On page 11 of Dr Tanya Byron's review into video games (and the Internet) the doctor reports the following:
That's our bolding by the way.
Right, so this leads Keith Vaz (MP for Leicester East and serial purveyor of economies of the truth in relation to video games) to say the following in the House of Commons yesterday:
Our bolding again. Are we missing something here? Or is Mr Vaz actually suggesting that no one has ever mentioned that violent images can affect children. That's one of the reason for RATING GAMES!
Also, is Mr Vaz seriously of the belief that not only is this the first time it's been mentioned that violent images can affect people but that it's the 'final' word on the subject?
Or is Mr Vaz trying to score some cheap political point about violent video games affecting all children all the time? In short and 'unequivocal claim of direct cause'?
Read the report, Keith.
Check out the Byron Review here.
Read the transcript of Mr Vaz's point scoring attempt here.
"There is some evidence of short term aggression from playing violent video games but no studies of whether this leads to long term effects.
"There is a correlation between playing violent games and aggressive behaviour, but this is not evidence that one causes the other.
However, we need to approach unequivocal claims of direct causes with caution – there is a strong body of ethnographic research which argues that context and the characteristics of each child will mediate the effects of playing video games."
"There is a correlation between playing violent games and aggressive behaviour, but this is not evidence that one causes the other.
However, we need to approach unequivocal claims of direct causes with caution – there is a strong body of ethnographic research which argues that context and the characteristics of each child will mediate the effects of playing video games."
That's our bolding by the way.
Right, so this leads Keith Vaz (MP for Leicester East and serial purveyor of economies of the truth in relation to video games) to say the following in the House of Commons yesterday:
"When can we have a debate on the excellent Byron review, which was published this morning? It accepts finally and for the first time that children can be affected by violent video games and access to the internet, that that process needs to be monitored carefully, and that we need a new partnership between parents and the industry.
"Will the Government accept the recommendations in full? If they are prepared to accept the recommendations, when can the House debate the matter, as so many Members on both sides are keen to do so?"
"Will the Government accept the recommendations in full? If they are prepared to accept the recommendations, when can the House debate the matter, as so many Members on both sides are keen to do so?"
Our bolding again. Are we missing something here? Or is Mr Vaz actually suggesting that no one has ever mentioned that violent images can affect children. That's one of the reason for RATING GAMES!
Also, is Mr Vaz seriously of the belief that not only is this the first time it's been mentioned that violent images can affect people but that it's the 'final' word on the subject?
Or is Mr Vaz trying to score some cheap political point about violent video games affecting all children all the time? In short and 'unequivocal claim of direct cause'?
Read the report, Keith.
Check out the Byron Review here.
Read the transcript of Mr Vaz's point scoring attempt here.
Comments
Sparrow 28 Mar 2008 19:54
1/5
spong - here's my suggestion for a caption.
Hmm. what shall I have for dinner tonight? hmm. fillet steak? mmm. yeah. maybe with some thick cut chips and really big dollop of horseradish. yea that sounds ace. mmmm.
see what we pay these idiots for? its time for a revolt!! the people should take back our bloody country from this moron politicians
Hmm. what shall I have for dinner tonight? hmm. fillet steak? mmm. yeah. maybe with some thick cut chips and really big dollop of horseradish. yea that sounds ace. mmmm.
see what we pay these idiots for? its time for a revolt!! the people should take back our bloody country from this moron politicians
Billy 28 Mar 2008 20:37
2/5
Dr. Tanya Byron is a down syndrome fag. Any attempt at trying to educate kids about the internet in school will end the same way drug awareness has. Ecstasy being referred to as 'disco biscuits' to a generation with more understanding of something than the teachers who are trying to tell them about it. This will result in taking even less notice to the warnings, as the facts will be mixed up with lies attempting to protect people from doing 'harmful' things.
more comments below our sponsor's message
p 28 Mar 2008 20:55
3/5
Sparrow wrote:
spong - here's my suggestion for a caption.
Hmm. what shall I have for dinner tonight? hmm. fillet steak? mmm. yeah. maybe with some thick cut chips and really big dollop of horseradish. yea that sounds ace. mmmm.
see what we pay these idiots for? its time for a revolt!! the people should take back our bloody country from this moron politicians
Hmm. what shall I have for dinner tonight? hmm. fillet steak? mmm. yeah. maybe with some thick cut chips and really big dollop of horseradish. yea that sounds ace. mmmm.
see what we pay these idiots for? its time for a revolt!! the people should take back our bloody country from this moron politicians
You sound like my Dad after too much Telegraph and Whiskey. You do know that "the people" did vote for "these idiots" and will be able vote them out if they want, which is a lot less messy than a revolt over video games.
Anyway I hope Mr. Vaz doesn't read your post in case he starts thinking that gaming is fostering the over through of H.M.Gov.
deleted 29 Mar 2008 01:05
4/5
"Stop it, you going to make me laugh this report is supposed to be serious"
SPInGSPOnG 29 Mar 2008 15:15
5/5
Suggesting that Keith Vaz is a "serial purveyor of economies of the truth in relation to video games" is an outrage. He is just a serial purveyor of economies of the truth.
Remember that the parliamentary standards watchdog Elizabeth Filkin accused Mr Vaz of blocking her investigation into eighteen of the 28 allegation of wrongdoing against him, and he was only cleared of 9 allegations.
He's not overly forthcoming about his relationship with Nadhmi Auchi, either.
Remember that the parliamentary standards watchdog Elizabeth Filkin accused Mr Vaz of blocking her investigation into eighteen of the 28 allegation of wrongdoing against him, and he was only cleared of 9 allegations.
He's not overly forthcoming about his relationship with Nadhmi Auchi, either.