Game causes Murder

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by the BBC

"It doesn't really come as surprise. They say no publicity is bad publicity. But I must say I'm saddened and disappointed," said Giselle Pakeera, Stefan's mother.
"The content of this game is contemptible. It's a societal hazard and my concern is to get it off the shelves as there's enough violence in society already."

So, if she is that concerned with the violence portrayed in the game, why did she allow her son to have it? Assuming that the game did belong to the victim.

[kronas]

just a small note:

Publicity surrounding the "Manhunt" game has sparked a consumer frenzy in Britain, with copies flying off the shelves in stores where it is still available.

Music chain HMV, one of the few retailers continuing to sell the game -- legally only for those over 18 -- said sales had "significantly increased", to the extent that stores in London and the Scottish city of Aberdeen had to be restocked after running out of copies.


Other HMV branches in major cities including Manchester, Edinburgh and Belfast have sold out of the game.

"The great irony is that since it came out last year, sales of Manhunt had been negligible,"

i can see the irony somewhere

EDIT just seen Richard M post

[zovat]

Originally Posted by scastle

So, if she is that concerned with the violence portrayed in the game, why did she allow her son to have it? Assuming that the game did belong to the victim.

Exactly...

If (as intimated by the latest reports) the game - rated 18 was owned by the victim (aged 14) and (a reasonable assumption) the mother knew this. (after all - she declared that the murder was similar to the game ).

To come out, after allowing her son to own a game that states that it contains violence and is not suitable for those under 18, and say such games should be banned is both hypocritical, and fully understandable.

I cannot begin to imagine the grief and pain of losing your child, let alone in such a brutal and seemingly pointless attack.

To find something to hook onto and blame for this is a perfectly understandable reaction, the fact that this game shows similar violence makes it an all too easy target for the grief and pain she is feeling.

Unfortunately, later facts have shown that this is most likely a knee jerk reaction - she had no objection to her son owning the game (again with the assumptions above) before he was murdered, but now she feels the need to make her son's death mean something, if you like, to find some ray of hope from this hopeless time.

Once again - this is an understandable reaction, but it must be seen for what it is.

Many perople have changed their attitutes towards things as a result of a traumatic incident - some of these have led to better lives for others, and some have led to the increasing "nanny state" in which we find ourselves.

I for one do not think the game was the reason - any more than I believe Rambo was Michael Ryans role model for the Hungerford murders (and I was both there, and lost friends that day). But I believe that it is the right of the mother to find her own way of grieving for her son - if that means campaigning against these games, then so be it, if it helps her come to terms with her grief, then it has a benefit.

The tabloids will jump on these outporings of grief, because that is their fodder, but society generally finds a middle road - probably there will be tighter controls on sales, bigger warnings (as for cigarettes) and a lot of publicity.

(remember when Microsoft took parts of their flight sim out after someone spotted you could crash into the twin towers ? )

(note sig as always )