Yet oddly, denied everywhere else as far as I can see. So on one hand we have a stated source, in a major national newspaper (the guardian) and also quoted on the BBC. On the other we have a net article that says different, but fails to back it up with any references or footnotes. Hmmm. 

which is again, contrary to every other source I can see. There may be "No proof that Jon saw the entire film...." But it seems to me blatantly obvious there is no proof he watched it AT ALL. It (allegedly) appears on a rental list. what proof is that? Where exactly is the proof he watched any of it?

You interpretation is irrelavent.  

The fact that article includes battery insertion into the anus (even in a "police believed" vaugery way) again makes me doubt the accuracy of the article you are using: It was quite clear from the evidence that that simply wasn't true. It mentions it here:

http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/bulger.html

and also contains:

"Venables and Thompson had access to a collection of violent films, though no testimony that the boys had been watching them was presented at their trial."

Which again contridicts your assertion that: "I do like the way you keep refering back to the police inspectors quote despite that fact that it was totally contradicted by the evidence given at the trial"

You keep posting things that back up my assertition that it is extremely dubious the boy(s) even watched childs play 3. Here it is again: "It is not known whether the boy watched any of his father's adult movies" . Not Known = No Evidence. AGAIN.

This is in direct contridiction of you earlier statements. Do you agree?

You are one the inventing fictional scenario's where the father was forcing the son to watch horror movies to toughen him up, not me.

No, I think it's entirely bollocks. I still haven't seen any evidence that shows they a)definately watched childs play 3 and b)were definately influenced by it.

You've presented (I think, i can't be arsed to count) less back up than me actually. So going on what you've posted here your only "checking" has come from two sources.

It`s been a long saturday afternoon so I`m going to pick up this glove. I don`t need the exact numbers, but what rates are you referring to? It`s hard to see how the crime rate could drop when we keep inventing new crimes all the time. I can personally remember the times that it was legal for a man to beat a woman, or force her to have sex with him, as long as he did it within wedlock and the privacy of his own home, to give just one appealing example. Today such acts are branded as crimes and violent ones at that. Slapping your kid around the ears when it misbehaves is technically child abuse, and as such punishable by law. The list goes on.
Of course, most new crimes are inherently non-violent (e.g. cyber-crimes), so it`s very likely the percentage of crimes that are violent (meassured against the grand total of crimes) has been dropping.

A few 'statistics' quoted from last weeks newspapers in my country: Violent shop robberies are on the rise, and although the number of crimes comitted by juveniles has been stable, the percentage of those crimes that were violent, has more than doubled. There are reasons for both that have nothing to do with popular media and/or games directly, but it doesn`t speak of a decline in violent crimes _in recent years_.

If you meant to say that _outside the crime figures_ society is becoming less violent, you may be right. But what have centuries of growing intolerance towards violence have to do with games that have only been around for, what, two decades? Todays renditions of popular fairy tales (by the likes of Disney Studios) are sickeningly sweet compared to those of the brothers Grimm, who already 'sweetened up' the stories they collected before they were mass printed. Did Shakespeare write Hamlet for a niche audience? These days everybody is watching romcoms, sitcoms, and bloody reality shows. Does this prove that it`s okay to make some ultra violent games and sell them to kids?

Playing such games as Cowboys and Indians is considered by many to be a violent pass time these days, to the point of people picketing outside toyshops that sell toy guns, when it used to be a healthy exercise of kids running after and shouting at eachother. The educational factor of such games lies in the total absence of rules, forcing kids to make up their own each and every time they play. How many kids surrender, play dead, go over to the other side or simply cheat? It`s more an experiment in what is fair than in what`s the best way to kill someone. I`ve watched my nephews playing against eachother on the console, making up their own rules of fairness and abiding by them. The eldest felt compelled to ask permission of the younger to use his special move, just so he could show me what it looked like. I find that very reassuring, even if they don`t show any constraint using any and all moves against a computer opponent.

By contrast, playing alone against a computer, within the narrow confines of a kill or be killed game is unhealthy.

Which isn`t to say it isn`t fun.

________________________________________________________

IRL: Edwin Hofstra

- mostly crewing at the moment