RIP Bang Babes : Gone Bust...

R.I.P!

to the two posts above me BANGBABES ARE NOT DEAD!!!!!!!!. since it started just only a week and a bit ago, only 2 girls have gone, elle and emily and most likely is nothing to do with bang's current situation.

regarding lilly roma and evelynn have left bangbabes lilly probably has commitments outside bangbabes which mean she cant do weekends. she does have a life outside bang. she's still on during the week, so how does that mean she's left??????

evelynn hasnt left either because SHE IS ON RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and like lilly has commitments outside bangbabes too. the babes are entitled to a life away from elite. if babes do decide to leave then so what. its a fact of life on the babeshows that babes move round the shows

dont blame the "ruling classes". bang brought this on themselves and how do you get the impression that the pad show has the mood of "were closing down, bye bye" i dont, for me its just a normal show

cmon... don't bother of their webstream anymore.... it is clearly the end. Start checking already other channels instead, probably some of the girls will appear there. And this is probably what Ofcom wanted to achieves? (probably under request of other channels??)

for god sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! dont be so negative. BANGBABES ARE STILL GOING also dont blame ofcom for the webstream. bang need as many viewers/calls as possible at the moment

(27-11-2010 18:51 )orchid500 Wrote:  SNIP

I feel that the only way to change what we see at night is to directly contact Ofcom and the local MP (for what good that may do) to change the law. As for the daytime service then common sense should prevail, if you are going to have a woman dressed in next to nothing on TV don't do anything that can be taken as sexual (hard I know for this type of channel).

There's no point contacting Ofcon (I know this from personal experience), they will just say that it is entirely up to the broadcaster to decide what they show... so long as they comply with their broadcast code, and that they 'regulate' in accordance with the Communications Act 2003, AVMS etc, that censorship is not within their remit, and that if you are not happy about it, you should contact your MP, which, as you suggest, is almost certainly to be as much of a waste of time as contacting Ofcon. The only way that I can see of stopping Ofcon's tyranny, and the general rights' abusing, repressive regime that exists in the UK, is legal action, which the broadcasters have made clear, by their complete inaction since Ofcon's censorship code was released, that they have no intention of doing

Oh, BTW, Ofcon will also claim that they are not censors , because if they were, they would be acting illegally, as censorship by means of a licensing system was expressly prohibited by the TWF (and I assume, is still so in its replacement, the AVMS?)

Also, despite the defence that some seem to feel Ofcon deserve, they are an enthusiastically pro-censorship organisation, and the rules that some seem to think are in some way absolute/sacrosanct etc., are merely censorship rules made up by Ofcon; remember, the AVMS exists throughout the EU, yet Ofcon is one of the?/the only? 'regulator' that apparently feels the need to all but censor adult entertainment out of existence in the name of protecting children, or not causing offence. As mentioned, however, the default position across UK authorities is censorship, among other abuses of fundamental rights, so they were set up by the Westminster Government for the purposes of censorship; why else would the, by definition, subjective notion of offence be included in the Communications Act, completely ignoring the fact that people do not have a right not to be offended, nor do they have to watch something that they do not like.

I could go on, but I'm guessing some will think I have already gone on for too long

Ofcom has taken action, Bah Humbug!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11847846

The two sides of this argument (“Bang have been incredibly stupid” vs “Ofcom are in the wrong”) are not necessarily opposing. You can believe, for example, that the way babe channels are regulated is against the greater good, and yet still feel that Bang has been mismanaged to the point of lunacy. You can also believe that Bang has been both a victim, and a villain. Life is never black and white - it’s always shades of grey. I believe that Bang has suffered a catastrophic managerial balls-up, and that babe shows are poorly regulated.

I should clarify that I don’t actually want to see hardcore porn on babe shows. I love the fantasy concept and I’m more comfortable if I know the girls have protection against callers’ demands for harder visuals. Of course, the girls could always refuse, but it’s much easier for them to do so on the basis of the law than on the basis of their own personal choice. If you deal with the public at work, you’ll know that saying: “I can’t, it’s the law”, is much, much easier (and far less time consuming/stressful) than saying: “No, I don’t want to”. On those grounds I have no major quibble with Ofcom’s interpretation of where the line should generally be drawn on interactive night show visuals.

What I do think is wrong, is the logic of vehemently protecting those who never even watch the shows, whilst offering no protection whatsoever for those who do. The consumer, is, let’s face it, is open to being swindled on an almost 24/7 basis by babe channels. I’m not saying it’s all channels, but it’s certainly a number of them. And for the regulators to be unaware of this would defy belief. That the regulators can spring to the aid of one or two mysterious ‘viewers’ who “ran into some content ‘by accident’ and are concerned, not for themselves, but on behalf of other, more vulnerable people”, and yet leave thousands and thousands of real consumers open to persistent fraud, demonstrates that the regulatory system doesn’t work for the greater good or anything like it.

If you look at the overall visual output from Bang in the light of its genre, it can’t be described as any more offensive than the content from any other TV babe channels. Okay, so there have been momentary transgressions (as there have been elsewhere), and this business with the day shows was admittedly asking for trouble on a ‘final warning’, but the general picture of Bang is in keeping with other babe channels. Ofcom have tried to paint things differently, and that’s wrong. Looking at the report, the picture of Bang Babes a non-viewer would gain is in my opinion a significant distortion. That, for me, is where the impact of Bang’s mismanagement hits hard.

The distorted picture Ofcom have painted was open to challenge from Bang, and any company with a decent management would have challenged it (not to mention prevented it being painted in the first place). I don’t mean in court, in some landmark case. I just mean at the point the allegations were made, and at which time Ofcom would be in a position to reconsider or revise them. That’s the whole point of Ofcom giving an opportunity for companies to represent themselves. But Bang clearly couldn’t be bothered to represent themselves in any meaningful sense. Just as they couldn’t be bothered to address the inaudible intros, the inappropriate way certain backstage staff spoke to the girls, etc. They treated the regulator like a disgruntled viewer who gives up and goes away if you ignore him. That, in my view, is the only reason their licences were revoked.

Ofcom’s report is actually pretty dodgy when you look at it carefully. Lines such as: “…in light of evidence of broadcast material which was considered to be likely to amount to a serious breach of the BCAP Code in relation to the broadcast of pornography and/or BBFC R18-rated material.” are wide open to being ripped apart. “Considered to be likely to amount to”? It’s hardly a solid fact is it? A statement like that really has no place in an official report. Have Bang even looked at what Ofcom have said? Have they examined the individual allegations regarding Early Bird etc for inaccuracies?

Ironically, what Bang have done is allow themselves to be portrayed by the regulator as in some way having much harder visual content than other babe channels, whilst at the same time managing to portray themselves to babe show fans, for the majority of the past year, as tamer than the rest. Any serious business which allows that to happen cannot really be described as competent.

On a positive note, it’s true that the talent in Bang’s employment when this crisis hit is too great to disappear. And as has been said many times, if Bang Media can pull themselves together and start thinking like professionals, this is not over. Maybe, though, this will teach all shows that you can’t treat the regulators like idiots, and with some luck, they may start to be more fearful of the ASA. I just wish, if licences had to be revoked at all, that rather than being revoked for what was basically ‘failure to take Ofcom seriously’, they’d been revoked for Advertising Standards transgressions. That would have cleaned up the shows in the way they really need cleaning up.

TMTV is kinda like Page 3 as they're both controversial issues (no offense to TMTV) but they are fine for a certain audience and should not be banned altogether.

(27-11-2010 23:43 )eccles Wrote:  SNIP

It doesnt help that some operators are rumoured to have a pally understanding with Ofcom. They dont want R18 because they make a fortune selling DVDs and online content. They have to be seen to push the boundaries of softcore, but they are not campaigning for change. Occasionally Ofcom gives them a slap on the wrist and they mumble an apology, but its about as fake as TV wrestling.

AITA (Adult Industry Trade Association), responded to Ofcon's 'consultation' prior to the formulation of their censorship code, by saying that R18 should not be allowed on broadcast television, so aligned themselves with mediawatch, The Daily Mail etc, for, as you say, commercial reasons.

Yes, Ofcon does seem to allow more, in practice, than their own regulations allow (in some circumstances), e.g. masturbation, cunnilingus (but not fellatio - discrimination!) on encrypted channels, which would attract an R18 from the BBFC; Ofcon lets this 'slide' even though their code expressly prohibits R18, presumably, to reduce the pretty much non-existent threat of legal action by broadcasters, to zero.

(28-11-2010 11:49 )Rammyrascal Wrote:  for god sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! dont be so negative. BANGBABES ARE STILL GOING also dont blame ofcom for the webstream. bang need as many viewers/calls as possible at the moment

You are so stupid, it is the beginning of the end for them, THEY WILL GO! they're reputation has been damaged massively.