The UK Babe Channels Forum

Ok fair point Mr Williams no need to start a war over this, calm down, your thread did help a lot of people, you obviously thought about it before I did, no hard feelings I was only making point OK.

(22-11-2010 01:11 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Currently Bangbabes have 2 channels now running with the other accessible from the other channels, just for the record I posted on this forum on how to access these channels long before Mr Williams stole my idea and started up another forum on it as if you check back to the posts on Friday night mine was the first to give instructions on how to manually tune them in after much research on the internet but Mr Williams has been given all the credit for my work!

If there is any "credit" to be taken for the instructions , then it goes to Mr Williams

If you want a full timeline the first mention of the "hidden channels" was by me in post #53

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid670459


Mr Williams posted full instructions in post #57

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid670472

Scottishbloke then posted, on the next page (post #65)

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid670488


I think you owe Mr Williams an apology.

(22-11-2010 01:43 )mr williams Wrote: [ -> ]...and to take us back to the subject of the girls that are actually on screen, Donna Duke has had a midnight start and is currectly on all three channels (presumably giving the other two a break as they were on split channels)

No, Dionne's gone home apparently.

(22-11-2010 01:40 )mr williams Wrote: [ -> ]If you look at what the forum admin person wrote in post #89 they gave the credit to "bobek", not me. Did I complain? No. I have better things to do but I am not going to have you making accusations like that!

I hadn't even read that post.

I'm quite happy to PM "Admin" and ask for it to be edited if you want.

(21-11-2010 23:26 )Rammyrascal Wrote: [ -> ]im on another babeshow forum and on there is a good explanation about what's gone on

I wouldn't say that's a good explanation. I'd say it was a feeble explanation which is contrary to all the known facts, particularly the fact that (as others have pointed out) Bang Babes are still broadcasting!

(22-11-2010 01:02 )mrmann Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's due to the aforementioned show. I saw it and thought it was terrific, and it's so childish to punish an ADULT channel for something like that, which is what we all are tuning in to see! Also, there wasn't even an open leg shot (Not like that is something bad), so why does it really matter? Let the women and the channels do as they please, and stop ruining our fun and causing the unemployment of the women and failure of the channels.

I hope this week's 2-4-1 is still on, but I'm willing to bet that it won't be, and then we'll all have the answer we've been waiting for.

Someone should tell those in control at Offcom that a vagina is normal and natural, and not harmful or dangerous!

Maybe my thinking is stupid, and it really is something else, but I still think Offcom is playing a part somehow.

Guess I'll just have to go back to Sexcetera, Sexarama, Euortrash and The Naked Office, where we can see more explicit content, NOT on Adult channels.

I really don't wanna say this but if what happened regarding danni's show is true than ofcom had to act, bangbabes knew the rules and what could happen if they overstep them. We might not like it but bangbabes have only themselves to blame.


And once again if this is true the other channels will be worse off because of this, which could possible already be the reason for the strange clothing situation going on at elite day times

I can't see how any ofcom related enforcement could result in 2 out of three channels of a broadcaster being removed from the EPG as any 'dodgy' content that resulted in action being taken could easily appear on the other 1 station.

As far as the legality of the situation goes they could have taken action in the form of a 'cease and desist' type affair which could have forced sky to encrypt\block transmission but that action would (unless the lawyers involved where complete numpties) be aimed at the producers of the station rather than the broadcaster, especially following the situation that someone else mentioned whereby Playboy got fined for the actions of another company as the other company produced the content while they owned the rights to the broadcast channel on which it was shown.

It just doesn't make sense for 2 of 3 stations to be taken off air.

I would go so far as to say that it all comes down to a mistake with the upkeep of what channels are live and that resulted in Sky removing the channels from the EPG. I also very much doubt a channel would bother to produce a show if it was going to be inaccessible a couple of hours in and especially if they had knowledge of any legal issues unless they where trying to appear as if they had not been notified of any problem.

If Sky\Ofcom took action without some form of confirmation\acknowledgement by an offender or at least made a statement explaining that had received no notice from the offender and where proceeding with it's actions, they would be leaving themselves open to counter action of some kind and so I doubt that was the case either.

I only hope that when everything is sorted that BangMedia (assuming they aren't at fault in some way) don't get given a hard time by Sky if they, BangMedia, decide to seek compensation for loss of business, as if the blame game starts, the legal wrangling could cost more than the lost revenue of the 2 channels.

Sky could potentially take the blame but say that the station's where accessible via other means that BangMedia could have advised their viewers to watch via the 'other channels' or via the web etc. to minimise any fees they could be liable for.

It's all just speculation and conjecture at this point so we will all just have to wait and see what happens next.

UPDATE: That all being said, I've just read elsewhere (on another site) that 902 is licenced from Playboy and so that could explain why 902 is still on air if there is some form of ofcom action in play (perhaps those lawyers are numpties after all!). There is also mention of a circa £160k fine for past infringements which BangMedia haven't paid which could have resulted in a mandatory loss of licence and subsequent removal from the EPG (until the fine is paid).

That makes some sense as in that it is easier to remove to a channel from the EPG as a temporary action and once the fine was paid service could be restored which is all in all a better scenario that Sky bothering to sever all ties\feeds with Bang' only to have to re-establish them later (probably at their own cost) once the fine has been paid.

Again all just speculation and conjecture but another possibility none the less.

Makes interesting reading http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforce...ns/obb168/ (section 'In Breach - Bang Babes\Tease Me, 28 July 2010, 23:40 to 00:00')

(22-11-2010 06:19 )dizzy_davidh Wrote: [ -> ]As far as the legality of the situation goes they could have taken action in the form of a 'cease and desist' type affair which could have forced sky to encrypt\block transmission but that action would (unless the lawyers involved where complete numpties) be aimed at the producers of the station rather than the broadcaster, especially following the situation that someone else mentioned whereby Playboy got fined for the actions of another company as the other company produced the content while they owned the rights to the broadcast channel on which it was shown.

Slight correction: I mentioned that case, but as far as I remember Playboy TV weren't actually fined. They were found 'In Breach' but no further action was taken. Doesn't alter the principle, of course.

(22-11-2010 01:58 )bobek Wrote: [ -> ]I'm quite happy to PM "Admin" and ask for it to be edited if you want.

To be correct, I've edited post 89 in this thread anyway and replaced your name there with mr williams.