Retailers Fare Poorly in Scotland Sting
Retailers Fare Poorly in Scotland Sting
April 18, 2009
A secret shopper operation conducted recently in Dundee indicates that video game retailers in the Scottish city are not adequately enforcing content ratings.
As reported by the BBC, a 14-year-old volunteer was able to buy mature-themed games in 12 of 16 shops surveyed. Such violations could subject retailers to fines or even jail time.
City Councillor Jimmy Black (left) commented:
Do we really want shops selling children games based on gross acts of violence? Well done to the four retailers who got it right, but the others are breaking the law. They place themselves at serious risk of further investigations by our officers.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 11/22/09 at 09:45am
ZippyDSMlee: JD:I think doc phill is still sout about the break up with his wife he dose not fill holes as much as make them bigger these day
ZippyDSMlee: JD:I think doc phill is still sout about the break up with his wife he dose not fill holes as much as make them bigger these day
Posted 11/22/09 at 12:06am
JDKJ: You should get Phil McCraken to help you spackle those banisters.
JDKJ: You should get Phil McCraken to help you spackle those banisters.
Posted 11/21/09 at 11:57pm
ZippyDSMlee: Oh in the pirate hunter article I need my song ieda heckled DS,JD,Beemon sic im !!!
ZippyDSMlee: Oh in the pirate hunter article I need my song ieda heckled DS,JD,Beemon sic im !!!
Posted 11/21/09 at 11:56pm
ZippyDSMlee: JD:no I am tried from prepping the banisters for painting , worked on them from 12 to 4 and 6 to 8...after I got back from the store...got up early got ready...blah...been up all day..I need a nap...
ZippyDSMlee: JD:no I am tried from prepping the banisters for painting , worked on them from 12 to 4 and 6 to 8...after I got back from the store...got up early got ready...blah...been up all day..I need a nap...
Posted 11/21/09 at 11:42pm
JDKJ: No. You gonna stay up late tonight soldering?
JDKJ: No. You gonna stay up late tonight soldering?
Posted 11/21/09 at 11:41pm
ZippyDSMlee: JDKJ:Don't you mean Mctite?
ZippyDSMlee: JDKJ:Don't you mean Mctite?
Posted 11/21/09 at 11:33pm
JDKJ: @Zip: Neil, Bob, and Lik McTaint. The McTaint brothers. LOL!!!
JDKJ: @Zip: Neil, Bob, and Lik McTaint. The McTaint brothers. LOL!!!
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:44pm
Flamespeak: I still think military personell, killing other military personell, on a military complex should be handled by military courts.
Flamespeak: I still think military personell, killing other military personell, on a military complex should be handled by military courts.
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:43pm
Flamespeak: I could see this a mixture of the two charges rather than just one or the other.
Flamespeak: I could see this a mixture of the two charges rather than just one or the other.
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:43pm
Flamespeak: I think this was mainly a person who snapped, but evidence is showing he definitely had strong inlinations to islamic-extremism.
Flamespeak: I think this was mainly a person who snapped, but evidence is showing he definitely had strong inlinations to islamic-extremism.
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:41pm
Flamespeak: People are trying to claim that Hasan's actions were not terrorism. I don't jump on the 'terror train' like others, however
Flamespeak: People are trying to claim that Hasan's actions were not terrorism. I don't jump on the 'terror train' like others, however
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:38pm
mentor07825: Britain certainly does deserve it! And the French! God damn it, it was a hand ball!!!
mentor07825: Britain certainly does deserve it! And the French! God damn it, it was a hand ball!!!
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:34pm
ZippyDSMlee: mentor07825:Well Brittan dose deserve it....
ZippyDSMlee: mentor07825:Well Brittan dose deserve it....
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:33pm
ZippyDSMlee: Alyric:I don;t hasliburton having to pay back billoins... don;t you love it when the rich roll over the goverment without a care?
ZippyDSMlee: Alyric:I don;t hasliburton having to pay back billoins... don;t you love it when the rich roll over the goverment without a care?
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:32pm
mentor07825: I say we nuke the whales, for the benefit of both mankind and the environment.
mentor07825: I say we nuke the whales, for the benefit of both mankind and the environment.
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:28pm
Austin_Lewis: I say we try Al Gore too. I always said he was in on the racket.
Austin_Lewis: I say we try Al Gore too. I always said he was in on the racket.
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:16pm
Alyric: The leaked information proves these organizations knowingly defrauded governments (i.e., taxpayers) out of billions of dollars. Yet there will probably never be a trial.
Alyric: The leaked information proves these organizations knowingly defrauded governments (i.e., taxpayers) out of billions of dollars. Yet there will probably never be a trial.
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:15pm
Flamespeak: working on other things makes me angry. I might have had a jet pack by now. :p
Flamespeak: working on other things makes me angry. I might have had a jet pack by now. :p
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:14pm
Flamespeak: Just thinking of all the time and manpower wasted to try and make things emit less CO2 emmision that could have been spent
Flamespeak: Just thinking of all the time and manpower wasted to try and make things emit less CO2 emmision that could have been spent
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:07pm
Alyric: @Zip: FYI, the construction of solar panels puts out more pollution than any form of energy production. To say nothing of the toxic components of the panels that cannot be recycled.
Alyric: @Zip: FYI, the construction of solar panels puts out more pollution than any form of energy production. To say nothing of the toxic components of the panels that cannot be recycled.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
It's too early for me to think of a light stereotypical joke... (lay off the haggis?)
But I really think it should be company policy to oversee the dilemma, not government. But I suppose its good for it to come to their (and our) attention.
Think this will encourage all those who oppose videogames to start making noise again?
"I was right, the happenings in another country prove my baseless accusations to be correct!"
Sadly true.
Counter-argument:
"The voluntary system here already has an 80% appliance rating on average in the entire US, and the companies are still doing their best to improve. On the other side in Scotland a legally-enforced system is in fact not enforced and not upheld, with a mere 25% appliance rating. This clearly shows the downsides of legally enforcing something retailers now voluntary do their upmost best for. Laws simply motivate people less, and unless you will strictly enforce it, it will fail to succeed. The voluntary system, however, brings forth enthousiasm from the retailers when they understand the responsibility they have been trusted with."
Its funny to watch americans pushing for similar laws on age rating enforcements to those we have here in britain, when in britain, where they are legally bound to enforce them; nobody cares...
Sometimes, I´m glad I´m living in a country with real problems like unemployment, political corruption and crime. My games are save for now.
/sarcasm
The cynical side of videogames (spanish only): http://thelostlevel.blogspot.com/ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com/
Actually non-US governments don't have a one track mind. Due you presume that just because one section of the government investigated this that they are not bothering about other issues?
But this isn't even the national government, this is a local council.
Nah, Rodrigo is right... Our government is kind of full of problems right now. Sadly, I have been reading up on some privacy stuff (register your cellphone with government, PFF!!!) and there's a guy in the PRD party who wants to regulate internet content...but, for now at least, gaming is safe.
No offense, but I don't blame the Scottish government for this; as far as this particular article goes(I don't know what other problems they're having), they seem to be doing right.
We're worried about what this means for Americans, and YES: it is relevent. Or at least, anti-gaming critics will make it relevent. They'll use this info to attack our retailers. That's what the problem is.
Is it just me, or is Jimmy Black Ralph Nader's long lost twin brother?
WOW! What an absolute waste of taxpayers money. Doesn't government have better things to do and spend our money on then sting opertaions for things that aren't even harmful and worrying about teenagers playing violent video games. I mean whats the big deal with a 14 year old high school teenager buying a video game. I could understand if it was an 8 year old young kid but this is just rediculous.
"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment
"Do we really want shops selling children games based on gross acts of violence?"
You obviously don't, but I do. I want stores to be free to sell any kind of game, movie or book that it carries to any paying customer wishing to buy such material, regardless of age. After all, we're not talking about weapons or drugs here, but about content. If a minor is old enough to know about, want and acquire particular content by his very lonesome, he's old enough to be allowed to purchase it.
"After all, we're not talking about weapons or drugs here"
True, but giving how politicans and such act, you think that we were talking about drugs or weapons.
Consider the official stance seems to be videogames in general are meant for kids and only kids and then do that.... Bullshit.
"Do we really want shops selling children BOOKS based on OTHER RELIGIOUS IDEALS?"
"Do we really want shops selling children LIFE EXPERIENCE based on THINGS WE DON'T WANT THEM TO KNOW ABOUT?"
"Do we really want shops selling children games based World War II?"
"Do we really want shops selling children?"
No, no, no, yes.
Whilst it needs improvement, considering Scotland is the not only the Heart Attack capital of the world, but also the Multiple Sclerosis capital of the world, I think there are more important issues in Scotland at the moment.
That said, it's not a very good percentage at all, and that's from a country that does have a legally enforced rating system. It's always going to be down to the retailers themselves, and the fact is that American Retailers are actually very good at not selling games to young people, even without a law to compel them.
According to our goverment, American retailers are doing the same thing....You know what we should do to protect them children? Ban all violent games. Then we can bring the heat up to fahrenheit 451
---
I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"
Bring in the mechanical hounds!
Scotland, the people who gave this to the world: http://blog.23x.net/5/what-is-a-munchy-box.html
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
I think I want to go now, just for that. Think they deliver?
Dammit...and I am trying to lose weight...I want...
Can you get them deep fried?
"A 14-year-old volunteer, recruited by trading standards, was able to buy a game illegally in 12 out of 16 stores."
This could mean a lot of things. I wish they'd elaborated on that a little. Personally, I think all sting operations should be done with kids 12 and under. Kind of like how ABC does it when they roll into bars and restaurants looking to trap negligent servers/bartenders. They always use some little girl who looks like she just started pre-algebra so you have no excuse if you foul up.
"De minimus non curat lex"
Scots are a proud people damn it. Any group of people who goes to war wearing kilts doesn't bloody well need the British nannies to complain about a fourteen year old buying a game!
*spits* Bloody wankers.
Aye, but that's what we bloody southerners do best ;)
I really hate all the comments like "I think governments should be focusing on other subjects right now", because you could technically say that all the time about something. A local council looks at the selling of computer games and then people moan and say "I think they should worry about the economy instead", what so because there all bigger problems in the world everyone should just drop everything to focus on that?
Obama has revealed stuff about Camp X-Ray, I could say "shouldn't he be focusing on the economy, isn't that more important?" or I could say "why do people post on here when there are more important issues in the world?". It's pointless. It's like people believe governments can only do one thing at a time, they haven't heard that governments have departments for all sorts of issue, that governments can tackle multiple issues at the same time.
As most people have mentioned, this isn't about the fact that we should 'ignore' the problem, most people have agreed that the results aren't that good, what this is about is the fact that, if you are considering the health of children and adults, it's a perfectly sensible route to take to say 'Well, maybe there are more important factors involved?'. Because there are.
Yes, this is not a good result, and work needs to be done, but trying to make a mountain out of a molehill will get these people nowhere, there are far larger concerns at the moment, and ones that politicians could make far better use of their time dealing with.
If people were saying that we should ignore the amount of fatty foods people eat because it's the high level of smoking in Scotland that causes it to be the Heart Attack capital of the world, for example, I'd be inclined to agree with you, you are dealing with two roughly equal affecting factors, but in this case, I don't consider the problem to be a serious one in the large scale of things.
But who said anything about this taking priority?
Also let's not forget that this investigation was handled by Trading Standards, not the government. This is their job to do these sort of investigations into the sales of products. Again it's this "OMG the economy! Let's drop and ignore everything else and just focus on the economy", what should Trading Standards change the whole point of their organisation and focus on the economy?
But that's just it, there are already protections in place for after-the-fact problems such as this, Trading Standards don't muck around with stuff like this, there's no real need to be making an issue of it because of the simple fact that something will be done about it, who, exactly, is this councilman's comment aimed at, what is he after that will not already happen regardless of what he says?
He's doing what all politicians do and grabbing positive looking press coverge wherever he sees it.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
A journalist has asked for someone's comments, they get a councillor to do it. Quite frankly this is all a non-story, trading standards checking that retailers are following the law and reporting on it and someone making a comment on it. This is everyday routine operations. I see the same articles about trading standards doing the same with other age-restricted items whether it be videos, knives, alcohol, cigarettes. It's not another anti-games conspiracy.
I don't even know why people are getting uptight about a councillor saying that he hopes shops abide by the law, he made a comment we make comments. If you notice he doesn't say anything about banning games, about preventing games being made, all he says is what is already in the law.
I meant he looks like he is taking responsibility for a government organization doing its job. I never mentioned anything about banning etiher.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
There are more inportant issues than just trying to stop children from buying videogames not meant to be for them.
Like Drugs and Alcohol is even more worse.
But because no one can seem to find the right answers for drugs and alcohol, they unleash their anger and hate onto Videogames that they don't like while real world violence still happens.
Sad thing in life is, the longer this goes on, the worse the world will get.
Everyday in the UK media there is an article about under-age drinking and what can be done to prevent it (or rather prevent the behaviour from it). Games aren't being singled out.
Due to the nature of the website it seems like this "sting" is a one-off and aimed just at games, but as I have said this happens all the time for all age-restricted products.
Politicians should spend their time on educating people about the PEGI and the BBFC instead of going on the sensationalist vote grabbing roote that they always go on, because until parents become smarter and make their own decisions in a better way these politicians won't be getting any votes from smart parents who see them as the greedy politicians they are.
Like this is something that the horrible Keith Vass would do. Grabbing votes at every opportunity.
A councillor is different to a full-blown politician (ie MP). The council have had to make a statement on the trading standards report, this man made it. Councillors are a different bred entirely to those seen in Parliament.
He's not a Keith Vaz wannabe and people with their paranoia are thinking the worst about this chap who basically said "I hope shops follow the law", now to me that seems a fairly decent comment, to many gamers that means that he has a deep hatred of games and has a plan to rid the world of them. Games are rated based on their content, there are violent games which have age ratings. The law is there to prevent unsuitable content from finding its way into their hands. So what exactly is wrong with this guy's comments?
Well looking at it the second time, your comments have made it clearer to me.
Yes he is not a politician, but yet he was asked to comment on it.
The BBFC is enforcable by law, much like the same with the OFLC in Australia. But still it is not uncommon to find that there have been 12 year olds who have played GTA. Even though the games are not really meant to be for those under the age of 15 in Australia.
I guess I am a little tired and annoyed by so many people in power wanting to protect kids from this content and a little fustrated that all they really needed to do was to remind people like the parents that there are Content Ratings on the games in front of their cover.
It is not hard just to inform parents about what they need to do as parents.
If stores want to sell games without checking for ID, like I can understand how serious it is for a kid to be sold a game that is rated 18 by the BBFC, but a game that is rated 15 or even 12 to a person who is between 10 to 14 and making a comment like that really seems to be a bit overboard in my opinion.
I think I should read again to see what sort of games and what ratings there were given by the BBFC before jumping to conclusions.
But like I have said again, I have been so used to hearing politicians saying allot of things about everything that sometimes I get kinda tired when they are all about grabbing news headlines and not about informating parents about what is there. Like that is what the Byron review said that politicians should do allot more of, informing the parents about what is there to help them like the BBFC and the PEGI.
I don't want to see Videogames being banned all because of what a few minority people think.
Wow, jail time? That's completely rediculous. Kudos to the shops that are selling these games to kids. I hated being under 17. If I wanted to see an R rated movie or get an M rated game, I'd have to either get lucky or know somebody who worked at the theatre or store. But I don't think friends would have been so willing to help me out if they thought it could get them jail time.
--------------------------------------------------------
Believe in something! Even if it's wrong, believe in it! -Glenn Beck
Agreed. 17 for most people is far too high of an age for an M game, but many people take the "MIGHT be unsuitable for people under 17" clause far too literally, not realising that most children (me included) play at least a few M-rated games occassionally starting in the early or pre-teens.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
Jail time is unlikely.
Most laws reference a specific penalty level. The penalty level that seemed appropriate presumably includes the possibility of jail time but leaves it up to the discretion of the magistrate.
You'd need to be quite an unrepentant repeat offender for this to actually be the sentence.
What you have to realise (to those in the US), is that whether you agree or not, this IS law and they are flouting it.
But even if it is the law, it doesn't seem like it's a law that is strictly enforced/tested by the police. Like in Michigan, where it's *technically* illegal to fire off fireworks without a permit, and illegal to sell fireworks, yet I've shotten bottle rockets off with a cop before. No one in Michigan cares about the law, though it can be used as a tool in certain cases. I guess what I'm trying to say is that laws that are only half enforced by the police and half followed by retailers are hardly laws at all, and it's not like they are doing something as bad as not paying taxes (other crimes wouldn't work as a comparison because most other crimes are victim crimes and not victimless crimes like this)
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
God, some of the comments on here are absolutely stupid. People talking about how this is 'unleashing hatred' against videogames and that we should 'concentrate on more important issues'. What the fuck?
This was a routine inspection of age restrictions enforcement, done by a group whos job it is to do this sort of thing. The guy didn't say anything crazy, he said they weren't doing a good job of enforcing the law, and they could get fined. And all those cracks about doing more important things? I shouldn't even have to explain how moronic that is. So you want the government to do absolutely nothing except economically related stuff. Do you even read what you write before posting it?
Seriously, some of you guys are so paranoid its unbelievable. Flying off the handle at the littlest thing. There's absolutely nothing in this article to hint at bias towards games, that they're trying to ban it, that videogames kill your children, that M games should be locked away, etc. It's just a guy doing his job.
Calm the hell down.
That's just how we do things in britiain though... pass all the stupid laws you like. Don't expect anyone to take any notice if you do :p
That may be the case in Scotland, but here in the South West of England game only retailers (Game, Gamestation, Console Connections etc) have all asked me for ID when buying 18 cert games. However stores like HMV have rarely asked me to show ID. What you have to remember is taht techincally Scotland has a different government, so it will be interesting to see how they legislate as a result.
Wonder if they tried doing that same thing at a video store - buying something like SAW and seeing hif they got ID'd for it. Doubt it - because it's more of a political axe to grind than 'protecting' anyone.
Or is it that movies aren't as bad as game, even if they are bloodier?
They do. They carry out these checks on all age-restricted products, that is one of the jobs of Trading Standards. But GamePolitics wouldn't report on it because it's not about games. Games are not being targeted and there is no political motivation behind this, this is just checking that retailers follow the law. Again it's this constant paranoia from gamers (now where is that guy who believes everything is a conspiracy against anime?).
Hey, if the BBC's article only mentions games, then it's not that strange for gamers to be suspicious.
Personally I think its weird, why is it that the shop owners are being fined, why not the kid who bought the damn game?
The law is usually pretty straightforward in these cases but with alcohol and tobacco the culperates have gotten mixed up. The one buying a (illegal) product underage is breaking the law, the shopkeeper is neglectant at best.
You can`t drive a car untill you have you`re drivers license and a certain age. It`s not GM or the car dealer they`ll fine if the catch you in a car you bought, underage and without a license. Why is that?
IMHO, the kid being fined would be even worse. The whole idea of fining somebody for trying to get ahold of Free Speech media that has the ability to express ideas, information, messages, opinions and viewpoints is horrible. It is in essence an indirect form of thought and mind control.
I think if a parent doesn't want their child getting ahold of certain Free Speech media then that is fine by me but it is then solely their responsibility to enforce. The State has no business deciding for anybody what they can or can't watch, play, read or listen to, esspecially when there is no proven harm involved. There is a reason it's called Free Speech.
Just my 3 cents.
"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment
That is the difference between the American and British cultures. We accept that these restrictions are reasonable (like we also accept that gun control is right). But isn't it hypocritical for America to say that having age restrictions is a breech of freedom of speech as isn't NC-17 the same thing? Aren't all age restrictions that shops impose (such as a shop refusing to sell M-rated games to kids) harming this elusive ideology "freedom of speech".
Also the state has no say in what anyone watches (unless it is harmful like child pornography for instance that America also bans, isn't that preventing "freedom of speech") it simply has a say in who is able to purchase it. It is illegal for a child to buy an 18-rated BBFC game, it is not illegal for them to play it. Therefore if a child wants to play the game, it is up to the parent to buy it for them (so I can't see where your "freedom of speech" argument comes in).
Also how far do you go to define "freedom of speech"? The age-restricted products are out within the public domain or do you believe that "freedom of speech" means accessible by all (even though it is, as long as a parent purchases it)?. So do you also take this argument of "freedom of speech" to other areas such as pornography (any age should be allowed it), or "freedom of experience" (any age should be allowed to experience alcohol, therefore age-restrictions need not apply)?
My opinion is follows. If the government is restricting Free Speech media to anyone whether it be minors or adults, it is wrong. As i have said before, it is an indirect form of thought and mind control and it's my belief that minors perticularily adolescents and teengers deserve the ability to form their own viewpoints based on unrestricted and uncensored access to ideas, information, messages and opinons put forth through Free Speech media including books, movies, video games, magazines, theatrical plays, music CDs, Television, ect.
The only case in which I'd believe the government should be allowed Free Speech restrictions or censorship is in the narrow circumstances that the speech in question is so closely connected to harmful or illegal activity that it is impossible to seperate the two. (Eg. Real Child Pornography, Yelling fire in a crowded theater, lying under oath, making death threats, ect.) When it comes to issues like offensiveness, objectionability, inappropriateness the nanny state needs to stay the hell out of it. Period.
"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment