Mary Portas Throws Weight in Wrong Direction on Video Games
TV Queen Confuses Video Game Age Rating Law
Portas - wrong end of stick
Queen of TV 'retailer refits', Mary Portas, has used her televisual weight to bleat for her son and simultaneously utterly confuse the question of Age Ratings for video game sales.
The basic principle is that when a game retailer who suspects that an under-age child is going to buy an inappropriately rated game, that retailer asks for valid proof of age. If no valid proof is available, then the retailer doesn't sell the game to the child or to an adult if it's suspected that the adult is buying the game for the child.
"Valid proof of age" is key here.
What happens if the retailer is found to have sold a game with an inappropriate age rating? A large fine and prison time.
So, as CVG notes, Game on Oxford Street refused to sell when TV retail diva Ms Portas' 17 year-old son a 15+ game based on production of his 'Oyster Card', she went Twitteringly ballistic.
"STILL holding on after 8mins to spk to a human at GAME Ox st where they refused to sell my 17 yr son a 15 + game. Now they've cut me off," she bleated before getting into "Don't you know who I am" mode with, "So now the mngr of GAME has hung up on me after another 10min phone wait. I believe Ian Shepherd is the CEO. Are you out there? Want to talk"
He did, and he caved in, "That's appalling. I'm very proud of our focus on age verification but also of our service. If that's gone wrong, we'll fix it."
By "fix it", he obviously meant 'cave in despite our staff abiding by what they see as the law.'
We can't wait for the next televisual slating of video games for "creating monsters of our kids". Way to confuse the issue Ms Portas.
The basic principle is that when a game retailer who suspects that an under-age child is going to buy an inappropriately rated game, that retailer asks for valid proof of age. If no valid proof is available, then the retailer doesn't sell the game to the child or to an adult if it's suspected that the adult is buying the game for the child.
"Valid proof of age" is key here.
What happens if the retailer is found to have sold a game with an inappropriate age rating? A large fine and prison time.
So, as CVG notes, Game on Oxford Street refused to sell when TV retail diva Ms Portas' 17 year-old son a 15+ game based on production of his 'Oyster Card', she went Twitteringly ballistic.
"STILL holding on after 8mins to spk to a human at GAME Ox st where they refused to sell my 17 yr son a 15 + game. Now they've cut me off," she bleated before getting into "Don't you know who I am" mode with, "So now the mngr of GAME has hung up on me after another 10min phone wait. I believe Ian Shepherd is the CEO. Are you out there? Want to talk"
He did, and he caved in, "That's appalling. I'm very proud of our focus on age verification but also of our service. If that's gone wrong, we'll fix it."
By "fix it", he obviously meant 'cave in despite our staff abiding by what they see as the law.'
We can't wait for the next televisual slating of video games for "creating monsters of our kids". Way to confuse the issue Ms Portas.
Comments
PaulRayment 14 Feb 2011 10:46
1/8
She has since gone on to say: Spoke to CEO of GAME. Impressive and bright. Agreed good customer service is worth fighting for and how tough the regulations they face are...
Who the hell does she think she is? If any other mum had a problem with this they wouldn't get to speak to anyone above the store manager.
She is so full of self worth it's horrid.
Who the hell does she think she is? If any other mum had a problem with this they wouldn't get to speak to anyone above the store manager.
She is so full of self worth it's horrid.
Weefz 14 Feb 2011 10:50
2/8
To be fair, he followed up with "Well quite an afternoon! I'm delighted to see all your support for age verification. I'm very proud of our brilliant team in GAME Ox. St and also committed to every customer being delighted. We will sort with @queenofshops - I'm sure we will clear up any misunderstanding" http://bit.ly/his1Km
He also confirmed that nobody would get in trouble for refusing to sell without proper ID. http://bit.ly/hHDZG3
Not exactly caving, in my books.
He also confirmed that nobody would get in trouble for refusing to sell without proper ID. http://bit.ly/hHDZG3
Not exactly caving, in my books.
more comments below our sponsor's message
AndyJWS 14 Feb 2011 11:28
3/8
Mary Portas embodies the spirit of ungrateful "entitlement" that has led to record levels of abuse of retail staff - it's an unpleasant callback to the days of having servants (not using the other S word) and makes it easy to see why the international view of and respect for the British people is continuing to drop.
deleted 14 Feb 2011 11:39
4/8
I would have had more respect and I imagine GAME more publicity if they didn't sort it, if they simply advised her he need proper ID,
ghoti 14 Feb 2011 11:48
5/8
Mary, the CEO of a large retail outlet is forced to show you some respect because he has to be concerned with the negative publicity your moaning might bring.
Nobody else in the world gives a s**t what you think.
Nobody else in the world gives a s**t what you think.
gingineer 14 Feb 2011 13:46
6/8
It is very stupid of her given her credentials. I commend the worker in Game who stuck to their guns. had they sold it and the youth turned out to be underage they would personally (the employee and not the shop) get a large fine.
d1 14 Feb 2011 18:13
7/8
Surely the problem here is to do with COMMON SENSE.
In order to get a 16+ photographic Oyster card, Mary's son would have had to submit his passport or other identification details to his school and Transport for London, a government agency.
How is that any different to the verification process for a Age or Citizen card??
Anyone with a shred of common sense would realise that someone with a 16+ Oyster photocard is, ahem, aged over 16.
And regardless of the rules, it's the way in which the customer SERVICE assistants handle people - I've had enough moody arse sulky sales assistants in Game/HMV to know the type: spotty, adolescent, un-engaging dozers who get their only kicks from telling 17 year olds that their 16+ oyster cards "aren't valid".
Bore off!
Go Mary! Common sense rules.
In order to get a 16+ photographic Oyster card, Mary's son would have had to submit his passport or other identification details to his school and Transport for London, a government agency.
How is that any different to the verification process for a Age or Citizen card??
Anyone with a shred of common sense would realise that someone with a 16+ Oyster photocard is, ahem, aged over 16.
And regardless of the rules, it's the way in which the customer SERVICE assistants handle people - I've had enough moody arse sulky sales assistants in Game/HMV to know the type: spotty, adolescent, un-engaging dozers who get their only kicks from telling 17 year olds that their 16+ oyster cards "aren't valid".
Bore off!
Go Mary! Common sense rules.
gingineer 14 Feb 2011 20:09
8/8
D1 - the whole point of their being official forms of ID is that they are secure and difficult to fake. a fake photographic oyster card is just a photo imbedded on a peice of plastic. easily fakeable and obviously not secure. hence i belive the Game employee was right to refuse the sale. as i said the reprocussions for them not providing checks or rather upon challenging someone ignoring the rules are harsh.