Serious Ofcom warning for Bang Media

(26-10-2010 21:03 )Rob169 Wrote:  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

because "redlight lounge" is not owned by Bangmedia , so it is not subject to the same level of Ofcom victimisation that Bangmedia get , Payboy own Sky Ch 911 .

What I still don't understand is how can any channel be in breach of ofcoms standard codes. At the end of the day they're fuckin sexline channels. Ofcom need to get a fuckin grip and stop the prejudice right now. It's not like any of the babes are on the fuckin bbc shaking their tits and ass, IS IT. I wish somebody would fuckin drop a bomb or something on ofcunt headquarters. That way at least they would have a fuckin job to do cleaning up the rubble.

PS - I wish they would get that fuckin psychic channel off the air right in the middle of all the babe channels, I mean its hardly wanking material.

(26-10-2010 23:01 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  What I still don't understand is how can any channel be in breach of ofcoms standard codes. At the end of the day they're fuckin sexline channels.

Ive sugested to Ofcom on several occasions in their "consultations" that they need to stop trying to shoehorn these channels into categories that they clearly do not fit - editorial or teleshopping - and recognise reality. The sad part is that Ofcom are supposed to "innovate" but they just dont think outside the box. Its the ame with the "consultations". They ask questions then cover their ears. If they are prepared to ignore sensible warnings about poor definition by the BBC and Channel 4 then they certainly arent going to listen to a group of, erm, hobbyists.

Quote: Ofcom need to get a fuckin grip and stop the prejudice right now. It's not like any of the babes are on the fuckin bbc shaking their tits and ass, IS IT.

Hang on, why shouldnt the BBC show tits and ass? Arewe not licence fee payers? Are we not a demographic? They certainly used to, with flashes on Monty Python, The End of the Pier Show, drama, modern dance, etc.

Its not an excuse to say the BBC should be about top quality high minded shows, not entertainment. At the end of the day, when all is saidand done, and I have run out of cliches, what is Eastenders? Celebrity Come Dancing? Why should strong humour be allowed, strong violence in film and drama, but not sex? If I have to squirm through another episode of The Inbetweeners, The Eastenders*, Crapualty , Hardly City, and anything with Frankie Boyle, Ill want my share of the entertainment too. And thats not mentioning Family Guy at 11:15pm BBC3 Saturday - exactly what redeeming feature does that have?

If the BBC ran a babe show Id expect it to be sexy, competitive, but without commercial distortion. Noone trying to sell a calendar every few minutes, or plugging a pay per view** encrypted show, phone ins at non-profit local rates, models getting paid quickly and decent rates, and top female stars from mainstream TV shows getting them out on special charity nights.

Quote:I wish somebody would fuckin drop a bomb or something on ofcunt headquarters. That way at least they would have a fuckin job to do cleaning up the rubble.

Now, now, its one thing to dislike them, another to imagine that HQ blowing up. They are only obeying orders. Besides, the problem isnt that they arent working, its that they are working too hard, on the wrong thing. Your money and my money is subsiding wasted effort.

And if it helps, stacks of them are going to be made redundant.

Quote:PS - I wish they would get that fuckin psychic channel off the air right in the middle of all the babe channels, I mean its hardly wanking material.

Youre joking surely? They easily outclass some of the minger channels***. And they just spout total toss.

Besides, Im in a good mood, watched St Cherly Cawl for an hour earlier. Unfortunately there was a clear view of an oily cunt on the screen much of the time. Normally that would be a plus, but that one spoke and used to edit the Daily Mirror.

* Gordon Browns favourite show. And his advisors didnt tell him to say that.
** missed spaces and typed "pay per view" as "pay perv iew". Seems better somehow.
*** No names, someones bound to get upset, lets just say tonight must be getting Greenpeace excited. Look, another stranded whale.

And apologies to Scottishbloke if youre a fan a Frankie Boil.

Scottishbloke may or may not be, but I certainly am a fan of Boyley (not his real nickname, but it's what I refer to him as when he's not in the same county or on the same phone-line; that last said, he'll get you off everytime *ahem*) - but when you make points like that, I couldn't care if you call my mum a bitch who's a convicted terrorist (actually...)
The Children In Need telescam thingy should definitely have an end-of-the-night babeshow-style segment of its own; if nothing else, it would create public acceptance of the babeshow concept which, until now, has been a dirty underground thing. AND Fiona Bruce in a gold thong, tits-out on the bed taking VERY expensive calls?! I'd buy that for a dollar! (though I guess not everyone would - okay; Fearne NoBrain Cotton then? Jenni Falconer? That Dr Alice thingy off of Coast? Ermm,) yyyeah.
Good concept anyway. Someone else cast it.

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

(26-10-2010 21:21 )mr mystery Wrote:  

(26-10-2010 21:03 )Rob169 Wrote:  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

because "redlight lounge" is not owned by Bangmedia , so it is not subject to the same level of Ofcom victimisation that Bangmedia get , Payboy own Sky Ch 911 .

Playboy recently took one on the chin from Ofcom for a Bang Babe broadcast on the 22nd May 2010 that was found in breach. Ofcom still have lots of complaints, around 11, to investigate against the babe channels, generally Bang Babes Earlybird TV.
When Bang were hit by the big fine as part of their mitigating circumstances they stated that they had invited Ofcom in to vet footage of daytime tv which had been declined. The committee stated 'in this regard that it is not for ofcom employees to vet footage supplied by a licensee'.

Now if i was a small retail business and i sought compliance advice from the likes of Trading Standards Officers or Environmental Health Officers then that advice would be forthcoming without hesitation. Central government advice to these authorities dictates that.

I recently attended an expedited review of the premises licence brought by the Police against Maya Nightclub Dean St London. The police were seeking a three months suspension of the licence plus additional strict conditions for when the club re-opened following a night of serious violence at the club, the club not preserving the crime scene and not providing cctv footage of the night.
In normal police fashion they had submitted the review papers to westminster licensing sub-committee and attended the hearing (similar to charging a suspect and seeing them in court). Whilst the committee accepted that the reason for the review was very serious they adjourned the hearing instructing the police to carryout visits to advise on crime prevention measures and report back before they would make a decision, basically help the premises to comply in the future. The licence was suspended for three months but when the premises reopen they know for sure they will be complying with the police and licensing authorities requirements.
The moral here is that you had an independant authority making an informed decision following evidence from both parties and instructing the police to go that bit further than normal in assisting the defendants.
Unlike Ofcom where a decision is made before the defendant gets to present their evidence and the committee is not independant to the authority bringing the charges.
What one might call 'rough justice' and it needs to change. Independant panels, sub-committee's, magistrate/high courts provide the checks and balances that are needed to ensure a fair decision is reached.

(27-10-2010 03:16 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  When Bang were hit by the big fine as part of their mitigating circumstances they stated that they had invited Ofcom in to vet footage of daytime tv which had been declined. The committee stated 'in this regard that it is not for ofcom employees to vet footage supplied by a licensee'.

Now if i was a small retail business and i sought compliance advice from the likes of Trading Standards Officers or Environmental Health Officers then that advice would be forthcoming without hesitation. Central government advice to these authorities dictates that.

Indeed, as OFCOM are to apply their fabled "generally accepted standards" to broadcasting then they should offer compliance advice pre-broadcast in order to provide that other legal obligation to "provide adequate protection to the public".

OFCOM yet again prove what an evil waste of time and money they truly are. Indeed, they now offer convincing evidence that they simply exist to fine folks that fail to understand their bullshit Code and so-called 'guidance'.

The OFCOM Content Board are not fit to regulate anything. They are clearly unwilling and probably incapable of performing their legal duties and have shown themselves time and again to be untrustworthy shits of the highest order.

its just easy money for the government to let ofcom fine the channels,its a bit contradictory if you think about it
maybe it might be a good idea to let the shows just give ofcom/government a % of the profit made on fone calls each year
and back to the good old days some of the shows are terrible these days,really really very tame/lame & boring as watchin paint dry?

First of all yes Frankie Boyle is a very funny and gifted comedian but not as good as chubby brown. He's the best in the game in my opinion. Secondly the bbc airing a late night babe channel well not a bad idea. That girl that does the weather on reporting Scotland would look good shaking here thing. But my point about ofcom targeting the babe channels which are effectively sexline shows still stands. Yes I also pay for my bbc licence and it would be good if you could see more late night erotica on these channels but for the time being if ofcom could only recognise the babe channels for what they are that would be an achievement as they are well out of the way of the mainstream channels and can easily be switched off by the use of the parental control button which I think more than meets the requirements of ofcom. I've always said it but all freeview, sky boxs etc supplied should have an option on whether or not they have the adult channels included on them or not, that way anybody lodging a complaint against any of these channels would have no grounds on which to justify them. Censorship in a democratic country should not be allowed to continue as its our civil rights and freedom in this world to make our own choices on what we view, read or listen to. China for example has one of the worst attitudes towards human rights and censoring the media more than any other country in the world and its worth remembering that and at the end of the day babe channels and late night erotica has a market for it and should be allowed the same freedom as given to rest of the subjects covered on the tv.

...........and what is it all achieving?

Can Ofcon tell us the results of their policy?

How is it benefitting UK society?

Nah, they don't have a clue. They don't like sex on tv, full stop. That's what this censorship is all about. They have to tolerate it, but are making life so difficult for the broadcasters.

They are the original "untouchables"

What a waste of money

more breaches for bang and some for elite in this weeks bulletin

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforce...ns/obb169/