Are Bangmedia being victimised by Ofcom?

I think arron88 needs to get a grip on reality if he thinks that the ofcom hating is going to stop.This type of attitude will not help the channels if we just all cosy up to ofcom and have our tummies tickled its quite frankly the wrong attitude and why are you on the forum mate if you love ofcom are you a secret mole for them?
If it was you who did vote no then quite clearly you do not have the best interests of the babechannels at heart and its the type of attitude and opinion that we can probably do without on the forum.
Oh and as a little footnote your four posts on the forum since sep 2008 probably indicates that few will take you seriously anyway.

In it's defence, Bang Babes claims that it's "material as broadcast was no different to that broadcast on any other channel in the adult section of the EPG on the night in question". If true and Ofcom did not investigate the allegation then yes, it is victimisation.

(24-05-2010 21:01 )arron88 Wrote:  

(24-05-2010 20:47 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Interesting question why don't you ask bangbabes media (remember the ones with all the fines) and I'm pretty sure they'll give you plenty of reasons !!!!!!!!!!

It would probably cost broadcasters more if they didn't exist.

Arron please explain to me your interesting theory, exactly why would it cost broadcasters more without ofcom taking into account the amount of fines these rats have handed out, I'll tell you one thing which is fact. It would save the taxpayers money in funding these facist bastards.

Given that arron88 joined the forum in September 2008, yet only started posting tonight I would think it's just an existing forum member who fancies doing a bit of trolling under an alternative screen name.

To go straight in out of the blue by posting pro Ofcom statements has the word 'troll' written all over it.

have said not sure as most of the complaints recently have been aimed at bangbabes but if they haven broke the rules then they cant complain too much

(24-05-2010 21:57 )Digital Dave Wrote:  To go straight in out of the blue by posting pro Ofcom statements has the word 'troll' written all over it.

I received a pro Ofcom/anti anti-censorship PM from arron88 last year, so I think his views are genuine and his own. Perhaps arron88 was the person who complained to Ofcom for this (as listed in the current Broadcast Bulletin):



Dads Army: Sexual Material?

(24-05-2010 21:44 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Arron please explain to me your interesting theory, exactly why would it cost broadcasters more without ofcom taking into account the amount of fines these rats have handed out, I'll tell you one thing which is fact. It would save the taxpayers money in funding these facist bastards.

Question1 : Are you going to replace Ofcom or close it completely?
Question2 : Who do I complain to if there is something offensive on TV?
Question3 : What should be the maximum fine if there is no Ofcom?
Question4 : How much do taxpayers put towards Ofcom??

My reason for hating Ofcom is this. Why is gratuitous violence and/or nudity allowed on most channels and yet the second you see abit of pussy on Bangbabes, they get fined. Which is more harmful, violence or nudity?

If you are offended by what you might see on the babechannels, then don't watch them. I don't like ladyboys, so why would I want to watch a show that has them on. The point is, I would'nt. It's that simple.

(24-05-2010 19:56 )amandasnumerounofan Wrote:  Just thought of doing a poll for Bangmedia to use for evidence against Ofcom.

While it's possible that some bias may exist, or that competitors may be causing as much trouble for Bangmedia as possible, the opinions of a few forum lads would not constitute evidence I'm afraid. No court will allow unsubstantiated rumour, hearsay or opinion to influence any decision they are called upon to make.

You would need to show that those making the complaints are employees of other competitors, or sympathetic to other competitors, or in the employ of Ofcom. However, even if you could do that, the fact is that Bangmedia would ultimately remain in breach of Ofcom's code - irrespective of who blew the whistle. Whether we believe their legislation to be right or not, it is the law and to break it invites punishment of some description.

Therefore the real issue here is not bias or competition, but the method by which Ofcom dictate to adults what they can or cannot watch. As has been mentioned previously, scenes of nudity, simulated sex and acts of extreme violence are shown on terrestrial television on a fairly regular basis. No doubt complaints are made about them too I imagine, but I wonder how many, by whom and what the resultant action was against the broadcaster? Argueably, it is more harmful to the human psyche to show scenes of extreme violence and carnage, than it is to show two people having a good old shag.

Ofcom have to stop short of an outright ban on everything, as I am sure that the makers of adult entertainment would have legal grounds to contest such an act. In fact, it's entirely possible that a case could be made to the European Courts if such a decision were taken, given the impact such a ruling could have. These are after all, legitmate, regulated businesses who pay taxes, provide income for families and employment for thousands of men and women.

So why does Ofcom seem to spend a great deal of time and effort on the babe channels? I think the answer is really quite simple - Ofcom simply do not like anyone making money out of selling sex, so controls are imposed to satisfy their right-wing, outdated, so-called 'values'. Equally, why kill the cow when you can continue to milk it for as long as you want? Those people and companies who have made money from adult films, DVD's, magazines, etc, have been persecuted for decades in the UK and been subject to massive fines for their trouble. The giant cash cow that is the adult entertainment industry is something from which Ofcom can tear lumps every so often to exercise their control and make money. I don't necessarily mean THEY make money themselves, but for the government they represent and are empowered by. Ofcom is a business like any other, with overheads to pay and a minimum performance level to maintain which they appear to do quite well.

Ofcom will be more than happy to maintain their status quo, assuring that their respectable values are upheld and that whenever they need to fill the piggy bank, there will always be somebody to fine. I honestly do not see things changing for many, many years, if at all, unless Ofcom are shut down and replaced with a more level-headed broadcasting overseer.

Thank you very much for my nomination in
Best Cap or Cap Set Of The Year 2013
for Dannii Harwood Posts 781 & 782

(24-05-2010 22:22 )vostok 1 Wrote:  

(24-05-2010 21:57 )Digital Dave Wrote:  To go straight in out of the blue by posting pro Ofcom statements has the word 'troll' written all over it.

I received a pro Ofcom/anti anti-censorship PM from arron88 last year, so I think his views are genuine and his own. Perhaps arron88 was the person who complained to Ofcom for this (as listed in the current Broadcast Bulletin):

i also got a pm off arron88 about 3 weeks ago glad to see they have finally come out of hiding.
sending pm,s is not the way to try and change peoples view,s it will only get there backs up.
alternative views are welcome after all this is a forum, but if you have read everything that as been written on this section, i don,t see how anybody could have a alternative view other than yes they are being victimised.

ps.arron88 the only thing you achieved by doing the pm, is that since then you have been on my ignore list ever since,so don,t waste your time trying again.
also if your that way inclined what are you doing on here and how come you have a rep from bluebird?