Parents reported police if children play violent video games

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/parents-could-be-reported-to-police-if-children-play-violent-video-games-like-call-of-duty-and-grand-theft-auto-10141697.html

Schools (primary) have threatened to report parents to the police if their children are caught playing violent video games such as Call Of Duty and Grand Theft Auto

While I am aware of certificate ratings for video-games, does anyone think this is too demanding of the school to intrude upon personal life?

Idiots.

Morons.

Idiotic Morons

Moronic Idiots.

They have pudding for brains?

@frozen: Well, parents can already be reported for allowing under-age children to watch movies rated as being unsuitable for viewing by their age group; why shouldn't policy be the same for adult-rated video games as it is for adult-rated movies?

@sundeep: If a parent personally believes his child is ready to view and interact with violence in entertainment {in their own home}, and the School believe they should be able to report them to the police for parenting in that way, do you not see that as an infringement of privacy and liberty?

My parents allowed me watch violent movies and play violent games when I was a child because they felt that I was mature enough; why should a School be able to police how a parent differs in that regard?

This is quite different to say, a store not selling violent video games to a child or a cinema not allowing a child to view a violent movie; but to then police that in someone else's home is a different matter.

So are we calling these people morons because they think videogames cause aggressive behaviour or because they're intruding on personal lifestyles?

Presumably the latter.

If a parent personally believes his child is ready to view and interact with violence in the real world (by training them how to fight, in their own home), and the School believe they should be able to report them to the police for parenting in that way (say, if they come into school with cuts and bruises, adopt a far more casual and dismissive attitude with regards to violence, and start being violent to the teachers and the other students), do you not see that as an infringement of privacy and liberty?

My parents taught me how to fight and to defend myself when I was a child because they felt that I was mature enough, and that it would further my develipment; why should a school be able to police how a parent differs in that regard?

This is quite different to say, a boxing gym not allowing a child to compete in the ring, or a MMA organisation not allowing a child fighter to go professional; but to then police that in someone else's home is a different matter.

How is this example any different?

.... Any teachers who supports this don't have the moral rights to call themselves educators.

O... It's primary kids and gta 5, I get their point. But not the violence bullshit. Gta has strips clubs and can have sex so it's really inappropriate for them.

@sundeep: ....That example makes no sense, nor did it meet the criteria of my question.

The example you've chosen is violence in the real world; the example I specifically used is entertainment, more specifically, video games (a form of interactive media). They cannot be conflated. Your example cites cuts and bruises as an obvious indicator that training a child how to fight has went wrong --- this is a threat to physical safety and clearly it must be reported for possible harm.

The example here is video-games; they don't cause violence or physical harm, as countless studies have shown.

Oh for gods sake.

@frozen: Then I can agree, it shouldn't really be the job of schools to report parents to the police for something like the police. While I don't thing 12 year olds or whatever should play GTA, that's a personal opinion and the head teacher can't really impose that on parents. I would describe the idea as moronic though, it's not totally stupid.

How old are primary students again.. Like 7-11.

But any child will pick up cuts and bruises when engaging in active play- should those parents who play contact sports with their children, or who simply allow their child to play outside, also be reported for possible harm, due to the threats they're posing to the physical safety of their children? Violence in entertainment is still violence; just the same as hatred in entertainment is still hatred. Both serve to desensitize and normalize unacceptable behaviours for impressionable viewers. And for the children at the schools concerned (all of them primary schools, with all of their students between the ages of 5 and 11), I don't see what the big deal is- if your child's still that young, you can't buy GTA V for them and still claim to be a model responsible parent. What's the big deal about the prospect of being reported anyway? If you've got a good explanation (he's not supposed to, we didn't buy it for him, he was playing it without our knowledge, he was playing at a friend's house, etc.), then just the parents whose kids come into the classroom with minor physical injuries which they've incurred out on the playground, it'll be laughed out by the police anyway, filed away under 'kids being kids'.

Yo, don't insult my momma. For a primary school teacher nowadays, teaching Years 1 to 3 (5 to 7 year olds) as she does, being on the receiving end of brutal physical assaults from the students is a daily fact of life. And all of the most violent kids in her classes say things in school, such as casually making references to game content and characters, which make it abundantly clear that they spend a larger portion of their lives playing those adult video games at their homes (such as Call Of Duty and GTA) than any adult with a full-time job ever could. Sex is incomprehensible for kids that young- they'd just see the sexual content in the games as being weird and gross, and think nothing more of it. As such, it's not really that harmful, unless you've already sexualised your child before they're even in the 1st grade. But violence is something which kids that young will readily embrace, since you have to be taught (by your family and/or your first teachers at school) the social value of not being violent towards others.

@sundeep: Violence in video-games does not increase levels of aggression or violence in children; but moreover, most credible studies do not find links between violence in video games and real life violence. The example you chose to make was a rejection of this; you stated in your example that a child could become aggressive towards teachers and students, as a result of the real life interaction with violence that they've been taught --- that is real life aggression, and I feel that you've made that example with the intent of suggesting that exposure to video-games would produce similar behavior. That's simply not true.

Sure, I guess you could say cuts and bruises are normal; but attacking teachers is not, that is indicative of a problem. That problem however, happens to have little direct connection with violent video-games.

In regards to the big deal, my point was that it's quite an authoritarian raid on their personal life if a child happens to play violent video games (Call of Duty, for example). Let's say an 11 year old child in primary school is non-violent and happens to play Call of Duty, should the school contact the Police because they personally dislike that?

Are we back in the 90's?

We have been since August of last year.

So a 16 year old is legally allowed to have sex. A seventeen year old can apply to become a Reservist soldier in the UK forces and they can not play violent games because they are designated 18+ and might promote violence and sexual activity.... Yeah. LOL

I can't blame the police, really. Going after hardened criminals and murders and rapists is dangerous and scary. Its much safer to pick on little kids and their parents.

I don't get what you are trying to say...because children actually do get taught how to fight, and are then informed they aren't supposed to use it. Isn't that a good thing?

Your examples seem the same to me, I assume your post was to show how ridiculous the OP sounded, but there are many kids as young as 5 being taught how to fight.

@w0nd: How are the examples the same if they are radically different in application?

Woah, if the parents decide the child is ready to play videogames such as these there is no need for schools to interfere. I started playing GTA when I was about 4 years(almost 5) old. I'm not agressive, nor addicted to videogames.

This was what I was getting at...

@frozen: I see, I didn't read everybody's opinions on the matter before posting, I guess I might as well have quoted you on it.

Same message, kids should be able to do something if they are mature enough, although one may be sarcasm

I THOUGHT the first example was to show that parents should be in charge of what their kid does if they feel their kid is mature enough.

I thought the second one was a more extreme example, about learning how to fight, but the over all message is that if the parent thinks the kid is mature enough they should be able to learn that.

I thought the second example was to show how silly the idea of "letting your kid do something if they are mature enough," sounds crazy.

But children are being taught to fight all the time.

I don't understand how people fail to see this.

No, my post was to show that kids can't be wrapped in cotton wool, and that every case is different. There may be some extreme examples which are indicative of neglect (eg, intensive console parenting, in the same way as intensive TV parenting- if a kid's so addicted to video games that they never come out of their room except when they're grabbing snacks, and the parents are intentionally facilitating that, then that's harmful IMHO), but the vast majority of examples will be perfectly reasonable and positive aspects of a child's development, and as such, even if they were reported by a spiteful and vindictive teacher for it, the police would simply file it away and tell that teacher to quit wasting their time. Does that mean that no potential cases of child neglect should ever be reported, as they'd infringe upon the parents' privacy and liberty? Of course not- that option has to be left open.

@pyrogram

"Logic".

@w0nd:

Same message, kids should be able to do something if they are mature enough, although one may be sarcasm

I THOUGHT the first example was to show that parents should be in charge of what their kid does if they feel their kid is mature enough.

I thought the second one was a more extreme example, about learning how to fight, but the over all message is that if the parent thinks the kid is mature enough they should be able to learn that.

I thought the second example was to show how silly the idea of "letting your kid do something if they are mature enough," sounds crazy.

But children are being taught to fight all the time.

This is just silly. My example used video-games; a form of fictional interactive media which has countlessly been found to not cause violence. The contrasting example was of a kid who is attacking teachers and students and has been taught how to fight. If a child attacks a teacher, then it is in the school's interests to investigate that regardless.

If a child does nothing wrong, and happens to play violent-games, should the School be able to intrude upon that and contact the police? Can people not see the simplicity behind that scenario?

You may think that the ''video games causes violence'' arguments is not relevant here, but it is. The campaign backing this idea of the schools reporting have taken up that false narrative.

@_nox_: You reminded me, I gotta reply to you >_>

I've played GTA, Mortal Kombat, Call of Duty, etc. since I was 5. I read violent comics, watch violent movies, etc and I have never shown violent tendencies. I'm perfectly normal (well as normal as normal is).

Indeed; that's why the possibility of the School being able to dish out police-contact over this worries me.

@frozen: I'm *cough* closely associate with the police and if I was told to investigate that I'd ask my supervisor for advise. It seems... weird lol

And why on earth would they intrude upon that and contact the police if the child does nothing wrong, in either scenario? Not all teachers are evil sadists who want to take your kids away from you and get them put into care; there's no need to go hysterical just because they would be able to report it, because there'd still be no real chance whatsoever of parents actually being investigated or charged with child neglect on account of this, unless you're talking about literally the worse and most extreme cases imaginable.

I misread, i didnt see the "Attacking teachers" part, I just thought it was about children learning martial arts to compare it to the video games post. My mistake

What a world.

The 'attacking teachers' (actually stated as "being violent towards the teachers and/or students"- and let's be honest, are there any of us who weren't when we were preschool/elementary school children?) part was a deliberately extreme example, which was specifically intended to leave the point which @frozen picked up on hanging there; that if a child attacks a teacher, then it's in the school interests to investigate the root cause regardless.

This ^

Idk why some people have some vendetta against video games lol

IDK why some people have a vendetta against teachers either. Quit fear-mongering over a total non-issue.

GTA should be completely banned for people under 18. Other games you are the good guy, but you really dont want to give undeveloped individuals the game where u go around killing hookers and stealing cars.

Neither of us even mentioned teachers. We simply stated that we grew up with violent video games, and we're perfectly fine.

Lol am I fear mongering?