(28-11-2010 19:08 )bigguy01 Wrote:  have a look at thewatchers links.

it appears ofcom are using evidence against bang from the webstreams not sky/freeview which is not their mandate.

the fernanda caps were shown on the webstream not on sky or freeview therefore they do not have the authority to warn bangmedia about content shown on net. if they are using the forum then it sets a very dangerous president for the future of ofcom and babechannels. the evidence is clear thats it from the webstream is that fernanda's head was looking at the camera which was used for freeview and sky, the camera showing her ass was for the webstream not sky/freeview. therefore ofcom are going beyond their mandate therefore bangmedia should be able go to court get this revoked licences overturn. ofcoms mandate is for tv not internet broadcasting. if they had th mandate for internet broadcasting than sexstation would be banned or forced to go pay per view.

the only authority that prosecute people for internet content are law enforcement agencies (fbi, police, interpol etc).

(28-11-2010 12:05 )Light Entertainment Wrote:  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.

(28-11-2010 11:31 )Rammyrascal Wrote:  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

(28-11-2010 22:02 )tonkpils Wrote:  Hope that they will find a way to solve this situation.... it is sad to see all those girls sharing ONE single channel....

(28-11-2010 23:29 )eccles Wrote:  

(28-11-2010 22:02 )tonkpils Wrote:  Hope that they will find a way to solve this situation.... it is sad to see all those girls sharing ONE single channel....

Suppose they could all share one bed. And one bikini. And some baby oil. (Lies down until pulse drops to normal).

Seriously though, is one explanation for Bangs bizzare behavious that they realised 6-12 months ago that they were doomed whatever they did, and decided to make money for as long as they could by pushing the boundaries and getting extra callers, without actually going for all out hardcore and overnight closure. Yes, eventually Ofcom snapped but it could have gone either way. How else do you explain not supplying recordings, not turning up to meetings, not replying to letters?

(29-11-2010 00:26 )mr williams Wrote:  I haven't seen the report in The Sun but the thing that surprises me the most about the BBC report on Banggate is what ISN'T there which is:

"A spokesman for Bang Media said they were disappointed with the decision*/sorry, it was a mistake*/going to fight this*/outraged with Ofcom*..."

*delete as applicable

Has there been any official comment or statement from BM since the news was picked up by/broke to a wider audience?

(29-11-2010 00:58 )aceman65 Wrote:  ^^^ Well, they certainly haven't apologised publicly to Admin or the forum, for posting a pack of lies.