+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: UK Babe Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Forum: Broadcasting Regulations (/forumdisplay.php?fid=138)
+---- Thread: Serious Ofcom warning for Bang Media (/showthread.php?tid=17619)
RE: Serious Ofcom warning for Bang Media - StanTheMan - 22-02-2010 19:11
I have a request, for both admin and posters.
Would anyone object to me mirroring some of these posts over to the blog?
This latest thread is PRECISELY the kind of thing I was hoping could be given its own place - somewhere dealing solely with the subject, and yet so many of the posters I've told about the blog (and whom have shown an interest/said it's a great idea) have just gone ahead and posted without so much of a suggestion that it might be copied/used for BACVA.
If I have your permission, then I'll go it alone... like John Wayne... or something.
You can thank me later, once I've brought Ofcom to their knees
RE: Serious Ofcom warning for Bang Media - aceman65 - 23-02-2010 14:11
I can't see how Ofcom could use any material from this forum as evidence towards a prosecution anyway. As they can not guarantee the validity of any such recording, as it might have been manipulated, edited, or enhanced to change the context of the recording.
Most courts would just chuck the evidence out.
But why does Bangbabes point Ofcom in the direction of a forum with one hand, and proceed to request the removal of our hard work with the other.
Seems a bit underhanded to me, and a case of double standards.
RE: Serious Ofcom warning for Bang Media - IanG - 23-02-2010 14:23
ace, is there any proof BB sent Ofcom here for these clips? It sounded more like http://www.babevideos.co.uk clips they were looking at (i.e. pixilated/lowres) than the d/ls our fine cappers post here.
Did anyone watch Embarrassing Bodies on Friday? There was close-up breast fondling and tattooing, clear shots of male and female genitalia including clear shots of vaginal penetration - and all before 10pm.
RE: Serious Ofcom warning for Bang Media - Hollywood PillowPants - 23-02-2010 14:28
(23-02-2010 14:23 )IanG Wrote: Did anyone watch Embarrassing Bodies on Friday?
Isn't that the new upcoming Cellcast channel on the old Hotel Voyeur EPG?
RE: Serious Ofcom warning for Bang Media - dbfernandafan - 23-02-2010 15:07
(23-02-2010 14:28 )PillowPants Wrote:has some bastard been filming me in the shower?(23-02-2010 14:23 )IanG Wrote: Did anyone watch Embarrassing Bodies on Friday?
Isn't that the new upcoming Cellcast channel on the old Hotel Voyeur EPG?
RE: Serious Ofcom warning for Bang Media - TheWatcher - 23-02-2010 17:02
Apple are clamping down on adult material as well
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8530124.stm
RE: Serious Ofcom warning for Bang Media - biker200 - 23-02-2010 17:02
My fingers are crossed that if and when Cameron wins the election he will keep to his word and sling all these Quango's onto the unemployment scrapheap like labour has to millions.And i am no conservative either.
If challenged in the courts surely oftwats would be in breach of some european directive at least.
How can you convict someone of a law when no actual law exists by statute.
RE: Serious Ofcom warning for Bang Media - Cobblers - 24-02-2010 01:18
Well we've seen the six figure financial sanctions Ofcom have imposed in the past. I get the impression from the last Bulletin that they're particularly unimpressed with Bang Media both daring to repeat offend and to not issue grovelling apologies in defence (although I'll get back to the defence in a tick). Was quite amused by Bang's retort about the R18 content on the website, saying it was disappointed Ofcom hadn't notified them about it earlier - don't think that went down well either!
Anyways, I wouldn't be surprised if Ofcom's pending response was to fine Bang Media out of existence, or to suspend or remove the licence altogether. They really are gunning for the Babe channels these last few months, and my gut instinct is that they want to make an example.
Getting back to the defence, I know we haven't seen the full response, but I still feel it's too weak. If the adult channels really are paying top dollar to have someone respond to these accusations, then why is it that half the posters in here could mount a far more robust defence in their free time which actually questions the standards by which Ofcom are judging these cases?
RE: Serious Ofcom warning for Bang Media - vostok 1 - 24-02-2010 02:59
(24-02-2010 01:18 )Cobblers Wrote: Getting back to the defence, I know we haven't seen the full response, but I still feel it's too weak. If the adult channels really are paying top dollar to have someone respond to these accusations, then why is it that half the posters in here could mount a far more robust defence in their free time which actually questions the standards by which Ofcom are judging these cases?
Very well said. They need to dump the P.T.B.A and get forum member IanG on billable hours.
I doubt he would consume £250,000 in legal fees either.
RE: Serious Ofcom warning for Bang Media - IanG - 24-02-2010 06:30
Cobblers, who said what was R18? Ofcom? They're about as qualified to do that as I am to represent Bang Media in court...!
Did Ofcom submit this stuff they don't own the copyright on to the BBFC to get it classified? That's the only way you can legally claim something is R18. If Ofcom are trying to set themselves up as classifiers they may well cause the Comms Act to be declared null and void because the EC need to be informed of all technical standards - that was the cockup the VRA 1984 fell foul of.
I doubt very much the BBFC would classify the BB output as R18. It would most likely come under 18 'sex works' - mostly simulated sex for the purposes of sexual arousal or, real sex in an educational context. Only really explicit hardcore is R18 and that's not what BB (even with lollipops) were broadcasting. I don't think brief glimpses of non-sexual penetration and simulated licking/masturbation count. And what I mean is, the lolly wasn't being used to get Jem off was it? The licking/rubbing was mostly pretend wasn't it? None of it was actual in-yer-face porno. In fact, 9 Songs, which isn't even a 'sex works' is far, far more explicit and that contains real fellatio and spunking.
Ofcom are pathetic.
I'd really love to know what it is about material made to turn people on that makes the content unacceptable for broadcast or sale outside a sex shop when exactly the same content appears in other works/contexts virtually without any restriction on broadcast or supply at all? It is quite illogical for one fairly simple reason - kids can't tell the difference in 'context' and, the offence the sexually repressed feel at the sight of cocks and slots is pretty much the same no matter what the context.
It's all bullshit and arbitrary lines in the sand if you ask me.