Taking responsibility for ones actions is not very popular these days: companies are setting up all over the world to take advantage of lax laws on public liability insurance funds, the net result being that you can fall down the stairs at a pub while drunk and then sue them for a lot of money for not having a lift installed.

This also translates to the gaming world as well, the tabloids are replete with stories about how violent games are bringing the downfall of society, how games with partial nudity will condemn us all to the depths of the City of Dis in Hell, how driving games are teaching the drivers of tomorrow to drive recklessly and how SingStar is giving hundreds of teenage girls the false impression that they can sing�

And who could forget the tragedy this Summer, when a young man was killed by a friend after he had supposedly been playing Manhunt and seen violent representations of death in the game? Or the condemnations of the retailers who sold copies of San Andreas to people that subsequently ended up in the hands of children.

Fingers are always pointed squarely at the games industry and the retailers.

This is quite simply a case of shifting the blame to another party in order to cover up for one's own culpability in the matter. And it's a trend that has become all too popular in recent years, "The Blame Everybody But Yourself" culture is encroaching into our favourite hobby, and we don't like it.

Let me give you an illustrative example; a colleague of mine (let's call him "Gamestore Employee") once refused sale of an 18-Rated game to a young man who appeared underage. The Video Standards Council rules state that when you are unable to produce a form legal identification when asked for it, that you are not allowed to buy an age rated product. The young man in question asked "Gamestore Employee" -rather huffily, what would be considered legal identification. "Gamestore Employee" replied that a passport, Citizen Card or Drivers Licence were usually the best things to try.

The young man exploded with rage at this.

He promptly informed "Gamestore Employee" that as he suffered from a severe form of epileptic seizures that he was not allowed to drive; and this must mean that "Gamestore Employee" was prejudiced against him because he could not drive. After attempting to calm the young man down, "Gamestore Employee" just gave up, the young man was convinced that he would not be able to buy the game because he could not drive. He left.

Soon after, he returned with his mum (a sure sign of maturity) who demanded to know why her son (who was actually underage) would not be sold the game. She was told that when asked he could not produce identification �such as a passport or drivers licence. This she equated to prejudice against her underage son and told "Gamestore Employee" that she would complain about his attitude to the highest levels of management in the company to get what she wanted. To which "Gamestore Employee" asked her if her son truly did suffer from epileptic seizures and also photosensitive seizures, she told him that this was the case. With a smile "Gamestore Employee" told her that he would be irresponsible if he had let someone underage buy a game �he would have lost his job. But this lady by encouraging her son to play games was at risk of losing something far more important �her son. Do videogames cause photosensitive seizures, she asked? They have been known to, she was told.

In alcoholism, such a person is known as an "Enabler": someone who, by irresponsible action or passive encouragement, feeds the habit of the addicted.

So what is the point of this little story? Well, if it's not obvious, it's this; parents need to take far more responsibility for their children than they do these days. I am not in any way encouraging parents monitor via CCTV the every action of their child and scrutinise the monthly phone bills for anomalous calls, far from it. But I have seen so many parents standing in line with their children at the games shop I work in, clutching a copy of GTA: San Andreas in their hand for their five year-old that has been pestering them for it. Even when the themes are explained to them, the rating (prominently displayed on the game) is pointed out to them, still they persist, because it will keep their children out of their hair for a while.

One of the shortest words in the dictionary is "No". Yet so few people seem to use it with their children.

And I hope you'll forgive me for saying, but why have children at all if you are simply going to push them away and "keep them out of your hair"? Surely the objective would be to nurture the child, encourage it, to demonstrate the importance of right and wrong. There are very few reports of parents, however, standing next to their children whilst playing Manhunt saying "In the real world, you're not allowed to kill people with screwdrivers". It all seems absolutely crazy to me, but it seems to have become fashionable to have a "Buy now, pay later" attitude towards parenting.

Fingers are often squarely pointed at the retail sector for selling games to underage people, but this only occurs in a minority of cases. Most retail employees of the larger companies in the games sector are always watching their back for Trading Standards �who are ever ready to swoop and level a �5000 fine and a jail sentence. True, some companies and stores are lax, but they are almost invariably made examples of.

Yet why do the parents not know what their children are playing? Do they not at least have some idea what goes on behind the closed door? In another striking blow for good sense, many parents often take the line that their children have played the game elsewhere, so the damage is already done, so they should be allowed to keep playing �if it keeps them quiet. For every parent who is unaware of the themes of these games, there are those that are perfectly lucid and buy them simply for peace and quiet. Again they shift the responsibility away from themselves and argue that the exposure they have already had justifies continued exposure, and that it is the duty of other parents to know what their children are playing.

The next argument often heard is that if developers and stores are responsible for these games and therefore should stop making and selling them. Without the games on sale, here would be no negative influence on children and those vulnerable to the influence of such things. The arguments against stifling creativity aside, you cannot protect children from everything, there must come a point where they face up to the horrible realities of the world. There are so many other mediums that are censored too as a result of this attitude of irresponsibility, works of art are hidden and shown at 2am in the morning because mummy and daddy won't put the kids to bed. Some claim they don't have time to take on the education of their children.

Excuse me? You don't have time to raise your children?

It is the parents that should stand beside their children during these times to show them the way, it is not the responsibility of the developers and retailers to step back, but instead to face up to parents and tell them that the line must be drawn at their own front door.

[email protected]