Amanda - Caps & Vids

~~StanTheMan~~ · 02-11-2009 23:14

(02-11-2009 23:06 )TheDarkKnight Wrote: I don't think they deliberately set out to get fined. I think if they do get fined, it would be because of Amanda going further than they wanted to.

But if Amanda was doing stuff they didn't want her to do they'd have sacked her by now.

TheDarkKnight · 03-11-2009 00:11

Why would you sack a girl like Amanda for getting a bit carried away?

I should imagine if she totally ignored instructions and ended up costing them a bucket load of cash she probably would be sacked, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

She's being naughty, not rebelling.

vila · 03-11-2009 00:14

A recent Ofcom Bulletin had a report of Bang Babes being found 'in breach' of the rules with regard to exposure of anal/gential detail. They seemed to take issue with the fact that, at least in their eyes, it was prolonged and 'intrusive' (by which I believe they mean the camera was dwelling on it rather than avoiding or minimising it). By implication, therefore, occasional 'flashes' are not regarded so seriously.

I can't see BB ignoring such a recent judgement, so maybe they've obtained some clarification and are sailing as close to the wind as they dare.

~~StanTheMan~~ · 03-11-2009 01:13

(03-11-2009 00:11 )TheDarkKnight Wrote: Why would you sack a girl like Amanda for getting a bit carried away?

Because by your own admission, any fine imposed would be because of her antics?

IanG · 03-11-2009 01:25

(02-11-2009 21:09 )StanTheMan Wrote:
(02-11-2009 19:08 )TheWatcher Wrote: I expect a fine and warning from ofcom is not far off.

Usually I'd be inclined to agree, but I'm not so sure. There's so much goes on behind the scenes that we know nothing about. Sure we can read the Ofcom bulletins, but that gives us just a fraction. I can't imagine why Bangbabes would so blatantly risk huge fines, unless they're making far more money than they'd like us to believe. I personally think there's been some relaxation of the rules that we're not privy to.

Yeah, so much for transparent regulation!