U.K.'s Vaz Meets with Government Ministers to Discuss Violent Games

U.K.'s Vaz Meets with Government Ministers to Discuss Violent Games

January 19, 2007
Fulfilling a promise made by Prime Minister Tony Blair, Labour MP Keith Vaz, a frequent critic of the video game industry, was granted a meeting with British government officials to discuss concerns over violent game content.

Minister for Creative Industries Shaun Woodward, Minister for Industry Margaret Hodge and Vaz discussed violent games and their availability to children - specifically, according to Vaz, a pair of Rockstar titles, Canis Canem Edit (known in the U.S. as Bully)and Manhunt. As reported by MCV, Vaz said:
I am pleased that the Ministers agreed to meet with me and discuss this important issue. This is a good opportunity to raise concerns that many parents and I have on violent video games falling into the hands of young children. I do not believe that this is a question of censorship, but of protecting children.

Apparently, no representatives of the video game industry were present at the talks.  The outcome of the meeting remains unknown. Currently, however, restricting the access of minors to violent game content is a hot topic in Europe politics. 

-Reporting from the U.K., GamePolitics correspondent Mark Kelly
Posted in

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by Nyder - February 7, 2007 at 2:58 am -0500
These clowns just create controversy so they can have an excuse for existing. Fear-mongering, freedom-haters.

Anyone who commits a crime because of game is unstable anyway, and we all know there have been violent sociopaths far before videogames, movies, and tv.
Submitted by theshroomguy - January 19, 2007 at 3:11 pm -0500
God help us if vaz and thompson start working together.
Submitted by gameclucks - January 19, 2007 at 12:09 pm -0500
"I do not believe that this is a question of censorship, but of protecting children."


... (through censorship)
Submitted by Vladimir - January 19, 2007 at 11:01 am -0500
I can't believe people are still worried about Manhunt.
Submitted by Chuma - January 19, 2007 at 9:04 am -0500
The UK already restricts such games to be sold to minors. If he wants to restrict a parent's right to buy them for their kids then frankly I hope he is told where to get off. Theres a term over here used by the press called "The Nanny State". I suspect Vaz is quite a fan of this.
Submitted by GordonJ - January 20, 2007 at 11:34 am -0500
Manhunt. certificate 18 and Bully, certificate 15, and their availability to childrens, sounds like a retail problem, nothing to do with the game industry.
Submitted by Dagrak - January 19, 2007 at 6:16 am -0500
Well the reply I got from Mr Woodward seems to indicate that unlike Vaz he has actually looked at the current set up with regards to games ratings. I understand the EU has perhaps gone a bit overboard by listening to extremist views but I don't think we're going to see any major UK changes at the moment. As it stands the only problem is at the retail level, the games themselves are not being marketed at underage players, its just shops sell them to them and parents buy them for them.

Vaz doesn't understand video games and has done no research into how they are handled. Hopefully this conversation has instilled some knowledge into him.
Submitted by aniki21 - January 19, 2007 at 6:11 am -0500
So, they specifically talk about two Rockstar games - Bully, which isn't actually that bad (and actually does a decent job of discouraging random violence), and Manhunt, which shouldn't be sold to children anyway and which any responsible parent would step in to prevent their kids playing.

I'm going to have to email Mr. Vaz again, although I'm pretty sure I'll end up with the same futile argument that I had to wade through last time.
Submitted by Ben - January 20, 2007 at 6:48 am -0500
I seriously dislike people like Vaz. Riding the coattails of New Labour to get their own petty agendas in place, so they have another chance to interrupt my life. He can fuck right off.
Submitted by ZippyDSMlee - January 20, 2007 at 1:41 pm -0500
Gotta ban them all comes to mind....
Submitted by Daniel - January 20, 2007 at 5:12 am -0500
The word that is the most ridulous in this whole thing is PROTECTION. People need protection from bad things, not entertainment. Entertainment and violent images on a screen are NOT evil and NOT something that people need to be protected from. The word protection means to guard against something evil somthing that can cause harm and violent video games aren't something evil and aren't something that can cause harm. No politicians should attack violent video games.
Submitted by Snakestream - January 19, 2007 at 1:31 pm -0500
@IanC
Yup, makes almost as much sense as having major surgery without any doctors or nurses in the operating room.
Submitted by IanC - January 19, 2007 at 1:22 pm -0500
Apparently, no representatives of the video game industry were present at the talks.
Yes, thats the way to do things!

ECA IconA PUBLICATION OF THE ECA RSS IconSUBSCRIBE User LoginLOGIN / REGISTER

Crispy Gamer




       

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 03/22/10 at 07:37am
ZippyDSMlee: ds:ha! BY THE TIME THEY GET THIER BENFITS i WONT HAVE ANY LEFT!! :p
Posted 03/22/10 at 07:02am
DarkSaber: for it to cost YOU personally zippy, you'd have to actually be paying taxes instead of sponging benefits.
Posted 03/22/10 at 02:42am
ZippyDSMlee: Like most train wrecks it wont help people much and cost us more in the end than what we would benefit from it.....
Posted 03/22/10 at 02:37am
TBoneTony: Great to see MA go to the back bench in SA, hope that new AG is more ballanced
Posted 03/22/10 at 02:36am
TBoneTony: Oh there it is
Posted 03/22/10 at 02:36am
TBoneTony: Shout is not working for me at the moment
Posted 03/22/10 at 02:34am
SimonBob: (Would you like to rent our Green party? We're not doing anything with it.)
Posted 03/22/10 at 02:31am
SimonBob: hey america: I was watching CNN earlier, and I was thinking, you guys could use a third party.
Posted 03/21/10 at 10:12pm
Valdearg: They beat the parliamentary trick. The senate bill is officially law, pending the President's signature. Now they vote on the fixes to that bill, in the next 15 minutes or so.
Posted 03/21/10 at 10:04pm
gellymatos: Vald: No worries. I do it all the time. Trying to break the habit.
Posted 03/21/10 at 10:01pm
Valdearg: @Gelly: Sorry for jumping to conclusions, LOL.. I guess I read your text in a depressed voice in my head. :D
Posted 03/21/10 at 10:00pm
Valdearg: I'm staying up late, watching CSPAN and MSNBC, and cheering each and every democrat victory.
Posted 03/21/10 at 10:00pm
Valdearg: Yes indeedy. Even Abortion rights got gutted. Obama's going to pass an EO ensuring no federal funds are used for abortions.
Posted 03/21/10 at 09:59pm
gellymatos: Vald: Who said I didn't like it? I'd get a drink out if there wasn't anything where I am at.
Posted 03/21/10 at 09:59pm
gellymatos: Vald:Well, pretty good day, wouldn't you say?
Posted 03/21/10 at 09:58pm
Valdearg: Dont sound so depressed, Gelly. This bill will help people get healthcare, who can't now. It's a perfectly Christian idea.
Posted 03/21/10 at 09:57pm
gellymatos: Well, it's happened. The House Passed the Health Care Bill. Now things get interesting, to say the least.
Posted 03/21/10 at 09:56pm
Valdearg: YES WE CAN!!! YES WE CAN!!! MAJOR HCR Vote passed!! Assuming no idocy, we could see it as law TOMORROW!!!!!!
Posted 03/21/10 at 06:23pm
Andrew Eisen: No, I think I'll stay safe and warm in my own little world where Provolone is king and that... other cheese... doesn't exist.
Posted 03/21/10 at 06:22pm
JDKJ: I wish the Speaker would ask me for what purpose does the member rise.
Login or register to post shouts