Ohh great, now even the impartial Beeb is getting on the "Ohh Holy Christ, Will Somebody Please Think Of The Children?!" bandwagon with regards to video game ratings; tussling with the question "Are there some games just too violent?"

Erm, "maybe, but who the hell are you to tell me what's too violent", would be my answer to that. "The game has an 18 certificate and should not be played by younger gamers. But should it even be played at all?" el Beeb asks of Reservoir Dogs, the really violent video game take on the really violent Quentin Tarantino movie of the same name.

Umm, hello, the "18" rating? Must I wave my arms about incessantly here? First of all, for my yank friends, allow me to explain. In the UK the "18" rating is not the same as its equivalent in the US of A. In the US an 18's rating condemns a game to porno shops. In the UK it's more seen as the upper limit - anything over 18's is for over 18's, and games like Grand Theft Auto get this rating, and everything is kosher, with mainstream retail outlets stocking the titles.

Now, the question being asked is "Should we ban games like Reservoir Dogs because they are too violent?" Which part of the Nanny State will be deciding what we can and cannot view and play, so? Living in liberal societies I daresay that we can view pretty much whatever the hell we want within the bounds of reason, thankyouverymuch, and if you begin to censor Reservoir Dogs today then tomorrow you'll be critiquing the perceived non-politically correct elements of Lemmings.

An 18's rating is an 18's rating: Anyone over 18 is an adult, capable of making adult decisions (and paying for them appropriately.) The big problem, of course, is idiotic parents who blissfully admit things such as "I've never really looked at ratings for games." Probably the same parents who would, in a knee-jerk, go all guns blazing for banning Reservoir Dogs.

I understand that many parents don't have a grasp of video gaming. But if you can't read a big red label with a number between "12" and "18" on it then perhaps we ought to consider banning you from parenting.

The award winning documentary "9/11" by French filmmakers Gedeon and Jules Naudet and retired New York firefighter James Hanlon, all of whom were with a New York fire crew on September 11^th 2001 (and one of the cameramen actually in Tower 1 when Tower 2 collapsed), has been prevented from airing on a number of CBS affiliates due to swearing in the film.

This perhaps marks a rather low watershed - the film was due to be aired at 8pm across the country, but after a campaign from Christian family pressure group the American Family Association it was decided by many affiliates not to show the film. I might take issue with this, if you please.

Airing profanity for profanities sake before the 10pm watershed in the US is not acceptable. In the case of this documentary however, I daresay it is warranted, even if kids are watching - indeed, I daresay that children too young to now remember September 11^th 2001 are the best audience for this film. The swearing in it is not gratuitous. It is human nature, and the swearing is "mostly by fire fighters" - That is, the chaps who ran into the burning buildings whilst everyone else was running out.

To censor or simply not air this documentary in a popular time slot because the men on the ground didn't have the good taste to say things like "Ohh my word, we appear to have been accosted by some rogue trouble makers" instead of "Holy fucking bananas some bastard just flew another goddamn plane into the goddamn tower" is stupid Political Correctness nonsense. Even moreso perhaps coming from an organisation like the AFA, whose other issues of the day include telling us how Ford's 11.6% drop in sales probably has something to do with homosexuals.

I think that we can make exceptions to strict watershed rules in the case of documentaries. Indeed, in the UK you will sometimes news items and documentaries with profane language shown in the middle of the day. Why? Because these things need to be seen. "9/11" is not a film about swearing fire fighters. It's a film about a day that needs to be remembered. Concentrate on the latter, not the former.

Oh wow. Apparently, it's true. Florida Rep. Mark Foley - who resigned last week from the United States Congress after he was exposed for having sent sexually explicit e-mails and instant messages to underage boys who were working as Congressional staffers - is a big Stark Trek fan. In March of 2005, Foley became part of a high profile campaign to save the UPN series "Star Trek: Enterprise" from cancellation. The support campaign was reportedly started by Washington D.C. political lobbyist Dan Jensen, who sought members of Congress to sign a letter that was eventually sent to Paramount. And sure enough, Foley was the first legislator to sign Jensen's letter. Here's what the letter read:

March 2, 2005

Mr. Leslie Moonves
Co-President, Co-Chief Operating Officer
CBS Television
7800 W Beverly Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90036

Dear Mr. Moonves:

As legislators who greatly admire the ideals and values found in the Star Trek
franchise, we are writing you to express our concern and dismay at the decision
to end what has become an American and worldwide cultural phenomenon over the
past forty years, the cancellation of Star Trek: Enterprise.

We are aware of the competitive nature of broadcast television and understand
the need for networks to balance quality entertainment with revenue-generating
programming. However, the decision to end a television show that is among the
very few that exemplify the values of freedom and showcase the best qualities of
humanity is both saddening and sets an alarming precedent for future programming.

Over the past four decades, Star Trek has truly gone where no show has gone
before. First airing in the 1960's, Star Trek was the first show on television
to feature an ethnically diverse cast of main characters and center itself
around current events with story lines paralleling the issues of the times.
Always challenging viewers to think and reexamine their perceptions, Star Trek
stands in sharp contrast to the abundance of shows currently based on ever-
sinking standards of values. As the show has moved through the years, Star Trek
has evolved not only into a strong source of revenue for the networks, but into
a symbol of hope for our future.

The Star Trek franchise has earned hundreds of millions of dollars in theatrical
motion pictures, television series and animated cartoons that have inspired
generations of children to increase their focus on science and mathematics,
giving them a very real opportunity to reach for the stars. And as a shining
tribute to the show's influence on American life, NASA's first Space Shuttle was
named after the spaceship central to Star Trek, the U.S.S. Enterprise.

It is our sincere desire and hope that you and the studio will strongly
reconsider your decision to cancel Star Trek: Enterprise. An end to the show
would leave a gaping hole in one of America's most recognizable icons, and
extinguish an era that was started even before humanity first set foot on the
Moon.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Rep. Mark Foley
Member of Congress

Well, how about that. It's not known how big a Trek fan Foley is; the former
Republican member of the House of Representative has checked himself into an
alcohol rehabilitation clinic, and will probably be out of sight for quite a
while. In addition to being an avid Star Trek supporter, Foley ironically was a
former co-chair for the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children and was
one of the leading activists against child pornography in Congress.

Honestly, you can't make this stuff up.

Anyway, the Congressional letter of support obviously didn't save "Enterprise,"
which was cancelled after four seasons last year. Yes, indeed these are dark
days for Trek.