Bang Babes: Further breaches & possible new sanctions

(02-08-2010 16:29 )chrislatimer Wrote:  why bangbabes didnt get a dutch license like cellcast baffles me,

What difference would that make to what goes out on the fta 900s? Cellcast's output is no stronger so I don't see your point there, chrislatimer.

(02-08-2010 16:29 )chrislatimer Wrote:  why bangbabes didnt get a dutch license like cellcast baffles me,

Really Chris?

Who gets the £150,000 fine Ofcom handed to Bang Media?

Who's money was/is it really? The fines are capped based on income, not pre or post tax profit - i.e. its not Bang Media's money per se but the callers'.

All I see is an illegal Code being used to front a money laundering operation.

I think we need to put a few things straight. The 'Right of Reply', which is what the Ofcom complaints procedure is supposed to implement, exists to allow members of the public (or small companies) to seek redress without the expense of taking, say, C4 Despatches or BBC Watchdog or Rogue Traders to court for libelous slander.

Ofcom's Code is supposed to be clear, concise, precise. The Code is supposed to "ensure the under eighteens are protected" and that "members of the public are adequately protected from offensive and harmful material". Instead, however, Ofcom's pathetic Code allows broadcasters to include supposed 'offensive material' IF, in the licensee's opinion, it can be "justified by the context" (Rule 2.3). HOW EXACTLY does this ENSURE "adequate protection from the inclusion of offensive and/or harmful material" as per Rule 2.1 of Ofcom's Code or, indeed, clause 319(2)(f) of the Communications Act 2003?

Ofcom are at fault. Ofcom have GRANTED the RIGHT AND ABILITY for their Licensee's to fall foul of FUTURE DECISIONS made by the Ofcom Content Board - who ALONE have final say as to whether ANYTHING broadcast and complained about actually 'is' or 'was' "justified by the context" according to their interpretation of their poxy, misleading, contradictory excuse for a Standards Code.

This whole system has been in operation for over 5 years and, as we all know, has completely DESTROYED the fabled 'status quo' created by the ITC that Ofcom claimed to be preserving.

Ofcom are a bunch of lying, hypocritical, untrustworthy CROOKS. The Code IS NOT THE LAW. The Code is in itself a piece of fraudulent, contradictory and illegal bullshit that doesn't reflect the law that requires and specifies its creation. Ofcom have taken it upon themselves to invent rules that not only don't do what the law requires Ofcom to do but, indeed, flout the actual intent and will of Parliament in protecting the public and esp. the under 18s.

(03-08-2010 16:28 )IanG Wrote:  The Code is supposed to "ensure the under eighteens are protected" and that "members of the public are adequately protected from offensive and harmful material".

Let me write on this topic, from being abroad UK (belgium).

those are sexy channels, so i think is more from the parent side that the protection against minors should be put in place.
All those channels in my Dreambox are blocked by the security code. So that my kids cannot see them when zapping around.
I don't see the point of attacking a channel because it shows a naked pussy on TV. Honestly... some of the day girls (evelyn, for instance....) can be sooo much more erotic and sexy than a fully naked Dannii (with all respect for her...) passing in front of the camera for a short time (seconds?). What i would also ask to the one writing these rules is: what should offend me when watching an almost naked girl doing a show on TV? yes..... if she get dressed i'll be offended...
Those ppl, would probably take a walk in the RLD in Amsterdam and complaining that the girls are almost naked...

jokes apart, i think that these rules are ment to be unclear, so that the 'underground game'* can take place.

This sayd, i like some of the girls there, and (strange) but even if i have them all on the satellite, i only like the girls of 'the pad'. I have tryed to call one of them once via skype, no success but never mind. It was more for curiosity. It is also expensive... for a chat....

Guys.... save your money for a trip to Amsterdam, or Antwerp... it is more healty and funny...

Greets!




* My italian origins taught me that whenever some unclear 'code of conduct' is in place, is to help some of the members to 'kill' others. Imagine that 'the pad' is the more healty company among them, others competitor can 'influence' the judge to condamn 'the pad' and put them in trouble.... easy like drinking water...

Yes but under 18's should be asleep at 3am in the morning.

In terms of the webfeed, does ofcom have any say about that?

quote='TheWatcher' pid='586329' dateline='1280828442']

(03-08-2010 02:53 )mikedafc Wrote:  Bang Babes should be really peeved as they are still the only channel to have an instruction video before it's night time shows that shows parents and other interested parties how to prevent under 18's from being able to view their channels or indeed the adult section completely.

They don't show any instruction video on Freeview.
[/quote]

(03-08-2010 02:53 )mikedafc Wrote:  Bang Babes should be really peeved as they are still the only channel to have an instruction video before it's night time shows that shows parents and other interested parties how to prevent under 18's from being able to view their channels or indeed the adult section completely.

Broadcasting a warning counts for nothing.

Being in the Adult section of the EPG or on late at night counts for a little, but not much.

Even worse, Ofcom wants it both ways (stop sniggering at the back). If a channel broadcasts warnings that it has 18 strength content as on screen warnings or verbal warnings, Ofcom uses this in enforcement proceedings as an admission of guilt.

If they did count for anything they should be shown once an hour in the breaks - I never get to see the warnings and instructions because there is no way I can a babe channel on in the early evening.

Damn Ofcom have found bang in breach again, and the sport channels

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforce...ns/obb164/

why doesnt that suprise me

Oh dear, it looks like another 'statutory sanction'.

This is the relevant part of the Bangbabes complaint.
I assume the girl was Jet.

Bang Babes
Tease Me TV 2, 22 May 2010, 03:35 to 04:00

Ofcom noted that between 03:30 and 04:00, the broadcast included a female presenter wearing a yellow bikini top (which was pulled to the side to reveal her breasts) and a matching thong. During the broadcast she adopted various sexual positions for relatively prolonged periods of time, including bending over on all fours with her buttocks to camera and lying on her back with her legs spread wide open to camera. While in these positions the presenter‟s anal and labial area was shown in close up and extensive detail. Throughout the broadcast the presenter repeatedly: rubbed her genital area with her fingers; rubbed her thong against her genitals; pulled her buttocks apart to reveal her anus; sucked her fingers to mimic performing oral sex on a man; and rubbed saliva over her breasts.

Oh Gosh