(13-01-2011 09:51 )danniiharwood.net Wrote: [ -> ]There may have been a handful of complaints out of the hundreds that were directed at me, but I was never ever told about them.
I agree with you whole heartedly and fully agree that your are not solely to blame and also sincerely thank you for putting accross your side of the story.
Push the boundaries, by all means, but there are things you know you are not allowed to do (sanctioned by a broadcaster despite the rules or otherwise) when you are on a non-encrytped channel.
Moderator Notice : Content Of Post Edited By Request
(12-01-2011 22:46 )RRROGER Wrote: [ -> ]Donna Duke was the reason I bought the Sky package over 2 years ago, so I could drool over her bits,
which I couldn't on the Freeview PartyGirls shows.....
.....hope she'll follow the example of Miss Giggles & return to Babestation........
This is a bit o/t for this thread but I have to ask: what "bits" did Donna reveal on Sky that she didn't reveal on Freeview Party Girls?
FV PG was my introduction to these channels and when I first started watching I distinctly remember loads of Sky viewers on here complaining that the girls could be seen nude on Freeview but not on Sky.
channels should be trying to snap up Donna Duke , Lilly Roma , Dionne Mendez they was bb top babes Emily Dean left when she know bb was going bust
(14-01-2011 11:04 )rogerthedoger Wrote: [ -> ]channels should be trying to snap up Donna Duke , Lilly Roma , Dionne Mendez they was bb top babes Emily Dean left when she know bb was going bust
All 4 of these girls have already been snapped up by other channels.
(13-01-2011 00:49 )Matt63 Wrote: [ -> ]Companies House today registered a winding-up petition against company number 5597737 Bang Channels Limited.
Well spotted Matt63 and well done for bringing this to the attention of the forum.
(13-01-2011 00:49 )Matt63 Wrote: [ -> ]Logically this would have been issued last week
Last week may seem logical to you, but it was actually issued on 29 Nov 2010.
(13-01-2011 00:49 )Matt63 Wrote: [ -> ]at which moment their bank or banks would have frozen all their bank accounts.
No, not true. The case is scheduled to be heard in the High Court on 26 Jan 2011. As the case has therefore not been heard at this time, it follows that the judge will not have ordered any bank accounts to be frozen.
(13-01-2011 00:49 )Matt63 Wrote: [ -> ]Hence the events on Friday.
Again, no bank accounts have been frozen and some Bang creditors have received payments from Bang since the Friday you refer to.
(13-01-2011 00:49 )Matt63 Wrote: [ -> ]If anyone wishes to purchase assets from the liquidator, they would need to move very quickly...
No liquidator even exists at this time since the case hasn't yet been heard, so he won't yet be selling anything currently belonging to Bang. Again, The case is scheduled to be heard in the High Court on 26 Jan 2011.
(16-01-2011 16:12 )bobek Wrote: [ -> ]What's really interesting is who actually presented the winding-up petition...
You guessed it folks, as I suggested earlier in this thread, it's our old friends at Ofcom!
http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/5...-companies
So with the fine they got last year not having been paid, Ofcom wanted the money that it was owed.
that is absolutely disgusting
A jumped up government agency ,causing a firm to go bankrupt for breaking one or [two or even more] of the petty rules THEY have made.
No law was broken, just `THEIR` interpretation of `THEIR `rules made by `THEM`
(16-01-2011 17:54 )TheWatcher Wrote: [ -> ]So with the fine they got last year not having been paid, Ofcom wanted the money that it was owed.
Exactly. They've done what any "creditor" is entitled to do. The reasons behind it are another matter which I can't be bothered getting into as it's been done to death already.