UK Labour MP Keith Vaz Continues Anti-Game Agenda

May 20, 2011 -

An Early Day Motion tabled by UK Labour MP Keith Vaz, an outspoken critic of video games, has managed to garner 11 signatures. The Early Day Motion calls for better control of video game sales to customers under the age of 18, and encourages parents to limit the screen time of children. Eight signatures are from Labour MPs, with one from the Liberal Democrats, one from the Conservatives and another from the DUP. The petition was tabled last Friday, May 13th.

Develop points out that these signatories have basically agreed that video games are addictive, and that game playing should be combined with a variety of extra-curricular activities (preferably outdoors) to ensure that "children flourish." The motion also highlights the "Hungarian EU Presidency priority of protecting minors from harmful audiovisual media content in media legislation.”

Source: Develop


Comments

Re: UK Labour MP Keith Vaz Continues Anti-Game Agenda

I work in the games retail industry in the UK and the problem is the parents. I always mention that games aren't suitable, we all do, but they always say it is okay or because their friends have it. I once went a week going into detail of how bad some games were and my boss told me to stop going to far.

Re: UK Labour MP Keith Vaz Continues Anti-Game Agenda

"but they always say it is okay or because their friends have it..."

I´ve never understanded that logic, if you can name it like that. I really don´t care if a 8 years old is playing Mortal Kombat, but parents at least should think on a better reason than the one listed above.

And Keith Vaz is still idiot.

Re: UK Labour MP Keith Vaz Continues Anti-Game Agenda

I'd take a "I'm sure my child knows from right and wrong" before I take that answer.

Re: UK Labour MP Keith Vaz Continues Anti-Game Agenda

 You told them what your supposed to. If they wanna continue to do it, you can't stop them. Not without being like JT or this a$$hole.

 

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Re: UK Labour MP Keith Vaz Continues Anti-Game Agenda

>better control of video game sales to customers under the age of 18

It's already illegal, what more does he want? "Double Illegal" isn't a thing, Vaz!

/b 

Re: UK Labour MP Keith Vaz Continues Anti-Game Agenda

My guess is an outright ban.

Re: UK Labour MP Keith Vaz Continues Anti-Game Agenda

On what? Games rated 18?

Re: UK Labour MP Keith Vaz Continues Anti-Game Agenda

Why is there a picture of Ed Vaizey accompanying an article about Keith Vaz?

Re: UK Labour MP Keith Vaz Continues Anti-Game Agenda

It is kinda misleading, my guess is that the picture is Ed Vaizey's reaction to the motion: "Saaay Whaaaat!?" (spoken in public school dialect)

Plus, it's a bit more photogenic than the picture of Vaz from the Develop article, it makes him look a bit like a toe.

Re: UK Labour MP Keith Vaz Continues Anti-Game Agenda

Nop, now they switched it to Keith Vaz :D

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
james_fudgeCharity starts at home ;)07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
james_fudgeSo mandatory charity? That sounds shitty to me07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, if Union dues are automatically withdrawn, then there is no such thing as a non-union employee.07/07/2015 - 2:38pm
Goth_Skunka mutually agreed upon charity instead.07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_Skunkyou enjoy the benefits of working in a union environment. If working in a union is against your religious beliefs or just something you wholeheartedly object to, dues will still be deducted from your pay, but you can instruct that they be directed towards07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_SkunkBasically, if you are employed in a business where employees are represented by a union for the purposes of collective bargaining, whether or not you are a union member, you will have union dues deducted from your pay, since regardless of membership,07/07/2015 - 2:32pm
Goth_SkunkIt's something that has existed in Canada since 1946. You can read more on it here: http://ow.ly/PiHWR07/07/2015 - 2:27pm
Goth_SkunkSee, we have something similar in Canada, called a "Rand Employee." This is an employee who benefits from the collective bargaining efforts of a union, despite not wanting to be a part of it for whatever reason.07/07/2015 - 2:22pm
Matthew Wilson@info depends on the sector. for example, have you looked at how powerful unions are in the public sector? I will make the argument they have too much power in that sector.07/07/2015 - 12:39pm
InfophileIt's easy to worry about unions having too much power and causing harm. The odd thing is, why do people seem to worry about that more than the fact that business-owners can have too much power and do harm, particularly at a time when unions have no power?07/07/2015 - 12:31pm
Matthew Wilsonthe thing is unions earned their bad reputation in the US. the way unions oparate the better at your job you are, the likely you want to be in a union.07/07/2015 - 11:33am
InfophilePut that way, "right to work" seems to have BLEEP-all to do with gay rights. Thing is, union-negotiated contracts used to be one of the key ways to prevent employers from firing at will. Without union protection, nothing stops at-will firing.07/07/2015 - 11:06am
Infophilehas an incentive to pay dues if they're represented either way, so the union is starved for funds and dies, unless things are bad enough that people will pay dues anyway.07/07/2015 - 11:02am
InfophileFor those who don't know, "right to work" laws mean that it can't be a condition of an employment contract that you pay union dues. That is, the right to work without having to pay dues. Catch is, unions have to represent non-members as well, so no one...07/07/2015 - 11:01am
MechaCrashUnexpected? Seriously?07/07/2015 - 10:55am
Mattsworknamejob they wanted without the unions getting involved. The problem is, it has some unexpected side effects, like the ones Info mentioned07/07/2015 - 8:49am
MattsworknameThe problem being, right to work states exsist specificly as a counter to Unions, as the last 20 or so years have shown, the unions have been doing this countries economoy NO favors. The right to work states came into being to allow people to work any07/07/2015 - 8:49am
Infophile(cont'd) discriminatory. This can only be done for protected classes which are outlined in law (race, sex, religion, ethnicity everywhere, sexual orientation in some states). So, a gay person could be fired because they're gay and have no recourse there.07/07/2015 - 7:27am
Infophile@Goth: See here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/firedforbeinggay.asp for a good discussion on it. Basically, the problem is that in the US, most states allow at will firing, and it's the burden of the fired person to prove the firing was ...07/07/2015 - 7:25am
Goth_SkunkAssuming that's true, then that is a fight worth fighting for.07/07/2015 - 6:58am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician