Advertisement
Law blooper lets kids buy adult games News
PC
PSP
Xbox 360
PlayStation 3
Wii
News
by
Kath Brice
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."
Advertisement
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Poster
|
Vertical Stand
25/08/09 @ 15:11
+3
The film ratings system needs reform anyway, and fingers crossed this will result in a wholesale review, but in the meantime videogame publishers would be well advised to resubmit older games to the PEGI and reprint boxes so as not to be caught up in the inevitable media circus.
|
|
smoothpete
25/08/09 @ 15:18
+2
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
|
|
DanWhitehead
25/08/09 @ 15:24
+25
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 1 times,
most recently on 25/08/09 @ 16:29
|
|
kangarootoo
25/08/09 @ 15:31
-9
@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
25/08/09 @ 15:33
+2
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 1 times,
most recently on 25/08/09 @ 16:34
|
|
Vertical Stand
25/08/09 @ 15:44
0
@smoothpete but wouldn't that technically be a form of age discrimination against young people without a legal basis for doing so?
@kangarootoo can't prosecute people with laws that are unsafe, therefore its wishful thinking on their part to believe people cannot appeal.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 25/08/09 @ 16:45
|
|
-3
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
25/08/09 @ 15:47
+7
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.
|
|
+1
@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. |
|
Eighthours
25/08/09 @ 15:57
0
"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! |
|
Vertical Stand
25/08/09 @ 16:06
+1
Maybe Bazrag is an under 18 parent seeking clarity on his legal rights lol.
|
|
kangarootoo
25/08/09 @ 16:07
+1
@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
25/08/09 @ 16:08
0
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... |
|
kangarootoo
25/08/09 @ 16:11
0
@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. |
|
0
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. |
|
0
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 1 times,
most recently on 25/08/09 @ 17:41
|
|
+1
@ 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. |
|
0
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. |
|
-1
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
25/08/09 @ 17:37
-3
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.
|
|
0
"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 1 times,
most recently on 25/08/09 @ 18:58
|
|
+2
@ 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. |
|
0
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
|
|
kangarootoo
26/08/09 @ 08:30
0
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. |
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
