Law blooper lets kids buy adult games

By Kath Brice Published 25 August, 2009

Loophole stops shop prosecution.

A legal blunder made 25 years ago means that retailers selling adult rated games and DVDs to children can no longer be prosecuted for their actions.

Dozens of prosecutions made under the Video Recordings Act, brought in by Margaret Thatcher's government in 1984, have been dropped after it emerged an administration error meant the European Commission hadn't been notified of the law.

The BBC reports that culture, media and sport minister Barbara Follett has written to the industry bodies to inform them the act is "no longer enforceable". She has, however, asked them to handle the situation with "care and sensitivity" to ensure "minimal" advantage is taken of the loophole.

She added the government hoped to remedy the "unfortunate situation" as quickly as possible, although passing the law again will take at least three months.

In the meantime, retailers have agreed to keep to the rules on a voluntary basis, while previous prosecutions under the act will still stand. ELSPA has also urged its members to continue to put games forward for rating until a solution is found.

"Our legal advice is that those previously prosecuted will be unable to overturn their prosecution or receive financial recompense," a government spokesperson told the BBC.

Shadow culture secretary Jeremy Hunt said it was "outrageous" such an error could go unnoticed for so many years, adding, "Much of the problem would have been avoided if they had sorted out the classification of video games earlier, as we and many others in the industry have been urging them to do."

Picture of Kath.

About Kath Brice

Read more articles from Kath by visiting the Kath Brice archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (54) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • LazyDan #1 3 years ago

    WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?

  • HermitArcader #2 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • coojam #3 3 years ago

    If they had kept the loophole quiet, they could have pushed through the new law until it was in effect. The tabloids are bound to jump on this now.

  • JahB #4 3 years ago

    Only this week at your local highstreet game shop - Manhunt 2 Wii, 50% off if you're under 18!

  • ruttyboy #5 3 years ago

    If I had been prosecuted for this previously, you can bet your arse I'd be onto a lawyer to challenge their self proclaimed 'legal advice' :D

  • smoothpete #6 3 years ago

    It's not like suddenly all the shops will be selling 18 rated stuff to kids. They'll just do business as normal. I can imagine some little scrotes trying it on like "the law says you can sell me this therefore you have to", bollocks, they'll tell them to do one. Just because it's technically legal doesn't mean they're obligated to sell to under 18s

  • gaselite #7 3 years ago

    Much of the problem would have been avoided if they had sorted out the classification of video games earlier, as we and many others in the industry have been urging them to do.

    How? I don't fully follow that line of reasoning.

  • DanWhitehead #8 3 years ago

    This is terrible. Half the fun of buying things under age is that it's against the law. I bought RoboCop on VHS, my little fifteen-year-old hands shaking in anticipation! And it was perfectly legal! An entire generation's formative experiences have been undermined!
    Edited by 1 at 25/08/09 @ 16:29

  • bratmandu #9 3 years ago

    Didn't make much difference when people thought it was law, doesn't make much difference now we know it isn't law, won't make much difference if it is made law.

    13 year olds will still be playing 18 rated games, and screaming down the mics till the cows come home, to roost.

  • kangarootoo #10 3 years ago

    @bratmandu

    Way to entirely miss the point.

    From the article.

    "Our legal advice is that those previously prosecuted will be unable to overturn their prosecution or receive financial recompense"

  • DanWhitehead #11 3 years ago

    I'm too distracted by the image of roosting cows. Although I suspect once this is ratified as a proper law, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
    Edited by 1 at 25/08/09 @ 16:34

  • mingster #12 3 years ago

    woohoo im off to but GTA4 legally now...
    /is 20years too late... gutted.

  • henza #13 3 years ago

    Ironic that the Shadow Culture secretary was quoted, when it was it the Tories who brought in the bugged law in the first place! Oh! Politics on Eurogamer!

  • HermitArcader #14 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • Gaiduku #15 3 years ago

    Wait..... does this loophole apply to all adult media.....
    ......
    ...
    by which i obviously mean porn.

  • bratmandu #16 3 years ago

    @ kangarootoo

    That was 'one' point of the article, but not the only one, but thanks for responding and trying to put me down.

  • RexRunti #17 3 years ago

    Two things:

    1) Why the fuck do we have to get our national laws, created by elected representatives approved by a representatives from foreign powers?
    2) How can the law be unenforceable AND any previous convictions under it still stand?

    Right, rant over, I'm off to my local HMV to buy some R18 movies.

  • SheffieldSteel #18 3 years ago

    Shadow culture secretary Jeremy Hunt said it was "outrageous" that no one had previously spotted the upness of his own party's cocks, which are coming home to roost.

  • firefly #19 3 years ago

    @henza

    I was about to say something similar. Persumably when Labour came into power they took it for granted that existing laws were actually proper laws.

    I can't help but wonder if this is true of any other laws too. As my brother just pointed out to me there'd really be trouble if it turns out it was legal for under 18s to buy alcohol all this time, or if speeding tickets were actually not legally enforceable.

  • Bazfrag #20 3 years ago

    So do we get 3 months of being treated like adults who are able to make our own decisions on what we buy for ourselves, and for our children??

  • benstarkie #21 3 years ago

    Jeremy Hunt. Says it all really.

  • Eighthours #22 3 years ago

    "Our legal advice is that those previously prosecuted will be unable to overturn their prosecution or receive financial recompense," a government spokesperson told the BBC.

    This is unintentionally hilarious. Who's their lawyer - Homer Simpson?

    @DanWhitehead: nice!

  • ruttyboy #23 3 years ago

    @ Bazfrag

    It's already perfectly legal for you to buy an 18 certificate game for your child (providing you're 18 or over yourself).

  • HermitArcader #24 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • gaselite #25 3 years ago

    It would be utter folly to overturn past prosecutions given that the fundamental basis of the law is entirely sound, surely?

  • kangarootoo #26 3 years ago

    @Vertical Stand

    That is entirely of my point. An attempt to set a pretty important general precedent is being made here. I.e. people that were prosecuted under a falsely enforced law cannot appeal a conviction. I quite agree, on the face of it that sounds ridiculous (putting it lightly).

    Truth is, that statement was not legal advice. It was political advice. Not the same thing at all of course.


    @bratmandu again

    Ok, I'm sorry I went all sarcastic and superior on you. But I take umbrage when people reel out the apathetic "it makes no difference, so its not even news" approach to these things. And I'll tell you why in this case.

    First off, it WILL make a difference, even if that difference is small. It might not make a difference to us directly, but we should maybe view the world with a wider lens than that.

    Second, whether this will change the behaviour of retailers is not the most important issue being covered here. Yes I realise its also a relevant part of the discussion, but like I said above there is an important point of principle going on here, and I feared that would be ignored because we got all self obsessed about whether we could buy games with guns in them or not.

  • Bloodhunter #27 3 years ago

    The title is a bit misleading.

    And anyway, I'm under 18 and I can buy an 18 on play or amazon whenever I want, it only affects retailers, and they're going to just act as normal...

  • Bazfrag #28 3 years ago

    @rutty,

    I was kind of referring the general banning of things, rather than ratings specifically. The kids thing was confusing though doh! Of course I wouldn't expose my kids to something terrible until they were at least 18....months.

  • kangarootoo #29 3 years ago

    @gaselite

    "It would be utter folly to overturn past prosecutions given that the fundamental basis of the law is entirely sound, surely?"

    I don't think we should treat these things on an adhoc "fundamental basis is sound" basis. If a law does meet all the requirements we have laid down for it to be a law, it shouldn't be enforced. Otherwise we start ignoring rules (that we created for our own safety) when it suits us or the "common good" to do so.

    Making and removing laws should be a lengthy and involved and complex process, for good reason.

  • firefly #30 3 years ago

    Indeed, there's no arguement for "fundamental basis" that can be made here. Either somebody's actions were against the law, and proven so by the following of due process, or they weren't. In order for laws to work we need the law itself to work within the law.

    As far as convictions go I can't see any major retailers attempting to get anything overturned. I'm pretty sure if the tabloids got involved the PR would not be good. However, the law also held the individual employee responsible for any illegal sales (or more specifically it didn't because it was never a law) and given that we're talking about shop workers here I doubt they would be in a position to afford the fine, it'd be interesting to see what would happen if all the individuals who were fined pursued some sort of joint effort to get their convictions overturned.

  • Sharzam #31 3 years ago

    The only thing is that the shop cant be procescuted under the law. But hopefully other bodys in the industry will ensure its stuck to, after all the commotion of rating system lately i dont believe for a second that shops will suddleny start handing out to children. Althourgh may not ask for id as much, to make a quick sale.

    Ultimatly it does not matter as little johnny can and will still play gta regardless of the law whether enforceble or not.
    Edited by 1 at 25/08/09 @ 17:41

  • Hexagon #32 3 years ago

    Would be fun if this were to happen in Germany. :-D

  • bratmandu #33 3 years ago

    @ kangarootoo

    Oh I'm not apathetic - and I DO think this is newsworthy.

    What I also think however is that the law, whether it is in force or not, doesn't stop children from playing rated games. The whole thing needs re-thought from the start, and both retailers and parents need to be responsible and accountable.

    I don't have a solution, but I think it would be better to discuss how to sort out the problem at it's core - Vertical Stand (2nd comment) is bang on the money.

  • gaselite #34 3 years ago

    Making and removing laws should be a lengthy and involved and complex process, for good reason.

    But I mean, there's really nothing to suggest that this legislation wasn't drafted with a good deal of consideration like any other act, the suggestion was that there was a basic administritative error made several years ago.

    I'm not entiely sure what the process for attempting to overturn convictions on this basis is in the United Kingdom but I can't imagine that any attempts (if any were made) would be successful unless there's a certain rigidity to said process, but I'd like to think there'd be a certain amount of fluidity and common sense in allowing past convictions to stand and not be overturned on a slight technicality (the EC stuff is, to me, a bit confusing so maybe it's not as slight as I seem to think it is but legally I can't imagine it's terribly important).

    Interesting story though.

  • firefly #35 3 years ago

    Quite true.

    What we really need is a proper discussion of the core issues. Not just the real reasons why inappropriate games find their way to children, but about the overall social context and the real reasons why we have problems with violent children in the first place.
    A positive living environment and a lifetime of good parenting won't be undone by playing a few violent games, likewise a childhood of poor parenting, few other positive role models and an overriding sense of not having a stake in society have a far bigger effect than violent games.

    That being said an fair and informative film rating system is a great tool to have. It'd be great if we could rebuild our laws to serve a real purpose rather than just being a reactionary response to a 25 year old moral outrage, designed to hide the real issues.

  • shadowsblaze #36 3 years ago

    Though the law never stopped anyone under age from obtaining films and games if the youngster was determined enough, a cynical person might think this loophole was found at a very convenient time. Let's face it, we're in deep recession. If there was ever an opportunity to help boost retail sales and the economy in some small way in the run up to Christmas this would be it, especially that any new laws won't be in place for at least another 3 months.

  • lucky_jim #37 3 years ago

    /passes tinfoil hat to shadowsblaze.

  • Kami #38 3 years ago

    "Our legal advice is that those previously prosecuted will be unable to overturn their prosecution or receive financial recompense," a government spokesperson told the BBC.

    And I'm Jessica Alba in a thong. Seriously, if people have been prosecuted under an unsafe law, sadly they can and have the right to question if their prosecution holds (Which it likely won't). They will be perfectly able to launch their cases, and possibly win, which is a disaster when you think some of these people were likely doing it completely intentionally and likely felt no remorse of guilt for it.

    There are so many questions here. Why have we been told now, instead of getting a new law implemented first? Will we ever get a more general debate on censorship? Why do our laws have to go through the EU to hold any weight?

    It's silly. Sadly, I think we're now left to wonder if this is a one-off case, or will we now be finding out that more laws are potentially unenforcible...

    edit; One final point - even though this law is now unsafe, it never stopped and sadly no law ever will stop parents buying these games for their children right in front of the store clerks. Which renders the whole thing kind of moot and pointless anyway.
    Edited by 1 at 25/08/09 @ 18:58

  • m0thr4 #39 3 years ago

    bratmandu: 13 year olds will still be playing 18 rated games, and screaming down the mics till the cows come home, to roost.

    Lol @ roosting cows!

  • Dreadaxe #40 3 years ago

    roosting cows < nesting sheep

  • Trikk #41 3 years ago

    Free speech > UK

  • secombe #42 3 years ago

    @ vertical stand

    What's wrong with the film classification system? Or do you just dislike any form of censorship? The BBFC is arguably the best classification board in the world, look at it film by film and they are incredibly relaxed. An overhaul would be a disaster, in my opinion, we don't need an MPAA type situation, which on the face of it is super-lenient, but in reality very, very restrictive. I was dead against the BBFC in the 90s, but I've got the sense to appreciate them now.

  • kipper #43 3 years ago

    @ Bratmandu and everyone else: "(Looks like) the cows have come home to roost" is a perfectly legitimate quote from that Leslie Nielsen classic, The Naked Gun. So everyone stop making fun of him, please.

  • rogueJT #44 3 years ago

    lol.

  • bratmandu #45 3 years ago

    Yea it's from Police Squad, lol at those who didn't get it! And lol to Dan's Futurama line.

    Looks like the upper hand is on the other foot!

  • gremly #46 3 years ago

    It's kind of crap to be honest. It's the only time i have been asked for ID when i was buying Bioshock from GAME in Epsom, And they asked, Was i 18....A few points to this, I am 6ft 6 and bearded, And because i didint have my Driver license or some form of ID on me they woudent sell it to me, I mean for fuck sake i am 19! :p

  • Razorus #47 3 years ago

    I know a 10 year old kid who's gonna be getting Batman on Friday. Should I grass him up?

    Note: I'm not the kid in question.

  • shamblemonkee #48 3 years ago

    @ gremly so they were well within their rights to ask, basically.

  • Crovax20 #49 3 years ago

    lol

  • kangarootoo #50 3 years ago

    I'm frankly stunned everyone missed Dreadaxe's Monty Python reference.


    @bratmandu

    I think we have two seperate issues at hand here, the legal hiccup covered in the article and the wider subject of how we regulate content (or whether we should at all).

    In any event, thanks for the civil response. I was a bit crappy with you from the off yesterday. Sorry about that.

  • HermitArcader #51 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • jefranklin18 #52 3 years ago

    This is such a none story. Facts:

    1) Anyone previously convicted under the previous will not have the conviction quashed
    2) Most outlets (video and presumably game as well) have said that they will voluntarily abide by it.

    So unless an eleven goes into Game and kicks up a real stink about not being able to buy GTA4 for himself, rather than sending in a "responsible adult", there will be sod all difference.

  • Kami #53 3 years ago

    Okay.

    1) Anyone previously convicted under the previous will not have the conviction quashed
    2) Most outlets (video and presumably game as well) have said that they will voluntarily abide by it.

    1. If you HONESTLY think this is going to happen you are barking up the wrong country. Unfortunately, the reality is that these are now unsafe convictions and IF challenged, CAN be quashed. I know they'd like to think they have a means to ensure it doesn't happen, but the simple truth is they don't and can't stop people. Welcome to the 52nd state.

    2. Key word is MOST. Of course, you'll find big-name stores taking the moral standpoint, but independant stores and smaller shops - in an economic shitstorm still - aren't going to care where their money comes from, especially as it is perfectly legal right now to sell rated games to the underage. Is it right? Probably not. But it's legal, so you can bet places will in the short-term.

    Just take government PR with a pinch of salt.

  • agentk1986 #54 3 years ago

    Who is the 51st state?