Serious Ofcom warning for Bang Media

(28-09-2010 00:04 )RCTV Wrote:  true. Although not just the bang channels, but the daytime shows in general, have got way more sexual even over the past 12 months, and it's not good. If you take Spain for example. The channels don't compete very much, but it is no wear near as sexual as the uk and the outfits aren't as skimpy, but they still get guys calling.

I agree. While i have no knowledge of the Spanish babechannels or their content, I'd certainly concur that not only EarlyBird / The Pad, but most of the other day shows are very near the knuckle.
In fact, i never used to pay much attention to the day shows until the last six months or so - some days it's hard to know where to look - there's so much slippage across all the babe day shows it's mind-boggling.
The debate about day vs night levels of naughtiness is clearly for elsewhere, but my experience of a call with Dannii Harwood a couple of weeks ago at about 16.30 confirmed what I'd been thinking for a while; the day babes will go almost all the way in comparison and they give you the show you want to see! As you say, this is not necessarily good for long-term survivability...hmmmm.

Missing key events. Talking bollocks. Making stuff up.
~~~SAVE THE KRILL!~~~

(27-09-2010 12:03 )vostok 1 Wrote:  More trouble for Bang today:

In Breach
Early Bird
Tease Me TV (Freeview), 3 August 2010
"Ofcom noted that the female presenter was wearing a revealing red lace bra and thong, red fish net stocking and suspenders, and red stilettos. During the broadcast the presenter adopted certain positions including lying on her side, back and front with her legs wide open, lying on her side with one leg raised in the air, and on all fours with her hips and buttocks raised. While in these positions the presenter repeatedly: stroked and touched her body including her crotch area, legs and breasts; moved and gyrated her hips in a sexually provocative way; and lightly jiggled her breasts. The presenter was also shown licking her lips and showing her tongue to reveal a tongue stud. A number of times during the broadcast the camera moved up and down the presenter’s body so that her covered breasts were shown in close up."

Early Bird
Tease Me TV (Freeview), 15 July 2010

Bang did not supply a recording of this show, so they were found in breach of Licence Condition 11. (retention and production of recordings)

I wonder who's 'generally accepted standards' OFCOM are consulting when making their 'judgements'?

Can anyone tell me what is actually 'harmful and offensive' about female breasts or, indeed, images of supposed anal and/or labial detail?

Is anything that is a matter of pure subjective opinion actually a 'generally accepted standard', or is it a generally unaccepted matter of prejudice and/or ignorance?

Can prejudice and/or ignorance ever form the basis of 'generally accepted standards' according to law - i.e. would they stand up to scrutiny in a court of law?

OFCOM have no evidence to support any claim they may make that they are protecting the under eighteens. Indeed, they openly admitted that there was no evidence whatsoever to support any type of ban of even R18 ('hardcore') material on our screens. Without that evidence, and, indeed, proof, that R18 is harmful to under eighteens, OFCOM are not able to show that they are abiding by the law. They MUST therefore be breaking the law.

Furthermore, providing adequate protection to the public from harm and/or offence does not necessitate a ban on the broadcast of any clearly flagged/marked/labelled material or, indeed, warrant sanctions against channels providing legal and legally harmless pornographic material on such clearly flagged/marked/labelled channels. So, again, OFCOM cannot prove to a court that their Code complies with the law, and if they're not abiding by the law then they MUST be breaking it.

"Who writes this stuff"
The only explanation I can think of is that the dribbling descriptions are to establish that the shows are erotic. Once that has been established, Ofcom can see if the content is explicit and/or justified by context. It aint an offence if the content is sexual but NOT intended for arousal. So anything with Kathy Barry is OK (cheap shot, apologies, I'm sure she has her fans, same as Lily Allen).

Ofcom dont make this clear, and frankly if that is there purpose then a lot of what they write is gratuitous because it is IREELEVANT to arousal. What does the colour of a bra have to do with anything? Or stilettos - if those qualify a show as erotic then I have a list of early evening shows I want to discuss with Ofcom (as soon as I have written it). "Moved and gyrated her hips in a sexually provocative way" - thats all the music channels buggereed. "Lightly jiggled breasts" - hmm, Nigella Lawson. Or for the fan of the more mature turkey, Delia Smith. It might even be possible to catch BBC News out for footage of Sarah Brown or Sam Cam.

Or anything with Carla Brunei in. Wow, that would be one eck of a dipolomatic row. "Er, Monsoier Ambassador, oh thanks, yes I will have a Ferro Roche, look, its about your Presidents wife. Our broadcasting regulator has ruled that footage of her meeting the Queen was too erotic. She lightly jiggled her breasts. And licked her lips. Probably thinking about Ferro Roche at the time, you French certainly know how to eat, oh look theres some left. So kind. But shes still banned."

Im coming to the conclusion that part of the problem is that the compliance people at Ofcom appear to have no legal training. Their write ups are to a very low standard and even contain spelling mistakes, let alone the grammatical ones and logic holes.

Because the lack legal training they cannot see how poor their standard of regulation is. They just dont get it.

Todays Broadcast Bulletin contained a humilating grovel, where they had to retract a previous breech finding against an African channel that had been found guilty of promoting medical remedies inappropriately. One piece of advice was to cut down on chillies to avoid stomach disorders. The channel complained that they gave dietary advice, not medical. Ofcom had to go and get a proper translation, and accepted the point. It was also claimed that being found in breech was disproportionate. Having re-heard the case they still decided that the broadcast was in breech, but no properly run regulator should find itself in that position.

(Lawyers away. Lily Allen is not the same as Welsh sex siren Kathy Barry. Lily is much more annoying and Kathy has her own island).

Quote:but NOT intended for arousal.

How do they judge that? I've had nothing for ages, Nora Batty on last of summer wine repeats is starting to look hot.

(28-09-2010 01:03 )Krill Liberator Wrote:  

(28-09-2010 00:04 )RCTV Wrote:  true. Although not just the bang channels, but the daytime shows in general, have got way more sexual even over the past 12 months, and it's not good. If you take Spain for example. The channels don't compete very much, but it is no wear near as sexual as the uk and the outfits aren't as skimpy, but they still get guys calling.

I agree. While i have no knowledge of the Spanish babechannels or their content, I'd certainly concur that not only EarlyBird / The Pad, but most of the other day shows are very near the knuckle.
In fact, i never used to pay much attention to the day shows until the last six months or so - some days it's hard to know where to look - there's so much slippage across all the babe day shows it's mind-boggling.
The debate about day vs night levels of naughtiness is clearly for elsewhere, but my experience of a call with Dannii Harwood a couple of weeks ago at about 16.30 confirmed what I'd been thinking for a while; the day babes will go almost all the way in comparison and they give you the show you want to see! As you say, this is not necessarily good for long-term survivability...hmmmm.

The spanish industry is very small, and because of what is broadcast on normal tv we can get away with quite a bit. but we don't do it in as much of a skimpy and sexual way, but we could quite easily considering what is on normal tv in spain.

After Ofcom announced a massive fine against Bang they might have been expected to become very compliant. (Sanction 29 July 2010) Instead, the next time there was a complaint, Bang supplied the recordings but failed to turn up to fight their corner. This resulted in a truly bizarre Broadcast Bulletin where Ofcom attempted to present Bangs defence for them. Every seen a comedy where the defendant represents themselves, and has to keep running from the dock to in front to ask themseves questions*? It was a bit like that, only it was the Prosecution running round. Next time round Bang didnt even bother to send in the recordings.

At the time it seemed a bit odd, perhaps as if it had all got too much for Bang management and they had pulled a blanket over their head.

I fully expected Ofcom to go apoplectic, press the nuclear button, and Bang to have their licence pulled. Instead they kept broadcasting.

The explanation may lie in something they said when defending against the mega fine:

Quote:Para 65: the Licensee reserved its position in respect of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (right to a fair trial) on the propriety of the Committee‟s composition and process;

I have mentioned elsewhere that Ofcom do not appear to comply with the HCHR Article 6s "Right To A Fair Trial" because the people hearing the case are not indepdent of either the people submitting the case ("prosecution") or the people who drew up the rules (usually Parliament - Ofcom management in this case). I'm not claiming credit for anything, I said it after the Bang case, but the odd behaviour and Ofcoms silence suggests that perhaps Bang ARE taking this further.

The reason we now have a Supreme Court instead of House of Lords judges is that it is considered incompatible with Article 6 for a Lord to help write and vote on legislation, then hear a case based on it. Now the most senior judges are banned from the House of Lords, despite 1000 years of legal principle that the most senior judges are incapable of bias or prejudice. Bang might just be on to something, but it will take a long time to be resolved.

* Woody Allens Bananas, and probably some crap by Jim Carey.

More fines on the way?
From the latest bulletin

(26-10-2010 19:00 )TheWatcher Wrote:  More fines on the way?
From the latest bulletin

Ofcom please leave bangmedia alone.

FAVOURITE BABES

| 1: PAIGE TYLER | 2: SOPHIA KNIGHT | 3: GRACIE LEWIS | 4: CHARLIE O'NEAL | 5: ANASTASIA HARRIS | 6: ADELE TAYLOR | 7: TAMMY TAYLOR | 8: ROSIE LEE | 9: CAITLIN WYNTERS | 10: ELLA JOLIE |

(26-10-2010 19:36 )ledders69 Wrote:  Ofcom please leave bangmedia alone.

While it is clearly ridiculous of Ofcom to claim to be upholding a code which protects the viewer's sensibilities at gone One in the morning, as many have noted Bang Media bring heavenly fire down upon their own heads. One reaches the point of suspecting that, were Bang Air ever to take to the skies, they'd be routinely intruding into Soviet airspace and wondering why their 747 was blown out of the sky by an angry Sukhoi. (ancient historical reference for those too young to understand)
But then the other channels do this as well, so.....are Bang just the 'worst' offenders?

Missing key events. Talking bollocks. Making stuff up.
~~~SAVE THE KRILL!~~~

how come the redlight lounge hasn't had the sting of offcom yet? by the way they shake their tits and push a spread open arse at the camera it's a lot worse than anything the pad has done