(08-01-2011 04:08 )chrislatimer Wrote: [ -> ] (08-01-2011 04:03 )vila Wrote: [ -> ] (08-01-2011 03:19 )chrislatimer Wrote: [ -> ] (08-01-2011 02:39 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Another point is Bangbabes remember had their licence revoked by Ofcom so as far as I'm aware the channels are now owned by Playboy who I very much doubt are going BUST. This was either just finished up by Playboy or it was the work of Ofcom. No channel has gone here on this occasion.
playboy just leased the epg slots to bangmedia so they could carry on with their shows playboy did not own them.
Ofcom banned BB personnel from producing any kind of tv channel, so PB could not lease the slots to them. The only way they could stay on air was by providing content to be carried on PB-owned slots.
but by that logic playboy would of been responsible for any future fines occurred by bangmedia that couldnt of been right noones that stupid
(08-01-2011 04:25 )chrislatimer Wrote: [ -> ] (08-01-2011 04:16 )Sooky™ Wrote: [ -> ] (08-01-2011 03:19 )chrislatimer Wrote: [ -> ]playboy just leased the epg slots to bangmedia so they could carry on with their shows playboy did not own them.
How could playboy lease out epg slots they didn't own?
they own the slots thats what i was saying, they leased the slots out to bang media but the show was still owned by bangmedia, just on playboys epg slots.
if i am wrong i am wrong but i didnt think playboy took over bang media.
Nobody is saying that PB took over BB. BB simply supplied content for PB-owned slots. You are quite correct - if any further breaches had occurred, PB would have been held responsible, just as they were when Elite offended on 911 when PB was the registered owner of that channel. If PB had leased the channels to BB they would have been aiding and abetting BB to commit further offences contrary to Ofcom's decision that they were unfit to broadcast. How well do you think that would have gone down at Ofcom?
(08-01-2011 04:25 )chrislatimer Wrote: [ -> ] (08-01-2011 04:16 )Sooky™ Wrote: [ -> ] (08-01-2011 03:19 )chrislatimer Wrote: [ -> ]playboy just leased the epg slots to bangmedia so they could carry on with their shows playboy did not own them.
How could playboy lease out epg slots they didn't own?
they own the slots thats what i was saying, they leased the slots out to bang media but the show was still owned by bangmedia, just on playboys epg slots.
if i am wrong i am wrong but i didnt think playboy took over bang media.
Ofcom have strict procedures in place with regard to who can broadcast under a licence or utilise hours permitted under a licence and who are responsible for content/compliance.
http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/t...ovider.pdf
6) Ofcom considers that a person will normally have general control if that person exercises effective control over the selection of programmes that comprise the service and their organisation into a programme schedule. It is that person who will normally be treated as being the provider of the relevant service and who will need to hold a broadcasting licence authorising its provision.
7) As the licensee, that person will be obliged to comply with all the relevant licence conditions and will be responsible for putting in place adequate compliance arrangements, including retaining recordings of programmes, and for ensuring that the service as broadcast, complies with all the relevant Ofcom codes and other requirements. This is the case even if the day to day activities to ensure compliance of individual programmes are carried out by a third party.
They also state that licenses cannot be sub-let
11) The issue of determining who the provider of a service is can arise in particular in cases where a person has access to capacity on a broadcasting platform and enters into an agreement with another person to ‘sub-let’ that capacity. A broadcasting licence cannot be ‘sub-let’. If the ‘sub lessee’ of platform capacity is the provider of the service, they need to hold a licence themselves (i.e. they are not 'covered' by any other person’s licence).
The arrangement between Playboy as licensee and Bangmedia as provider of content should have been in compliance with this guidance otherwise PB would be liable to sanctions.
If Bang Media (London) Ltd and Bang Channels Ltd have gone bust then i would guess that Ofcom have forced this on. Ofcom have a public duty to pursue these companies for the non payment of the £157,250 fine. As long as they could demonstrate to the High Court that by seeking winding up orders would not amount to abuse of process then an order could be granted within 4 weeks subject to representations. The licenses were revoked on the 25th November and taking public holidays into account timescales are about right.
The companies could also have gone into voluntary liquidation but this would still leave there assets at risk against creditors.
Nothing posted at the High Court or London Gazette but i'm sure all will be revealed in the next 14 days. As usual the presenters will be at the bottom of the creditors.
(08-01-2011 04:24 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]The worst thing about Bangmedia is they don't even have the balls to make a statement on the reasons why or any of the issues raised throughout the last couple of months. Babestation allways keep the viewers and fans well informed so as a company Bangbabes media are nothing short of a disgrace run by gutless individuals who have no tact or balls and is a perfect example of just how not to run a business. They have treated the models on the show with utter contempt and have probably paid the ultimate price for their sheer arrogance throughout the last couple of months.
that is what ive been saying for a while. Bangbabes have brought this on themselves and its a shame for the girls and crew who have lost their jobs because of the idiots in charge of bang.
im sure though that the vast majority if not all the babes will get new homes
so dose this mean bb is no more where will all our girlies go.
red light central I guess
(08-01-2011 09:58 )Biggus Wrote: [ -> ]so dose this mean bb is no more where will all our girlies go.
id say they will split between babestation, elitetv, tvx, sportxxx and redlight
what about red light zone as those shows are run by them but are not coming from london.
unless cathy barry & her hubby buy it off the
(08-01-2011 11:00 )Rammyrascal Wrote: [ -> ] (08-01-2011 09:58 )Biggus Wrote: [ -> ]so dose this mean bb is no more where will all our girlies go.
id say they will split between babestation, elitetv, tvx, sportxxx and redlight
Yes the babes will move onto other shows. But somewhere down the food chain there will be a couple of dozen girls who will no longer be working for a channel.
What is needed is a new channel based in London to replace BB.
A GSL babeshow is the big hope, or maybe Cleo could be talked into relaunching her Angels channel.
And where are all these guys who have been on the forum saying that they would like to start up a show.
(08-01-2011 11:00 )Rammyrascal Wrote: [ -> ] (08-01-2011 09:58 )Biggus Wrote: [ -> ]so dose this mean bb is no more where will all our girlies go.
id say they will split between babestation, elitetv, tvx, sportxxx and redlight
what about babeworld rammy
dannii harwood has said in her lookin for work thread she would like to setup a channel
(08-01-2011 11:09 )dave34 Wrote: [ -> ]what about babeworld rammy
possibly but still think it will be the channels i mentioned earlier