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.Unkillable Cat said:Games follow the same rules as the BBFC, which means that it is illegal to supply a game or movie to anyone under the stated age. I managed a branch of blockbuster for about 5 years so had to make sure my staff were 100% up on the laws as any breaches would land both them, and the company a sizeable fine.
The child isn't breaking the law by watching/playing them, but the adult is by supplying 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.Vivi22 said: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.
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.Vendor-Lazarus said: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??
No it's not.beddo said:in the UK it's illegal to supply media to a child that is younger than the stated age rating
This is true however they also have to use discretion, if they didn't their job would involve little else.beddo said:It's also the responsibility of teachers to report any activity that may be endangering a child
Isn't that what V For Vendetta was about?cleric of the order said:
Yes, Lord of the Flies, thank you!JoJo said: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.Vendor-Lazarus said: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??
On a household-by-household basis, that's unenforceable. The UK is not like the world depicted in Minority Report. (...yet)beddo said: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.
"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.beddo said:It's also the responsibility of teachers to report any activity that may be endangering a child, which would include this.
good luck considering they havent commited a crime.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.
that is not up to you to decide.The heads claim games such as Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty contain unsuitable levels of violence.
Once again, 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.
Advised by whom?We need to inform you all of the actions we are advised to take
Once again, it is fully legal to allow your kids to play games bellow the age of the optional rating system.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.
well it is the international "anti-bullying" week this week.L. Declis said: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".
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.mecegirl said:Obviously the younger they are the less likely they will be to separate fiction from reality.
Good thing parents are not retaillers then.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 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.thaluikhain said:Would this have gone down the same if this was about parents allowing kids to watch porn?
If you dont want to deal with that there is a much simpler (and legal) way - stop playing on consoles.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"
U wot m8? Disparagin the tots? 1v1 me rite nao!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"
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.smv1172 said: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.
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"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.