Rockstar stole my taxi

In the media over the last couple of days there have been several commentators calling for Rockstar's latest Grand Theft Auto incarnation to be banned in the UK after it was banned in Thailand after someone murdered a taxi driver and claimed to have been influenced by it.

According to Captain Veerarit Pipatanasak of the Bangkok police, "he wanted to find out if it was as easy in real life to rob a taxi as it was in the game". Fair enough.

Following this, though, the standard comments appear from columnists, broadcasters and self serving do gooder groupies about how kids are being turned into mass murderers by games that feature realism in terms of driving, shooting or explosions.

Even if games are an influence on people, which I suppose in some ways they are, it's as if other forms of "acceptable" media such as books and television are not influential. I mean, those that shot JFK, John Lennon, Ronald Reagan and Martin Luther King all had copies of and were heavily influenced by The Catcher in the Rye. Is it banned? Nope. Is there an outcry about it? Nope. They even study it in school in the US.

Movies are full of explicit criminality these days. I suppose they always were. Even at a rating of 12A the latest Batman incarnation - The Dark Knight - features people having their cheeks sliced with a knife and someone having a pen smashed through the middle of their forehead within the first 20 minutes, as well as a far more influential villain in the Joker who makes it fun to blow up hospitals, burn people alive on bonfires, disguise innocents as terrorists to cause friendly fire deaths and induce fear with Catch 22 mind games where the outcome is death if you don't kill loads of other people.

Some say Heath Ledger died due to his role as the Joker which I find somewhat ironic. Without wishing to go into a critique on this film (which I thought was a good film), there were also plenty of incidents of grand theft auto and other crimes involving vehicles as well as weapons including a rocket launcher.

So why then has Grand Theft Auto 4 (a game rated as 18) been slammed constantly by people for being too violent and/or influential when The Dark Knight has just as much violence and is rated as only a 12A?

I believe part of it is down to the antisocial stereotype that comes with owning a games console. Nintendo have broken this stereotype somewhat with the Wii, but it's the only console that is seemingly exempt from it. Its just a shame almost all the games for it are crap.

Since video gaming became mainstream in the mid 1990's with the Commodore Amiga, Sega Mega Drive and Super Nintendo, there has always been an older generation of people that didn't have video games as a kid and look down at gaming as being a strange solo activity. They have no concept of multiplayer games or gaining enjoyment from playing games that are remotely realistic. Apparently if it's cartoony then it's OK, though.

Well what did they do when they were kids? Play cops and robbers? Do knitting? I dont know but I find both of those strange activities. I suppose that works both ways.

But people of this distant generation seem to think that in order to play GTA 4 you have to have ambitions similar to the main character of the game. Not true. It's just a character around which the storyline is based. If the suggestion is that people want to get guns because of GTA 4 I would argue that people who are determined to get guns already have one.

Some people suggest that people buy GTA 4 because it teaches them how to steal cars but really this just shows their own lack of knowledge and acceptance of media scaremongering as fact. GTA 4 doesn't teach you how to commit real world car theft: it merely provides a means to get a new car. You press the yellow button on your Xbox 360 controller. It's hardly the same, is it? Gone in 60 Seconds probably teaches you more about it in the real world, but nobody ever mentions that.

Realistic video games are all about doing fun or crazy things you couldn't or wouldn't do in real life. It's about being part of the action rather than a spectator. For example in FIFA 2008 you can be a Premiership footballer. In Project Gotham you can drive fast and recklessly in cars of your dreams. In NBA Live 2008 you can be Kobe Bryant.

In GTA 4 you can be a common criminal involved in a battle of mafia-style families. You can steal a helicopter and fly freely around Liberty City, land it wherever you want, even jump out of it in mid air. You can drive a high performance car up a large number of ramps to complete crazy stunts such as barrel rolls. You can be a law enforcement officer and settle the most wanted list. You can even cruise round in a fire engine blasting the water hose at people if you want to.

The best thing is that unlike many games which are heavily scripted, GTA 4 isn't. The city is amazingly realistic and you have freedom to do whatever you want within the city. Whilst the storyline is finite, the game never ends until you get bored. Which is generally when you complete the storyline.

Rockstar have combined three popular genres with GTA. Driving and roleplay with a bit of first person shooter (FPS) in there as well. The driving aspect is modelled so that each vehicle drives individually and as you might expect it to drive in the real world. So a sports car is both fast and handles sharply whereas a large American style lowrider drives like a boat.

Some might suggest that those that have played GTA 4 would want to get in their car and run over a pavement of pedestrians. I obviously haven't done it (although some crazy Japanese guy did recently), but it is impossible to re-enact a GTA 4 pedestrian steamroller scenario in real life anyway. In GTA 4 you can mow down the entire centre of Liberty City (modelled on Times Square), suffer no damage to your car, attract no police attention and even if you do it's really easy to get away from them. In real life all you have to do is shine a laser pen at a police vehicle for 4 months behind bars.

Police chases are something that people love: look at the popularity of the Police, Camera, Action fly on the wall cop shows or indeed most action movies. But unless you're a criminal in real life, you probably wont ever be involved in one. Unlike movies though, where you only spectate whilst John Travolta is hammering it in his TVR Tuscan in Swordfish, you can be the one being chased in GTA 4 and it's up to your own driving skill and ingenuity to get away. Personally I think whilst I'm able to enact this in a video game I'm less likely to want to do it in real life.

Many people that have no interest in gaming often claim that video games are for kids but this is yet another completely unfounded statement based on nothing at all. I don't even agree that controversial console games such as GTA 4 are marketed to kids even though the media likes to tell us that they are. Ian Collins on talkSPORT commented that GTA 4 had cartoon-like packaging and therefore was marketed at children. Rubbish. It's just a style of art. He then admitted that he bought a Playstation "to play Space Invaders". Right.

A recent survey was done by Experion group to find out the facts about Xbox 360 and PS3 owners. It concluded that the average age of Xbox 360 owners is between 35-44 and of PS3 owners is over 44 years old.

I'm pretty sure software developers are aware of this demographic. Since GTA 4 is only out on these two consoles why would they market the games at kids? The answer is they wouldn't unless it was a game actually designed for kids.

People often overlook the fact that Rockstar really didnt need to advertise this game. Call it viral advertising or whatever but everyone knew it was coming out and it was much anticipated. This was proven by the fact that it outsold all movies ever with something like $500million of sales within the first week of release.

Maybe if those people in the media that have so much to say about games such as GTA 4 actually went and played it they would realise that it's nothing more than a realistic city with no limits. It's up to the player how they want to play it.

It's the taking part that counts

That idiot Dr Tanya Byron has been self publicising again: today she came out with yet more revelations about video game censorship.

She reckons that games should be labelled as films currently are, i.e. Universal, PG, 15, 18 and so on.

Wow. If she had a clue about the subject matter she would realise that most games are rated already, and no matter what age you place on a video game it won't stop kids from playing it just like it doesn't stop kids buying cigarettes under age, buying booze under age or renting/buying 18 rated films under age.

Does she really think kids are copying what they see in video games? Really? Does she really think first person shooter games are the cause of black gun culture, or that games such as Grand Theft Auto are the cause of youths taking vehicles without their owners consent?

Does she really think kids are not exposed to sex or violence before they are 15, or even 18? Most TV programmes after 9pm are packed with both but I don't see Byron bleating about this, probably because hey, she is getting paid by taxpayers to compile a report about the danger of the Internet and of video games to kids. So hey, lets not consider everything else outside the box eh Tanya?

I can't be arsed with bleeding heart do-gooder spongers like Byron that make a name for themselves by inciting hysteria within the ignorant masses. Gary Glitter is a bigger danger to kids than some coloured pixels on a computer monitor. Has she really nothing better to do than regurgitate this crap every other month on TV as though it's some ground-breaking discovery she has made?

Ultimate Speed Camera

It's been shown many times that speed (or "safety" as they like to call them) cameras are not effective at reducing accidents and it's common knowledge that these cameras serve only to extract more money from the motorist by enforcing archaic speed limits.

You can understand it: it's free money for them. Sure, a bit of investment in the cameras, support and staffing but from then on it's ding 60 quid here, ding 95 quid here if they decide to take the driving course instead of the 3 penalty points on the licence. Easy.

Apparently they are going to start reducing speed limits on country roads which historically have been national speed limit (I think this is 60 mph on a single carriageway).

The problem I have with these cameras is that they were touted as being placed only in accident black spots - the implication being that they reduced injuries and fatalities caused by speeding motorists. I'm all for that if that is the reason.

The problem is that most of the ones I see are placed in places with no schools, no shops and no houses nearby and in many cases they slyly reduce the speed limit so people don't realise they are speeding and get themselves caught by a camera. For example on wide dual carriageways leading up to motorways.

What defines an accident black spot? This is a question I wrote in a letter to the local newspaper a few years ago in response to an article detailing the placement of a speed camera near my house. The residents of a house outside which the camera was placed understandably did not want the camera outside their home. My letter was published, however no responses were drawn from the moronic do-gooders at the 'Road Safety Partnership'.

I can think of loads of speed cameras nearby but these places are hardly black spots. I do know, though, that it was common to exceed the speed limit in these areas.

Taking another angle on it, if someone gets run over whose fault is it? In almost all cases the motorist ends up getting shafted, but lately almost all of the cyclists I have seen have had no lights on their bike. I have seen gangs of teenagers walking down the middle of the road deliberately to antagonise motorists. They tend to swagger along and move out of the way only at the last minute unless you stop, in which case they make abusive gestures at you.

I quite often see dogs that run out into the road on those extensible dog leads because the owner is on some different planet and doesn't restrict it. I always worry when I see parents walking along with kids that must be about 3 years old and they let the kid walk along the kerb without holding their hand. Are people that fucking stupid?

A motorist can be driving any speed and if someone be it child, or dog, or teenager runs into the road then it's quite likely that when colliding with a 1.5 ton lump of metal there will be injury whether the driver is driving at the speed limit or 3 miles per hour above it. But as always given all of the above examples the motorist ends up drawing the short straw.

There is also the factor of the drunk, uninsured, banned driver. It drives me mad that courts seem to think that banning a driver means they definitely wont be on the roads and there have been loads of cases where someone that is banned has got straight back behind the wheel and run someone over. No speed cameras or speed limits will ever change that.

Pressure groups like the Road Safety Partnership just love to blanket as many incidents as possible speed related because it feeds their own purpose and pays their wages: the reality is that crap drivers will always be crap drivers and idiots will always be idiots no matter the speed cameras, traffic calming measures, or whatever.

The best way to solve accident blackspots are to make them non-blackspots. Change the road design, add more saftey railings or pedestrian crossings. Encourage pedestrians to realise they have a responsibility for safety as well.

The Police must realise that people slow down for cameras and then speed up again provided the flow of traffic permits it. This is why they often position a mobile camera just after the fixed GATSO camera: to catch people speeding up again.

Speed cameras are unhelpful and frustrate motorists. The facts show clearly that they have made no impact on the number of fatalities on the road. In some cases, where they are hidden and may appear suddenly in the viewpoint of the driver causing him or her to slam the brakes on, it could be argued that they are dangerous too.

The ultimate form of speed camera would be one that could detect bad or erratic driving, drunk driving and so on however this probably wont ever be invented. The next best thing is to hit bad drivers hard with some jail time. This wont happen either.

I guess we are stuck with the draconian, unforgiving form of speed enforcement for now. I'm just surprised there aren't any vigilante groups going round spraying the lenses so they don't work!

There are monsters out there!

I'm getting a bit tired of seeing stuff in the media about paedophiles. Don't get me wrong, I think it's appalling what they do and that they should bring in the death penalty for these people but the hype and scaremongering that goes with it drives me mad - because people believe it.

The media would have you believe that round every corner a paedophile was waiting in the bushes wanking over your kids and was going to kidnap them and commit appalling acts on them later. It's bollocks. In the grand scheme of UK PLC paedophilia is relatively insignificant in number and the authorities know where they all are anyway, except the odd one of course.

But I do belive that the media hype inspires senseless mob culture as well as causing some kids to be effectively locked away like prized posessions by overprotective parents. I remember reading one story in the newspaper a while ago where a woman had her windows smashed and her car daubed in paint with "PAEDO". She was a paediatrician.

More recently in the local news a development of a 4-story high block of flats was mentioned and local residents were kicking off about it. It's a development that has been on and off for about 2 years now due to various complaints and so on. But this time they are complaining that someone that buys one of these flats might be a paedophile and might want to take photos of children in the nursery that is across the road. A seemingly desperate attempt to stop the development given that it's basically complete now.

I browsed the website of the newspaper in question to read that several comments had been made on there following the story. The first five or six were jovial: one querying whether the next move would be to build 30 foot high walls around every school as a preventative measure and another being that they should step it up more and build domes in case paedophiles fly over in helicopters.

At the end, though, one woman was totally in agreement that the development of flats should be stopped because a prospective owner might actually be a paedophile. Even more bizarrely she went on to say that paedophiles come from all backgrounds and aren't a specific category of person therefore any of the buyers of these flats could be one. She is right of course, but what are the chances? You can't live your life thinking that everyone is a paedophile, murderer, or any other criminal. She kept quoting "there are monsters round every corner" and saying "don't you watch the news?!" I do watch the news, and paedophilia certainly isn't the pandemic she would have you believe. The media has her convinced though.

The mind boggles.

Globally boring

Just seen an interview on Sky with the Director of Friends of the Earth. Can't remember his name but he had grey hair and black eyebrows and reminded me of Alistair Darling.

He actually said something that I agree with, and that is that IF Government wants people to care about global warming they need to make people feel like the small things they do affect the bigger picture rather than issuing negative warnings that the world is going to explode in 2025 unless everyone recycles their empty cans of baked beans and pays more council tax.

It's a strange one. What is global warming? It could either be a genuine climatic condition that the world is affected by. Or it could be propaganda on a grand scale that lures us into believing we're all going to die unless we pay the Government loads more tax on stuff we can't live without, like fuel.

This Friends of the Earth bloke on Sky was ranting on about the world being less congested, fuel being cheaper, more jobs, bigger houses, less poverty, cure for cancer and so on IF and only if we use energy saving bulbs, switch our lights off when we leave the room religiously and continue to get down on our knees and pay the ridiculous so-called green taxes that the hypocritical Government ministers keep slapping us in the face with.

You see, I don't really think the UK Government is interested in global warming in the environmental sense. Of course, there's no doubt they love the guilt tax they can keep applying to life's pleasures in the name of it but other countries have provided incentives to be greener. In Germany for example their Government introduced incentives for people to get solar panels in 2000. They have the world's largest solar farm in Germany. I don't see our Government subsidising solar or any renewable energy for that matter. I don't see our Government doing anything about the crisis they claim to be imminent other than making money from it.

What difference does me paying 200 quid or 300 quid for my car tax make? None whatsoever other than to fund Gordon Brown's wasteful public spending plans that reform all the things Labour manifested to reform when they were voted in in 1997. Does it even pay to build new roads? No. Does it pay to improve bus travel or rail travel or subsidise their use? No.

Even so-called eco friendly fuels such as LPG are not cheap enough for people to want to spend thousands to convert their cars, devaluing them in the process. Where's the incentive?

They have the right idea in London. Making people pay £8 per day to drive into the city probably pushes car travel up to similar prices as rail travel. It's a shame it's gone that way rather than rail prices coming down.

I laughed at what an environmentalist on Sky News said when questioned as to his views about the opinion that global warming was a load of rubbish. He claimed that it must be true because all the world leaders support it.

How many of them have a clue about science?