Keith Vaz Brings Up Stefan Pakeerah, Ryan Chinnery and Secret Tea Parties in Commons Debate

During a debate on Thursday in the House of Commons, a number of MPs, including videogame critic and Labour party MP Keith Vaz, debated the future of the rating systems used to control the sales of videogames.

Amid the debate (the abridged transcript can be found on GamePolitics), the PEGI and BBFC rating systems were debated, as well as the Byron Report’s suggestions on the matter. If you are interested in what was said, and how making any solid decision either way was avoided, then make sure to read the transcript.

During the debate, Mr. Vaz again commented on the videogame “Kaboom” (something I have contacted Mr. Vaz about and am expecting a response to shorty), arguing that it’s not right that children under the age of 18 can have access to them. John Whittingdale (Con) responded by pointing out that firstly, the game is a “remarkably crude, cartoon-type game and is not in the least realistic” and secondly that “other games pose greater concerns”. He also said he was not convinced that it should be banned based on some people being offended or distressed by it.

As part of Mr. Vaz’s main talking point, he made explicit mention of both Stefan Pakeerah and Ryan Chinnery.

I first became involved in this issue when the son of one of my constituents, Stefan Pakeerah, was murdered in Leicester. The murder mirrored scenes in a video game called “Manhunt”. Warren LeBlanc was sent to prison, and Stefan Pakeerah is dead. Stefan’s mother started a campaign about the harmful effects of video games and got me involved in it…

He did mention later that the police found no connection between the murder and Pakeera’s death.

I remind hon. Members that, when I mentioned the Pakeerah case, the industry representatives said to me that the judge and the police made it clear that they did not think that “Manhunt” and the actions in that game had an impact on Warren Leblanc. They said that, yes, the video was in his house, but they did not think it had any effect.

Not to be undermined (by himself), Mr. Vaz then implied the police were wrong, by using a quote from the UK tabloid The Sun.

However, just last week, on 7 November, to quote The Sun,
“A teenage sex beast [Ryan Chinnery] who attacked women in an imitation of Grand Theft Auto was locked up yesterday….”
In “Grand Theft Auto IV”, the player assumes the identity of a criminal… To move up the food chain, characters drive around carrying out increasingly brutal missions.

He also said he didn’t believe that any censorship should be enforced on 18+ games, as long as under 18s didn’t have access to them.

We are saying clearly that for someone who is over 18, there should be no censorship or attempt to stop them seeing or doing whatever they want as far as video games are concerned.

A number of Conservative MPs were on hand to give their opinions, surprisingly often more liberal that Mr. Vas’. Edward Vaizy pointed out not only that trying to ban “Kaboom” was silly, but he also gave a bit of perspective on the situation at a whole.

The only point that I wish to make is that I feel that the whole video games industry has been unfairly tarred with the same brush on the back of one or two inappropriate video games… Members should remember how important, successful and legitimate the vast majority of the industry is.

Also worthy of mention in the debate is that at one point, Mr. Vaz seemed to attempt to undermine the integrity of Mr Vaizy by “exposing” that he met with the ELSPA.

I am not sure whether Mr. Vaizey is a prince among shadow Ministers, as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said. I will be interested to hear what he has to say, because I spotted him in Portcullis House having a cup of coffee with representatives of [game publishers lobby ELSPA]

Sometimes, I like UK politics. Not because people who don’t play videogames have to wade through a swamp of exaggerations, lies and misleading information in an attempt to construct laws around videogames. I like UK politics because you can stand up and demand an explanation as to why somebody was at a secret tea party.