new year new name.
as for the "britishness" debate. it died hundreds and hundreds of years ago this country has always had different people coming and going
Sammie Pennington has just made a very interesting post on her Facebook regarding the situation with the channels. Credit to theone1986 for spotting it even more quickly than I did
Most important of all, it appears her night show is very much on for this Saturday
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid678642
(28-11-2010 19:45 )eagle_si Wrote: [ -> ]Sammie Pennington has just made a very interesting post on her Facebook regarding the situation with the channels. Credit to theone1986 for spotting it even more quickly than I did Most important of all, it appears her night show is very much on for this Saturday
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid678642
yep seen this too and also that bang will have new channels soon. so the reports of bangbabes's death look to be greatly exaggerated
Won't OFCOM simply look at the names on the licence application and turn them down?
(29-11-2010 00:43 )mikeboob Wrote: [ -> ]Won't OFCOM simply look at the names on the licence application and turn them down?
The application for a licence will only be refused if there is very good legal imperative for it. If a company's MD rams his business into the ground but has managed the neat (and simple, commonplace) trick of having the company identified as a separate entity to him/herself (ie; under a different name so as to provide legal protection to the individual) then I understand that the same enterprise (in material terms anyway) can start up again with the same management team at the helm but under a different name. Thus, the new enterprise is a legally separate entity from the original, even though they are fundamentally the very same operation in respect of the material employed. A close competitor of the small business for which I work (in the real world, as opposed to my fantasy day-dream job as Managing Director of Naked Chick Mansion Ltd) actually failed in his attempt to do this, but only on the basis of personal insolvency - all of his stock had been repossessed and he had no remaining assets and fled the country to avoid his pursuers! Somehow, owing to the nature of the Bang episode, I doubt that bankruptcy will be a major issue in obtaining a licence for a new enterprise.
I just hope they make a better job of it than they did with the last one.
it seems there's two camps.
bang media asked for it.
ofcom should go and jump of something high.
i'm firmly in the latter.
parents who can't stop their kids from watching these shows, either from ignorece or neglect, need to be informed or policed in other ways. educate people. putting in pin protection is not rocket science. put a step by step guide in the sky magazine (you would be suprised how many people don't know about pin control!). let parents police their own children. the ones who don't, i'm sure their ofspring are doing much worse than watching tits and arse on tv!
p.s to gaz, i can't get freeview so to clarify i am only commenting on sky.
^^^what about the ones that can view early bird on freeview?
I do wonder though if people would still think the same if a guy channel was around, would you be happy if your children could accendtly press the wrong button on the remote only to confronted by a big swinging cock?
915 (912 stream 2) is freeview 98 however they have a second cam on for the webstream dubed "asscam" which does not get aired on sky/freeview only on the webstream. therefore ofcom as no right to use that against bang.
(29-11-2010 14:41 )terence Wrote: [ -> ]parents who can't stop their kids from watching these shows, either from ignorece or neglect, need to be informed or policed in other ways. educate people. putting in pin protection is not rocket science.
As I've posted elsewhere, when I was a kid my parents put a parental lock on their sky.....didn't stop me watching what they didn't want me to see though as I soon managed to figure out the pin code. Many kids do the same. It is too simplistic to see some form of parental lock as a magical key locking away the bad stuff from kids. But just because a kid manages to figure out a pin for a parental lock does not suddenly mean the parents don't have the right to continue trying to protect their kids, or are somehow bad/neglectful parents.
The problem isn't simply Ofcom are bad because they are 'stopping our rights to see what we want as adults' - I could argue the innocence of children is a far more important thing to try and protect, especially in this day and age when children are already expected to grow up a lot quicker than they were in generations past (what happened to kids being kids rather than little adults?). The problem (if you see it that way) is majority rule. Many people on here assume that everyone wants harder/R18 content to be allowed on tv. However, has anyone carried out a nationwide survey to find out if that is indeed what the majority of the nation want? If they don't, then tough titties - it aint happening, no matter how much people bang on about 'basic human rights'. The wants of the few cannot outweigh the wants of the many. Until such time as it is clear that the majority of people want R18 content on tv, then it simply aint gonna happen
(29-11-2010 16:08 )bigguy01 Wrote: [ -> ]915 (912 stream 2) is freeview 98 however they have a second cam on for the webstream dubed "asscam" which does not get aired on sky/freeview only on the webstream. therefore ofcom as no right to use that against bang.
Ok so chuck that one out, what about the other
59 infringements?
That one could of been avoided anyway if bang would of just coproated with ofcom.