Serious Ofcom warning for Bang Media

I've just discovered Ofcom also claim the bangbabes website contains "R18 equivalent material" available without adult verification. Ofcom really are taking the piss now and, as I said above, they're not qualified or legally authorised to make such FALSE ASSUMPTIONS.

Ofcom Wrote:In addition, after viewing the content complained of Ofcom noted that during all three broadcasts the website http://www.bangbabes.tv was promoted. When accessed by Ofcom this website featured images of a strong sexual nature equivalent to BBFC R18-rated material (R18-rated equivalent material) which could be readily viewed without appropriate protections. Although this R18-rated equivalent material was not broadcast on-air, Ofcom was concerned that it appeared on a website being promoted on Ofcom licensed services freely available without mandatory restricted access from 21:00.

BULLSHIT!

Ofcom quite obviously do not know what constitutes R18 material because it sure as hell isn't equivalent to Page 3, which is about all you can get without subscription and adult verification from any of the babe channel websites.

The public are being openly lied to and misled. The 'adult' channel viewers are being lied to and misrepresented.

(22-02-2010 16:10 )Chilly Wrote:  ^^^^ God you're good. They (Bang Babes) haven't taken a blind bit of notice though, as Jet, Amanda and some of their daytime girls have all been doing the same stuff in recent days.

It really is amazing how one viewer can manage to get Ofcom to launch this kind of attack on one of these shows. This then means that the thousands of 'adults' who happily enjoy the shows get treated like we all need to be wrapped up in cotton wool.

I'm sick of this nanny state attitude. If I'm offended by what I see, then I change the fucking channel. It really makes you bloody angry that they (Ofcom) seem to believe that one viewer represents the views of the rest of us. God I wish they'd piss off and let us get on with enjoying the shows.

I hope this isn't the end for Bang Babes, I fear they may lose their licence or be pushed to the brink with a huge fine. It does seem though like they're not bothered. You would have thought they would be warning their girls to lay off a bit but no, this morning on EBG Freeview Emma Spellar was treating us to an extended nipslip and neither she nor the director seemed overly concerned - she was lying in the one position for several minutes with one of her nipples clearly exposed.

milfspotter, its nothing anyone couldn't see on page 3 of a daily rag (kids included). Whether exposure to such a sight is inadvertent or not is kind of irrelevant, in fact, its part of British culture and has been for 40 years (if not forever if you count moms breast-feeding babies). What difference does it make that it was on a TV channel? How come it doesn't seem to bother anyone lying on a beach almost anywhere in Europe (or even Brighton or Torquay where you can see much, much more)?

Ofcom's 'standards' do not reflect true British standards/views/opinions - that's the issue. Ofcom's 'standards' do not reflect the views of the vast majority of babe/'adult' channel viewers - and that's the real issue here.

I give up trying to understand what's going on, really I do. Bangbabes would have been contacted by Ofcom the day they received a complaint. Now if I got a phone call from the local copper saying I had been clocked doing 60 in a 30 mph zone, I'd think carefully about doing it again the next day even if I thought the speed limit was not justified. But the Ofcom report creates the impression that Bangbabes put out several rather tasty shows after the first investigation started. They must know they can't get away with it, so why risk a fine - or being closed down - rather than the usual pretend slap on the wrist?

Is someone really playing high stakes poker and trying to force a situation that ends up in court, hoping Ofcom will be told to stop being stupid? Surely not, even Mandelson would not be that Macheavlian. Besides wouldn't their lawyer would tell them it could take 2 years to get a court hearing, and their licence could be suspended all that time?

As for Ofcom, the last 2 Bulletins have been noticably different from previous ones. Perhaps a new person has been put in charge of Adult channels. Or the old person has gone insane. Or they decided they were being ignored and lost their temper. Who knows, perhaps an unnamed person at Downing Street has bullied them into getting tough?

Or perhaps its all a big act to look tough for the Election.

Peter Mandelson, Lord of Darkness, and Friend

Dan, ah but a speed limit is enforced by law for the safety of all road users. Ofcom's Code is nowt but a collection of rights-absuing rules they dreamt up to protect the idea of 'Britishness'. And if you check my reply on the video on demand thread you'll see exactly how wrong and illegal Ofcom's actions truly are (I believe a dereliction of duty according to the Comms Act).

I'm suprised that Ofcom are comong down on Bang Media as it is the only Late Night Broadcaster on Sky that shows you blow by blow how to restrict access to their channels and how to hide/disable its channels so that they do not appear in Sky's EPG!!

(24-02-2010 23:43 )IanG Wrote:  milfspotter, its nothing anyone couldn't see on page 3 of a daily rag (kids included). Whether exposure to such a sight is inadvertent or not is kind of irrelevant, in fact, its part of British culture and has been for 40 years (if not forever if you count moms breast-feeding babies). What difference does it make that it was on a TV channel? How come it doesn't seem to bother anyone lying on a beach almost anywhere in Europe (or even Brighton or Torquay where you can see much, much more)?

Ofcom's 'standards' do not reflect true British standards/views/opinions - that's the issue. Ofcom's 'standards' do not reflect the views of the vast majority of babe/'adult' channel viewers - and that's the real issue here.

Hi IanG,
I agree with you absolutely about Brighton, page 3 etc. The point I was trying to make is that Emma's performance was in breach of ofcom's regulations for daytime shows but no one seemed bothered. Indeed, looking at Bangbabes just now I can see that on 912, 948 and 959 all of the babes have been topless from about 21:30 onwards. Normally Bang babes waits for 22:00 before exposing breasts. It's like they just don't care anymore.

I cannot get het up about the rulings of Ofcom because there is neither rhyme nor reason to validate them. When the ITC was replaced Ofcom declared it would be a hands-off transparent organisation ... crikey bobs, take your jaws off the floor.
I couldn't care less about the babe shows and the adult channels as they are all sizzle without the steak; operated by individuals intent only on extracting the maximum revenue from punters and informing on competitior channels. Let them go to wall.
It is somewhat amusing and ironic that in the week that Ofcom's crusade against BB, BS etc launched, Fiver quietly slipped in an uncensored version of A Girl's 21st Century Guide to Sex. Elizabeth Lawrence was busy performing a cross over or something with prolonged close up penetration - I suppose the obligatory internal money shot contextualised the piece.
Now having done a bit of homework, I found out that the series has about 8 episodes and the one in question is number 6. Aha, you say (not referencing the 80s Norwegian popsters), I'll watch that this week!
Well, no you won't because it has now vanished from the schedule while the dust settles.
What was doubly funny about this was that it was not pin protected and went out on Fiver at 9pm. Before being repeated on +1 at 10pm.
You just could not make this stuff up.
I just can't take anymore, I'm going to levy a statutory sanction against myself.

(22-02-2010 15:22 )IanG Wrote:  And if Ofcom said to you, as they did to BB in Bulletin 120 that, 'close-up breast fondling, over-knicker pussy rubbing and inside-knicker 'simulated masturbation' should not be broadcast before 22:00', wouldn't you take it as read this would be fine after 22:00?

Ofcom got quite shirty about their previous ruling being turned around and used against them. "Just because we said it THIS is not allowed under THESE conditions, it does not mean the opposite, that THIS is allowed when the opposite conditions apply (ie after 10pm)". Ironically Ofcom themselves legitimised this argument.

According to them if the situation is the opposite then that means allowed/not allowed is reversed, even if the rule does not spell it out.

Here is what Rule 1.24 used to say until it was changed in December:
Premium subscription services and pay per view/night services may broadcast 'adult-sex' material between 2200 and 0530 provided that in addition to other protections named above ... manadatory PIN ... adult verification"

Several channels have argued that Rule 1.24 did not ban 'adult-sex' material on free-to-air channels as the Rule was specifically about pay channels. After all, it does not say that. Ofcom said Oh Yes It Did and fined them anyway.

So if they say its banned, its banned, and if they say its permitted sometimes its still banned. Interesting use of English.

Peter Mandelson - An Apology

In a previous post I included a picture of a slimey invertibrate under the title "Peter Mandelson, Lord of Darkness, and Friend". I have been asked to point out that Peter Mandelson does not have friends, and apologise unreservedly for any embarrasment the suggestion may have caused.