sarah-smith
Banned
Posts: 8
Joined: Nov 2010
|
RE: RIP Bang Babes
(30-11-2010 16:31 )Chilly Wrote: (30-11-2010 16:29 )sarah-smith Wrote: what are you going to randomly go threw all the bang babes girls untill you guess my name lol perfetic.... keep guessing guys.
Ah, there speaks a troll.
your all sooo perfetic getting jealous of how much money we make and as for bonus system there isint one at bangbabes everyone is on diffrent money cos no two girls earn the same....
|
|
30-11-2010 16:32 |
|
tsurugi
Banned
Posts: 11,516
Joined: Jan 2009
|
RE: RIP Bang Babes
Emily Charlotte Jones less educated sister
|
|
30-11-2010 16:34 |
|
mrmann
Posting Machine
Posts: 15,880
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 92
|
RE: RIP Bang Babes
Are these estimates correct? 1000 - 2000 a night for the top women? That can't be right, can it? I know some make good money, but I remember hearing about what Lori Buckby made, and while it was decent for what she does, it was nowhere near as high (Rumored to be at most 48,000 per year) as what you all are saying about the Bang Babes women. Regardless of any magazines or websites these women might do, are some of them really getting paid this much? It doesn't annoy me at all, and I'm not a jealous person, but I find this info interesting, as it gives me more of a perspective on what it takes to make good money in this industry. I thought with the economy the way it is, that the babe channel women weren't getting paid as much as that, but I guess if you become a celebrity of sorts through your callers and through the photoshoots, that it's possible to earn that. I do think the 150 - 300 per hour stuff is nonsense though!!! That's obviously not true.
It's none of our business what any of the women make, but I still find this info interesting.
(This post was last modified: 30-11-2010 16:49 by mrmann.)
|
|
30-11-2010 16:44 |
|
IanG
Senior Poster
Posts: 343
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 30
|
RE: RIP Bang Babes
(26-11-2010 11:36 )mikeboob Wrote: Prior to 1 September 2010, the material broadcast by the Licensees was subject to the Broadcasting Code, which includes the following specific provisions: . Licensees must therefore comply with the relevant Standards Code which applies to the material broadcast.
• Rule 1.17: “Material equivalent to the British Board of Film Classification ("BBFC") R18 rating must not be broadcast at any time.”
Of the 48 breaches of the Broadcasting Code:
• 1 related to material found to be in breach of Rule 1.17/7
What in the world was that?
I think that's obvious: Amanda + Jemma + Lollipop
This was the ONLY real breech of the Code - all other's being trumped-up charges regarding 'offence' and relying on OFCOM's own utter intolerance, bigotry and inept 'guidance'.
However, the FACT remains that R18-type material is legally classed as harmless and CANNOT be banned from TV without proper evidence of harm. OFCOM admitted as much in 2005 yet, proceeded with their ILLEGAL ban all the same.
Moreover, evidence of OFCOM's prejudice against sexy material is plain for all to see in Rule 1.18 - i.e. "material designed to cause sexual arousal will not be justified by the context". Well, I'm afraid porn is designed to turn people on and its content is most certainly justifed in that context.
BM should use that £157,000 (which I hope they didn't cough-up) and take OFCOM to the High Court to explain their irrational, illegal and discriminatory piece of shit excuse for a Standards Code.
A new dittie: The Buggers 2010 (Ofwatch slight return) http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid556229
|
|
30-11-2010 16:50 |
|