Why not just blame the Internet for everything? Well everything wrong with people under 20, anyway. (Everyone over 20 is obviously already incapable of error.) Bullying, teenage suicide, gang warfare? All the fault of the Internet.
Hence, UK ministers plan to restrict children’s access to computer games. According to the Guardian, recommendations likely to be adopted by the Department of Children and Families include a compulsory new licensing system for games, with prosecution for stores who supply games to the wrong age group.
If teenagers were getting killed by well-aimed consoles, then computer games might indeed bear responsibility for youth violence. Otherwise, this is quite a difficult case to make.
The government’s advisors have allegedly reviewed “the literature” to come up with this plan. Maybe, I am just not up with the latest research but I refuse to believe that any evidence to support these policies either exists or could exist.
This project could be a boon for computer games salespeople, of course. The fastest way to cult status amongst teenagers is the tantalising whiff of the forbidden that an over 18 cert would bring. In fact, any of all the political parties’ crackpot suggestions about pin numbers and certification could be overcome for a whole neighbourhood by one reasonably tech-savvy kid. (On the bright side, it might give a few nerds a short-term rise in popularity. Every cloud etc..)
Ministers are also expected to advise parents to keep computers and games consoles away from children’s bedrooms as much as possible, and ask them to play games in living rooms or kitchens facing outward so carers can see what is being played.
Ministers are also expected to recommend blocking mechanisms to protect children from seeing unsuitable games, emails or internet sites. Discussions have already been held with internet service providers to see if an agreement on a standardised filter can be reached.
Translation – make sure your kids are fully adjusted to the ongoing surveillance society by monitoring their every communication.
In fact, why not set up blanket cctv coverage of their conversations with their friends? You don’t want them to reach adulthood unprepared for the realities of life in a modern western democracy.
Just ban whatever you decide they shouldn’t be aware of. You will save years of effort that might otherwise be wasted in discussion and debate and trusting their judgement and accepting their mistakes – all the stuff involved in becoming autonomous and confident adults.
It’s possible that consoles have come on a bit since the Atari 2600, but would parents really want kids hogging the HDTV knocking little bricks out of a wall with bip-bip-bip noises when they could be watching Richard and Judy?
Isn’t there something wrong when a society clamps down on fantasy violence, but still permits children as young as five to be exposed to the Richard Littlejohn column in the Daily Mail?
UK ministers plan to restrict children’s access to computer games is very hypocrite!
On one side is business and economic reasons where they allow everything to be produced what make profit and on other sides is call for “restrict children’s access to computer games”.
Give me a break!
Just wondered if you print comments that are at odds with any of your statements. If so, here’s one; if not, well there’s still one here. Be assured that I do not take part in the debate; however, I do take a strong oppositional stance about children not having a computer in their own room. The family computer needs to be in a central location where everyone has access and accountability. A good parent is going to have educated their own child or children to the realities of life, arm them with the knowledge necessary to keep them safe and function in a dysfunctional society such as the global neighborhood has become. Good parents do not keep their children ‘”in the dark” but they are concerned that their kids learn facts and from mentally and emotionally stable individuals and entities. They lead by example and teach their kids to evaluate what they hear, read, and see. I’ve been a nurse, worked for the state police, written novels (fiction) that are published–not self published–had my own three children kidnapped years ago… Interestingly they each have the family computer in a central location. One is a police officer, BTW. It’s not as if we don’t interact with society; it does mean that we will not abdicate our parenting responsibilities to any- or someone else.
Noni, thank you for your comment although it seems you haven’t read much on this blog.
All the time – as reading most of the previous comments would have shown you.
Well, actually that is what you are doing now.
Good for you. What is that stance in opposition to? Here, Heather is (IMHO of course) talking about the folly of parents abrogating their responsibilities to a games rating organisation which may, or may not, hold the same values as you do. That is very different to talking about where the PC should be located.
There is a whole different argument about how much supervision parents should subject their children to but that is not what this post was about. There does come the point at which parents need to realise children want (and should have) trust and privacy. Surely the better option is to teach the child how to remain safe then trust them to implement this. We are bringing up a generation of children under the idea that only constant surveillance and supervision keeps people safe. Is it any wonder this has knock on effects with society as a whole?