(11-02-2013 14:10 )winsaw Wrote: [ -> ]RLC and bang are not and have never been the same companies, bang help pumpkin films set up a tv channel(RLC) as they were not competition at the time so the channels had a very good relationship which is what Cathy is on about,
when Bang went bust RLC were in the right place at the right time to use their long standing and good relationship with playboy to take on the channels that were now free,
they also signed a lot of the girls and production staff up who were out of work and re-branded the channel away from the bbw 40+ market to the main stream channel we see today,
Yes we know they are not the same company as stated previously, but they were heavily involved with each other in more way's than one and one grew from the demise of the other .
These are the facts that we know of concerning the channels relation ship with each other .
The RLC channels were part run by the Bang Babes people as stated by Cathy and there used to be a on screen message on the RLC channels saying that RLC was in association with Tease Me TV confirming this (fact).
The RLC website was also run by Bang Media .(fact)
Some Bangbabes shows used to be broadcast from the RLC Bristol studios (fact)
They play the same back ground music (fact)
RLC took other the Bang babes channels belonging to Playboy when Bang Channels Ltd went bust (Fact)
They took on some of the Bang Babes girls and producers when Bang finished (fact)
RLC used to broadcast programs on the RLC channels after 12am called "Bang Babes" months after Bang finished, as confirmed by Ofcom in their broadcast bulletin issue number 185 and dated 4/7/2011, they found a program called "Bang babes" transmitted on Red Light 1 Sky channel 911 in breach months after Bang had finished. (Fact) , it wasn't a hang over from when Bang Babes use the channels, the program Bang Babes was introduced to the RLC channels EPG after Bang finished .(fact)
In many ways RLC grew from the ashes of Bang Babes, they went from having one 40+ only channel to taking over the Playboy licensed Bangbabes channels and setting on some Bang Babes staff, i wonder if Bang Babes was still transmitting today how many channels RLC would now have and would they ever have broadcast a freeview show .
Just thought id mention that i'm not having a go at RLC or saying that there is still a connection with Bang etc , i was just originally replying to this post below and saying imo RLC probably took their place that's all, and giving my reasons as to why i think this .
(08-02-2013 10:23 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]When bangbabes went it was a shame, but had to be done because of sheer number of complaints, how many by rivals, don't know. I would of expected another company to of taken their place, but that hasn't happened.
I'm actually glad that RLC was in the right place at the right time to take over the Bang Babe leased from Playboy channels and take on some Bang staff, RLC these days is one of the better channels imo .
I wouldn't say RLC has replaced bang at all, I would say that they have emerged from Bang's demise, not replaced.
(13-02-2013 01:37 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn't say RLC has replaced bang at all, I would say that they have emerged from Bang's demise, not replaced.
Well iv'e said in a previous post that in many ways RLC grew from the ashes of Bang Babes, so emerged is roughly the same thing lol, but RLC did replace them as tenants of the same Playboy channels used by Bang (902 and 948) and replaced them as the channel that a rival channel and girls complain about , so you could say they repaced and emerged from Bangs demise .
In reference to you're previous post (post 2445) were you stated that Light Central Limited is active, it seems to be active in name only by the way , it is actually a non trading dormant company with no money in the bank or assets etc. it started up on the 04/02/2011 after Bang went bust in January of 2011 , see here
http://www.companycheck.co.uk/company/07517516 .
It looks to be Pumpkin Film Productions Limited
http://www.companycheck.co.uk/company/03193617 that runs the Playboy TV chat channel and the RLC channels etc, they look to be quite well off financially as well . Other babe channel company's iv'e checked out such as BS/Cellcast UK
http://www.companycheck.co.uk/company/04327957 and Studio 66/PrimeTime TV UK
http://www.companycheck.co.uk/company/06105265 seem to have more liabilities than assets .
(10-02-2013 17:47 )continental19 Wrote: [ -> ]To me this is utterly ridicules childish behaviour, if RLC other rival channels can't do what this channels does, then what happens they throw there toys out the pram, and start complaining to Ofcom
the trouble is that when they do this they are giving Ofcom ammunition to put more pressure on the channels, this is bloody stupid
Anyway moving on from this, I personally believe that when Ofcom goes I think that the old ways will return, in otherwords the kind of adult entertainment we had say 3-4 yrs ago.
This 3-4 years ago you mention is not long after ed richards arrived, coincidence or he is actually the reason and he is a weirdy weirdo.I cant find him without paying any money but twitter/facebook/ofcom have no way of contacting this scarlet pimpernel either.Ed is it because you have no friends thats why you not on social networks .???????????????????? £400,000 a year he gets as well .
Honda sponsor "my daughter teenage nudist"shown 3 times this week a docu on channel 4 thats highly sexist has a title that breaks ofcom rules.They replied with this:
"Channel 4 documentrys are designed to create debate;we are a sponsor of the series but don't have any control over episode content."
Great they could be sponsoring any old shite.
BBFC have replied still stating this is not the case treating male and female genitals different its untrue.They refferred me to their rules PDF..Right if i bring out a film like inbetweeners but female version and have same nudity as that i bet they would not pass it as 15 cert.That is going to be gist of next email in this saga of treating males different..Its not ofcom news but if BBFC dont mind then neither should ofcom but BBFC are lying to me if a female genitals is shown the bbfc would have it cut to pass it not R18 i bet they would.
(14-02-2013 02:56 )fedup Wrote: [ -> ]...
This 3-4 years ago you mention is not long after ed richards arrived, coincidence or he is actually the reason and he is a weirdy weirdo.
I don't know about him being a 'weirdy weirdo', but I've said before that I think a lot of the direction of Ofcom is actually down to him. As the head man, he sets the agenda for the organisation. Whether things would change significantly when he goes is another matter, as the incoming head could, at best, just carry on from where Ed leaves off, or maybe be even more strict, but nevertheless, i don't think we'll see significant change from Ofcom until it's leadership changes.
The history of the BBFC is very similar, over the years it's judgments have been a reflection of the man in charge, and have only really relaxed when the leadership has changed.
(14-02-2013 02:56 )fedup Wrote: [ -> ]Honda sponsor "my daughter teenage nudist"shown 3 times this week a docu on channel 4 thats highly sexist has a title that breaks ofcom rules.
I don't see how that title breaks any Ofcom rules.
Firstly from a personal point of view I've been off this forum for almost a few weeks now having been something of a regular contributer in recent times but like everybody I have a life outside this place and work plays a massive part of it especially when you've just done a run of 7 nightshifts on the trot well this place becomes secondary when it comes to importance and ofcourse sleep
Onto the subject matter now. With regards to having a TV regulator in the first place well I think in many ways it is neccessary otherwise fuck knows just what type of content could make it onto our airwaves. As far as censorship in the UK is concerned in comparision to most countries we are still pretty liberal.
Could you imagine the likes of Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia or China allowing for such things as a babe channel happening, forget it. These countries not only have the internet under government control but also the TV and newspapers and pretty much everything in the media is censored and restricted beyond belief. They have absolutely no freedom of speech whatsoever so when you look at the bigger picture we have it pretty good. We can Call David Cameron a prick and we don't fear arrest or imprisonment or execution.
Democracy is a great thing which we all more or less take for granted. But yes I do agree that a change of leadership at the top can have a great impact on how certain structures are run. Also 100% agree that if ED had got the top job at the BBC then it could have gone 2 ways.
We could have had some nutter come in and take his place and put even more restrictions and rules and reguations in place. On the other hand we could have had a regulator like the Dutch one Nicam who have kept Babestation safe and secure from anymore ofcom hassles. As always I will hold my breath with anticipation as to the future of this type of entertainment and will make no predictions. I just hope if Scotland gains independance that we don't end up with fucking Scotcom
(14-02-2013 09:24 )munch1917 Wrote: [ -> ] (14-02-2013 02:56 )fedup Wrote: [ -> ]...
[quote='fedup' pid='1214283' dateline='1360806967']
Honda sponsor "my daughter teenage nudist"shown 3 times this week a docu on channel 4 thats highly sexist has a title that breaks ofcom rules.
I don't see how that title breaks any Ofcom rules.
Titles must not be misleading on the nature of the programme,,this was just a penis show with every opportunity to show explicit adult male genitals and if they didn't the men just pulled their pants down.
Also widespread offence means any people from different places in sufficient amount not many do so i give up..I dont care if Babestation goes now there only seems to be a few have a go at ofcom..If 10,000 did which i think is still small it would really cause concern.As Scottishbloke says other things to do.
ed richards takes 400,000 grand out the coffers and tells me i cant see what he says,fuck off,and he is bent as they get why is he still in a job,,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ocrat.html
to the person who said title isn't within the rules.
That title is well within the rules. Since when were nudists totally female? A programme on nudists and you don't expect to see penises, seriously what planet are you on? There was a fair amount of a boobs and vagina on there as well. That posts makes you look like you don't like looking at cocks or they're bigger than yours.
(14-02-2013 09:24 )munch1917 Wrote: [ -> ]... but I've said before that I think a lot of the direction of Ofcom is actually down to him. As the head man, he sets the agenda for the organisation.
There is something fundamentally wrong if one person's views can dominate any public sector organisation, let alone the morality police. Broadcasting luvvies go on about how Lord Reith used to run the BBC, we are supposed to have moved on since then.
Ofcom has what is supposed to be a politically neutral board with 9 members. This kind of structure is supposed to represent not only the political spectrum (or all be neutral and acceptable to all parties) but also a range of opinion.
It is the Board that sets direction, and takes collective responsibility. The Chief Executive is responsible for implementing the decisions of the Broard and works full-time to do that. The CE should not go against Board decisions - formal or imformal - including general direction. A CE might have latitude to fill in the gaps and take operational responsibilty because they are there full-time, but care needs to be taken not to commit an organisation to new policies by stealth.
If the CE feels strongly about something the correct course of action is to write it up as a suggested policy and ask the Board to approve it.
Executive Summary: Ed Richards is only one of 9 Board members.
But you could be right, in practice his views might be dominating Ofcom.