UK Researcher Wants Parents Arrested for Buying Kids Violent Games

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

That Dr. Nick Robinson dude is a moron.

 

[Flizzick]

Well, he's not completely off-base. I'll side with anyone who blames incompetent parents for the "corruption" of children rather than the games themselves over some politician in a suit saying VIDIA GARMES ER BAHD!

 

[Monsterfurby]

Buying your child violent video games is not bad parenting.

Not properly teaching your child how to handle those, ignoring your child or simply not caring, however is. And that you won't be able to prosecute parents for, unfortunately.

 

[deathbeforedecaf]

The problem here is idiots having kids in the first place. license to breed is the only real answer.

 

[Navarone9942]

The fundamental flaw in this guy's "logic" is his use of "inappropriate".
Who is he to say what games are inappropriate for a person's kids? Who is he to say that Call of Duty and other violent video games, are inappropriate? I think it is up to the parents to decide what games are appropriate for their kids, and what games are not.

Yes, so right but I think next time someone gets stabbed we need to sue the shit outta every knife manufacturer in the world, after all they are supplying deadly devices to anyone with some cash. Same goes for gun makers, car company's and booze barons. If it wasn't for a-holes like this guy, we'd be able to build The Device and all would be right with the world but no, this twat thinks he can solve every little problem that doesn't exist.

ps The Plunk I would like it if retailers had the power to refuse a sale to a parent that they have reason to believe is buying a game for their under-age kid. (e.g. if the retailer saw one saying "Is this the one you wanted, Timmy?)

I've seen Game and GameStation do that here in Scotland, so they can but just won't.

 

[Toilet]

I am totally cool with parents getting punished for buying their kids Call Of Honor: Future Battlefield.

 

[Li Mu]

As has been mentioned before, many parents seem incompetent when it comes to parenting and then proceed to blame all their bad decisions on others.

I really think that imprisoning parents is hardly a sensible thing to do. But on the other hand, I think we're all a bit sick of parents buying their kid a violent game and then blaming ALL gamers when their little Johnny goes out and tries to cut someones fingers off saying "the game made me do it".

I think it should simply go like this-

If you buy your 10 year old a hyper violent game which is rated for 18 year olds, you waver all right to complain when your kid shoots you in the leg with a nail gun.

 

[Neonit]

yes! because raising your own kid is your own responsibility, as long as you follow our precise instructions and take all the blame when shit hits the fan!

ratings are cool tool for a parent - not an ultimate guideline.

my parents were very wise when it came to restricting my games - they were fine with games like baldurs gate when i was 9. because they knew i could take it. they took interest in games that i played, even tried some out. they saw my reactions during gameplay. they were actively searching information about games in game magazines. they didnt mind me playing above my "age bracket" as long as they thought it wasnt mindless violence, but actual mature content. i actually think it helped me grow up.

now here comes SOME person who obviously believes HE KNOWS BETTER THAN ALL, who will take no responsibility for his actions AT ALL because why should he - its not his kids.

see, im for blaming parents when their kids does something stupid because of bad parenting, but RESTRICTING parents will not help. if a parent thinks his kid can handle a mature book, he can allow his kid to read it - none will stop him, hell, some schools will even FORCE the kid to read mature books. but games, whoooo its so different. because we know kids dont give a damn about books right? so it wont leave an impression.

even issuing a fine would be stupid. they do that already for "adult" adult stuff now dont they? why wont we leave it at that?

 

[Astoria]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Wait.... He's serious.....


It's not the governments job to raise children, its the job of the parents. If mommy and daddy want to get little 6 year timmy grand theft auto for Christmas, it might not be the wisest decision, but its still their choice. Unless its a blatant crime like murder or meth cooking, the government has no business in what happens in the family home, period.

Agreed. It's getting a bit ridiculous how many different restrictions and punishments governments are trying to bring in lately for things like this. I understand he's trying to make parents take responsibility for what they let their child do but why punish them because their kid might become abusive and violent and all that other stuff.

 

[TerribleAssassin]

Please tell me no one on that side of the pond takes this lunatic seriously.

I sincerely hope not. Then again, I heard that we're going to start legally enforcing the 12 rating, so maybe society is collapsing after all.

OT: That is the most asinine, completely fucking mad idea ever. If this law was to be implemented, surely any parent who lets their child watch the news should be arrested because of the fact that that has violent material in.

 

[aattss]

Luckily, we only have confirmations that one guy actually believes in this, and there's no proof of that either.

 

[Harker067]

I'm still waiting for the rating system on books ;p

 

[deathbeforedecaf]

The problem here is idiots having kids in the first place. license to breed is the only real answer.

I hope you're kidding.

im kidding...except for the odd day or two every year when im so depressed about the state of the human race that i think it might actually work.

 

[Ledan]

What exactly are developers supposed to do?
There is the ESRB, and I think that's as far as a developer has to go. Should they be forced to not make as many violent games? Or what? This guy sounds like he hasn't properly thought this through, has no understanding of games, or of developers. Has probably never played a game.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Spoiler: snip

Spoiler: snip

Spoiler: snip

Spoiler: snip

Did I read the same article everyone else did?

This guy said "prosecute", not specifically "jail" or "arrest". Maybe he means like a fine? Who here has ever received a traffic ticket? Tada! You've been "prosecuted". This guy wants to make it illegal for parents to buy these games for their children, which is currently how many circumvent PEGI (and ESRB in the U.S.), but then the "parents" still turn around and run these ridiculous campaigns about the violent videogames that somehow got into their children's hands.

Isn't this suggestion the logical conclusion to the "blame the parents, not the game" mantra when the "games community" feels threatened by major media or legislation against violent videogames?

Personally, I'd rather government just stay out of everyone's business, but the dichotomy here confuses me.

Spoiler: snip

You see, a system like this would not only persecute the lazy parents who unknowinly buy mature games for their children. But also the parents who, after informing themselves, decide that their kids are mature enough to play said game.

An awareness campaign would be much better in this case, a parents association would not be taken as seriously when they say this games are poisoning their children when there's a sign outside the retailer store saying that the M in the cover means that someone under 17 should not play this game

I didn't say it was a good idea. Simply, it isn't as bad an idea as people seem to be making it out to be. As a matter-of-fact, it seems to be the exact same idea that this community rallies behind whenever parent's associations and the like lash out at "vidyagames". You are quite right, though; this, like any other hypothetical legislation, has the potential to be abused if you assume it is a simple law. Most laws, however, anywhere you are, end up with so many caveats and exceptions (like for your "responsible parent" scenario) that they prove largely ineffective or unenforceable once implemented.

The problem with "awareness campaigns" is that ignorant fools do not wish to make themselves "aware". The rating is on the box, most retailers card, ESRB posters are in most stores in the U.S., not sure about PEGI in the UK. Granted that anecdotal evidence isn't much to go on in official venues, but here goes: how many video game retail clerks can attest to warning a parent that a "Mature" game would not be appropriate for their child, only to have that parent scoff at them about "knowing what they're doing" only for the parent to return furious that the store allowed their child to play this "terrible" game? That is the kind of person we are up against in this situation.

Again, personally, I think the government should just stay out of everyone's business. I think the current systems are as good as we can get; developers and retailers follow ESRB/PEGI, those that don't tend not to last. "Responsible" parents follow the ratings, irresponsible parents don't and will continue to blame other people for their own failings.

Spoiler: snip

You know, I don't like this idea, but I would love to see the face of a lazy parent when they tell him that he has to pay a 100$ fine because he bought little Timmy "Adventures of the Super Cool Murderer 5"

I find it ironic that the people who seemingly don't care enough for their children to check if the game that they want to buy is something that a kid should be playing are the first one to complain that these games are corrupting the children

Although I wonder what/if there's some system that could be implemented to make sure more people are informed (Aside from awareness campaigns)

That very scenario might be worth the consumer rights violation.

I'm not sure there's a simpler way to say it than: "Dumb parent is dumb".

As for a system; most retailers card for M/18 purchases. I don't know a less intrusive way to say "the thing you are buying is not meant for your child". So, making that mandatory across the board would be a good way. The vendor sold it to an informed (at least at the minimum) consenting adult, what happens after that is on that adult.

I don't get this card thing, but it gave me an idea. Maybe we could give the parents a copy of the ESRB/PEGI ratings whenever they buy a M/18 games. It doesn't feel as intrusive, and giving you a copy of the ratings for you to keep in your home could probably do some good

"Carding", as in, asking for an ID card. Such as when you purchase alcohol or tobacco, they ask for an ID card (like a driver's license) to verify you are of legal age to purchase it.

No one reads hand-outs.

Oh that, guess I still need some English lessons.

I'm out of ideas then.

I just realized that a law like this just wouldn't work, I mean, how do you recognize when a parent wants to buy a game for himself instead of giving it to their children?, how do yo prove that a kid has played the game?

That's where my "ineffective or unenforceable" line came from. It would probably work a lot like the alcohol/tobacco laws in the U.S.; the clerk can refuse to sell if they have reason to believe the adult is purchasing for a minor, and/or can report the sale. That, or if you see a minor playing such a game, you could report it and the authorities might look into where they got the game, who bought it for them, etc. Essentially, you'd have to make it illegal for minors to even play M/18 rated games.

Frankly, it'd just take too much effort better spent on real threats to public safety; so either it would never pass, it would have too many loopholes to be effective once passed, or it would never be enforced.

 

[Ledan]

I'm of the opinion that the parents should be punished if, and only if, they buy the game for their child and their child acts in a violent manner that would get said child punished. The mere purchase of a game for a child that is underage should not be a crime, it is only if said purchase leads to a crime that there should be punishment for the parents.

Basically if you are a parent and feel your child can handle the content of a specific video game you should have that freedom. However, if your child acts out the content of that video game in real life not only should the child be punished by you should be as well.

100% agree with this. I've been more affected by books than video games, and I used to play GTA when I was 9. Still, my first encounters of blood, violence, torture, nihilism, sexual themes, and such have come from books. I have felt physically ill from reading books, but not from games.
Oh! and I accidentally bought a porn book, because there aren't any stickers to denote that. Also when I was under 18.

EDIT:
Btw, has the last book in that trilogy come out yet?

 

[Gameslayer_93]

I can see where he's coming from, but i doubt it'd help much. What we should be doing is telling parents that they can in fact change the PARENTAL CONTROLS settings so that their child can't play certain games online, the options are there to control what your children are exposed to but the sheer ignorance surrounding gaming among parents is the real issue here

 

[Treblaine]

"Why should the system in the UK be any different?"

From America? I can think of a few ways.

Heck, a lot of Americans want America to be different from America, like on this very issue of the police policing parents in what non-pornographic media their children are allowed to see.

Fun fact, under UK law it is totally legal to take a 5 year old into a pub garden and order them a double brandy and any alcoholic drink at all. This is because the law is against children being served "at the bar", in the garden or at a table where food is served the age limit is only 5 years old.

And the police know it's not good barging in on families to tell them how to raise their children unless there is something hugely wrong like Baby P where they were frankly murdering their children.

 

[grumpymooselion]

I want politicians that think they have a right to come into our homes, and tell us how to live and raise our families, arrested.

 

[fanklok]

So instead of blaming one part of the 'Parent, Devloper, Government whose fault is it really' thing he decided to blame everyone. What does that accomplish.