Nightwing:

"Just because you BELIEVE that the government isn’t influencing the BBFC doesn’t mean it isn’t. The fact that the laws exist to manipulate the BBFC’s decisions is evidence that the government DOES influence the BBFC’s review process."

Non-sequitar. First off Just because YOU believe the government IS influencing the BBFC doesn't mean it is. We have a believe of innocent until proven guilty. It is up to you to provide some evidence before making such accusations. Furthermore the laws do not influence the BBFC's review process whatsoever, it just enforces whatever outcome they decide.

If resorted to any personal attack it was because repeating myself for the 5th time gets boring and you aren't listening to what I am saying, just repeating your illogical arguments without proof and without reason.

"You’ll note that to challenge a rating, one does have to go through a government controlled system (the courts) when it comes to the BBFC.
Why do you think that challenges don’t occur often?"

Maybe because the Film and Gaming Industries have a good working relationship with the BBFC and agree with the majority of their ratings? Also maybe because the BBFC doesn't refuse to classify many Films or Games.

You go on to claim again the bought and paid for molarchy. To be honest, I spent a good few minutes trying to find out how the BBFC is funded. As yet I have found nothing. It might be that it is given taxpayer's money from the government, or it might be that it is paid for by the Film and Gaming industries themselves. Tell you what, as I can't find it, and you are making all the accusations, you can come up with the proof they are being paid for by the UK government. Give me a webpage, link or Newspaper article that shows how it gets its money.

"The BBFC, on the other hand, is nothing more than an extension of the government legal system. It purports to be independant, but clearly looking at the links between law and the board show otherwise."

And in 2 concurrent sentences we have the whole reason why you are SO confused. The Government The Law. Repeat and learn.

PEGI rates all titles. BBFC rates things it wants to rate. PEGI wins.

"The unnamed source also told GI.biz that BBFC raters play games all the way through"

this is obviously a lie. MMOs, infinite-replayability games, and easter eggs ftw.

@ EZK

It's not quite that black and white. The BBFC only prevent the sale of certain media to minors (under 18s), not the viewing. Plus, their ratings have no bearing on you once you're out of your teens.

They're intended to be a tool for parents to prevent their children from buying stuff they're not supposed to - there's no laws to prevent a parent renting/buying an 18 rated film/game and watching/playing it with their 8 year old child. Furthermore, there's nothing to stop grown-ups buying adult rated games for minors for unsupervised use (which is part of the problem, IMHO).

Therefore, your statement "The BBFC dictating what you can see and think, violates human rights" is factually incorrect. The BBFC merely legislate what media can and cannot be purchased by minors.

@ Angelfire

Thinking of the PEGI icons, if a game is rated 18+ and has a language icon on it, I would assume that the language is bad enough to warrant an 18+ rating. Same with violence and sex.

I think that would help.

Sure the text saying that the game has Strong Language helps, but when it needs to be multilingual, it can be a pain for the game maker to have to region print the descriptors.

But of coursethat could be handled with a colored border around the icon. Green for mild language, red for extreme language.

There is that as well Zachary, however it's more of an issue with games under that rating...

The thing is though that we have to remember about both sets of ratings is that either one will be backed up by force of law whichever is the national standard.

You also have to take into account that what may be accepted in some other european countries, in terms of content and language, may not be as widely accepted here in the UK.. That is another major issue with the PEGI rating system.

If they tailored the ratings per country to conform to what was generally held to be the normal standard, how would they be any different than the BBFC in that regard?

To illustrate the point: Mass Effect is classed as a game for 15+ here in the UK, in the USA it's classed as Mature, which is a good 2 years age catagory difference... because both countries have different outlooks as to what is acceptable or not. What may be acceptable in the UK may be totally different in Germany or France, or vice versa and those issues have to be resolved...

Otherwise they'd be the BBFC under a different name with more confusing symbols.

and and I'm glad Deus, I'm a lurker here most of the time.. didn't want to offend you inadvertantly.

The fact of the matter is that the Manhunt 2 banning has annoyed the industry, if it can happen purely because the BBFC want to show that they can be 'tough', and 'draw a line', then who's next? What's next? We've all seen what happens once censorships starts to take a hold, and no I don't hold the BBFC to blame, but it is starting to turn into a vote of no confidence in the BBFC.

Whilst I don't care in the least about Manhunt 2, I'm becoming more and more convinced it was 'muscle flexing' by the BBFC, they have more or less admitted as such, and even the UK Newspapers and BBC are starting to admit that Manhunt 2 'wasn't nearly as bad as it was made out to be' (though, admittedly, as a game, it wasn't nearly as good as it was made out to be either), and their comments about 'risk of harm' were an uncomfortable reflection of some of the ridiculous over-reactions taking place in the US.

However, on the other side of the coin, the PEGI system historically gives lower age ratings for games than the BBFC does, and once you have a PEGI rating you are covered for most of Europe, you don't have to keep paying out for various countries' own ratings systems.

I'm not certain if I'm for or against the de-centralisation of the game rating system, there are pros and cons to each, but I do think the BBFC has a lot of hard work to do in order to repair its reputation with the members of ELSPA.

For the second time, ALL of the BBFC's fees come from the industry.

And secondly, there are a couple of guys here who appear to have an excellent understanding of how the organisation functions, probably because they have direct experience with it like myself. It's an independent organisation, period. Quit with the FUD.

This argument will never end, and it repeats itself every time a BBFC article comes up on GP. Usually with the same players. People make good points on both sides but ultimately it's futle. So I'll redirect things instead with an analogy. Guns!

All guns in the US are required to have a serial number on them, right? They're not allowed to be sold without a serial number. Who etches these serial numbers onto the guns? Is it a government agency?

All games in the UK are required to have a rating sticker on them. They're not allowed to be sold unrated. Who puts these ratings on them? Is it a government agency?

The fact that the BBFC can refuse to rate something doesn't change whether or not it is a government agency.

The BBFC is a perfectly good way to rate games.

They DO have independence from the government. (Someone has got to pay for them, after all.)

They have been around for decades and have built up a good reputation over that time with parents, and isn't that what we want?

From what I'm reading, a lot of people have decided that the BBFC is not "fit for purpose" because it banned one (rubbish) game. Big fat hairy deal.

Manhunt 2 controversy aside, I favour BBFC by a mile. Why Microsoft are sticking their noses in I have no idea, but frankly I don't think any UK decision on the ratings board will be affected by an American run company.

ROUND 1

FIGHT

Let's free our minds and forsake ALL RATING SYSTEMS! Power to the people!

Assuming it's true that they actually PLAY the games then I'm all in favour of it. Its when they review it by watching rather than doing that I have a problem with it.

Chuma,
"Currently if a title is to be sold in the UK it MUST have a rating from the BBFC. It DOESN’T need one from PEGI. "

I think that's his point. The BBFC can use political power to actually BAN a game for ANYONE'S use by simply not rating it.

The PEGI system rates EVERYTHING, thereby not BANNING a game but rather giving it the appropriate content information and letting the CONSUMER decide.

The BBFC is the perfect example of "turning a blind eye" by essentially saying "we don't like it, we don't think it's appropriate for ANYONE, so we're going to pretend it doesn't exist, thereby preventing its sale".

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

nightwing & beemoh:

And you have proof that PEGI wouldn't have banned any games? Given that they would have to conform to the same guidelines laid out for the BBFC, do you have any written evidence that PEGI would have given an 18 rating to Manhunt 2?

Content descriptors are NOT ratings and do NOT conform to the guidelines on Games, Films, DVDs and Videos in the UK. Saying "they rate everything" is ignorant. *I* can rate every game if I want to, but that doesn't give it the force of law in this country.

If you want to debate if there should be censorship or not, do so, but do not confuse the issue with the job that the BBFC does compared to the peripheral job of PEGI. If the UK government suddenly gave PEGI the rights to rate games, they would have to conform to the guidelines of the UK and then the BBFC could rate every game. Your argument is fatuous.

PEGI does not ban games out right, BBFC does. PEGI wins for free speech. ^_^

Nightwing:

"The BBFC claims its reviewers are game experts. But the evidence is clear that the BBFC is bought and paid for by the government, influenced by the government, and adheres to the ignorance of the government."

What absolute trash. The BBFC are an independant organisation. How many more time do people have to shout that at you before you get it through your thick skull? Just because you don't agree with their opinion on Manhunt 2 does NOT mean it has been told to do something by the Government. Period. Here. Go read:-

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/about/index.php

"With a non-government rating system, you only have to deal with the potential bias of the reviewer, not the bias of the demands of the government and politicians."

So you exchange the BBFC for PEGI. What then? You think that means we end censorship in the UK? THAT ISN'T HOW IT WORKS! If there is a NEW system, they they STILL get the force of law behind it in the same way as the BBFC did. The 1984 Video Recordings Act was amended to cover computer games. Which brings us nicely to...

"Disagree with it all you want, if the BBFC has control over any voluntary system of rating, then that rating system is compromised by government influence."

Except it ISN'T voluntary. It is required by law to sell in this country.

THIS IS NOT AMERICA. Do your bloody research before you make any more inane and stupid comments on the way the UK deals with Games, Films, DVDs and Videos. I've even TOLD YOU several times and you STILL don't get it. Either it is stupidity or just plain stubbornness.

Classification by the OFLC in Australia is required before any non-print media is released, I THINK this applies to audio as well as games/video but either way its the law here. Dunno why the americans don't do it this way, it seems perfectly sensible to me...

You crazy non-americans, with no concept of personal rights and responsibility.

DeusPayne:

Patriot Act.

Next?

Nightwing:

"The fact is that the BBFC has been influenced time and again by political agendas."

And you have proof of this? Or is this another Jack-Thompsonesque assertion that because you claim it is true it must be?

The BBFC have been in charge of film classification since the early 1910's. They have over 90 years of experience with the UK cinema classification. During those 90 years there have been a lot of censorship cuts made to films but generally very little outright bans, and you are a fool if you think that the UK is alone in that. Usually they just view the material and classify it. Cuts are made usually a distributor wants a lesser rating than they were given, which is true of computer games too. It's DEFINITELY true in the USA as well where the ESRB work with the gaming industry to advise on what to change to ensure they get an M rating rather than AO.

Aditionally you might like to know that attitudes to censorship change over time. "Last year it asked for cuts in just five films, compared with almost 60 in 1989." There is also an example of a film that in 1951 received an X Rating (the same as an 18 rating today) but received a U rating when re-released in 1999.

You can argue that the Manhunt 2 refusal to rate was unjust. Hey guess what? That is why we have a legal process and appeals committee in place which is ALSO under the force of law. Strange how you don't complain that the Video Appeals Committee is biased and influenced or paid for by government...


There was more repetitious ranting, ignoring the facts and making claims of truth without any proof and infact with only mal-informed opinion at hand, but I don't think I need to keep repeating myself. I'll let everyone who actually bothers to read the comments see what was said and make their judgment on your blind blithering nonsense.

DeusPayne:

All governments have censorship, it is just a matter of degrees. You cant say 'Fuck' on TV and have to have sexual content of films removed thanks to the government backed FCC, yet despite the provisions we have, these are routinely allowed. Infact last night channel 4 continued to show the highly informative and interesting 'Autopsy' series showing a series of disection of human bodies and explaining how systems work in the body (first series), common forms of death and how people can avoid them (second series) and now how to treat life threatening injuries and why they are life threatening. A program of this nature would NEVER make it to air in the US. I'm dubious it would make it to DVD either, but that is purely conjecture.

As I brought up the Patriot Act, maybe a little unfairly and flippantly instead of replying to the above, I will just say the following:- If you are trying to suggest that banning a game (which is currently being overturned on appeal) is worse than prevention of fundemental human rights, you have some series perspective issues.

DeusPayne:

You are clearly against censorship. Sorry, but I don't agree with your ideals. Also just because you think it is unacceptable doesn't mean society as a whole does. I don't think smoking pot should be illegal as long as people do not drive afterwards but my opinion isn't going to change the stance of UK law.

"And you’re whole argument that the BBFC is not government run is just laughable."

You clearly have no idea what the concept of government run means. Furthermore, it is the law that is enforcing the BBFC's rulings, no the government directly, the government merely has the powers to change these laws but has no direct say in any rulings the BBFC comes to make.

"But regardless, even if the BBFC was COMPLETELY separate from politics, what gives them the right to determine what I can and can’t watch? As adults, you should be empowered to make your own decisions. Any body, government or not, has no right to interfere with anyone’s personal preferences."

Yes, yes it does. That the whole point of a governing body. If you do not like your countries attitudes or ideals, you have the option to emigrate or seek asylum elsewhere. One of the drawbacks to a society is that you have to conform to laws within that society and only a majority rule (where you have democracy) will change those laws.

However that is a seperate argument here and again I point out that even if you get rid of the BBFC and replace it with PEGI, you will still have the law in place that gives that ratings board's word force of law. Personally, I prefer the BBFC's ratings. They are clear, concise, universal (with film, video and dvd) and obvious.

DeusPayne:

"You can say fuck on TV. You just pay a fine. That’s no{sic} censorship, that’s regulation."

I can still sell copies of Manhunt 2 if I want to. I will be fined many thousands of pounds for my trouble but I guess I could set aside money to do so...

" “A program of this nature would NEVER make it to air in the US. I’m dubious it would make it to DVD either, but that is purely conjecture.” AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH *HUGE BREATH* HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Yeah… you’re just completely uninformed. Argument over…. impossible to talk to you. "

Logical Fallacy in your comments. Refusal to make an argument by attempting to ridicule or make Ad Hominen arguments doesn't add any weight to your credibility, it only seeks to lose it. Also given I make it clear that was conjecture on my part doesn't detract from the multitude of facts I gave you. And further more, are you suggesting you can get public autospys on US TV? Examples?

"so…. banning media is not a fundamental right? They’re both violating human rights, but one hasn’t been in service since 1910. If the patriot act hasn’t been completely destroyed by the time 100 years have gone by, I’ll concede the point. But until then…"

Media control isn't a human right as such. Certainly It is not contrary to any European Court of Human Rights Act that I am aware of and if you would care to quote any Act in whole or part that backs up your claims, I am happy to read it.

As for the assertion that the Patriot Act is okay because it will be gone in 100 years... wow... just wow. Thats the most stupid argument I've ever heard. In fact if it wasn't for the fact that it was so utterly obvious to do so as a rebuttal, I would point out that it is okay to ban Manhunt 2 because if it isn't overturned in 100 years I'll concede the point...

I'm going to defect to PEGI. I advise all the Brits on here to join me. Yes, all three of you.

Um. I was a little surprised by the claim that they "play the games right through all the levels, with the cheat codes, and spend a lot of time playing them so that they know what the content is."

How are they doing this? I play a lot of RPGs and those can be 40 to 60 hours long with at least 20 hours of story content. How do they "play the games right through all the levels" on games like that? And what are they using for cheat codes on the next gen consoles? I haven't found any cheat programs for those yet.

I'm a little dubious of their claims now. If they can back up that statement with proof I'm sure the ESRB would love to see it. Otherwise they are just giving more unsubstantiated fuel for all the folks who seem to want to destroy the ESRB and all the good work they've done.

DeusPayne@

"Logical fallacy in my argument? I figured the laughing hysterically was indication enough that the statement you made was completely untrue."

This is why it is a Logical Fallacy. If Jack Thompson called you a braindead moron, would that be a suitable reply to any question you asked him?

"Yes, those would make it on TV."

Do you have anything to back up this claim? Examples of any other such graphic dissections of the human body on your TV channels?

"And it pales in comparison to DVD sales (which can be sold unrated)"

Ok, fair enough. I'll concede that point. I might well be sold as an unrated DVD.

"First Amendment of the US constitution. For American citizens, we believe in this ABOVE ALL ELSE. Which is why it’s #1 on the amendments."

First Amendment is a US specific CONSTITUTIONAL right and NOT a HUMAN right which is what you claimed it was. Your Constitution means sweet F.A. in the UK or indeed Europe. Also a right to free speech isn't absolute, even in the US.

Look, you are obviously very passionate about your political ideals, but that is all that they are; ideals. It would be nice if we had no laws whatsoever and people respected one another enough to allow them to get on with their lives as they see fit without treading on one another's toes or interfering with their own beliefs. Sadly that isn't the society in which we live in, and that is true of every single country, province and state.

Cecil:

"Also I don’t know how the PEGI’s ratings really look like as I do not live in that area, and will not comment on it."

Here you go mate:

http://www.pegi.info/en/index/id/176

Also the age rating is 3+ 7+ 12+ 16+ and 18+ (which for some reason isn't immediately available and explained on PEGI's own site).


If you want to see the BBFC's ratings explaination that is here :

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/policy/index.php

Their Age ratings are across the top - Mouseover explains each one.

Yes, I realize that free speech is a US thing, but that doesn't stop people from believing that it's a human right. Yes, I understand you don't believe it is one, and I've conceded that I won't be able to convince you otherwise. It's one of those things that americans take for granted when the rest of the world seems to not agree. Sorry.

We have medical TV shows, both real and fiction. Watch House. People get needles in the eyeball. They show the operations in pretty gory detail. I believe Nip Tuck is the same way. But additionally, we have TV shows showing REAL surgery as well. I can't think of any names in particular, but I remember watching some show where they were documenting this womans plastic surgery. Everything from prep, to the surgery itself, to the recovery, all in gory detail.

Yeah, I'm sorry I'm so passionate about free speech. But it's just one of my hot buttons, especially with all the attempts to limit my free speech in the US as of late. I get real worked up about it, and come off like a HUGE ASSHOLE sometimes. Sorry.

In short, we take for granted the freedoms we have in the US, and that's part of the reason the world hates us. Sometimes we just feel so strongly about it, that we just can't understand how people can think otherwise. Does that make is self centered jackholes? YES! But please don't brush off what I've been saying. I'm glad this argument has toned down a bit, and we're conceding points. It's nice to see that all internet arguments don't end with "ZOMG! I HATE YOU AND THE DONKEY YOU RODE IN ON!" :p

Peace! I respect your views, even though they're different than mine. We can agree to disagree.

I agree with Helpless Kitten. I call bullshit on "BBFC plays all games all the way through". What kind of workforce do they have? Where are they finding the gamers willing to do this, and for what pay?

Warren,
I like the seperate boards, though I'm sure some folks would like there to be a common rating system from games to movies to TV to even books.

Something that they can look at any media format and see the same rating codes and recognize them because they've seen the use of the same codes in other media format ratings.

But, really, it doesn't take a high IQ to just understand that each system is unique and to learn a little about each one.

While it is good to see the seperate systems, it was still interesting in another article to see the mix of media formats come together in defense of Freedom of Speech (the coming together of the written (book) format with the video game media for example).

Were there a ratings board for the written medium, it would be kept seperate, yet both formats still have some similarity (in the form of storylines). But have both rated by a single ratings board? I don't think that would be a good idea. No more than have movies and games rated by the same ratings board.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

I believe the BBFC one is better than PEGI, simply because it's a universal rating system, which means you don't have to work out what each symbol means to get the answer as to how suitable a game or Movie is for someone.

If people wanted more information about why the game has the certification it has, there's an info box on the back with the catagories that illustrate what the game contains.

BBFC is independant, however it's backed up by force of law... same that PEGI would be if it became the universal standard... there'd be no real difference in how it would work here. Except for the fact the BBFC actually review parts of the games themselves, which PEGI doesn't.

To be honest getting a whole group of people to relearn the difference between the BBFC movie ratings and the PEGI game ratings would be doomed to fail in my opinion.. the PEGI ratings are just too clunky..

@ DeusPayne

"That’s no censorship, that’s regulation."

Censorship = regulation = Orwellian doublespeak.

My 2p: Both PEGI and the BBFC have their pros and cons - BBFC is more familiar and therefore more effective (plus it's a far more thorough and exact ratings process, even if the results rarely differ); PEGI operates across multiple national borders and is therefore less susceptible to pressure from any single Government.

Either way, whichever system gains dominance, it ought to be (and almost inevitably will be) backed up by law.

So, Nightwng2000 - if PEGI won out, but it's ratings were then made legally enforceable, would PEGI then merely be carrying out the will of the British Parliament?

Dues, given that most people are used to the BBFC movie ratings.. yes. For the average person one glance at the BBFC rating is enough.. along with the fact that there is an info box which actually outlines what there is in the game on the back of the box.

It's a simple system, and one which works.. surprisingly enough... the only reason a lot of people are jumping down the BBFC at the moment is because of their decision with the Manhunt 2 fiasco...

Take for example the symbol in the PEGI rating for swearing... doesn't say how much swearing is in the game now does it? Could be pretty mild for all we know... the BBFC infobox on the back of the game has catagories stating mild swearing, strong swearing ect...

I'm thinking here about the average parent and gamer, who uses the simple system here to decide, they won't know what all the PEGI symbols are and it'll only confuse the majority..

BBFC play games all the way?

Yeah, right! Suuuuuuuure. They just get shown movies of the worst bits by the publishers - looking at the online database proves that.

Sorry for the name typo btw.. Deus

I meant to people looking at the cover, to determine suitability. Some people might not like strong language, but are OK with the mild stuff... the PEGI symbols do not differentiate between the two.

Take for example my copy of FFT:War of the lions, the PEGI rating shows there's violence and swearing. It does NOT say how much of either is in the two...

Now lets take for example the BBFC rating of tony Haw's projects .. which is classed as a 12. In the info box it says contains strong language.. no symbol.. just an out and out statement of what some people could find questionable..

This is the difference... PEGI is overly complicated, yet too vague to really do much good.

@ Gift: You've obviously never seen a game or movie rated by the BBFC if you think their ratings are merely words on the back of the box.

@ IanC and all those who don't believe the BBFC actually the play the games their tasked with rating:

You can judge the credibility of the system for yourself in the following three interviews - personally I think it’s a reasonable system (certainly better than PEGI’s, at any rate).

• Gamespot interviews BBFC examiner

• Joystiq: BBFC interview

• MCV interviews the BBFC on violence in games

/OT: The irony? We're arguing about free speech on a blog that censors ("moderates") your posts if you embed more than two hyperlinks in it.

MonkeyThumbs,
OT: Sort of. We know that private individuals and organizations censor their own property, their "home" if you will. However, when the government censors, it is all sweeping. Not merely its own property, but other individuals' and organizations as well.

If GP decides to censor, or even ban, a particular post/member, that particular individual is always welcome to try to post elsewhere. GP has "opinion" influence elsewhere, maybe, but not "control" influence.

GP can't, for example, say "We've banned X for this reason. So all other interactive gaming news sites MUST ban X as well." Nor can GP say "We've censored this post of X, and all interactive gaming news sites must censor the exact same post if attempted by X."

GP could, if it wanted to, make a statement to one or more heads of sites and say "We've had to ban X because of their actions. They seem to be acting this way elsewhere, even on your site. Just thought you might want to keep an eye out." Naturally, that/those sites could ignore GP's comments, or take them into consideration, or simply ban X on their site right off.

The government, however, just simply says "We don't like X. We've made it law that NO ONE should like X and X is banned everywhere." That's the difference between government and private censorship/bans.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

@ Monkeythumbs

GP doesn't delete comments that have more than two comments. The stupid Spam filter does. I try to fix all those sorts of things when I can, but often I am too late. Spam filters are not people and their actions do not reflect the views of GP.

• Joystiq: BBFC interview

• MCV interviews the BBFC on violence in games

@ Monkeythumbs

I can see why that was flagged. Th espam filter doesn't like lists. Especially lists of links. :(

@ DeusPayne

I don't know any details, but it is under consideration.

Aw, looks like I missed all the good chances to set myself up for a good flaming, so I'll just have to say that the pro-BBFC people do make some good points here. And so do the anti-BBFCers.

The PEGI system is better in that it breaks down the reason behind the rating, but it fails because its pictograms are so... weird. The BBFC slaps an 18 on something as an alert and then tells you whether it has sexual themes, excessive violence, or just a hell of a lot of bad language in words on the back of the box. The PEGI system tries to tell you a little more, but have you seen the "discrimination" sticker? What the heck?

The BBFC says it plays the games in entirety, using cheat codes and such to see as much of it as they expect the player to. While it's easy to jump on this comment by pointing out that some games can't be completed, it's flat-out wrong to suggest that none can. With the exception of well-hidden or disabled easter eggs, most games can be experienced in full by turning on god mode and having access to an archive of saves. MMORPGs and the like generally aren't rated by the BBFC but their content can still be known.

Blanket comment to those saying "omg CENSORSHIP is BAD and UNAMERICAN": Why does the European version of Indigo Prophecy, Fahrenheit, have more sex scenes? Why was San Andreas poster child for bad behaviour for a year but it took a clothed dry-hump sex game for it to get temporarily pulled off shelves? Why can't you say the c word on TV without issuing a public apology?

The BBFC, for better or worse, works. It's not perfect, and the more the people behind it open their mouths the worse their public image gets, but as a rating system it does its job of informing and... well, rating games.

@ Matthew

Those game examples you shared, are perfectly valid games. They would have recieved an AO rating before being edited. The problem does not lie with the ESRB or the government though. It lies with the console companies and retailers.

As gamers, it has been voiced by us numerous times for both of those parties to respectthe AO rating and allow them. But our voices fall on deaf ears.

I do find it odd that these same businesses will allow the 18+ version of those games outside the US but not in the US. Very strange.

But then again, sex is more taboo here than Europe.

@EZK:

Indigo Prophecy is available for digital download, right? I know it's on the 360's marketplace Xbox Originals option, and I'm pretty certain I've seen it on the likes of Steam or Metaboli. Does anyone know if the US PC download version, which is as far from console and retail influence as it could possibly be, contains the uncut sex scenes?

Mass Effect was classified 12 by the BBFC. It has consumer advice on the box and more-over, if you go to their website it gives you even more information on exactly why it was rated that way.

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/cc835097120af09d802573590...

Usually if you write to them with a query/complaint they'll give you even more detail as well.

”Oh shut up with your FUD.” - Oh your kidding right?

Sorry, what does “FUD” mean?


Andrew Eisen

NightWing:

"“Bought and paid for”, as you well know, is not limited to funding."

Actually yes it is. Unless you plan on rewriting the English language, lets stick to the agreed meaning of words.

"However, as it is manipulated by government political demands, then the BBFC is, in effect, owned and operated by the government."

Again, no proof, you just rant and rave that it is the case just as Jack Thompson claims games make you braindead serial killers. You are definitely no better than he is in that respect.

If you cannot back up your claims then your position is untenable and repeating it loudly with your fingers in your ears over and over just makes you look stupid.

Monkeythumbs,

Thanks. I was pretty sure he didn't mean "Female Urination Device." And I'm sure he does have a point. I've no idea what that point is but I'm sure he has one.


Andrew Eisen

Wheelchair... your approaching a slippery slope there. What determines offensive? I'm offended by red hair (not really... but you get the point I'm making hopefully) Just because they take into account social conventions doesn't necessarily make them 'better' or 'worse'. Just be careful about that

@E. Zachary Knight

The BBFC's consumer advice and explanation of the "sex scene" in Mass Effect explicitly mentions it. In fact, that's how news of it got out prior to the release of the game.

There is a lot of good discussion on this subject here but also a lot of speculation based on little or no research.

It's been said repeatedly that the BBFC spend a significant amount of time playing all of the games they do rate themselves when determining ratings. That's certainly not true of every ratings body. Moreover, there shouldn't be a debate about whether they played that part of the game or not, it's abundantly clear they did.

@ EZK

The BBFC don't enforce anything -n they're merely an (independent) ratings body. If anything, it's the Givernment following the BBFC's ratings rather than the BBFC following the Government policy.

That is to say, the BBFC assigns ratings individual games/movies free Government involvement. It's then up to the Government to ensure cinemas and retailers abide by the BBFCs ratings.

C'mon mate, you're normally the sharpest one here - what's so tricky to comprehend? It's true that BBFCs decision carry legal power -m in that way they are part of the Establishment, like the Courts, state schools, the NHS, etc etc. But, like the courts, they make their decisions independent from Government and can disagree with the wishes/desires of Government policy with no fear of recourse.

Of course, the point your making is that if the BBFC continually went against Government wishes, then they could be replaced. However, the reality is that the Government couldn't do so without looking heavy handed and draconian, so really their hands are tied unless they can provide a suitable alternative. This is the situation in which we now find ourselves.

The sad truth is that the Government probably thinks the BBFC are too lenient. The BBFC are actually rather popular over here, and it's rare that an institution gains any level of popularity in robust a democracy as the Uk's without doing some genuine good.

Damnit, I forgot the period.Sorry.

http://www.pegi.info/en/index/id/176/

According to this site, the form used to rate games has been developed with the corporation of consumers, parents and religious groups such as say the Catholic Church etc. And here I thought we lived in a somewhat secular society in which religigous control over, oh say, games, were almost non-existant, if if not totally wiped out - by law. Sorry to sound so harsh, but I simply can't stand when any religious group thinks it has a moral right to say something in a non-religius matter.

Apparently it is the publishers themselves that suggest a rating e.g. Microsoft has suggested that the game be rated Mature in the US while Microsoft has suggested Mass Effect to be rated 18+ in (most of) Europe.

This could actually mean that Microsoft (at least in Europe) partly suggested an 18+ rating for Mass Effect since there is partial nudity in Mass Effect. If this is so, I find this highly disturbing.

At least Germany and the UK seems to play the games before they hand out a rating, Germany's rating being 16+ while the UK's rating being 12+.
I agree with Germany's rating, but strongly disagree with the UK's rating of Mass Effect.

As for the whole Government thing, I think us Europeans (to put it that way) know quite well that an organization like the BBFC is an independent organization, which makes it own decisions - even if it is funded (in part) by the government. (if it still is this?) In Denmark, and probably in other European countries as well we have thing called 'the arms-length principle.* This means that even if an organization is funded partly or fully by the government, the organization must be allowed to made its own decisions on say how games should be rated.

And as for the Manhunt 2 incident, I remember quite distinctly reading somewhere (I think it was on kotaku?) that the decision to not rate the game was appealed and that His Lordship (forgot his name, sorry) looked into it and investigated it. And it appeared before the House of Lords, I think, or at least in a comittee or some such things in the House of Lords.
(The House of Lords also has the function of the Highest Court (or supreme court) in the UK, I think).

I think the outcame came to be or is to be that Manhunt 2 will be given a rating and that the rating is 18+

If you want a job by the BBFC you just write to them, I think. And if you were hired, you would of course have to play through the games that are assigned for you to play. And some of these games might be games like Baribie's Horse Adventure.

Grizzam,

"I guess nothing could stop something like that dumbass “Hot Coffee Mod” thing from happening. Damnit."

In the wake of Hot Coffee, the ESRB altered its rules so that all content on a game disc, whether accessible or not, must be disclosed.


Andrew Eisen

@Grizzam,

Thing is, they check the cheat codes that are built into the game, i.e. the console commands and stuff like that, if there had been a set of keys you could press to obtain access to Hot Coffee, as many of its attackers would lead you to believe, then T2 would have been in violation with their agreement with the BBFC and would have had their game withdrawn for re-evaluation, as it was, you actually needed to physically alter installed files in order to release the code, it wasn't put there as a 'surprise' as such, it was more deliberately disabled, but not deleted. As programming practices go, that's not really an uncommon thing to do, however, I suppose it is good practice to remove that stuff before a final compile.

It's like the Manhunt 2 'no static' hack, in order to make it work, you need to break your User Agreement with T2, just like the 'Video Games made me do it' defence, it is an attempt to make the industry responsible for any illegal action committed by any customer that involves or is even in contact with their product, whether that be shooting up a school or altering the content of the game using a device that is illegal in most of the Western World in order to remove a shader effect or obtain access to deliberately disabled code.

An absolutely abysmal job was done in the PR over Hot Coffee, that was what damaged T2 and Rockstar over it, simple honesty would have been a far wiser course, but by dodging and weaving, they made themselves look far more complicit in the event than they actually where, and people like Clinton and Thompson jumped on that indecision and manipulated it to serve their own agendas.

@Andrew Eisen and GoodRobotUs

Thanks again.

@Matthew

Not sure of the game you're referring to but it reminds me of the incident with one of the tiger woods golf games for PS2 (I think it was the non-pc one) containing the original south park pilot & that caused a recall.

@ Chuma

I am sorry. I didn't realize that Britain was ruled by a non government government. My mistake. How could I have possibly thought that all those law creating bodies were not part of the British government.

Also I didn't realize that you public and government funded law enforcement agencies were not part of the government. I also didn't realize that they receive no funding from the government.

So let me ask you, if your government doesn't create laws, nor do they enforce them, What does your government do?

Here in the US, we have a government that creates laws and enforces them. I can't imagine a government that does not.

Uh, so the House of Commons isn't part of the government? So just what is part of the government in the UK?

Chuma,
Seriously, you need to stop. Rewriting reality is not your forte. And the continued personal attacks by comparing me to John Bruce is just plain sad. Really, if I wanted to commit the same act, I could based on your own attitudes. But I don't need to. Your own posts prove you lack proper education.

Government:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government

"A government is "the organization, that is the governing authority of a political unit,"[1] "the ruling power in a political society,"[2] and the apparatus through which a governing body functions and exercises authority.[3] "Government, with the authority to make laws, to adjudicate disputes, and to issue administrative decisions, and with a monopoly of authorized force where it fails to persuade, is an indispensable means, proximately, to the peace of communal life."[4] Statist theorists maintain that the necessity of government derives from the fact that the people need to live in communities, yet personal autonomy must be constrained in these communities.[4]"

Government manipulation of BBFC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bbfc
While the article states:
"The Board is an independent, non-governmental organisation."
The article also points out that the government has influenced the BBFC:
"Informal links, to varying degrees of closeness, have been maintained between the BBFC and the Government throughout the Board's existence. ..."

Oh, you'll also note the word "government" is used in this article. I guess the "government" DOES exist and has contact with the BBFC.

Also note that while the article refers to the various controversies surrounding the BBFC, it doesn't mention the more specific political influences taking place before or during the BBFC's review and classification. And, yes, the case of Manhunt 2 DOES count as an example. The political pressure by the likes of Keith Vaz and others very much held sway over the BBFC's decision. Indeed, politicians throwing out the issue of law as it related to the classification would have concerned the BBFC as their standing with politicians was therefore in jeapordy. Go against the politiicans, be voted out and replaced. Their value to the government exists only as long as the BBFC follows the demands of the government. Without the government, the BBFC would be nothing more than what the PTC is. Or perhaps they would be what the MPAA and ESRB are. And while the BBFC would then be considered more reliable, a different group would be under the control, even indirectly, of the government. Hence, their reviews and classifications are "bought and paid for" by the government.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

There is a clear difference between a government body and one involved with law. The BBC (that's the telly people, not a typo), for instance, is not a government body. However, the law says you have to pay them a licence fee if you own a TV. Fail to do so and you're breaking the law.

The government makes the rules and enforces them. In this case there is a rule which says that all games must be rated before they can be sold. It doesn't say that the BBFC has to rate them; most games get by with a PEGI sticker.

The BBFC is not controlled, maintained, influenced, or funded by the government. It rates independently and slaps its stickers on boxes. The government simply says that boxes have to have stickers on them. The BBFC does a job that *could* be handled by a government department, but crucially *isn't*.

deftangel:

"For the second time, ALL of the BBFC’s fees come from the industry."

Thankyou for that mate. I looked at various websites for how the BBFC was funded, even their official one but couldnt find anything conclusive. I suspected as much but I don't like to claim something is factually true without having at least read it somewhere once :)

"And secondly, there are a couple of guys here who appear to have an excellent understanding of how the organisation functions, probably because they have direct experience with it like myself. It’s an independent organisation, period. Quit with the FUD."

I have to say I personally don't have any *direct* experience with the BBFC, though if they ever wanted me as a rater that would be a job for life for me :) Guess I'll have to stick to reviewing instead.

Who decides who can get a licence to practice medicine? Ultimately, the government. When a doctor gains this licence, does he become a government agent? The BBFC has been granted a licence to issue ratings. The law says to retailers that they can't sell games to people under the age rating. The BBFC does not enforce this law, nor does it control it.

On a completely different track, try this. If you claim that the BBFC, which both the government and the BBFC itself state is an independent body, is actually a government body, then you're alleging corruption on both parts.

@ Matthew

I hope my previous post answers your question. But in case it doesn't, here you go:

A doctor practices medicine. While they need a government required license to practice, stitching wounds and performing open heart surgery is not a law. As far as I know there is no law that states that every citizen needs a well functioning heart.

The BBFC on the other hand enforces the part of the law that states that all games and movies must have a rating. So, although indirectly, they are part of the government.

Chuma and deftangel,
Perhaps I need to speaky in kindergarten speech for the two of you to comprehend:
UK government (yes, government. Roses and all that.): We don't like this product.
BBFC: You can't tell us what to do.
UK government: We don't like this product. It's bad for people.
BBFC: You can't tell us what to do.
UK government: We don't like this product. It's bad for people. Keep it away from people or else.
BBFC: Or else what?
UK government: Or else we find someone else to play with and you be nobody.
BBFC: Oh. Ok. We keep it away from people. But you still can't tell us what to do.
UK government: Nah, we wouldn't do that. ;O

Again, bought and paid for is not always financial.

If an organization demands that a politician vote a certain way on a bill lest that politician be voted out of office through political pressure, and the politician yields to the demands, despite being opposed to the bill, then that politician is still "bought and paid for".

Chuma, the influence HAS been proven. It wasn't proven for each and every case the BBFC has faced in that specific article. But as I did point out, one of the most reacent cases of influence has been proven in the Manhunt 2 case. Political pressure WAS brought to bear on the BBFC from several fronts. The fact that you closed your eyes to that part of the post shows you would do so if someone spent time cataloging BBFC decisions with political outcry at specific products.

And, again, the need to go through a legal court system to appeal BBFC decisions rather than an independant process is another sign of political manipulation. As was proven with the Manhunt 2 case.

You dismissed the points about other companies and producers of media bowing to the BBFC cuts as rants. Yet, the effect of such companies appealing the BBFC decisions was proven in the Manhunt 2 case. Companies knew already what would happen if they chose to appeal a particularlly politically controversial issue the BBFC wanted cut. It took Rockstar to push the appeal to prove it.

You can claim the BBFC is indenpendant. Wikipedia will quote the claim by BBFC that it is independant (after all, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about opinion but straightforward reported information).

But the actions of the BBFC in the past prove they are influenced by political demands.

You can close your eyes to the manipulation of the BBFC all you want. It won't change the fact that it DOES and HAS happened.

Also, as I said, rewriting history isn't your forte. I didn't say you were "uneducated" or "stupid", I said you needed a "proper education" regarding "government". I did, obviously, have to dumb-down the explaination of "bought and paid for" to explain, as I've tried to do at a reasonable level previously, its meaning. I would hate to think that political favors and political manipulation were just so accepted standard practice in the UK government that it is considered an honorable and ethical by the citizens. I wouldn't want to consider the acceptance of such practice a cultural difference between the US and UK. But if so, then I finally, truly understand where your support for the BBFC comes from.

Perhaps that's why politicians are constantly referring to each other as "My right good honorable friend". The politicians have to keep saying it to believe it. And the citizens just follow suit. Say it enough times and it must be true.

Here, while it makes for good sensationalism news stories, too much political manipulation and corruption can get one tossed out on their arse. And in some cases, even face prison time.

Perhaps it really is a cultural thing I'll never understand.

Thank goodness.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

E Zachary Knight:

"My point was that all those organizations you listed are a part of the government."

And my point was you are wrong; they aren't. Do I really need to keep repeating myself over and over?

"The BBFC while independant of all other bodies, is part of the government because it is part of the law enforcing body on video game and movie ratings."

*Repeats again...* Actually no. The BBFC make ratings on games. The laws are enforced by Trading Standards, the Police, the Crown Prosecution service and Judges.

"They may not have direct control of actual enforcement, but they have control of what games get rated and which ones don’t."

Seperate issue. Do not confuse the two. Refusal to rate is a rarity and only 2 games have ever been refused rating and 1 of those was overturned on appeal (Yes, there is an appeals panel called the Video Appeals Committee). One of their functions is to refuse a rating to any game it doesn't believe warrents an 18. Whether you like this function or not, it doesn't have an autocracy on this and hence there is another panel to review decisions and overturn them. This is an intelligent system in my humble opinion.

"But every member of the Senate or Congress is part of the government. Also the FBI, local police forces and the Judicial system are also bodies created by the government to enforce laws created by the government. So they are directly involved with the government."

You clearly have difficulty in understanding what a Government is. I suggest you go look it up.

"Here in the US, a citizen can report a crime and also detain a criminal, but they cannot make an arrest, nor can they charge a criminal. All charges of a crime come from a government agency."

Well here in the UK we can. It is called a "Citizen's Arrest". Heres a link, scroll down to England and Wales. In Scotland you are allowed to assist an officer of the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest

"But as I said, The BBFC because they enforce the part of the law that all games and movies are rated, they are part of the government."

No. Just.... no. Now rather than you keep repeating yourself and having me and others telling you you are wrong, do some research and then come back.

Nightwing:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

See Appeal To Ridicule, Misleading Vividness and Burden of Proof.

You little speech and fake conversation are nothing more than conjecture on your part. That you made it up is not proof that such a conversation ever has or ever will take place. In short you have no evidence to your wild claims what so ever.

"Again, bought and paid for is not always financial."

Well clearly only one of us understands the English language then.

"Chuma, the influence HAS been proven. It wasn’t proven for each and every case the BBFC has faced in that specific article. But as I did point out, one of the most reacent cases of influence has been proven in the Manhunt 2 case."

OH! It WAS proven! Why didnt you say so? And ofcourse you have this proof to show to everyone rather than us just taking your word for it?

Well? I'm waiting... wheres this proof? I'm sure the UK Press would be eager to see it.

There was much more repetitious nonsense after that but I got bored of reading the same sentences over and over claiming that the BBFC was influenced and you know better than everyone else. The real fact is that you have nothing but wild speculation and appeal to ignorance on your side. The burden of proof of these allegations is with you.

Either you back up your claims with something, ANYTHING that comes close to evidence or quit telling people that you know better. You sound like a conspiracy theorist.

If the BBFC was truly a non-governmental entity then its ratings wouldn't hold as much weight of law as they appear to do. But for those like Chuma, perhaps it would be best if you just admitted that the BBFC was a governmental body, the other option is that the government handed over your rights to some company.

Matthew,
Currently, the ESRB is totally independant. The stickers on the products rated by them are placed there because the industry supports the ESRB. Not because of law or regulation. And retailers adhere, or not, to the ESRB ratings by choice, not by law or regulation.

It's the same with the MPAA rating system.

Now, imagine the FTC/FCC say they want to create a joint board for the regulation of media rating. They will create laws, policies, and regulations, which will adhere to an independant rating board(s).

They choose the MPAA and ESRB as the ratings boards that retailers must adhere to. But the boards are still claimed to be independant.

Knowing the previous political outcrys by politicians, organizations screaming to citizens AND politicians, and the involvment of the FTC and/or FCC in various situations, would you feel secure that the MPAA and ESRB ratings were not manipulated by the government?

After all, if such a regulatory body were created, WHOSE stickers would be on the product? Especially, if for some reason, the newly created body decided that the MPAA and/or the ESRB were not doing the job the government wanted. Suppose the regulatory board decided that their independant ratings board were to be the PTC instead of the MPAA and/or ESRB. Whose stickers would appear prominent on the product? Whose ratings would be required to be adhered to by retailers and consumers? Whose ratings would be required to appear in advertisements?

It's the same with the BBFC. If the BBFC is no longer the government recognized ratings board, whose ratings will be enforced by the government? Whose ratings will appear on the product? Whose ratings will be required to be advertised?

Is the BBFC truly independant or only independant so long as they are in favor with the government? And if the latter, then can they really be called independant?

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

@EZK: The BBFC doesn't enforce the law that all games must be rated. It provides ratings for games. All vehicles must be MOT-tested, but MOT test centres aren't there enforcing that law nor are they government agencies.

@chuma: Psst, I'm agreeing that it's independent. It's also quite a fishy establishment, but that's a different kettle entirely. The BBFC doesn't *enforce* the law that games must be rated; it *complies* to it.

@Monkeythumbs "You’ve obviously never seen a game or movie rated by the BBFC if you think their ratings are merely words on the back of the box."

Well let's skip over the obviously ludicrous exaggeration of that statement, as a British citizen I can hardly have missed BBFC certifications, and let's look at an example. I'm currently looking at a copy of Eldar scrolls IV. It has a BBFC 15 certificate on the front while on the reverse it has the cert repeated complete with "contains moderate violence" in small letters.

This picture is very similar in fact.

Well that's just one example so let's be charitable and pick a few games off of my shelf for a litte more data. Let's see,

I have Hellgate London 15 cert on the front, and a 15 cert on the reverse complete with "Contains strong violence and horror". No more info than that.

Quake 4, 18 front, 18 reverse with "contains strong bloody violence".

Half life 2, 15 Front, 15 reverse... no writing, just a white box.

I'm open to correction of course, but you tell me where the BBFC supplies more information on the box art and I'll gladly look. Until then I stand by my point, the certification may be easy to spot but the details are small print on the rear of the box... that's less than ideal if you're out shopping and want a quick, obvious description of game content, writing 1-2.5mm high isn't great. Even if the BBFC have great description's elsewhere that's no good to a parent contemplating whether to buy in a shop.

Gift.

Oh and regarding independence of the BBFC, I don't recognise the argument that US citizens can't understand a UK position (whatever that really is in this case); waving a flag does nothing to explain why anyone should like or dislike the BBFC. Moreover, I'm English and I don't value the alleged independence of the BBFC so let's not go making sweeping statements; accident of birth means very little, no nation speaks as one voice.

Don't get me wrong though, that I don't have to pay for the BBFC via direct taxation is nice. However, the BBFC is still appointed an authority at the Home Office's discretion, and the BBFC invariably recruits ex-civil servants/journalists/politicians as Directors, i.e. people have been professionally involved in politics for years.

Gift.

@Andrew Eisen

The spider means "fear", the fist means "violence" and the silhouettes you speak of apparently mean "descrimination".

Andrew,

I agree. Don't know why they have to use cutsey sybols as apposed to just putting it in words. That seems a lot simpler.

RE: Gift.

Speaking as both a civil Servant and a journalist, I find the implication that it somehow means that I'm involved in politics and therefore unable to give an unbiased opinion, both insulting and idiotic.

RE: E Zachary Knight

As I said in my comment earlier, the fact that the BBFC was appointed by HM Govt in order to maintain the legal situation regarding media ratings, that doesn't mean it's going to be disbanded like a department of Disney.
The UK doesn't work that way, we're sticklers for tradition. In fact
short of a V for Vendetta type of fascist takeover i cannot envision anyone getting rid of the BBFC.

Game Over.

I think you are confusing public servant with a civil one. The Prime minister for example isn't a civil servant, and civil servents aren't usually allowed to be journalists ;). However, let's not argue semantics and concede the point regarding over simplifying. I'll qualify my statement:

BBFC Directors are usually appointed from High ranking civil servants, influential journalist (one founded a paper for example) or have actually served as politicians. Now properly qualified, I hope you can see why I feel "independent" is too strong a term.

It's not a case of seeing a conspiracy, I do not believe there is actual collusion, only that baggage is brought to the job (perhaps more so than ever in our currently "spin savvy" political environment). I'd view the BBFC as more independent if its board was more diverse, and the Director didn't have such a powerful influence over policy. As it stands the BBFC Director is position very much drawn from the establishment and consequently reflects their concerns. To date Whittam Smith is really the director to have significantly bucked the trend, and eased off on censorship despite drawing fire from the tabloid press. Certainly his successor has no truck with making certification advisory cf. statutory. Indeed, I wonder how independent the BBFC will remain given Thomas' willingness to listen to the more reactionary quarters of the British press? If the likes of the Daily Mail are "part of the evidence that the board must take into account" during certification how many more Manhunt 2s will we have?

Anyway I'm going off at a tangent so I'll stop there. Again sorry if you felt I was rude, that was not my intention I'm just voicing my discomfort with the way the BBFC functions and the forces that act upon it.

Gift.

Oh, and the reason why the PEGI symbols are symbols is probably the Pan-European part of it. The symbols are described in the printed manuals and on some boxes in whatever language the rest of the text is. When they just have to slap a symbol on something for the entire market, they simply don't have the room to put all the translations.

@ Matthew

You laughed at my medicine example earlier but think it over. A government body could remove my doctor’s licence to practice medicine; does this mean he is government-controlled?

You are putting words in my mouth. I said a doctor is not part of the government because they don't enforce laws or create them. The BBFC enforces laws.

The government could say “play it our way or we’ll remove your licence.” Thus, they’re ultimately under the thumb of the government.

Except if they did, then that would be government exerting influence over a private company and would be something of a scandal.

Are you saying that the government will avoid doing something scandalous? I find that very hard to believe. Governments always do scandalous things, whether you hear about them or not.

E Zachary Knight:

"Okay. I give. I will accept solely on your word that an organization that was given authority by the government and can have that same authority taken away by that same government is completely independent of the government."

You could ofcourse take the huge weight of evidence that adds credence to my words instead? That or you could accept that there is no proof of government interference that you or Nightwing can offer. If you find such proof (or more likely, someone else finds it and you read about it) please feel free to post it and I will adjust my views accordingly. Until that time though, I will stick to innocent until proven guilty.

"Are you saying that the government will avoid doing something scandalous? I find that very hard to believe. Governments always do scandalous things, whether you hear about them or not."

Ah, so your argument that the government controls the BBFC hinges on the fact that governments occasionally do shady things without telling anyone. Are you saying thet government *does* openly tell the BBFC what to do, or that it *might* be doing that in secret? In the first case, that's wrong because nobody is open about that happening. In the second case, that's a conspiracy theory which explains why we've hit 167 comments trying to pry it apart.

"Because I think it was deemed to be more beneficial to the UK Citizens for such decisions to be made independant of government. I personally like the idea of someone without a political agenda deciding on content rather than a conservative/labour government scoring points on doing things for kids etc."


And you are actually okay with your government selling out your rights like this to some company? Why don't YOU decide on the content you view?

Also, would you be okay if say, McDonalds got to choose your sexual orientation for you? Just how far are you willing to go with the government contracting out your freedoms?

@ Matthew

The BBFC essentially gives a game a license to be sold in the UK. I think that is a little different than a doctor.

E Zachary Knight:

I'll back track slightly as I was my own badly phrased comment that led you to say that I gave no evidence. I'll adjust. The huge body of evidence should really read the insistance on it being independant and having done a good job without any reported interference from government over 90+ years.

However my comment on the burden of proof still stands. If you are going to accuse someone of something, you have to have evidence to back it up. I cannot use the lack of evidence to the contrary as proof. The example given was :

A "People are psychic"
B "How do you know this? Where is your proof?"
A "There is no proof that people are not psychic"

This is a flawed argument.

Another way to put it beyond innocent until proven guilty is that you cannot assume someone or some organisation of being corrupt by default unless they are shown to be clean. You have to assume they are clean until there is evidence to prove they are corrupt. The burden of proof is always with the positive, not the negative.

Congratulations, Matthew. You've just shown how an "independant" could be manipulated by the government. Jolly good job.

"The law says that all games must be rated by someone with a licence to do so. They granted the BBFC one of those licences. They cannot tell the BBFC how to rate, but could in theory remove the licence if they suspected foul play."

How many organizations can be licensed to rate games in the same location? Can BOTH the BBFC and PEGI be licensed at the same time?
The license is the governments sticker of approval.
Would the government choose an organization that would OPPOSE the stance of the current sitting government?
What happens if the BBFC DOES step out of line with the desires of the politicians and thus fall out of favor with the current sitting government?
Do you really think the BBFC would risk their license by stepping outside what the government wants them to do?
They could make risky decisions based on their opinion of the current political situation. But how often can they push those limits?

Whether there has been or is currently direct or even indirect manipulation of the BBFC is irrelevant.

You've just shown that the government DOES have the one tool that could be used to manipulate the BBFC.

And if the PEGI replaced the BBFC and was required to have a license, ie a sticker of government approval, then they too would be in the exact same boat.

As Zachary and many US citizens know, just offering gifts, financial or otherwise, either to a politician, or a politician giving such gifts (even the granting of a business license), places them in a questionable position. Doesn't matter if anything really is given or even offered in return. The mere giving of the gift makes the situation questionable. Which is why we have laws prohibiting or limiting such actions.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

Nightwing:

"Congratulations, Matthew. You’ve just shown how an “independant” ***could*** be manipulated by the government. Jolly good job."

COULD.

I COULD be importing in drugs and selling them to children. I COULD be the head of an armed criminal gang. I COULD be the most corrupt man alive... but I'm not.

Just because something COULD happen, does not mean that it WOULD or WILL or HAS. So sorry you have such a hard time accepting this.

Nightwing:

That you do not trust the government is not reason to accuse either it or independant organisations it has approved of being corrupt. Your argument is irrational and without basis and when you are called on it and asked for any proof you go on a conspiritorial rant and take it to extremes. An example of which is:

"You clearly have blind faith in your government to the degree that if they say an action is honorable and ethical well then, it must be so because they say it is so."

Nope, I don't trust the government because it has lied about the Iraq war, lied about dealing with the trains, has set up the NHS, Education and Police forces to be entirely target based rather than dealing with people individually, backtracked on referendums on Europe... I could go on. So no, I dont trust the government.

BUT

That does not mean that in this instance it is going to spend its time doing the job for BBFC or overstepping its boundaries and there is NO proof it has even attempted to do so, let alone the notion that the BBFC would allow it. Maybe you should have a good read of the debate being had about the BBFC and see what some of the MPs have to say on the matter. You will note that a fair few times some of them disagree with ratings BBFC gave movies and games on an individual level but think they do a very good job overall. sure if the government was dictating what should and should not be an 18 cert then there would be no disagreements...


And this is why I form my opinions based around factual evidence and you just base yours on ill-conceived notions of your own suspicious nature. I am tempted to ask you if you believe in Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster though...

lumi:

'Bought and paid for' outside of its literal context is used to describe someone 'in pocket' i,e, through bribary, extortion or other means. As a financial incentive is most often used, or at least soemthing of value to the person 'in pocket', it can therefore be said that Nightwing's use of the phrase is completely false. First of all there is no evidence or implication that the BBFC are given any orders let alone that they follow them. Secondly, there is no incentive or any dark and shady reason for them to do so - the ratings board has been in charge for 90+ years so to suggest that they are suddenly under threat due to government pressure to rate games and movies itself is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Way to go to call me a "jackass" though. Obviously you are taking the moral highground in the argument... *eyeroll*

"As for your apparent inability to understand what constitutes a body of (your own!) government, like, say, the bodies that draft and pass your own laws… I call willful feigned ignorance again. You can’t be that stupid. And no, this isn’t a “cultural difference”. THEY MAKE YOUR LAWS. THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT."

I'll add you to the list of people unable to grasp the concept of an independant body.

"As for your precious “proof”, I’m pretty sure it’s already been cited elsewhere in this thread. Please, do correct me if I’m wrong, but it was admitted in the British media after the Manhunt 2 debacle cooled off that the game WAS singled out to be a “line in the sand”, and that it “wasn’t as bad as it was made out to be”."

Sure, I'm happy to correct you. The BBFC decided that the game had crossed a moral line in its own judgment. The implication that Gordon Brown had a quiet word with the BBFC and made threats over a single title is ludicrous and conspiritorial when there is just the simple option that the BBFC themselves decided it was a step too far. Since then there has been an appeals process put into action and Manhunt 2 may yet get a rating anyway.

Why people like you and Nightwing insist on assuming the worst without any evidence rather than the very simple explanation that follows what has gone on over the 90+ years of the companies history is beyond me. The BBFC have refused to classify things in the past and may well continue to do so. Overtime some of their ratings have lowered and some previously banned films for example have been rated to suit the changing moral times.

"Think what you will about the difference between you Brits and us dirty yanks, but your government is roughly as corrupt as ours, which is certainly no shining paragon of virtue on the world stage. And yeah, I’m making an assertion without backing it up with a citation there; you really want to dispute that one?"

That implication has never been made by me, in fact I quickly listed a bunch of reasons why I would never vote for this government at a general election and have voted Lib Dem for the last 10 years.

"Honestly, this whole argument reeks of ignorance, willful and otherwise, and bruised egos. Your precious BBFC is subject to government corruption, boo hoo. It doesn’t make them the only such body, not even close, but don’t pretend they aren’t."

You have no proof, but you insist you are right and refuse to listen to any obvious responses because you are so blinded by your willfullness to believe something without evidence. Have you met Jack Thompson? You two have something in common now.

"As for the article itself… I am unfamiliar with the PEGI system, but I’m inclined to say I’d rather see a multi-national system in charge simply because it would be harder for governmental pressure to be applied, since they answer to many different governments."

Given you could have gone to the PEGI website and had a look, I guess this proves you are unwilling to do any research yourself on a subject before forming opinions. Colour me unsurprised...

Nightwing:

Thanks for that rant. I think after accusing every government official and royal in the UK of being morally corrupt we can see you for the nasty little racist you are.

Chuma,
Clearly, that government brainwashing has killed nearly 90 percernt or greater of your reasoning capabilities.

Racist? Where the bloody hell did that come from? What has the color of skin got to do with squat? Seriously, your abilities at the "shell game" are falling apart. Now you're actually playing the race card? Maybe we should call that the Chuma Law, similar to Godwin's Law. Bringing up the race card in a discuassion that has absolutely NOTHING to do with race ends the discussion and is an instant loss for whoever tried to use it.

Really, that's pretty pathetic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28classification_of_human_beings%29

"The term race refers to the concept of dividing people into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of characteristics and beliefs about common ancestry.[1] The most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color, cranial or facial features and hair texture), and self-identification."

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

Kind of you to embolden "descent" in there, too. 50% of my anscestry traces right back to the U.K.

Has nothing to do with race and everything to do with observations of your media and government.

Given you have no evidence that Nightwing isn't the same, and there's a decent statistical chance that he is, I disagree.

@ Nightwing

It's like talking to a wall, you know?