Dark Souls

Well that didn't take long... With the tragic murder of a teacher by a 15 year old schoolboy, it was always inevitable the legacy media would attempt to find a link with video games or films. And thus it has come to pass. Blimey a 15 year old boy plays violent video games "exclusive", which probably applies to the vast majority of teenage boys.

You would think after the moral outrage 30 years ago over so-called "video nasties" the press would have given up by now. But no.

As it happens I currently have a copy of Dark Souls in my PS3, so if any readers were to learn of a disillusioned blogger going on a manic rampage through the House of Commons very soon at least we will all know the reason why...

Happiness Is A Warm Gun

As inevitable and predictable as the sun rising in the east, each time new technology emerges what subsequently follows is "moral panic". An irrational fear of the unknown. Naturally such scares sell newspapers – it promotes the idea that essentially we are all desperate to be serial killers, but the only thing that prevents us is the lack of technology. It’s similar to the phenomenon detailed in the book “Scared to Death".

This has been a common theme that exposed itself with massive clarity with the advent of cinema, home videos and computer games.

A classic example was the issue over the content of videos in the 1980s. Campaigner Mary Whitehouse notoriously gave a presentation to MPs in 1983; showed a compilation of highlights of so-called video nasties where many of the scenes of films, she objected to, were taken out of context and edited in such a manner as to create maximum impact. The result of her campaign was the 1984 Video Recordings Act.

It was an example of moral panic, one which culminated in this infamous Sun headline ten years later (pictured below), just after the conclusion of the trial regarding the tragic murder of Jamie Bulger, despite that no evidence existed that the film "Child's Play 3" had any relevance in case whatsoever. The judge had simply made it up:

Another example has been computer games. I always remember that the Daily Mail once had a full page spread complaining about the computer game Goldeneye, a best selling game on the Nintendo 64, inspired by the James Bond film of the same name.

“Die, die, die” was the headline, as it reported that a two year old boy said those words as he played the game. A headline that was shocking I’m sure...until we realised that his hands weren’t big enough to grasp the controller and so play the game properly and that the article was describing level four. Which meant that the 2 year old boy had to know terms like; “install covert modem” and “find data allocation tape” in order to progress through the game to get to level four. Less a problem in society, more an example of a boy genius.

With this mind we come on to new technology such as 3D printers and their potential ability to produce guns, as noted by this headline in Telegraph:

Sir Peter Fahey, Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, told Sky News that the weapons were a “new phenomenon”, but said his officers were determined to prevent them making it onto the streets.

Earlier this year concerns were raised that the printers – which construct everyday solid items using very thin layers of plastic – could be used to make a gun containing no metal parts.

One can see a future "moral panic" in the making. I'm sure that 3D printers can make guns, but to complain is to assume that weapons cannot be made out of other relatively innocuous items.

For example a rocket launcher can be made out of a drainpipe and a model rocket, a weapon can be made out of very hot coffee laced with ridiculous amounts of sugar, a very effective crossbow can be made out of a wooden coat hanger, some wood, a couple of clothes pegs and an elastic band.

As the 1970’s film Scum (3:33 mins) clearly shows, a sock and a couple of snooker balls can also be very effective. It always amuses me that despite extremely strict security clearances and checks in UK airports they give out free newspapers as you board the plane – which can then be turned into a Millwall Brick.

Thus with 3D printers we can clearly envisage and predict another "moral panic" and a Daily Mail front page outlining the dangers of people...having such technology at home.

Nothing ever changes...

Try The Off Button

It's a truth universally acknowledged that when there is a Tory government two things will happen; there will be more EU integration and the Tories will try to ban stuff. The latter is a drearily familiar pattern that has long been established but it becomes most prominent when a new culture or technology emerges such as films, home videos, computer games, Facebook and now the internet itself:

Prime Minister David Cameron has warned ISPs to be more robust with their plans to provide better tools to help parents censor sexualised content online, or else the government could step in with its own regulation measures.

Here we go again, and the Tory attitude is always if in doubt it requires more government regulation to the rescue! So unsurprisingly on the back of a report about the 'sexualisation of children' Cameron has backed measures such as:

• make public space more family-friendly by “reducing the amount of on-street advertising containing sexualised imagery in locations where children are likely to see it.”
  
  
• ensure children are protected when they watch television, are on the internet or use their mobile phones by “making it easier for parents to block adult and age-restricted material” across all media.
  
  
• stop the process where companies pay children to publicise and promote products in schools or on social networking sites by banning “the employment of children as brand ambassadors and in peer-to-peer marketing.”
  

Using the classic Trojan horse of; "think of the children", Cameron wants to restrict advertising in public spaces including surely near and in pubs - my 'family friendly' local is now full of children; shock horror they might even see advertising that is inappropriate in the gent's toilets - and to regulate mobile phones, the internet and the television watershed even further. (Odd the last one because I've lost count of the number of programmes broadcast late at night recently, well past the watershed, still 'bleeping out' swear words or even being criticised for using them).

And of course government regulation means not only an assumption that the government knows best and that parents shouldn't take responsibility, but the establishment of yet another unaccountable quango. And inevitably what is initially devised to 'protect children' becomes an instrument for other things.

Take, for example, the film censorship body, the BBFC, which was given more powers under Tory legislation due to a moral panic about video nasties (although hilariously this was later found to be unenforceable due to an oversight regarding the EU).

Apparently independent, from the start it was under intense political pressure regarding censorship - one of the longest running restrictions in the UK for a film was for Battleship Potemkin, banned for political reasons until 1954 and Sergei Eisentein's classic was even given an X-rated certificate until as late as 1987.

The unaccountable BBFC became even more ludicrous as its unaccountable long-serving Director, James Fernman had carte blanche to censor films at will.

One notorious example is, after seeing the legendary nunchaku (chainsticks) scene from Bruce Lee's magnum opus Enter the Dragon, Mr Fernman attempted to replicate the scene, whilst watching the film, and knocked himself out in the process. On the basis of not being as talented as Mr Lee, he removed the scene completely (which was not reinstated for years). Mr Fernman's obsession with the nunchaku reached such ridiculous heights that he removed a scene in the 1990 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film because a string of sausages swung by Michelangelo looked like a nunchaku.

Such considerations about accountability are 'minor' - as ever the cry to protect children means the attitude is always the same - it should be banned for all of us. This is typical Tory stuff, only now it's policy based on panic by mumsnet. So much for Cameron's 'Big Society' (my emphasis):

The big society is about changing the way our country is run. No more of a government treating everyone like children who are incapable of taking their own decisions. Instead, let's treat adults like adults and give them more responsibility over their lives. That's why, in reality, this is quite different from what politicians have offered in the past.

So what happened Cameron to treating parents like adults and make them take responsibility? They have huge amounts of control over what their kids read, wear and watch. Did a pre-teen ever go into a shop and buy a ‘future porn star’ T shirt without some kind of parental approval?

And as for mobile phones, the internet, and films; these can easily be regulated in the home - it's called the 'off' button.

Video Recordings Act

Previously I've written about the farce that is the 1984 Video Recordings Act which is no longer enforceable in UK courts because of a technical loophole.

Currently going through Parliament is the Video Recordings Bill which is designed to correct this anomaly, and 'thankfully' this time our real government in Brussels was notified on 10th September 2009, so when it does become an Act it will be enforceable.

Yesterday my MP Ed Vaizey took part in this debate with Sion Simon and made a couple of interesting points (my emphasis):

it may be worth noting that the legislation was not notified in draft because it was a private Member's Bill, not a Government Bill. Will the Minister elaborate on how the error was discovered in 2009 and, to return to the point, on when the Cabinet Office intends to conclude its audit of all Acts passed since 1984 in terms of their compliance with the technical standards directive [Directive 83/189 (now Directive 98/34)]?

It'll be interesting to see when this audit concludes what other acts are unenforceable because of the EU. The exchange continues:

Ed Vaizey: As I understand it, an Act passed by a sovereign Parliament is not an Act unless it has been approved by Brussels.

Siôn Simon: I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Act remains an Act: an Act of this Parliament is an Act of Parliament when it is an Act of Parliament. All that is in question is the enforceability of the Act, which remains on the statute book.

That's almost a; 'move along nothing to see here' response, not much point having Acts of Parliament if they're unenforceable, as Vaizey argues:

Ed Vaizey: We are in danger of descending into sophistry. It is an Act of Parliament, but it is a toothless one unless it is referred to Brussels. That is the situation that we are in.

Indeed it is...

Sex Shops Set to Sue the Government

Today's Telegraph reports (not online) that:

"A flood of sex shops and other businesses prosecuted for selling DVDS and videos illegally during the past 25 years are preparing to sue the Government."

This relates to an admission earlier this year by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that prosecutions under the 1984 Video Recordings Act were no longer enforceable in UK courts because of a technical loophole.

The Act was passed 25 years ago in response to a moral panic over so-called video nasties, epitomised by a campaign by Mary Whitehouse, who showed a compilation tape of (out-of-context) "highlights" to shocked Conservative MPs at their 1983 party conference (The regulations actually had the opposite effect. For example videos banned under this law became a lot easier to get hold of, especially for schoolchildren like me at the time - that's another story though).

One small problem, the then Thatcher Government failed to notify Britain's real Government - the European Commission - under Directive 83/189 (now Directive 98/34), and so this makes any prosecutions under the Act invalid.

As a consequence, a number of those illegally prosecuted are now preparing to claim for damages, including those that sold pornography to children.

What a farce!