Aceman's Farewell To Bangbabes

From my simplistic point of view, it now looks as if BB are trying to "tow the line" as they are now making Holly J wear bras, under her tops( simplistic view, but blatantly obvious, as Holly has gone on record as saying "that she hates wearing bras"). Is this just a nod towards O****M or are they trying to "play by the rules". It seems weird to me that other channels are still willing to "TRY" to push the boundaries(not going to name said channels for previous reasons raised in this thread), but BB have now succumbed to "standing in line".

This is my own personnal view and not that of those involved in this forum, that BB are now operating under the "supervision" of O****M full time, as they now have less "freedom of licence" than they did before.

Yes they will probably be hit with a fine for the incident that stared this thread but that will be about all, so why don't we all just take a deep breath and get on with what we do best and enjoy the girls, and also enjoy the forum that we joined to talk about the girls on the channels.

I'm still waiting to see what the new O***m regime will be when they finally announce the results of the broadcasting code review. Let's hope it goes our way, the sensible realistic, tolerant way. But if not, and they start clamping down on munching down, there are 2 responses.

1. Make them obey their own rules. Report every Broadcasting Code breach you see. On mainstream TV. Keep it accurate, keep it factual. In about a week they will have more complaints than they can handle in a year. Example - saw a show sponsored by an insurance co the other day. Mum and daughter were gathered round a computer screen and whooping with joy when the quote came up. That's a clear breech, sponsorship credits aren't allowed to say how the product is. And as for the promotion of casual sex amoung young women on Loose Women, that's clearly socially irresponsible and contrary to the Code.

The whole complaints process will be totally devalued after a month of O***m receiving 100 complaints a day.

2. Report the babe shows. Repeatedly. A bird takes her top off, say you saw flange when she turned round. Keep the timing vague. Saw it happened a month ago. If O***m want a regime where unsubstantiated complaints like that are taken seriously they have to be prepared to pay for enough staff. (Joke).

(11-12-2009 23:36 )DanVox Wrote:  I'm still waiting to see what the new O***m regime will be when they finally announce the results of the broadcasting code review. Let's hope it goes our way, the sensible realistic, tolerant way. But if not, and they start clamping down on munching down, there are 2 responses.

1. Make them obey their own rules. Report every Broadcasting Code breach you see. On mainstream TV. Keep it accurate, keep it factual. In about a week they will have more complaints than they can handle in a year. Example - saw a show sponsored by an insurance co the other day. Mum and daughter were gathered round a computer screen and whooping with joy when the quote came up. That's a clear breech, sponsorship credits aren't allowed to say how the product is. And as for the promotion of casual sex amoung young women on Loose Women, that's clearly socially irresponsible and contrary to the Code.

The whole complaints process will be totally devalued after a month of O***m receiving 100 complaints a day.

2. Report the babe shows. Repeatedly. A bird takes her top off, say you saw flange when she turned round. Keep the timing vague. Saw it happened a month ago. If O***m want a regime where unsubstantiated complaints like that are taken seriously they have to be prepared to pay for enough staff. (Joke).

Probably won't go our way,but hey thats usuall.

(11-12-2009 23:36 )DanVox Wrote:  2. Report the babe shows. Repeatedly. A bird takes her top off, say you saw flange when she turned round. Keep the timing vague. Saw it happened a month ago. If O***m want a regime where unsubstantiated complaints like that are taken seriously they have to be prepared to pay for enough staff. (Joke).

Just in case anyone tries this, be warned. If Ofcom get even the slightest hint that you approve of babe channels (or, god forbid, think they should be allowed to go further), then they will ignore your complaint, no matter how justified it is. You will be labelled as a "vexatious complainer", and will be threatened with prosecution if you continue. I know, cos it happened to me.

So, if you DO want to try this, make sure Ofcom have no previous record of you.

Hope that helps.

Grawth is correct. If you complained about the babe channels repeatedly, Ofcom would decide that you must be watching them a lot to find so many complaints and would conclude that you actually enjoyed watching them. You would then be told your complaints had been been dismissed and that you were regarded as a vexatious complainer and you would then be reported to the police or threatened with being reported for misuse of public resources.

(11-12-2009 17:44 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(10-12-2009 19:53 )speedybert Wrote:  

(10-12-2009 18:33 )Grawth Wrote:  

(09-12-2009 15:46 )speedybert Wrote:  Is it just me or is this just a little OTT?

At the end of the day BB has the right to pull clips at their request especially if these clips are to be used against them as relating to a breach of ofcom rules.The fact that they allow us to post up clips is generous as they own the copyright so let's not all throw our toys out of the pram just because a channel has had to react in a censorous way over something it broadcast which may or may not result in a fine.If it does result in a fine...who pays?Not us that's for sure and that is the point.

Rubbish. Allowing people to post clips is not generosity, it's a form of marketing, for which they don't have to do any work. People see a clip, they tune in to the show to see more of the same.

And as for who pays - well where do you think the channels get their money from in the first place? Oh yes, it's callers isn't it. Bangbabes allowed Amanda (and Jemma) to knowingly break the rules because it got them more callers. When it went further than they had intended they panicked. I have no sympathy for them, or for the stance they are now taking

Sorry not in the habit of writing "rubbish" as far as I know.

With all respect, speedybert, that last comment hardly backs up or justifies the comment and theory that Grawth was calling 'rubbish'.

Why don't you explain why it isn't rubbish, as I have to say I agree with everything Grawth said. Under normal circumstances, Bangbabes couldn't be happier that we're promoting their channel in such a way.

I'm so sorry I should have tugged my forelock in the appropriate manner.I promise it won't happen again.

(12-12-2009 11:53 )speedybert Wrote:  I'm so sorry I should have tugged my forelock in the appropriate manner.I promise it won't happen again.

I'm sorry,but if your going to give me a set-up line like that,i don't have the willpower to resist the gag.

(12-12-2009 13:44 )PillowPants Wrote:  

(12-12-2009 11:53 )speedybert Wrote:  I'm so sorry I should have tugged my forelock in the appropriate manner.I promise it won't happen again.

I'm sorry,but if your going to give me a set-up line like that,i don't have the willpower to resist the gag.

You think I'd want to try and keep this group of rocket scientists in order???

A job in Ofcom awaits..........now where's that application??