Remember the second report into "harmful material" in video games being carried out by the UK government Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)? This is the report that we reported on back in December 2007? The one that wasn't the Byron Report? You know, the one that wasn't just a talking shop? The one being lead by our beloved Margaret Hodge.
Well, it was due to report back in June. But so far the last we've heard of it is in a slice of "UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE".
In this evidence Hodge gives more than an opinion on the BBFC vs PEGI argument:
"The other question mark I have is that the PEGI classification system is a paper-based system - people fill in tick boxes and fill in a form - whereas the BBFC classification system is, I think, rather more thorough and therefore commands greater confidence and I think that that is what has swayed her towards having this more hybrid system. We are going to test it, we are going to consult, and the paper should be out by the end of June."
BBFC is rather more thorough and commands greater confidence, does it Ms Hodge? That's not going to go down at all well with the rest of the UK industry. Let's hope that ELSPA and Tiga didn't pick on what Ms H' said later, "The industry on the whole prefers the PEGI system. As I said to you, I think that the advantage of the BBFC system is that it is a more thorough assessment of the games."
Hodge, does, however, appear to think highly of the industry - just not quite highly enough to provide subsidies or lower tax thresholds. She states, "The video games industry is hugely important. In fact, when you look at the way in which we define the creative industries probably over half of the GDA which comes to the UK from the creative industries comes through the video games industry."
Then she goes and ruins it all with, "We are fourth; we were third but Canada then offered a whole load of tax incentives which I do not think you would approve of."
You can read the whole thing here - remember, it's uncorrected.
Well, it was due to report back in June. But so far the last we've heard of it is in a slice of "UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE".
In this evidence Hodge gives more than an opinion on the BBFC vs PEGI argument:
"The other question mark I have is that the PEGI classification system is a paper-based system - people fill in tick boxes and fill in a form - whereas the BBFC classification system is, I think, rather more thorough and therefore commands greater confidence and I think that that is what has swayed her towards having this more hybrid system. We are going to test it, we are going to consult, and the paper should be out by the end of June."
BBFC is rather more thorough and commands greater confidence, does it Ms Hodge? That's not going to go down at all well with the rest of the UK industry. Let's hope that ELSPA and Tiga didn't pick on what Ms H' said later, "The industry on the whole prefers the PEGI system. As I said to you, I think that the advantage of the BBFC system is that it is a more thorough assessment of the games."
Hodge, does, however, appear to think highly of the industry - just not quite highly enough to provide subsidies or lower tax thresholds. She states, "The video games industry is hugely important. In fact, when you look at the way in which we define the creative industries probably over half of the GDA which comes to the UK from the creative industries comes through the video games industry."
Then she goes and ruins it all with, "We are fourth; we were third but Canada then offered a whole load of tax incentives which I do not think you would approve of."
You can read the whole thing here - remember, it's uncorrected.
Companies:
BBFC
Read More Like This