Serious Ofcom warning for Bang Media

The way things are going BangBabes have nothing to loose. If they have watchable material a competitor will launch a series of complaints against them, and next time round Ofcom will close them down. If they tone it down they loose audience and call revenue drops until eventually they sell the channels to a competitor for £5.

Interesting to see that although they were fined, heavily, the idea of an undertaking that they conform to the Code seems to have been dropped.

Watching the bangbabes channels these days makes for grim viewing if it doesn't either take a stand to ofcom or seriously up their game I think they're as good as finished, right now bangbabes are sinking faster than the titanic.

Pity really, I used to dream of seeing Jemma going down.

Details can be found here: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...annels.pdf

They would be aswell as putting on a hot show tonight and fuck ofcom as last night Bangbabes got absolutely hammered by all of the other channels. Play it safe and face closure, play it risky and face closure or another possible fine. Nothing to lose really then.

(01-08-2010 20:47 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  They would be aswell as putting on a hot show tonight and fuck ofcom as last night Bangbabes got absolutely hammered by all of the other channels. Play it safe and face closure, play it risky and face closure or another possible fine. Nothing to lose really then.

The point is Bangbabes CAN indeed put on 'hot shows' like lollipops up the fanny and, IF no one complains, then Ofcom can do nothing about it DESPITE what the law says...because Ofcom's Code allows their licensees to broadcast "offensive material that is justified by the context" (Rule 2.3).

It is OFCOM that are disobeying the law's clear instruction that OFCOM are to provide adequate protection to the public, NOT allow the public to be offended (and/or harmed) and then cover their illegal excuse for a Standards Code with pointless, after-the-fact fines. HOW EXACTLY does this provide ADEQUATE PROTECTION?

Let me add that the "right of reply", which is what Ofcom's complaints procedure is SUPPOSED to implement, is an alternative to suing a broadcaster for libelous slander and misrepresentation in the courts - which, I'm sure you'd agree would be a very long and expensive task for any member of the public or small business taking on the likes of the BBC for false claims made in their Watchdog or Rogue Traders programmes.

The channels that have, in their opinion, broadcast supposed 'offensive material justified by the context' exactly as per OFCOM's Code Rule 2.3, cannot be fined after the fact. OFCOM GRANTED their licensees the right and ability to do this. Their licensee's opinion is their opinion - the criteria they are to judge 'the context' is based almost entirely on OFCOM's Code Review Criteria and includes considerations such as the CHANNEL and PROGRAMME GENRE, TIME, AUDIENCE SIZE, COMPOSITION, AGE and LIKELY EXPECTATIONS. However, OFCOM have merely twisted this to create a neat little trap with which to impose their censorial bullshit and fine channels whenever the government needs a few extra thou in the coffers to cover-up some blunder (like creating incompetent money-wasting fucks like Ofcom).

EVERY TIME OFCOM fines a channel for broadcasting supposed 'offensive and/or harmful material', OFCOM have failed in THEIR PRIMARY DUTY to "ensure the under eighteens are protected" AND to "provide adequate protection to members of the public from the inclusion of offensive and harmful material".

OFCOM should be the ones paying these fines. OFCOM should be the one's facing disciplinary SANCTIONS and COURT action....because OFCOM ARE FUCKING USELESS AT THEIR JOB.

I had rather hoped that the 2009 update to the Broadcasting Code would reflect changing public attitudes. There are fewer old fogies who grew up in black and white. The percentage of the population from before WWII drops each year. Children of the 60s permissive era are now senior management. Ofcom talks of reflecting trends in public attitudes. The "research" seemed to support greater tolerance of adult material. Yet the eventual 2009 Code was identical to the 2005 one regarding adult content.

When LightsOffCom kept mentioning BangBabes in dispatches, sorry, Broadcasting Bulletins, earlier this year I wondered if they were playing a kind of poker with no picture cards, firing blank warning shots, hoping BB would roll over and play dead, knowing that they (Ofcom) could not actually win a sanctions case.

I also wondered there might be some tacit recognition that while the new Broadcasting Code had not come into force, it had been published, and there might be an unofficial gradual transition. A letting off rather than a hammering, because it might have been against the (old) code at the time, but might be permitted under the new rules - in the adult section.

But no. Ofcom meant it.

And the bad news is that there is no suggestion that in practice and interpretation the new Broadcasting Code is no more lenient than the old one.

A perfect illustration of inconsistency. Just hopped past a channel - won't say which one as I'm not a snitch - and Emma was bending over wearing rubber knickers (fetish gear - less acceptable to the public) shortly after midnight (large numbers of adults still up) and clearly showing anal wrinkles (anal detail is no-no). Also wearing a black rubber basque (fetish), stockings (sexualised), thigh length shiney boots with high heels (domatrix = fetish) and pulling sex faces. Also forming an O with her hand and vigorously moving it towards her bum area (simulating masturbation and/or anal sex), and now she has patted her front bottom area with the flat of her hand. If BangBabes did that they would get a Breech and, now that a precedent has been set, £5,000 fine. And other channels are pushing it a bit too.

To be honest if you take bangbabes out of the equation the other channels have been able to get away with the same level of if not more explicit material to say the least so its obvious for all to see bangbabes aren't in breach of the broadcasting code. Its now got personal ofcom have got it in for bangbabes and I'm sure in the months ahead the real truth into the matter will be exposed and scumcom will get their just deserts, whos to say that this simply isn't just about financial gain for the bigwigs at ofcom and infact they are probably committing fraud by picking on an obvious target who perhaps have a weak minded boss in charge whos easily pushed around and bullied, just a theary. Unfortunately porn in the uk in 2010 still has a stigma attached to it which very few will stand up and admit they are being unfairly discriminated against.

and it looks like bang have further cases to answer


there are further breaches in 2010. Plus a number of cases still under investigation
Up to 2 July 2010
Programme Channel Transmission Date Date Lodged
18 Keen Tease Me Thursday, 10 June 2010 10 June 2010
BBC London News BBC1 Monday, 17 May 2010 and Saturday, 12 June 2010 23 June 2010
Crank TV6 Sweden Wednesday, 09 June 2010 18 June 2010
Derren Brown Investigates Channel 4 Monday, 10 May 2010 15 June 2010
Early Bird Tease Me Monday, 17 May 2010 17 May 2010
Early Bird Tease Me Thursday, 03 June 2010 04 June 2010
Early Bird Tease Me Thursday, 03 June 2010 14 June 2010
Kerry and Me Channel 4 Thursday, 24 June 2010 25 June 2010
Neighbours Be a Star competition Five various 24 June 2010
Raaj FM Raaj FM Tuesday, 27 April 2010 21 May 2010
Takbeer-e-Musalsal Takbeer TV Friday, 02 April 2010 06 April 2010