Bang media licence revoked

(26-11-2010 23:56 )Merc with the Mouth Wrote:  We are not talking about snuff movies here... we are talking about tits and arses.

8mm with nicholas cage great now thats you call hardcore. if that was shown on these channels then fair enough.

cant tell that people at ofcom are not jerking off to these ladies then if they are not they must be gay

You break the rules, you get a warning telling you to stop breaking the rules, you break the rules again, you get a fine as punishment for breaking the rules, then you break the rules again....

the message is clear - if you break the rules, you get punished. Bang Media broke the rules, Bang Media got punished. The End.

Damn... Is this what happens when I go away from a channel for a few days? So long Early Bird, no longer will I be tempted to be late for work.

Ah, that's a outright lie and I know it.

(27-11-2010 00:03 )StanTheMan Wrote:  The material Bang have put out has hurt nobody - and I include lollygate in that. And yes, these channel are free-to-view, but as has been mentioned countless fucking times - THEY CAN BE LOCKED OUT OF THE SYSTEM BY ANY PARENT CONCERNED ABOUT THE MATERIAL THEIR CHILDREN SEE.

As said over a year ago:

The Department of Culture Media and Sport states that “In order to encourage free movement of broadcasts, all broadcasting must comply with the European Directive, “Television Without Frontiers” or TVWF, incorporated into the "Audiovisual Media Services Directive" and Ofcoms Code.

Broadcasting matters covered by the Directive include sports rights, right of reply, advertising, sponsorship and protection of minors.” The key word there is MUST. All broadcasting MUST be compatible with the TVWF Directive.

Article 22 of TVWF:

1. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that television broadcasts by broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not include any programmes which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, in particular programmes that involve pornography or gratuitous violence.

2. The measures provided for in paragraph 1 shall also extend to other programmes which are likely to impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, except where it is ensured, by selecting the time of the broadcast (post watershed topless content, as they do) by any technical measure (the ability for parents to remove all 900 channels from the Sky Digital EPG and the ability to delete seleted channels from freeview, as they do) that minors in the area of transmission will not normally hear or see such broadcasts.

3. Furthermore, when such programmes are broadcast in unencoded/Un-encrypted form Member States shall ensure that they are preceded by an acoustic warning or are identified by the presence of a visual symbol throughout their duration.
________________________________________________________________​​_______________________________________________________________​_​__________


So, the way I see it by explicit instruction from the Department of Culture Media and Sport, the above, from the TVWF/AMSD Directives, must comply with the Ofcom Broadcast Code and current Broadcast Law.

It follows then that Ofcom cannot have applied the TVWF/AMSD rules correctly. This quite obviously goes against the stated objectives of TVWF/AMSD to create a single market and, affects those `fundamental public interests` such as Freedom of Expression with regard to TV broadcasting.

So if the Babe Channels were to continue to show a warning message (as has already been done with the PTBA advert), and show a small “18” certificate after 10pm then the broadcast would be compatible with TVWF/AMSD Directives as recognised by The Department of Culture Media and Sport.

So why couldn't Bang enter into a dialogue/challenge with Ofcom months ago, instead of saying "no comment"?

So it was their Early Bird shenanigans that got them done over by Ofcon? And not Dannii's show a few weeks ago?

Plenty of detail here Ofcom Breach Finding though its written by Ofcom so hardly unbiassed. Even Alistair Campbell didnt spin that much for New Labour.

Weds 17 Nov (5pm?) - Ofcom demand a full response to complaints about DAYTIME shows from 9 to 15 Nov by 5pm the next day.
Not clear when Bang management would have received this or been free to investigate.
Thurs - 24 hour extension granted.
Fri 19 Nov nearly 5pm - Bangbabes reply just before the deadline saying they didnt know they were breaking the rules, and are looking into it.
Ofcom goes ahead to reach a decision.
In typical Ofcom illitrate style it is not clear when they considered the response or reached a final decision. Fri 19th? First thing Monday? The decision was published today, Fri 26, so my guess is that the decision was not actually reached until today - so why did Sky pull the EPG a week ago?

Several thoughts:
1. Was the recent daytime content any stronger that the other channels?
Its understandable if Ofcom target what they see as a repeat offender, so does the taxman. But it does leave Bang with a defence that their content conforms to the industry standard and they are being victimised. Saying its OK because everyone else is breaking the rules too is NOT a valid defence, but victimisation IS.

2. Ofcom have cleverly targetted kids breakfast time. Be honest, its hard to defend near naked birds on TV that time of day.

3. Ofcom gave Bang 24 hours to reply. Thats sod all time to get recordings, go through them minute by minute, constantly checking against the rules, and put together a well-written legally robust defence quoting precedent. It took Ofcom a full week to consider the content for cripes sake. They could have suspended the channels and given Bang a week to prepare for a hearing if they considered emergency action warranted. Ofcom dont come out of that point well.

4. In previous hearings Bang have either not even replied to Ofcom or not supplied recordings, an absolute breach of their licence. When they have bothered to defend their case its been embarrasingly feeble, "oh no we havent" kind of thing. Its difficult to see how any sane and rational broadcaster can seriously expect to be let off, when they know they are being targetted, if they dont even turn up.

5. Pussy flashes and lollygate may be long in the past, but everyone must have known they werent allowed. Having been caught a broadcaster should either mount a very strong defence, backed by good legal advice, or play safe. There is no middle road. (Who was responsible for those anyway, and whatever happened to them?)

Does that mean tame content? Sort of, no knicker rubbing, but there is plenty a channel can do to differentiate itself and get a loyal following apart from just showing more. Prettier models. Cute ones. Young, old, slim, plump, shy, brazen, expensive lingere, cheap next door stuff. Top notch de luxe sets or run down ones. Private Eye webt for the cheap recycled paper look for decades when it could afford better and got sympathy as the underdog.

6. Who within Ofcom considered the material, decided it was in breach, and decided to pull the licence? The compliance team? The Content Committee? The Sanctions Committee? In typical illiterate Ofcom style their own Broacast Bulletin does not say.

7. The way Ofcom descibes the content sounds terrible, with near naked "presenters repeatedly stroked their bodies in a sexually provocative manner, including their breasts, buttocks and upper and inner thighs and genital areas.". Was it really like this? I have seen adult shows where a few brief actions lasting under a second are written up as if sustained, lengthy or repeated.

8. Footnote 3 say "On 19 November 2010 Ofcom issued a formal Direction to Bang Channels Ltd and Bang Media (London) Ltd directing them to cease broadcasting immediately as it had evidence of material that it considered amounted to serious breaches of the BCAP Code".
That's it guys. From that moment ("immediately") it became illegal to broadcast Bang. A small allowance would be given for the message to get through and for the plug to be pulled, but thats it. If a judge says you are banned from driving you dont drive home and carry on for a week until you find someone to buy your car and organise a bus pass, you stop immediately. If found bancrupt your watch gets taken off you on the spot, not later.

9. This makes it illegal to uplink the channels (probably), downlink it from a satellite within Europe (definitely), broadcast on Freeview or cable. If Astra or Hotbird carry the signal they can be fined.

It is not legal to broadcast the channels from any European based satellite, or European based uplink site, because they no longer have licences. Being in an EPG or not is beside the point.

10. Ironicaly the only people who cannot be touched are Sky. They could include an unlicenced channel in their EPG if they wanted to without breaking any regulations. But they wont.

11. There are now 2 unused frequencies on Sky and one Freeview slot. Are Bang contractually obliged to pay for these anyway, or can they hand they keys in and walk away? They might be over a barrel, but might be able to sell on to someone wanting their own channel.

12. The channels have been closed down but not "proscribed". They could legitimately set up abroard and 100% legally broadcast on Sky. Though their history would be ammo to Ofcom in any international cock-fight between Ofcom and, say, the Dutch regulator.

13. Read somewhere that the channels have been labelled "not fit and proper". Bang management are fucked. This means some or all of them can now be turned down for any other UK TV or Radio licence. Even if not sex related.

Dont get me wrong, I liked much of the night content and didnt think it offensive, but I find it difficult to support some of the daytime stuff - it would be pushing it on a beach in a heatwave - and failing to reply is a recepie for disaster. Ofcom did target them unfairly. Bang did not mount a proper response. You cant just ignore a summons from the regulator.

Thanks for that eccles, puts everything into perspective.

(27-11-2010 01:03 )vostok 1 Wrote:  So why couldn't Bang enter into a dialogue/challenge with Ofcom months ago, instead of saying "no comment"?

Exactly. £176,000 or whatever the fine was would have bought a good brief and been a better investment than loosing 3 licences and critical mass.

(27-11-2010 01:04 )Matsui Wrote:  So it was their Early Bird shenanigans that got them done over by Ofcon? And not Dannii's show a few weeks ago?

Exactly. Ofcom have tried to be clever. Attacking adult shows might not be universally supported, but not may people are going to stand up for what sounds like near porn over the corn flakes. Ofcom have a PR team, Bang havent.

(27-11-2010 01:04 )eccles Wrote:  stuff

Don't you go posting any of that balanced, sensible and intelligent rubbish around here young man. Remove it at once and start kicking & screaming