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

VanQ

Casual Plebeian
Oct 23, 2009
2,729
0
0
Unkillable Cat said:
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

New member
Sep 8, 2008
2,320
0
0
tippy2k2 said:
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

New member
Feb 21, 2013
248
0
0
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.
 

Smooth Operator

New member
Oct 5, 2010
8,162
0
0
I would love to see them do that, because people can then immediately take them to court for harassment.
And so we are clear why, in the UK games can not be sold to children under PEGI age rating UNLESS they have express permission from parents, i.e. parents make the final call by law mind you.
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
Zykon TheLich said:
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.
Any time you get "think of the children" appeals its always lame, unlike some of the other recent stuff this actually makes sense. There were those shocking cases recently with teachers etc not reporting some severely abused and neglected children which then ended up dying from said abuse and a child thats literally starving to death is pretty damn obvious to anyone that sees the regular charity appeals on TV, then you have had other cases with family members/boyfriends/girlfriends not reporting abused children and then walking out of court scot free because it could not be proved they were involved in the abuse.

The court would still have to prove that they had reasonable cause to believe something awful was going on but thats a lot more cut and dried in most cases rather than having to prove they were involved in the neglect or abuse, so I'm personally fine with lighting a fire under incompetent authority figures and making it illegal to blatantly ignore abuse and neglect even if someone wasn't directly involved.
 

OneCatch

New member
Jun 19, 2010
1,111
0
0
Mister K said:
OK, firstly, age ratings arent some kind of legal regulation, they are advisory symbols at best. There is no penalty for not following them.
Actually in the UK age ratings (for both film and video games) are legally binding at the point of sale.

Someone Depressing said:
Besides, this is a complete waste of the police's time - which the school openly practices - but the whole thing is just ridiculous. I hope the school is pressured to give this up.
Pseudonym said:
You can't just go around threathening people with legal force when they haven't done anything wrong.
DementedSheep said:
Oh I'm sure the police LOVE being sent trivial shit like this all the time.
Childe said:
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.
LostGryphon said:
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.
The school isn't really at fault here, except for being over-cautious.

The Government recently suggested that they would make it an offence for those in social services/welfare/etc to fail to report neglect and abuse (in order to try and prevent things like the Rotherham abuse scandal). The policy is extremely vague at this point (iirc neither 'neglect' nor 'abuse' are defined), so a lot of councils/schools/educational authorities will be trying to decide exactly what actions need to be taken to prevent them from falling foul of such a law.

This kind of pre-emptive action serves multiple purposes:
-They make parents aware of changes to the law regarding their children
-They protect the council from litigation
-They encourage debate regarding the proposal
-They force the government to consider ambiguities and unintended effects of the policy - or indeed outright flaws

It's really not as draconian or Orwellian as is being made out. The school doesn't want parents who let their kids play GTA to be sent to prison, they're just covering themselves in the event of Mary Whitehouse MkII mounting some spurious civil case against them in a few years time using ill-considered legislation.
 

Mister K

This is our story.
Apr 25, 2011
1,703
0
0
OneCatch said:
Okay, I am not so familiar with UK law, but is't the fact that those rules and regulations are mandatory apply only to a party that SELLS the game?
 
Jan 27, 2011
3,740
0
0
Oh for-

Look, should kids be playing those games? NO! The ratings are there for a reason!

But on the other hand, calling the COPS?! Trying to get the parents charged with neglect? Seriously?

This is one of those problems you solve by education, not punishment. -_-
 

OneCatch

New member
Jun 19, 2010
1,111
0
0
Mister K said:
OneCatch said:
Okay, I am not so familiar with UK law, but is't the fact that those rules and regulations are mandatory apply only to a party that SELLS the game?
Yeah that's right - I thought it worth pointing out because it's often seen as unusual by those used to the US stance.
In the UK it's illegal to allow a kid into a cinema for a film they aren't old enough for, it's illegal to rent or sell them the same, but the onus is, legally, on the seller. The children themselves aren't liable, neither are parents/guardians. Same principle applies to gifts - a parent can buy a game for an underage kid without penalty.
 

bossfight1

New member
Apr 23, 2009
398
0
0
Actually, thinking about it, this is closer to the best possible attitude people can take about violent games falling into the hands of minors. Years ago, people wanted GTA banned because they didn't want it to negatively affect children, but we said 'Hey, if there's a kid who would actually do the stuff they see in this game, maybe it should fall to the parents who let them play it; maybe parents should take a bit more responsibility when it comes to the video games their children play."

But while these schools are, indeed, asking that parents show some responsibility with the games their kids play, they are taking it waaaaaayyyyyyy too far. Let the parents determine what their child can handle in terms of content, and don't make a fool of yourself by calling the cops if they make a decision you don't agree with.

I mean, I'm not a religious person, so I won't be having religion underline how I raise my child, but that doesn't mean I'll call the cops just because my neighbors next door raising their child with the Bible in mind.
 
Aug 31, 2012
1,774
0
0
MoltenSilver said:
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.

They can follow up on it in the respect that they can report it. I could report my neighbours for neglect because I think they let their kids drink too many fizzy drinks or they let them stay up too late at night. For social services to intervene there actually has to be a risk of significant harm.

to quote the NSPCC:

"Although there is no absolute criteria for determining whether or not harm is "significant", local authorities such as social services, police, education and health agencies work with family members to assess the child, and a decision is made based on their professional judgement using the gathered evidence."

This has a good explanation of the various steps

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/child-protection-system/england/

The highly exciting Govt legislation on this (have fun):

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41

Recent assessment guidelines:

https://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/w/working%20together.pdf

J Tyran said:
Any time you get "think of the children" appeals its always lame, unlike some of the other *SNIP*
Yes, I'm in full agreement, my point was more about the schools possible overreaction to this coupled with a grumbling annoyance that instead of giving more resources to Child Protection Teams to actually help children, the rhetoric is about sticking people in prison after the fact.
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
Zykon TheLich said:
J Tyran said:
Any time you get "think of the children" appeals its always lame, unlike some of the other *SNIP*
Yes, I'm in full agreement, my point was more about the schools possible overreaction to this coupled with a grumbling annoyance that instead of giving more resources to Child Protection Teams to actually help children, the rhetoric is about sticking people in prison after the fact.
That is an uncomfortable idea yes, digging up concluded investigations is bad enough but trying to put people that have already been cleared of one set of offences through court again is borderline illegal.

It's not exactly double jeopardy but its certainly crossing a line.
 

Sigmund Av Volsung

Hella noided
Dec 11, 2009
2,999
0
0
Ahah

AHAHAHA

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH


"The heads claim games such as Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty contain unsuitable levels of violence.
They warn parents they could be reported for neglect in some cases."

Getting told off for neglect is good. Getting legally persecuted isn't. I don't think this needs to be explicitly said.

I'd like to see this get implemented in my old secondary school though: if you didn't play CoD, you didn't make any friends, and good luck enforcing this shit ;D

I remember one teacher getting really angry at these two guys in one my classes cause they were talking about pornstars: it was hilarious then, and it's hilarious now cause of how flustered he was by it.

And bravo UK education: this is the kind of shit we berate the Aussies and the Americans for. I halfway expected to see David Cameron spearheading this nonsense in the wake of his recent porn regulation bullshit.

But yes, take away the vidya garms from the kiddies. Fuck movies, violent TV shows or even more insidiously damaging shit that enforces ironclad gender roles, outdated social attitudes and consumerism or a school system that works through a fear of failure. Nah, those things certainly aren't damaging at all. "******"? Why, that's a curseword that has never graced British playgrounds at all(!)
 

CymbaIine

New member
Aug 23, 2013
168
0
0
OneCatch said:
I strongly disagree I think it is every bit as draconian as people assume. This is a school group making use of the new proposals to force their own morality on parents. Linking this shit with Rotherham et al is opportunism. I have never before seen video games listed as a potential indicator for neglect. If you can find a piece of training literature/studies/anything besides this letter that lists this as a potential indicator of neglect please link it and I will rethink my view. Although if you do you should have a look at the list and guess how many schools would report a single instance of a single indicator to police/social services.

Strazdas said:
Advised by whom?
I wondered that too. I concluded it's a group of teachers who don't personally like the games so have decided to exploit the delightfully vague wording of the law.

EDIT- It's also worth mentioning that this shit is massively damaging to social services. As if they don't have a hard enough time trying to convince people they are not the devil incarnate schools are now using the fear parents have of them to force parents to behave how they would like them to.
 
Aug 31, 2012
1,774
0
0
CymbaIine said:
Strazdas said:
Advised by whom?
I wondered that too. I concluded it's a group of teachers who don't personally like the games so have decided to exploit the delightfully vague wording of the law.
I would guess these guys, seeing as they are mentioned in the letter and that's their job. Although how much is directly from them and how much is the NEP's interpretation, I couldn't guess reliably. Seeing as it's only the schools in the NEP that have done this, I'd lean more towards interpretation.


http://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/schools/safeguarding_in_education/safeguarding_in_education.aspx
 

OneCatch

New member
Jun 19, 2010
1,111
0
0
CymbaIine said:
OneCatch said:
I strongly disagree I think it is every bit as draconian as people assume. This is a school group making use of the new proposals to force their own morality on parents. Linking this shit with Rotherham et al is opportunism. I have never before seen video games listed as a potential indicator for neglect. If you can find a piece of training literature/studies/anything besides this letter that lists this as a potential indicator of neglect please link it and I will rethink my view. Although if you do you should have a look at the list and guess how many schools would report a single instance of a single indicator to police/social services.
I agree that it's over the top, but it does highlight a flaw in proposed safeguarding law. They've probably taken legal advice and been told they need to cover themselves. I don't think that video games are neglectful, but adult-rated games are regarded and legally recognised as unsuitable for children. In terms of legal interpretation, it's not that much of a stretch to be concerned that, under the new law, failure to report could be a problem.

Now I most certainly am not saying that violent games are a predicator of child abuse - they clearly aren't. But one can draw a reasonable comparison between a 15 year old getting (occasionally) drunk underage, and a kid playing underage games. Both are discouraged by various means and are regarded as socially undesirable by the state. Both are, by themselves, not harmful to any real degree.
Much of the criticism of things like Rotherham was that there was a failure to build a bigger picture of what was going on. A lot of the warning signs were, individually, not that troubling - teens appearing drunk for example. One can somewhat understand an authority trying to identify and collate other things which could be warning signs, even if they've been spectacularly cackhanded in this case. I just don't think it's fair to just assume they're on a moral crusade.
 

CymbaIine

New member
Aug 23, 2013
168
0
0
OneCatch said:
I agree that it's over the top, but it does highlight a flaw in proposed safeguarding law. They've probably taken legal advice and been told they need to cover themselves. I don't think that video games are neglectful, but adult-rated games are regarded and legally recognised as unsuitable for children. In terms of legal interpretation, it's not that much of a stretch to be concerned that, under the new law, failure to report could be a problem.
The new law isn't law yet and I do think it's a massive stretch to imagine that failure to report a child playing CoD would ever be considered negligence on the part of a school, especially given that the proposals are specific to sexual exploitation.

OneCatch said:
Now I most certainly am not saying that violent games are a predicator of child abuse - they clearly aren't. But one can draw a reasonable comparison between a 15 year old getting (occasionally) drunk underage, and a kid playing underage games. Both are discouraged by various means and are regarded as socially undesirable by the state. Both are, by themselves, not harmful to any real degree.
Sorry I am going to have to disagree again, I don't think they are comparable. Substance/alcohol misuse is used as an indicator of potential abuse/neglect, playing video games isn't. Getting drunk does come with serious and easily identified risks that are true of every teen, playing video games doesn't.

OneCatch said:
Much of the criticism of things like Rotherham was that there was a failure to build a bigger picture of what was going on. A lot of the warning signs were, individually, not that troubling - teens appearing drunk for example. One can somewhat understand an authority trying to identify and collate other things which could be warning signs, even if they've been spectacularly cackhanded in this case.
I'm sorry but you are wrong in your summary here. What you are describing is more accurate in context of Peter Connelly and Victoria Climbe where no single agency had all the relevant information because of lack of communication. In the Peter Connelly case one of the key facts that was missing from assessment was that his Mother was now living with a new partner, the only person to know this was a TA at the children's school. Even in that case it wasn't so much the lack of 'reporting' (I don't think by any stretch of the imagination a new step Dad is automatically a safeguarding) but lack of more general communication.

The problem in Rotherham, Rochdale etc is they knew what was happening but were resigned to it continuing. The level of organisation on the part of the abusers was perhaps the only thing the authorities missed (which shouldn't matter). They knew the girls were having sex with much older men, they knew they were being "passed round", they knew they were being plied with drink and drugs. They knew all the facts and did little/nothing to act upon them.

OneCatch said:
I just don't think it's fair to just assume they're on a moral crusade.
I cannot think of another reason. Their justification is -

Access to these games OR to some social media sites such as those above increases early sexualised behaviours (sometimes harmful) in children AND leaves them vulnerable to grooming for sexual exploitation or extreme violence.
I can find no evidence of this beyond obviously moralising conjecture. Again if you can show me otherwise I will rethink.

Even if this is coming from a place of genuine reasonable concern on the part of the school the way they have gone about it is disgusting and counterproductive.
 

Padwolf

New member
Sep 2, 2010
2,062
0
0
lacktheknack said:
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"
This is just for you


But eh, I don't agree that it should be down to the schools. It is the parents decision ultimately what they do. If a parent decides their 6 year old can play GTA 5, then that's their lookout. It's a waste of police time and effort. I do think parents should have an idea of what kids are playing on these days. Hell, the other week I saw a 8 year olds xbox live profile tag thingy as "I banged yer mum!".
 

Hoplon

Jabbering Fool
Mar 31, 2010
1,840
0
0
CymbaIine said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32103991


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.

The letter was sent by the Nantwich Education Partnership group to parents from 16 schools in the county.

The heads claim games such as Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty contain unsuitable levels of violence.
They warn parents they could be reported for neglect in some cases.
Nantwich Education Partnership (who have sent the letter) are made up of both primary and secondary schools.

The letter is here

http://www.audlem.org/newsroom/nantwich-education-partnership.html

...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.

[...]

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

-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.
problem with that idea is that it's not illegal for them to see it, just for them to purchase it. the school can report what they like the authroites can't do and indeed won't do anything.
 

Jark212

Certified Deviant
Jul 17, 2008
4,455
0
0
I was always convinced that the 18+ was a recommendation, not any kind of enforceable law.