I know that in video gaming it may seem insignificant but it applies to gaming and the bigger stuff in life as well. So don’t protect us guide us through the gaming world don’t fight our battles for us just give us assistance when we need it.“

I love this quote. :D

What this report has wrong is the fact that we already do this, just not for all games. The reason is that some publishers feel that parents trust the BBFC rating more. Hence when Mass Effect at a BBFC 12 and not a PEGI rating.

@ Buncha

Sorry kinda off topic atm, But I'm from the Rhondda, the next valley over from Bridgend. From what I have heard locally, the suicides have had very little to do with the internet and social network sites. Obviously I don't know for sure, but if there was clear evidence that the suicides were linked via internet sites, there's would have been an even bigger fuss made about it, and people living close to the area (like I do) would know.

Back on topic. No big deal really. All it does is give the BBFC a harder job, and possibly confuse people (due to the dual ratings).

It essentially shows that the rating system is fine, just parents don't listen to it. If parents don't listen to it, I can't see much you can do really. You can make it illegal (as has been proposed) but i can see it being very difficult to prove in court.

The UK however is used to having ratings legally enforced (all movies are, and a lot of games are), so I can't see this making much difference tbh

Next up: Nanny State gets to decide what foods can and can't be sold to people depending on their age and weight.

On the plus side, most British food is horrible, so maybe this is a good thing. However, I have to ask...

WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE FISH AND CHIPS!?!?!

@Gameclucks

Next up: An expose of Brits who do things differently from Americans inspite of the first ammendment! News at 11! ;)

I don't like how the report said that the BBFC should be able to ban more games.

I was just wondering that myself, its several hours since I read as much as I did, and not every detail... but I can't recall them saying they should be able to ban more games, rather that they should maintain the right to ban games.. with more communication, that should happen even less than the super rare times it has happened in the past.

The Byron report is........ SANE. It's well-rounded.

Thanks Bill I misread it.

@Rabidkeebler

I agree there are some topics that are still being argued but in the end we aren't really getting anywhere. There is so much both sides do agree on we just need someone to say "Hey lets take action on the things we do agree on." instead of the argument on whose to blame continuing.

I hope that when Jack Thompson reads this as he surely will that he takes the following statement on board:
"Having considered the evidence I believe we need to move from a discussion about the media 'causing' harm to one which focuses on children and young people, what they bring to technology and how we can use our understanding of how they develop to empower them to manage risks and make the digital world safer."

I wouldn't bet on it though. He could learn a lot on how to communicate effectively and without hyperbole from Dr Byron.

@ Colonel Finn:

"I’m very intrigued by the comments of a few US posters who seem concerned by games being regulated like films here, I understand the 1st ammendment makes this bizarrely illegal in America, but it blatantly hasn’t killed the film industry here and is unlikely to have a major impact on the games industry. What is the real concern?"

Fair question. It's a "slippery slope" sort of thing, I think. Once they have legislative control over one aspect of industry sales and censorship, it's rather inevitable that they're going to try to creep into other aspects. And that first little victory makes all the difference in the world in determining just how far they manage to go.

I guess it is a little hard for us to look at this in such a manner as to disregard freedom of speech.

"I’m asking the prime minister to change legislation so that from 12 upwards children or parents can’t buy games unless it’s for the right age of the child."

Anybody else have a MAJOR problem with this? First off this really will give government the authority to say what is and is not appropriate for children they never met and it takes away choice from the parents.

We're sorry we won't let you get grand theft auto for your kid, we think it's too violent. "But my kid is mature for his age and I've seen him play the game and I think it's fine." Sorry ma'am"

I honestly hope reatailers tell parents to lie and say the game is for them (even if it's manhunt for a 13 year old).

No, you don't come off as an apologist. The quote is ambiguous and I can easily believe I took it in the worst possible sense. It seems more reasonable to me that there are no real plans to change th system and hold parents legally accountable for allowing their own children to view games and movies the BBFC may have deemed appropriate for their age.

And yes, that was of interest. Thank you!

Alright. I have read enough to make a partial judgement on this report. I read the Executive Summary, Chapters 6 and 7 and the conclusion. I will have to read the rest later.

My first impression is that this seems a lot like the FTC report from last year. A lot of the laguage and suggestions had the same feel to them.

I am glad to see a lot of calls for voluntary action. The education campaigns she calls for are great. I also like her suggestions for a better reading rating.

I do have some problems with her request for mor government regulation. Expanding the BBFC's authority and such. I still have qualms with that. I will cede the argument however. I am from the US. We have differnet cultures. Many of the British people are fine with their system. So I will not argue, but simply voice my displeasure.

I am glad to see that she basically told those Chicken Littles out there that the sky is not falling. Video games are not the doom of us all. I also like how she basically laid out the studies from all angles and came to the conclusion that no study has shown any sort of damaging or beneficial effects on children to any significant degree. The part about releasing anger and frustation was great. There are no studies that show that effect.

I liked the review overall. It was fairly well balanced and if the respective bodies follow up with it, a lot of improvements could be made to the state of UK gaming.

@ Paul Kerton

"Yes, its your business to be a bad parent. I think the Byron Review was trying to look at ways to fix that."

Do you know him, or his child? Do you know why the game was rated 18? How exactly is it that he's a bad parent for making the decision himself instead of letting the BBFC do it for him?

cont.
@Lumi

As it stands you can buy a 18 cert dvd and show it to someone under the age of 18. I believe you can even give it to them. The legality is in retailing it. It is illegal for Game, GameStation, Argos, Zavvi, HMV, etc to sell your 16 year old cousin a copy of GTA: SA in the UK. It is perfectly acceptable here for the kids parent to buy a copy of the game and give it to them and I agree with that 100%.

@Erik,

I can't believe this, are we almost agreeing on something? I think this has to be the first time :)

There we go, reality is restored.

It should be noted that the whole 'stopping parents buying games' comment was NOT from the report, it was from a comment by Ms Byron in an interview, and not an opinion I agree with, but at no point in the report does she suggest that a system be enforced that punishes parents for buying games for their children that are above the age recommendation.

I believe that this report is what the industry needed all these years. A truly serious, scientific, professional and spot-on report of how parents, retailers and the people in general should behave when buying, selling or consuming a videogame.

I used to ask a question to my friends and my friends' parents (I am 25). I used to say "Whould you let you underage kid see porn or horon movies with you?". They naturally answer "No". "Then why do you let them play videogames that are not suitable for them?". At that time they start talking about their inability to control the kids or to spectate them as they play an so on...

This report must be taken seriously by everybody, especially us gamers. I have not read it all, but the points that I read where exactly spot-on.

I wonder what would Jack say about it...

"I wonder what would Jack say about it…"


I'm not sure what Jack would say, but I know he would type it with one hand.

"Yeah, I suppose a 5 years in Guantanamo Bay will do that to you"

Likely so. Though I'm sure that Stockholm syndrome would take longer to form with the language barrier and all.

I think syphoning down the way the BBFC works into 'it's government regulation' is a massive over-simplification of the situation, certainly, likening us to 'slaves' because we have a legally enforced system is not only an insulting term, but a completely wrong one. The BBFC, like the ESRB was created to prevent governmental regulation, it used to be far more heavily under governmental influence, but it grows with time.

The more observant of you will note that Ms Byron referenced 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' as one of the films you wouldn't let your 12 year-old watch. I'm wondering how deliberate that choice of title was, considering it and it's genre went through precisely the same teething problems as Video Games are now going through.

@axia777,

I challenge you to elaborate. Please, your not the first person to come on here and say that without explaining how or why.

"I think syphoning down the way the BBFC works into ‘it’s government regulation’ is a massive over-simplification of the situation, certainly, likening us to ’slaves’ because we have a legally enforced system is not only an insulting term, but a completely wrong one. The BBFC, like the ESRB was created to prevent governmental regulation, it used to be far more heavily under governmental influence, but it grows with time."


And yet Manhunt 2 recived government regulation anyways in the UK. So I say your system isn't working. And there are those in the US government trying to give the ESRB's ratings governmental backing, so again it seems that the prevention of governmental interference has failed in the UK and is inching towards failure in the US.

@Erik, no it didn't receive governmental regulation, it received criticism from Keith Vaz and certain Media outlets, and we criticised them right back, that's what Free Speech is all about, Manhunt 2 was effectively banned by the decision of the BBFC, that decision was appealed through the legal channels available to Rockstar, and in the end the courts agreed that, whilst the content may be offensive to some, there was no risk of any 'threat' from the game and therefore it could be released, under the protection of Freedom of Expression, and, even had that failed, it's not impossible that the European Court could still have over-ruled that, though it is unlikely since it would most likely be considered a domestic affair.

Do not confuse 'Might upset areas of the public' with 'Government Influence', though neither of the two are acceptable excuses for effectively banning something, that does not mean they are the same thing, the BBFC were wrong, they got told they were wrong, and now they know that, wherever the line may be, Manhunt 2 did not cross it in the eyes of their own review system. They will obey that ruling, they don't have to like it, that is what review systems are for, to catch the stuff that slips through the net.

Just to check, does or does not the U.K. have unrestricted free speech?

"Erik, I must say I find the comparison to slaves completely insulting. Slavery evokes a very ugly time in human history. Comparing it to the BBFC rating video games is as inaccurate as it is abhorrent."


What "time" are you refering to? I'm not aware of any time in human history where there hasn't been slavery.


"And, despite what you say, the BBFC works very well."

Whether or not they work "well" or not, by the power they wield they really shouldn't be.

"Adults are not being prevented from purchasing mature content."

Uh, yes they were. Manhunt 2 in specific before the decision was overturned.

"As soon as they start clamping down on political material, then I’m with you all the way. Right now, the system works and we’re very happy with it."

I prefer to nip the problem in the bud before it gets to that level. If it gets to the point where political material is controlled, well you are already fucked. I loathe Manhunt 2. Its boring, the filters make the kills unviewable, the controls suck, and its nowhere near as "smart" of a setting as it could have been. Despite the fact that I would never play it, I will stand up for it.

I'm just frustrated that Take-Two released a game such as Manhunt 2. Defending it is a chore than a pleasure.

This really isn't the big deal that people are making it out to be with regards to the game side of the report. She's calling for very little change, stating that the system kinda works and maybe just needs a little tweak to help silence the recent knee-jerk reactionaries. And if you can say you're making the system better without really changing anything, then everyone is a winner.

@GoodRobotUs

"Erik, no it didn’t receive governmental regulation"


"Manhunt 2 was effectively banned by the decision of the BBFC"


You contradicted yourself.

I'm happy to see an emphasis on parent-education. I really think it's ultimately the best compromise regardless of what nation video games are being debated in.

I'm not really sure why there's more of a push to "stop" selling games to children in the UK. In my experience it's difficult for underaged kids to openly buy mature games in stores here - I'm 22 now and, thanks to my, uh, youthful complexion XP I still get dubious looks and have even been asked for ID several times. However, I'm an avid gamer and my source has always been my father, who is equally an avid gamer. No 'rating' of game has been left untouched for me as a kid, because my father as a parent raised me well and made the decision that I was mature and level-headed enough to enjoy virtual entertainment, violent or not.

It's been said so many times before, but it always comes back to the parent. If kids want games and can't get them by themselves, they will go through someone else, and that is usually a parent. Educating parents to enable them to make appropriate parenting decisions is the most appropriate solution imo.

Oh, and as a Brit, I have no problem with preventing those who are underage from buying inappropriate material themselves. I'm a firm believer in the importance of good parenting and that kind of barrier can enforce it, if the parents use the opportunity wisely enough.

Overall I think the report has lended itself to some inevitably obvious conclusions, and none of which worry me too much. Though I'm really hoping ridiculous ideas like "-Introducing new laws banning Internet-assisted suicide" are just very literal or silly interpretations of the report. Kids don't need laws, they need vigilant parents.

Erik, thats why I said we should agree to disagree. I'm not here to change your mind, you have made your stance very clear. You feel that any entity that is tasked with a job under legislation is part of the government, banks, hospitals, "independant" regulatary bodies, etc. I disagree.

I know I said it before as assholish sarcasm.

But you really wouldn't care if the UK government turned over your right to choose your sexual orientation over to an independent company like McDonald's would you?"

My sexual orientation is my own choice to make, but it'd still be illegal for me to have under-age sex.

@Buncha Kneejerks

Which one? Eriks point is that a body independent from the government would have no ability to ban a product from a country, and I'm not entirely sure where GoodRobotUs is going.

As long as there is no governmental regulation. IE no legal trouble for buying a game within the UK that is not rated by an independent, and therefore powerless, organization like the UK then it sounds like a tolerable system.

Therefore if you could walk into a Best Buy, or UK equivalent store, and pick up a game that says "Not rated by the BBFC", then it sounds okay to me.

"The ratings themselves are enforced by law, but are not set by the government"


They law eh? As the government sets the law it sounds like governmental regulation to me.

So, are banks, hospitals and utility regulators part of the government? Can you answer that without assholish sarcasm?

No, merely legal enforcement of third party regulation, there is a very deliberate layer between them, I suppose you could call it 'social regulation'. It isn't perfect, but it isn't governmental regulation, because that implies the government can dictate the ratings based on content, which they cannot, they can only pressure the parties involved, and that is a universal occurrence in any country, including the US.

No it isn't, sugar lips.

I'm wondering how analgous this is with good samaritan laws. If a piece of legislation charges you with with the responsibility of saving anothers life or such like, in enacting those laws does that make you an agent of the government?

Is this also true if a piece of legislation dictates that you must not allow children under the age of 16 alone in your house without supervision?

"The point I am trying to make is that simply because people did not like the decision by the BBFC, that doesn’t mean the government got involved, it is totally beyond me why people assume they were involved somehow, this was a cock-up by ordinary people in ordinary lives, and it was sorted out through the correct procedures."


And would they still "not get involved", if a store would have sold Manhunt 2 without a rating?

No because the independant rating is enforced by law, I don't know about the US, but in the UK, the 'law' is not an armed extension of Government, it is funded by taxes etc, but we have an Army for that sort of thing.

I somewhat despair that people seem to be confusing the law with 'a tool used by government to enforce its views on people', that isn't the purpose of it at all, a common Policeman can arrest the Prime-Minister for speeding, the attitudes on here seem to assume that the UK Government uses the Police as some kind of militia.

Do you think that a massive publishing company would risk the legal shitstorm they'd cause by selling prohibited goods to retailers? I don't.

"Do you think that a massive publishing company would risk the legal shitstorm they’d cause by selling prohibited goods to retailers? I don’t."

Prohibited by whom?

Guys can we stop waving our respective countries dicks in each others face to prove who's is better? Both countries are similar but not exactly the same. Can we get off this boring fucking topic now?

@Buncha Kneejerks:

Because it is obvious that violent games do not cause violence in anyone except for people who are all ready predisposed to it. So keeping that in mind why is it a problem to let a 15 year old play GTA4? Does anyone really think a 15 year old does not all ready know about sex and cussing for example? What would playing GTA4 do to them? Nothing, that is what. Now some knee jerk asshat in the government of the UK is going to tell them that they can't buy those games. And that sucks. For gamers over the age of 18 it is all right, but for those under it blows and it is unfair.

I think GoodRobotUs has pretty much covered who. You can't argue a point with hypotheticals. If a game is banned in the UK, a retailer in the UK will not be able to source the game from a publisher.

That depends. Can the parent set what is legal or illegal on a countrywide level?

There's plenty of government out there, they simply aren't like some kind of puppet masters, trying to pull strings to control public opinion, that was tried several times in the past, and we still have some of the heads to prove how horribly wrong it went for those who tried it.

Consider if you will, a situation as follows....

1: The public requests for actions to be taken regarding a certain situation
2: The situation is investigated and recommendations made.
3: The Government debates the course of actions available
4: The final decision is passed either to the Lords or to Committee's for finalising
5: The recommendations/laws are passed out to the law-enforcement agencies for action.

Throughout the entire event, input is taken from all parties involved, we live in a country where PC has gone nuts, so the government has to tread phenomenally lightly as far as restricting any kind of Media is concerned, even extremeist Islamic works, after all, if you can get 'Mein Kampf' at just about any library, then why not works praising extremism?

It's just that the law isn't a mechanism for governmental regulation, it's a mechanism for societal regulation, it is something that society itself chooses to work under the umbrella of because it would be Anarchy without it.

If it was only the case that Video Games were being targeted then I would certainly have a problem, but it really needs to be borne in mind that, as far as Video Games are concerned, this is actually an attempt to pull them more into line with Movies and other Media, not, as the case is in the US, to single them out for attack.

@Dickward,

You are incorrect in some of your points. It is not a criminal offence for a parent to show or give a copy of a film or game that is classified for an age above that of the child.

@axia777

your 15 aren't you :) Sorry, couldnt resist being a dick on that one. ;) On a more serious note, how would you feel about someone younger than 15 being given access to the game? Do you think someone at the age or 12 or 13 should be allowed to go into a store and buy it? Would you draw the line anywhere?

I like the UK and have been there a few time, but I am damn glad that I live in the US where laws like this crap ass joke of a law have been defeated time after time. Freedom of Speech baby!

Like I said, I am 32. And I have know plenty of people who played games like Mortal Kombat(me included) when they were kids that grew up just fine.

Leave this up to the parents. Keep the government out of this. Government regulation is not the answer.

Once again, Lord Byron has screwed us royally.

But axia, am I incorrect in saying that as it stands just now its very possible for a kid to buy a game without the parents being a factor in the decision at all?

No matter what you may think of Dr. Byron and this report, you gotta love the part about banning Internet-assisted suicides.

I think its hard for us Americans to comment on this because we really are used to more freedom and less government control, but I do have to say that this much less serious than I ever thought it was going to be,

I have a serious problem about parents not being allowed to by a mature(18+) game for their kids, that seems incredibly invasive to me.

I got it much more on my blog

If the BBFC isn't a governmental body than, well that is worse than if it was a governmental body.


Governmental censorship is preferable to law wielding corporate censorship.

So if I were the UK folks here, even if the BBFC isn't a governmental body, if I were you I would be lying to myself to say that it was.

Because frankly, the other option is terrifying.

And yes, I would have no problem with a 13, or 5 year old buying an M(or 18) rated game. If their parents don't want them to have it then they won't have it.

@Dick - They too young to save up for a car.

Joke.

Seriously, kids these days are spoilt rotten. There's such a lot of disposable income, even amongst the working classes. We spend a fraction on food that our parents used to. The cost of living has been coming down for years so it's now easier to just buy whatever the squealing little scum wants instead of clip them round the ear.

It's not like the old days *smokes pipe and unwraps Werthers Original*

Do you think there will be a video game nasty list now??? Like the video nasties of the 70s,80s???

You know it really should be possible to discuss this subject without demeaning yourselves by resorting to nationalistic stereotypes and country bashing...

Gift.

In the UK, the Government can order the Army to go wherever the hell it likes (theoretically speaking, in practice, not so certain), it cannot, however, order the Police to round up all kids in Hoodies and throw them in jail. It can create a law that tries to do that, but even then, such a law would be overthrown by public watchdogs before it got far.

Policy-makers voice what they feel the people's opinions are on certain matters, but they cannot force the Police to do anything that they cannot justify a viable reason for.

The actual branch of law that covers this is Trading Practice Law, which is, in many cases, what is called a breach of civil law, not criminal law, these are usually dealt with at Magistrates courts, not Crown Courts, and full under the jurisdiction of 'common law'. Indeed, a Policeman only need be present for quite serious breaches, else a summons by a Trading Standards Officer is all that is required.

As I said before, we can, and have, arrested Political Leaders and MP's for Drink Driving, Smoking on Public Transport, Fraud and a whole plethora of other offences. Were the legal system a controlled part of the Government, this would be impossible, the legal system, at least in the UK, is actually considered to over-arch even the members of the Houses of Parliament.

As I've said before, God Bless America... where 12-year old kids have enough disposable income to support a business based around gaming. What right does the government have, to tell me that I cannot sell a 16-year old a copy of Postal 2, as long as he can satisfactorily explain to me the difference between real blood, and red pixels on a computer monitor? I think if his parents consented to letting him get an after-school job & drive a car to the game store, they are probably all right with him spending his money on games that he like to play. Even if it's a game that lets you pee on people and use a cat as a shotgun silencer.

Oh, and obligitory:
WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS!?!?!

I'm with you Gift, all the way there.

@Gift

I fully respect Americas right to defend itself against the current, deliberately targetted attack on Video Games on its own shore, I just wish more people would understand that here in the UK, if we thought for one moment that the Law was representing the Government, not the People, there would be riots. Margaret Thatcher attempted that during the Miners' strike, turning the Police into her personal miltia, we learned a hard lesson back then, and I don't think there's any rush to return to that kind of thing.

@Thomas

Honostly, wtf?

who invited you to bash america, its a discussion on the byron report, and in response to that, i Honostly think that your just another european who got caught up in the bush administration America. Stop thinking we are the worst country in the world, our system does work, but for us! The only person who thinks otherwise is bush. If havn't noticed Britain would be gone twice over if America hadn't gotten involved in world affair. When Britain was a shattered husk did we impose democracy in our fahion on you? no, we helped, wtf is your problem getting all self righteous with the I am going to shout down the redneck idea. Read a fucking book and get the story right. Guess whose image your democratic system was modeled after? Guess who started the downfall of imperialism which your country is famous for I may add? US

Oh no! America is in Iraq and bush is a moron. Your country has had so much brutallity and suppression than ours, your british empire was riddled with corruption and you went democratic on the idea of the american revolution, never mind that we lead the world economy even when we are in a reccesion, never mind that both world wars were won by Americas involvement, never mind that half of the most important technological inventions of the last century have come from our country, how could a group of red necks do that? Honostly at least the americans on this forum had their facts straight, if our democrtacy didnt work we wouldn't be the world leader in so many things, The only country with a comparable economy is china, and guess whose economy they are dependant upon? Ours, before you bash america remember that its just a couple more monts of bush and then no matter who it is our foreign policy will imporve, the man is a moron and no one doubts that, personally i think 2 parties is to little for a political system but hey its better than having a useless royal family who isn't there for anything other than show nowadays?

No one asked you to bash america so do yourself a favour and shut the hell up

@Ichi

I am not bashing America.

I am saying that we do things differently and I am tired of our way constantly being bashed by people like yourself. I am trying to point out that your way may not be the best for other people... that it is your culture, not ours, and that we may not particularly like it or want to do things that way.

Just because I do not agree with the way you do things does not mean that I am insulting you, as I clearly stated that is the way you do things and many of you are happy with it. Furthermore, I did not for one moment mention Iraq or your current administration... I am very aware, via many American friends, and just mass media, that the current American administration is unpopular and is likely to change... I am glad for this.

But thank you for highlighting the fact that someone cannot say critical things without having their head bitten off and having hundreds of years of history being dragged up as reasons you feel superior to us. I do not mind people being critical of my culture, I mind being told I am an idiot for defending it.

Incidentally.. I believe we broke the site briefly >.>

And Thomas, this is a debate about Tanya Byron's report and it's impact on gaming both in Britain and the rest of the world. You didn't need to list everything that's wrong with America. It's a great country build on truly progressive principles. You had Ichi's response coming.

# Mr Blackett Says:
March 27th, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
-----------

True that man. ;)

@GoodRobotUs I understand that, I don't fully understand the US position myself. I'd just hate to see discussing the BBFC provoke another US/UK slagging match. You just know things will head south when people start on totally unrelated topics like Iraq etc.

You know "don't mention ze vwar" ;)

Gift.

my original point was that isn't it a little invasive to say that a parent shouldnt be allowed to buy their kids a mature game? I think thats the parents say not the govs