The Bill of wrong's

Watching 'The Bill' on June 7^th, 2006, I was appalled to hear characters accusingly reference video games for the behaviour of a teenager who shot his friend with his friends, dad's gun.

From memory, the video game reference was spoken by a Police Officer and the boy who was shot. The context in which the reference was used was suggestive of his current behaviour – he had earlier shot his friend and presently he was holding a Police Officer hostage. The fictional game was called 'The Executioner'.

I'm not sure what I'm more surprised by; The Bill for being irresponsible for perpetuating what is no more than scaremongering of a new medium or OFCOM for not recognising this would offend those people who work in the video game business and highlight mere ignorance for the medium of video games. 

The bill is a show that reaches over 4 million viewers on a regular basis. There was no evidence in the episode of a balanced view of video games. Video games were represented as the trigger on the gun. The references were almost subliminal, suggestive, so placed within a sentence to be disguised by the surrounding words but clearly structured their to affect the populous. 

Look at the title of the game. As a gamer, I would expect a game with this title to be an 18 certificate. At no point in the storyline did any character attempt a counter argument.

It boils down to one fact; the game product continue to be targeted and blamed for some modern social ills. This is not unique, the gun or the knife is also blamed but there is minimal discussion on the distribution and control of these products. The complexity with games is that they are referenced as a catalyst for use of weapons and violence. This reference is aimed at game creators and not at publishers, distributors, retailers or guardians.

- Why is this not clear?
- Why is this obvious to industry insiders and no-one else?
- What is ELSPA and IGDA really doing about it?

For all the press GTA can receive for its negative traits I see very little but reactive comments from the bodies that are supposed to support us.