The UK Babe Channels Forum

Confirms what everybody already knew.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11847846

I am confused.Donna Duke and Juicy Lucy are on right now.Juicy Lucy has said she is on until half 5.LucyZara has left a message on her facebook saying she is on channel 902 from 11.Can someone please explain in laymans terms,just what the current situation is? I thought they had to cease broadcasting immediately.

think its because bang are not the licence holders of 902 and 915 and just provide the content so that is how they are still on the air

(24-11-2010 12:56 )admiral decker Wrote: [ -> ]

(24-11-2010 06:18 )dizzy_davidh Wrote: [ -> ]

(23-11-2010 21:28 )bigguy01 Wrote: [ -> ]epg on sky is skys epg they can allow and not allow channels to appear on. an epg allows the use (us the viewer) to auto tune.

I'm sorry to say that that statement incorrect. Sky operate an open platform which is explained nicely at wikipedia as follows;

"BSkyB has no veto over the presence of channels on their EPG, with open access being an enforced part of their operating licence from Ofcom."

Thank you for posting this dizzy_davidh, as I made exactly the same point earlier in this thread only to be flatly contradicted by cosmonaut, who said pretty much the same thing as bigguy01, that the EPG was Sky's EPG to do with as they pleased. I had been considering apologising to cosmonaut for posting incorrect information!

Yes I was clearly in the wrong there and I thought I would make a point of saying so, even though this detail has been rather overtaken by the course of events. Anyway for future reference, we are all clear now that Sky cannot simply kick someone off the EPG, so if any other channel disappears in future we will at least know it's not Sky's doing.

What's that old saying... ?

Ah yes. You can fool some of the people some of the time...and all of the people some of the time but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. Many on here knew the official line was a complete fabrication. The only issue was whether the disappearance was EPG/Financial or Ofcom related.

Bang have once again proved that they lie like a cheap watch. Regardless of our opinions of Ofcom and their "rules" Bang have no-one to blame but themselves. The fact that they also seem to have fed utter bullshit to their employees and allowed them to pass it on is another reason i have no sympathy for the company.

Indeed, 912 & 959 have disappeared off transponder 25 tonight and there is just a black screen, so any issue as regards manual tuning vs the EPG has gone down the plughole.

Sad days guys, sad day....

(27-11-2010 00:01 )bobek Wrote: [ -> ]What's that old saying... ?

Ah yes. You can fool some of the people some of the time...and all of the people some of the time but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. Many on here knew the official line was a complete fabrication. The only issue was whether the disappearance was EPG/Financial or Ofcom related.

Bang have once again proved that they lie like a cheap watch. Regardless of our opinions of Ofcom and their "rules" Bang have no-one to blame but themselves. The fact that they also seem to have fed utter bullshit to their employees and allowed them to pass it on is another reason i have no sympathy for the company.

good post bobek. lots of people said it was bang losing licences that caused the channels to go yet bang insisted it was "technical" problems. no sympathy for company either yet do have for the babes

and yep bang brought it on themselves

I don't get that bbc article bang don't do anything bad in the days that I have seen on what that says every babe show is guilty

(26-11-2010 17:42 )mancub Wrote: [ -> ]I've had confirmation that none of Dannii's performances are linked to this matter

Confirmation from whom, Ofcom, give over. It was generally the daytime performances that Ofcom allege were in breach of their code, and Danni, as much as i enjoyed her performances had more deliberate nip slips than any other performer, in the same way that Amanda R had pussy slips. I don't blame the performers as this is what the producer/cameraman appeared to continually permit/encourage.

Now Ofcom state in their pre-amble to the revocation notice that Bang were reckless with regard to compliance.

1.23 Indeed, in the sanctions decision of 29 July 2010, Ofcom stated explicitly that the Licensees’ contraventions amounted to recklessness indicative of a “wholly inadequate compliance system”. It also noted that “some of these contraventions occurred despite Ofcom providing the Licensees with guidance on a number of occasions”, and that “such repeated compliance failures will not be tolerated”.

and on their twitter page they have stated

'At the time Ofcom warned of a wholly inadequate compliance system that “amounted to manifest recklessness” and warned that such repeated compliance failures would not be tolerated.'

Now i remember some years ago being driven through Glasgow at a very fast speed and being stopped by the police who stated that they do not prosecute for speeding but for reckless driving. A more serious offence because you are knowingly driving at a speed in excess of the stated speed. So deliberately (with knowledge) breaking a stated speed limit (objective rule/condition).

So Ofcom are stating that Bang, knowingly and with intent, deliberately breached their Broadcasting Code. Now if the BC was clear, concise and objective i would be the first to say Bang were reckless in their actions and they deserve all that has been thrown at them, but, the majority of the BC is very subjective and open to interpretation. This is evidenced by the amount of additional guidance given to broadcasters, especially babe channel operators when Ofcom seek to impose further restrictions, again noted in the revocation notice.

1.21 Ofcom has provided guidance to industry and to the Licensees directly on compliance with the relevant codes on a number of occasions, in particular:

Compliance Guidance
• 23 April 2009 (e-mail guidance to the Licensees);
• 28 April 2009 (e-mail guidance to the Licensees);
• 6 July 2009 (Guidance note published in Broadcast Bulletin);
• 3 August 2009 (Letter of guidance to adult sex chat broadcasters);
• 6 November 2009 (Letter of guidance to the Licensees);
• 3 December 2009 (meeting with the Licensees);
• 8 January 2010 (letter of Guidance to the Licensees); and
• 21 January 2010 (meeting with the Licensees).

If an enforcing authority has to constantly give guidance to an industry on how to comply with it's code then something is inherently wrong with the way the code is written in the first place and in direct conflict with advice given by central government to all enforcement agencies.
Now if i were a new licensee/operator of a babe channel would Ofcom expect me to read the last ten years of broadcast bulletins and e-mails sent regarding compliance or just ask me to observe the advertising/broadcasting codes. If it is the former then Ofcom are seriously non compliant with government advice.
Can you imagine all Environmental Health departments sending out compliance e-mails and letters to all their food producers/retailers everytime they prosecute or issue a food prohibition/improvement notice. No, it's a nonsence, EHO's would never get their work done. Food legislation is properly drafted and understood to enable the industry to operate with minimal interference from the regulators, and this is how it should be with the babe channels. I believe Ofcom prefer to keep it their way so that they can constantly change the rules (interpretation) and suppress the output of these channels.
Ultimately Ofcom's desire is to remove these channels completely and they have now fired the first shot.
I believe the broadcasters need to be more robust in their responses to Ofcom's challenges and that we the consumer need to pressure Ofcom's sponsor to seek change in Ofcom's enforcement regime so that they are compliant with AVMSD and HRA.

The babes themselves seem to think that the channels will be reconnected shortly.
See post from Laura
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid681292