April 1, 2008 -
Labour MP Keith Vaz, a frequent critic of video game violence issues, has issued a statement in support of the recently released video game and Internet review conducted by Dr. Tanya Byron.As noted by MCV UK, Vaz said:
This House warmly welcomes the publication of Tanya Byron’s report... [and] notes that it accepts that violent video games do have an affect on children and therefore their availability to children need to be properly controlled; considers that it is only through a partnership between parents, retailers and the video games industry that these issues can be addressed and calls on the Government to implement the recommendations in full and immediately.
Vaz also continued to insist that Rockstar's original Manhunt played a role in the brutal 2004 murder of Stefan Pakeerah:
Mr Vaz first became involved in the [video game violence] issue when his constituent - 14 year-old Stefan Pakeerah - was murdered by 17 year-old Warren LeBlanc who was imitating scenes from the violent computer game Manhunt in 2004.
Mr Vaz called for this game and its follow-up Manhunt 2 to be banned based on compelling evidence that such games had a direct impact on the actions of this man.
Who knows what may have happened if these proposals were in place just prior to Stefan Pakeerah’s death.
GP: It's unclear why Vaz continues to insist that Stefan Pakeerah's killer was re-enacting Manhunt. Scotland Yard dismissed that theory during its investigation of the murder. In fact, detectives found that Pakeerah himself owned a copy of the game while his killer did not.
Comments
More proof that common sense isn't common at all.
*joins GregoriusH and brings some games to play while waiting*
@GP
do you have any way we can contact mr Vaz? im a uk resident and i think i woul like to contact him (seriously, not abusively) and actually ask him constructively to explain his clear misunderstanding of a) the 'manhunt murder' and b) his clear misunderstanding of the byron report.
I downloaded it and was reading it, and corredct me if im wrong, but didnt ms Byron specifically say that there was actually a COMPLETE LACK OF CLEAR CUT EVIDENCE that games made people more violent in the longterm, or any more likely to commit crime. In fact she actually pointed out the shortcomings of the few laboratory studies that do propose long term violence, as laboratory tests have not been proven to represent actual behaviour in the real world.
Any help you can provide would be great GP. My email is registered to this site, and of course id be happy to approach this subject with mr Vaz as a UK resident and contact you with any feedback
*loses some more faith in humanity*
"Stefan Pakeerah - was murdered by 17 year-old Warren LeBlanc who was imitating scenes from the violent computer game Manhunt in 2004."
Correction: Warren LeBlanc who was attempting to steal money to feed his drug habit.
"Mr Vaz called for this game and its follow-up Manhunt 2 to be banned based on compelling evidence that such games had a direct impact on the actions of this man."
Compelling evidence? Does he mean the compelling evidence which the Byron report claims does not exist? The Byron report, the publication of which he "warmly welcomes"? This is such a blinkered view it's not funny.
"Who knows what may have happened if these proposals were in place just prior to Stefan Pakeerah’s death."
I know exactly what would have happened. Warren LeBlanc would have bludgeoned Stefan Pakeerah to death with a hammer in an attempt to steal money to feed his drug habit. Nothing would have changed, except for the fact that during the ridiculous anti-videogame witch hunt that took place afterwards, they MIGHT not have found that the victim owned the game.
Vaz is a silly twat - but he has no power. The real threat comes from Margaret Hodge, who is more than likely to twist the report to suit hyer own ends as well. The difference is that she runs the Department for Culture, Media & Sport and could cause us lot some serious bother without breaking a sweat.
I just hope that we do have a public debate about this and that Vaz weighs in. Can you imagine if Vaz was invited on to Question Time or Newsnight? He'd be absolutely torn to pieces - either by the public in the former, or Paxman in the latter.
@gp would it be ok to post it here (asking before i do..)
You can have a look here for some more info on him including contact details.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/keith_vaz/leicester_east
I should stress that its often the case that MP's and the like will not directly recieve any communication as it is often vetted by a secretary. There are also occassions where MP's or councillers will not reply to those who do not include a postal address (as was the case with Julian Brazier when I emailed him) or those outside their constituancy (as was the case when I a counciller in Lanark refused to address complains about local vandalism raised by a Lanark pub owner who did not actually live in the town.) So expect to be rubber earred. :)
Wow, just look at that voting record! He's a right little puppet of NuLab's chief whip - unless he's so right wing he's practically neo-con! He's certainly no friend of the people by looks of that list, he's clearly the type that's more than happy to meddle with other people's personal affairs.
I should also point out that the majority of MPs vote with their party in such a way. If they didn't nothing would be passed.
I take on board that the majorty of MPs vote in-line with the party whips - but most MPs like to kep their heads down and enjoy the benefits of office and being in power.
Diane Abbot, Robin Cook (RIP) and even Jack Straw have famously voted against the party line on occassion. The fact that Vaz voted very strongly against investigating the Iraq war, voted very strongly for introducing student top-up fees, but only voted moderately for equal gay right and has never voted on a transparent Parliament speaks undeniable volumes, if you ask me. I find that to be a true indication of his chracter.
That said, I do understand that by only voting strongly (rather than very strongly) for a smoking ban, ID cards and the anti-terrorism laws, he sold his constituents down the river more gently than he might have done otherwise.
This guy clearly endorses state control of its citizens at every turn and therefore is obviously a bit of a knobjockey.
Of course, this guy has a the same way of misrepresenting things just enough to try and slide a flasehood through, kinda like another person we know.
Hmmm... same falsehoods as well, I wonder if they are coordinating.
Its not just Vaz thats mentioning Stefan Pakeerah’s murder was influenced by Manhunt. When the Byron report was on the BBC news, they mentioned it as a influence as well (they introduced the victim's father stating how he "believed" it was an influence).
After all, she was still paid by pols with an agenda...
Fangamer
I figured it's Ok to put his email here as he has it posted on his own site for people to contact him. I've already emailed him about Manhunt and hacen't got a response yet.
Teen owns (or borrows in this case) Manhunt game, said teen gets killed by another teen, and the Manhunt game is to blame?
Are they talking about some cursed game-disc that kills people that play it, some like The Ring?
Some bizarre logical leaps here.
In Soviet Britain, videogames don't make you want to kill other people... they make other people want to kill you.
THE KILLER DIDN'T HAVE THE GAME, THE VICTIM DID!!!
How hard is that to grasp?!?!?!?!?!?
I say we should have Vaz examined by some doctors for brain defects...
Sheer brilliance. I actually almost fell out of my chair, damn you.
@Zerodash
I don't know what Byron does when she's not doing special research/reports for the government, but if she speaks out imprudently it might result in a loss of influence, which could be worse in the long run than not refuting a single claim-especially when it's one that has been made before, rather than a new one. Now I'll be happy and praise her if she were to correct the...misconception (to be political about it) but I'd rather have her around talking sense with Vaz unchallenged on this particular idiocy than have Byron out of the picture for talking it too loudly at the wrong time.
fact that Stefan was the owner is utterly irrelevant, which any sentient being would be able to understand, that is, if he were not paid not to understand. Jack Thompson
PS: Dennis, how you coming on that law degree?
GP: Well, I'll hazard a guess that, within a few months, we'll both be non-lawyers, so...
Second, even Margaret Hodge, British cabinet minister, said recently in Parliament that there was no Manhunt connection found in the Pakeerah investigation.
Third, Where's the proof? Where are these "facts" that you and Vaz seem to know?
As to your comments about motivation, I'm not the one pursuing $1.2 billion worth of video game violence lawsuits...
We expect lawyers to be smooth, tactful talkers. I'm sure this is another one of your hyperbolic statements.
Vaz links the game to the murder because, unlike you, Vaz and I know the facts of what happened.
Who do you mean by 'you'? Especially since the Leicestershire Police stated, in numerous occasions, that the game did NOT play a roll in the murder... so did you cc your comment to them as well? If not, I'm sure others around here would be more than happy to forward your insults of their investigations.
"The fact that Stefan was the owner is utterly irrelevant, which any sentient being would be able to understand, that is, if he were not paid not to understand."
Are you suggesting that the Leicestershire Police force are in the employ of some shadowy, games funded conspiracy?
If so, (a) what has suddenly made you an expert on the British constabulary and (b) why don't you provide some evidence to back up you (libellous) assertion?
Oh that's right... you're the internet-famous Jack Thompson, you don't do evidence. Which is why you won't be doing pretty much anything this time next year. Sucks, as they say, to be you.
The fact that Stefan Pakeerah owned the game is relevant, since if your bullshit is to be believed, Stefan would have done a much better job of defending himself, wouldn't he? After all, they both "trained" on the same game.
Besides that, Stefan would still be dead if there wasn't a Manhunt game, since LeBlanc killed him for MONEY TO BUY ILLEGAL NARCOTICS, NOT because he "trained" on a "violent" video game.
Scotland Yard found no evidence of Manhunt being involved, so you and Keith "Vag" Vaz should quit lying, shut up, grow up, and get a life.
Are you actually still on this? Still using a brutal and tragic murder in a bad attempt to further your own agenda and still trying to discredit gamers everwhere? The police denied any link between the game and the murder. Leblanc is responsible for what Leblanc did. Even the judge believed so. That should be good enough for you. They're professionals and experts on criminal activity. You're an about-to-be-disbarred laughingstock of an attorney. Don't spout such trash.
And even if you truly knew things about the murder that we did not, despite being an attorney from the US commenting on a murder in Leicester in England, then wouldn't it be a crime to keep it to yourself? Unless the police already heard what you had to say and thought your were full of crap...
Either share these supposed facts or shut the hell up. Tell us how an inanimate DVD has the ability to remove a person's free will.
you say '' Vaz and I know the facts of what happened.''
so go on then. Release these facts, surely you are perverting the course of justice if you dont, i mean the criminal trial into the murder said there was no link, yet you have 'facts' that prove otherwise.
Go on then. What are these facts?