UK Schools to report parents to the police if they allow their children to play 18 rated games.

[CymbaIine]

Unless the UK has gone even crazier than they already were recently and no one told me, this only applies to stores selling the games to minors, as is the case in other countries where ratings are legally enforced like for movies in Canada. It does not apply to a parent deciding their child is mature enough to handle them and buying them for them.

Indeed, but it's basically irrelevant as there does not have to be a specific law against it for it to constitute neglect/abuse.

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

Given recent news of the UK's problem with protecting children from harm, having children play 18 rated games is the least of our worries on that front. It is already illegal to sell any 18+ product (movies, games, tobacco, alcohol etc) to minors in this country. The only way they can get hold of them is through an older person buying it and giving them access to it. If parent does their job properly and vets the games their child plays, it is of no concern of anyone else if the parent allows their child to play 18+ games or not. Furthermore I'm pretty sure the police here have much better things to do and probably will not be too thrilled about having to waste their time and budgets enforcing some hollow gesture of child protection.

 

[JoJo]

I remember a movie I watched on a school-trip with my 6th grade class.
I can't remember it's name right now but it was very similar to Battle Royale.
A bunch of kids had been shipwrecked on an island and a division caused two camps to spring up.
What ensued was a lot of blood and murder.. Hmm, fly something..

And lets not forget the memorable Curious Blue and Curios Yellow sexual education movies.

Why does yesteryear seem more tolerant than today??

Ah, that would be Lord of the Flies. I don't mind that society seems to less tolerant of real life violence nowadays but it's a pain when it's applied to fiction or children's games, hopefully that will pass with time.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

And I thought I lived in a nanny state! Governments shouldn't be involved in people's personal lives like that.

 

[beddo]

There's nothing complex here, in the UK it's illegal to supply media to a child that is younger than the stated age rating. It's also the responsibility of teachers to report any activity that may be endangering a child, which would include this.

 

[CymbaIine]

in the UK it's illegal to supply media to a child that is younger than the stated age rating

No it's not.

It's also the responsibility of teachers to report any activity that may be endangering a child

This is true however they also have to use discretion, if they didn't their job would involve little else.

Where is the evidence that these activities are more harmful to a child than say.. sports? or just playing out? Cycling? We have established that this is not illegal so now to make this a safeguarding issue (which is ultimately what the school is saying it is) we have to demonstrate that it is harmful. I haven't kept up with the studies so maybe there is proof but I doubt it is more potentially harmful than many other activities that a school would never report.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

Slightly more lengthy piece from the Grauniad:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/29/schools-parents-police-children-18-rated-games

Also, this covers a grand total of 14 primary schools and 2 secondary schools.

And while I don't live there, Nantwich looks about as comfortably middle class as a small, picturesque, historic market town full of listed buildings gets. You'll need to tack on a whole lot more than "little Tarquin is allowed to play GTA" to get anything beyond a token "yeah, report noted" from social services.

 

[Childe]

Beyond the fact that its not the schools job to decide whether something is neglectful or not, its the parents job to decide whether the game is suitable for their children. That being said, I do believe that ratings are there for a reason, not they they are a hard or fast rule though, just a guideline for how strong the game is, and i do believe that some games are inappropriate for younger kids. I'm not gonna report parents for neglect if they let their children play said games though XD.

 

[cleric of the order]

Spoiler: Man I am so surprised about this.

Brittan being authoritarian who could have thought of that. also 18+ not M do that use something other then ERSB what constitutes an 18+ game

 

[FalloutJack]

Oh, that's just stupid. Everyone knows that it's live sports, not video games, that gets everyone violent in the UK.

EDIT:

BB

Isn't that what V For Vendetta was about?

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

I remember a movie I watched on a school-trip with my 6th grade class.
I can't remember it's name right now but it was very similar to Battle Royale.
A bunch of kids had been shipwrecked on an island and a division caused two camps to spring up.
What ensued was a lot of blood and murder.. Hmm, fly something..

And lets not forget the memorable Curious Blue and Curios Yellow sexual education movies.

Why does yesteryear seem more tolerant than today??

Ah, that would be Lord of the Flies. I don't mind that society seems to less tolerant of real life violence nowadays but it's a pain when it's applied to fiction or children's games, hopefully that will pass with time.

Yes, Lord of the Flies, thank you!
Agreed on the distinction between fiction and reality.
Those that can't separate between them have more problems than simply partaking of media..

 

[Erttheking]

See THIS is what censorship looks like.

Utterly appalling and a complete overreach of power.

 

[R.K. Meades]

There's nothing complex here, in the UK it's illegal to supply media to a child that is younger than the stated age rating.

On a household-by-household basis, that's unenforceable. The UK is not like the world depicted in Minority Report. (...yet)

It's also the responsibility of teachers to report any activity that may be endangering a child, which would include this.

"Your ability to shelter, feed, clothe, and raise your child has never been questioned. However, this Call of Duty business could create a home environment that is injurious to her wellbeing." Seems legit. I suppose all those empty crisp packets and crushed soda cans would have the bedroom looking like a crack den.

 

[Strazdas]

Head teachers in Cheshire have warned parents they will report them to the authorities if they allow their children to play computer games rated for over-18s.

good luck considering they havent commited a crime.

The heads claim games such as Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty contain unsuitable levels of violence.

that is not up to you to decide.

Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, Dogs of War and other similar games, are all inappropriate for
children and they should not have access to them.

Once again, not up to you to decide.

We need to inform you all of the actions we are advised to take

Advised by whom?

If your child is allowed to have inappropriate access to any game or associated product that is designated 18+ we will are [sic] advised to contact the Police and Children's Social Care as it is neglectful.

Once again, it is fully legal to allow your kids to play games bellow the age of the optional rating system.

Not the massive child rape increase, not the huge divide between poorer and richer families, not the massive drug use or teenage pregnancy increase, but "oh no, Timmy played Call of Duty and called someone a fag online".

well it is the international "anti-bullying" week this week.

also do you have evidence of increase of child rape and teen pregnancies? because from what ive read they have decreased with sexual education classes actually.

Obviously the younger they are the less likely they will be to separate fiction from reality.

Technically true, but not applicable. any mentally healthy child learns to seperate movies/tvmgames from reality at the age of 3 (+ - 1 year at the most). I doubt the kids in question are 4 year olds.

Spoiler

Labelling

The Video Recordings (Labelling) Regulations 2012 specifies the labelling requirements for video recordings and video games.

The classification symbol, descriptor icon (for video games), the unique title (including the registered number) and the explanatory statement (for video recordings), where required by the Regulations, must be clearly legible, indelible and not hidden or obscured. The Regulations set out where the classification symbol and descriptor icon labels and markings must be shown on the packaging for video recordings and video games and on the disc or other electronic device.

It is illegal for a retailer to supply or offer to supply a video recording that does not comply with labelling requirements. For a full list of offences under the Video Recordings Act 1984 see the 'Penalties' section of this guide.

Up to six months' imprisonment and/or £5,000 fine:

section 11 - supplying a video game or recording to a person who has not attained the age specified in the classification certificate unless the supply is, or would be if it took place, an exempted supply

Despite what you may think, it IS illegal, this is from the trading standards regulation.

Good thing parents are not retaillers then.

Would this have gone down the same if this was about parents allowing kids to watch porn?

It would at least for me personally. According to EU healthcare comission it is advisable for a healthy teenager to masturbate at least once a day, and the most likely way to do this is by watching pornography, unless you prefer creep masturbators in buses or something.

I, for one, support this motion.

Finally, I won't have to deal with popping online only to be greeted with "u fookin wot m8 y don't u do this fr reel I'll 1v1 ya and bop u on the bonce I sware on me mum"

If you dont want to deal with that there is a much simpler (and legal) way - stop playing on consoles.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Bleh.

Pretty sure the police won't/can't do anything about this. I mean...they don't have any legal authority to actually DO something. Parents aren't a business and these schools can fuck themselves.

I, for one, support this motion.

Finally, I won't have to deal with popping online only to be greeted with "u fookin wot m8 y don't u do this fr reel I'll 1v1 ya and bop u on the bonce I sware on me mum"

U wot m8? Disparagin the tots? 1v1 me rite nao!

 

[deleted_by_strongbad]

Just in case the UK and the US aren't too different, do you all have an election coming up? To further that point, do you have any candidates (particularly where that school is in its constituency) where being either for or against this could be a key talking point for them (maybe they are pro-censorship or strongly against institutions overriding parenting decisions/family values)? Maybe I'm being too cynical, but my money is this was presented so a politician can champion or challenge it, and no matter how this shakes out it will be forgotten within a year of the election results.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

Just in case the UK and the US aren't too different, do you all have an election coming up? To further that point, do you have any candidates (particularly where that school is in its constituency) where being either for or against this could be a key talking point for them (maybe they are pro-censorship or strongly against institutions overriding parenting decisions/family values)? Maybe I'm being too cynical, but my money is this was presented so a politician can champion or challenge it, and no matter how this shakes out it will be forgotten within a year of the election results.

Sort of. I think this statement/letter is at least in part a response the above. The standard "think of the children" legislation that's proposed to make it look like the politicians are doing something useful.

This month David Cameron announced that adults in positions of responsibility could face prison sentences of up to five years if they failed to report allegations of neglect or abuse of children.

They're covering their asses in the face of legislation. While I'm sure the above won't be the exact wording of the law it boils down to "WTF constitutes 'neglect'? Fuck it, we can't get a solid answer that we understand from social services so we're just going to make sure we hit every possible thing we can"

Either that or they really do have a hate boner for GTA etc and they're trying to use people's poor understanding of the law and social services to frighten them into complying with their wishes.

Probably a little from column A, little from column B etc.

 

[VanQ]

Spoiler

Labelling

The Video Recordings (Labelling) Regulations 2012 specifies the labelling requirements for video recordings and video games.

The classification symbol, descriptor icon (for video games), the unique title (including the registered number) and the explanatory statement (for video recordings), where required by the Regulations, must be clearly legible, indelible and not hidden or obscured. The Regulations set out where the classification symbol and descriptor icon labels and markings must be shown on the packaging for video recordings and video games and on the disc or other electronic device.

It is illegal for a retailer to supply or offer to supply a video recording that does not comply with labelling requirements. For a full list of offences under the Video Recordings Act 1984 see the 'Penalties' section of this guide.

Up to six months' imprisonment and/or £5,000 fine:

section 11 - supplying a video game or recording to a person who has not attained the age specified in the classification certificate unless the supply is, or would be if it took place, an exempted supply

Despite what you may think, it IS illegal, this is from the trading standards regulation.

It may be illegal to sell an 18+ rated game to a minor but it is not illegal to let them play one.

 

[elvor0]

Will that actually do anything though?

Are UK laws different than us here in 'Merica because the ESRB (and the MPAA and whatnot) have no legal authority; stores voluntarily follow the ratings. You could report me all day for allowing a ten year old to play Grant Theft Auto while listening to "Fuck the Police" on eternal loop with Hostel playing in the picture-in-picture and there would be no legal leg for anyone to stand on to have me arrested.

Kind of. I don't /think/ the BBFC rate games anymore(My GTA 5 is PEGI rated, while San Andreas and backwards are BBFC), but when they did it was actually illegal to sell a game to an underage person if the game had a BBFC rating on it, while PEGI ratings were just guidelines that stores voluntarily followed. Most games were PEGI or ESRB rated but a few such as Manhunt, GTA, Doom 3 and the like were classified by the BBFC as ESRB caps at 17+ while BBFC was for games deemed adult only at 18+, but 18+ doesn't carry the same taboo for games that it seems to in the US, and you don't/didn't need to worry that a store wont carry AO games, but it did have to be enforced.

Either way it's not illegal for a parent to by a game for their underage child.

EDIT: Few corrections

 

[MoltenSilver]

What what what?? I knew the UK was off their gourd on the censorship front but really? Parents apparently can't decide how emotionally mature their children are any more? And I'm saying that as someone who believes that 90% of kids shouldn't play 18+ games(Though yes there are some kids who can emotionally handle it and with supervision I believe many kids could, I just have a lack of faith they're actually receiving such supervision). Someone who knows British law please, please for the sake of my sanity assure me this is not a threat they can actually follow up on.