http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7137212.stm

Manhunt 2 should not have been banned.

Its for the audience to decide if the title has merit.

Yup. It's not one for me, but right with you. If you don't want to play it, don't buy it. If you don't want your kids to play it, don't buy it for them.

This is good to hear. I actually complained to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport at the time it was banned.

I probably would never play this game, but in a democracy in this day in age, nothing should ever be banned on the grounds of taste or decency for adults. It's fine to protect children, but once you reach 18, you should be the one who decides what you watch or play, not the government.

freedom of speech includes the right to be offended. this game isnt my cup of tea but i dont mind if people play it.

Hmm freedom of expression or choice in a free market

easily confused but an insult to freedoms that people have fought for... which i think has happened in this post.

Yup. It's not one for me, but right with you. If you don't want to play it, don't buy it. If you don't want your kids to play it, don't buy it for them.

This is good to hear. I actually complained to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport at the time it was banned.

I probably would never play this game, but in a democracy in this day in age, nothing should ever be banned on the grounds of taste or decency for adults. It's fine to protect children, but once you reach 18, you should be the one who decides what you watch or play, not the government.

freedom of speech includes the right to be offended. this game isnt my cup of tea but i dont mind if people play it.

My view too (well done for complaining JRR).

It's a sick game, but people should be able to play it if they want to.

Banning it just makes it more "cool" to defy the government and having the government predetermine what we should play or not certainly flies in the face of human nature. That is, we can all be a bit sick at times.

I've played "Postal" (http://www.gopostal.com/), I should know.

Not to mention that the government seems to be under the conceit that video games can make serial killers or violent individuals.A crock of shit in my humble opinion.

^^
Yeh more people will probably buy it now than they would have.

P.S. some psychologist say engaging in fantasy violence is healthy.

P.S. some psychologist say engaging in fantasy violence is healthy.

I happen to agree with that. Nothing quite like hacking zombies to pieces with a chainsaw or wiping out mankind in a nuclear holocaust (LOLicaust) :banana:

Humans (or maybe just males) have a predisposition for violent conflict.

In a modern society, with office jobs and stuff, this is unreleased.

But fantasy violence and fiction, like games, movies, violent manga, etc, helps release some of that tribal desire, fullfill the desire for conflict in an environment where nobody is hurt.

Some 'thought police' types would like people to think that it makes people more violent, (or sexual in the case of those kinda fantasies), but the truth is, people who commit crimes are probably already unbalanced.

I kinda like Japanese entertainment, because nobody complains about 'bad influences' and all that crap - people just use as much violence and sex as they want to punctuate their stories.

Wish Britain did the same - instead of TV series like Robin Hood, with camp indypop style, why not make a dark age tale of utter despair and depravity along the lines of 'Berserk' or some Tim Burton movie lol...

Wish Britain did the same - instead of TV series like Robin Hood, with camp indypop style, why not make a dark age tale of utter despair and depravity along the lines of 'Berserk' or some Tim Burton movie lol...

Oh I don't know, we did come up with the Rocky Horror Picture Show. A Sweet Transvestite from Transsexual Transylvania ,who sleeps with both men and women, eats a human being and is amoral and insane. It has gotta be worth a few pages in British depravity books ;) :lol:

When the BBC or someone actually does get round to doing something different like sci-fi, its usually treated like a joke.

'British humor' is great, but it shouldnt take north American producers to make a TV series set in Britain that is actually 'serious' :ohno:

Bring on some bloody historical show, or dark gothic epic fantasy, or dystorian sci-fi, or horror for once :bash:

This should never have been banned. If you want extreme violence and the like there is plenty out there and most studies don't link on-screen violence with reailty. Wont Gordon Brown just stop playing nanny and saying its all for the good of our children.

To be fair, Gordon Brown had nothing to do with this specifically. The rules that the BBFC have to comply by originate from 1959 (Obscene Publications Act) but have been liberalised over the past 10 years. Unfortunately, they still haven't been liberalised enough.

Although Brown has shown his nanny-state credentials in many other areas.

Down with the Nanniban.

Although Brown has shown his nanny-state credentials in many other areas.

That's what I meant. I was refering to the review GB has asked for, concerning violent video games and the effect of new media on children and such things. I think Brown is more conservative than Blair in some areas of liberalism (casinos, cannabis, 24hr drinking, violent media etc) which is a shame.

Great, stuck between two conservatives essentially - Brown and Cameron.

casinos

Although to be fair, i'm glad he scrapped the mega-casinos. They are nothing but crime and corruption magnets.

Although to be fair, i'm glad he scrapped the mega-casinos. They are nothing but crime and corruption magnets.

:ohno: Come off it. Since we don't actually have any super-casinos in this country, then you cannot possibly know that.

A super-casino, or indeed several of them, would not have made an ounce of difference to crime levels. What do you think would have happened? East Manchester would have descended into some-sort of mafia-ruled mini-state?

This casino is not exactly seedy, it would have been large, modern and attractive. Plus, our cities have plenty of casinos anyway for people to gamble in - so one more would have made little difference, except that this super-casino would have created thousands of jobs and produced hundreds of millions of pounds worth of regeneration.

We don't need nannies telling us how to spend our money thank you.

JRR i dont think you would feel as stronglyif it wasnt awarded to manchester. However in principal i dont think that if we did have one in this country peoplewill become driven by an urge to use them!

I think the super-casinos should have been allowed and believe that people have a right to gamble if they so wish.

Therefore I think the government should have gone ahead with the plan on the condition that the US government changes its stance on online gambling (of which the recent ban hit British companies hardest) This may not have worked but its important to bear in mind that the biggest benefactors would be American companies. And they would have gone some way to regenerate some cities which the government wont do anything about.

JRR i dont think you would feel as stronglyif it wasnt awarded to manchester. However in principal i dont think that if we did have one in this country peoplewill become driven by an urge to use them!

I support the freedom to gamble in general. I don't just want to see Manchester get one, I'd hope that others areas in need of large-scale regeneration get them too. I particularly liked the proposal for one to be tied in with the City of Birmingham Stadium. Blackpool always definitely should have got one too.

But alas, the nanny state got in the way and now nobody gets them. Thousands stay on the Dole and huge swathes of cities are undeveloped.

Come off it. Since we don't actually have any super-casinos in this country, then you cannot possibly know that.

No, but you can infer what would happen by looking at Super-Casinos in other countries. So, I can "know that" by looking at the effect they have on communities.

In practically every case it results in higher crime, increased corruption and the breakdown of communities in general (varying).

Some people who love the idea of Super-Casino's are incredibly myopic. Only thinking about the short term benefits of all that money and skyline attractions.While refuting the downsides to such "entertainment".

I'm sorry but that's an absurd argument. The people of Manchester can gamble themselves silly at the moment in the casinos that are already there, online or in betting shops. There has been no increase in crime as a result.

The people who would be likely to use this super-casino would be relatively affluent since I imagine the amount of money you would need to play initially, would be higher than lower-standard casinos elsewhere.

I'm sorry but that's an absurd argument.

I really don't see how. It's like saying that the possibility of contracting cancer is an absurd argument (to stop) if you smoke. Everything has positives and negatives, are you seriously saying that casinos don't?

The people of Manchester can gamble themselves silly at the moment in the casinos that are already there, online or in betting shops. There has been no increase in crime as a result.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you're qualified to make that determination without proving it, or the effect of casinos on communities, which is already well known in many western nations.

The people who would be likely to use this super-casino would be relatively affluent since I imagine the amount of money you would need to play initially, would be higher than lower-standard casinos elsewhere.

Speculative.

FYI:
Gambling attracts clientele disproportionately:
30% don’t gamble at all; most gamble rarely, minority 10% accounts for 2/3rd - 4/5ths of wagers. = Dependance on addicted individuals to support Casino.
30-50% of revenues derive from problem and pathological gamblers (e.g. 48.2% of gaming machine revenue, Aus. Inst. for Gambling Research, 2001; 37% of Montana keno machines & 58% of machine revenue, Ontario Problem Gambling Research Center, 2004; and other studies).
Convenience gambling draws from nearby (ex.: IL, over 70% from less than 35 miles).

Gambling promoters argue gambling creates regional jobs. This is sometimes possible, as in the case of
an Atlantic City or Las Vegas where the area has effectively converted itself into one large casino and
entertainment center that serves primarily tourists. In general, however, gambling:
— Loses area jobs when local gambler dollars are removed from the area (when they otherwise would
not have been) in the form of taxes or are spent by the casino owners or employees outside the area;
— Creates area jobs when outside gambler dollars are spent locally by the casino; and
— Loses net jobs when the first flow is larger than the second.
— Therefore, a full accounting is needed to determine if gambling creates more jobs than it loses.

Crime: Baylor University & University of Georgia – Grinols and Mustard Study
Approximately 9% of total crime (FBI Index I) due to gambling in counties with Class III gambling.
8.6% of property crime; 12.6% of violent crime.
For the average county with a population of 100,000, this implies 615 more larcenies, 325 more
burglaries, 272 more auto thefts, 10 more rapes, 65 more robberies, and 100 more aggravated assaults.

Casinos have some negatives, but not many. Plenty of casinos have opened over the past decade and in that time, crime has gone down.

I think the problem here is that you're not comparing like for like. Las Vegas and Atlantic City have their entire cities pretty much based around gambling. In East Manchester, we're talking about one casino which wasn't even in the city centre - it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the amount of problem gamblers or crime levels.

And even if the government decided to turn a place like Blackpool into some sort of British Las Vegas or Atlantic City, to be honest, that would be a good thing. If you've ever been to Blackpool you'll realise that the place can't possibly be any worse than it is now. It's a town of deprivation and nothing more. The casinos would have brought jobs, huge regeneration, congerence facilities, hotels, shopping centres, restaurants and other leisure facilities which would have turned the town around. Any increase in crime because of the casino would have been completely outweighed by the drop in crime caused by a fall in unemployment, poverty and deprivation.

The people of Manchester can gamble themselves silly at the moment in the casinos that are already there, online or in betting shops. There has been no increase in crime as a result.

there is one brilliant argument against a casino in manchester. mick hucknall, that famous socialist, was one of the main backers of the bid with a large amount of money invested in it. do yuo really want to help mick make more money ?

Casinos have some negatives, but not many.

yes there is. casinos are based on gambling money. an addiction to gambling leads directly to an addiction to money. people addicted to getting more money usually commit crime. other things like drugs only cost money because they are illegal but gambling always costs money no matter what.

I think the problem here is that you're not comparing like for like. Las Vegas and Atlantic City have their entire cities pretty much based around gambling.

If you look at the stats again, they were used as examples on GENERAL DATA.

In East Manchester, we're talking about one casino which wasn't even in the city centre - it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the amount of problem gamblers or crime levels.

International stats say differently.

to be honest, that would be a good thing. If you've ever been to Blackpool you'll realise that the place can't possibly be any worse than it is now.

Really?Somehowi doubt that. Crime would certainly increase. The amount is directly proportional to the size of the Casino in question.

For example:

Smaller Casinos have a smaller effect on crime and employment.
Super Casinos have larger effect on crime and employment.

The casinos would have brought jobs, huge regeneration, congerence facilities, hotels, shopping centres, restaurants and other leisure facilities which would have turned the town around. Any increase in crime because of the casino would have been completely outweighed by the drop in crime caused by a fall in unemployment, poverty and deprivation.

I think you're a being REALLY myopic about this issue.

yes there is. casinos are based on gambling money. an addiction to gambling leads directly to an addiction to money. people addicted to getting more money usually commit crime. other things like drugs only cost money because they are illegal but gambling always costs money no matter what.

??? :bash: Right let's just review two of those sentences:

people addicted to getting more money usually commit crime.

Sorry gothic, but that's one of the silliest comments ever on SSC! Unless you count investment banking as a crime perhaps?!

other things like drugs only cost money because they are illegal

...and that one comes a close second. Would legal drugs be free?

When the BBC or someone actually does get round to doing something different like sci-fi, its usually treated like a joke.

'British humor' is great, but it shouldnt take north American producers to make a TV series set in Britain that is actually 'serious' :ohno:

Bring on some bloody historical show, or dark gothic epic fantasy, or dystorian sci-fi, or horror for once :bash:

I don't know, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_%28film%29) looks pretty good.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/dd/Doomsday_poster.jpg/401px-Doomsday_poster.jpg

If memeory serves correctly, she was the original Tomb Raider Model:)

Just found out the writer/director is from Newcastle! WHOO!:D:banana:

people addicted to getting more money usually commit crime.

is it stupid. if you cant get it legally what do you do?

...and that one comes a close second. Would legal drugs be free?

they would be so cheap you didnt need 2 grand a week for a cocaine habit. this is why countries like switzerland actually give away heroin, and why even the uk is now experimenting with free heroin for addicts.

So are you saying people should be free to take heroin, but not go in a casino?

unless you want to give them free money, yes. gambling is the one addiction that is not easily controlled because it is dependent on the finances of the person doing it and cannot be mitigated without vast amounts of money being given to them. drugs are harmful to society because they are illegal, gambling is harmful to society despite being legal.

Well people have been hit by cars driven by high drug users. I don't think police pull people over for being compulsive gamblers. Babies are born addicted to crack. I havn't heard of one being born addicted to gambling, despite it's harmful impacts on the family.

now whats the fuss about! People can actually gamble anywhere in this country just that you cant lose thousands of pounds chasing an unlimited prize in one hit 24 hours a day. Big deal. If you are really that excited about exercising your 'right' to have a million pound cash prize when playing cards go and travel the world!

Anyone who shouts nanny state over something so based on greed is usually a thatcher child brought up on the lie that there is no such thing as society and that somehow we all live in isolated bubbles serviced by the free market! All a super casino is is what the supermarket is; its not freedom, its about someone making more profit at the expense of other things.

Next minute people will be saying that enforcing sustainable farming practises and protecting the rainforest is the 'nanny state gone mad'. Its not a nanny state it is society protecting from excess that fucks everything up for everyone else. I take it the same people here are excited about Donald Trump excerising is freedom of expression to turn Scotlands coast line into hotels and gold courses?!

i oppose that development completely :)

Couple of points:

An addiction to drugs leads to far worse consequences than any addiction to gambling. That's why I support the right to gamble but I couldn't agree to any legalisation of drugs like heroin.

Also, I'm no Thatcherite but I agree that people should generally have a right to spend their own money how they wish - that includes the right to gamble.

I don't know, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_%28film%29) looks pretty good.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/dd/Doomsday_poster.jpg/401px-Doomsday_poster.jpg

If memeory serves correctly, she was the original Tomb Raider Model:)

Just found out the writer/director is from Newcastle! WHOO!:D:banana:

Hopefully it will be good - nice list of actors.

But I was thinking more of how there is no long running dramas like that on UK TV.

If production costs are too high, all the more reason for British TV to finally go into adult animation, anime style.

^^
Just realised its by the same guy who led the recent Brtish horror revival with Dog Soldiers and The Descent.