RIP Bang Babes : Gone Bust...

Why have some people not stopped to THINK for just a few seconds about what Stan has said?

He could perhaps have put it a little better, but I believe the principle that Stan is trying to get across is that often the most effective way to get rid of unfair and unjustified laws and rules is to defy them.

We have thought about what he has said. Have you thought about what I'm trying to do? I am trying to give all of us a lot more pleasure enjoying our favourite babe channels, and defying rules has already been proven not to work. I want us all to enjoy the channels for a long time to come.

(27-11-2010 19:27 )vila Wrote:  Why have some people not stopped to THINK for just a few seconds about what Stan has said?

He could perhaps have put it a little better, but I believe the principle that Stan is trying to get across is that often the most effective way to get rid of unfair and unjustified laws and rules is to defy them.

It's pretty obvious what he said and why he said it. However, I fail to see how continually breaking the rules until your channels get taken away and you're no longer allowed to broadcast ever again is ever going to stop Ofcom...

(27-11-2010 19:31 )Regenerated Wrote:  We have thought about what he has said. Have you thought about what I'm trying to do? I am trying to give all of us a lot more pleasure enjoying our favourite babe channels, and defying rules has already been proven not to work. I want us all to enjoy the channels for a long time to come.

And that is exactly where the parallel exists. That exact same thing could have been said when people first defied South Africa's race laws, but they persevered and ultimately won.

(27-11-2010 19:27 )vila Wrote:  Why have some people not stopped to THINK for just a few seconds about what Stan has said?

He could perhaps have put it a little better, but I believe the principle that Stan is trying to get across is that often the most effective way to get rid of unfair and unjustified laws and rules is to defy them.

i did think and its still idiotic to even remotely compare the two situations. bangbabes if you look it at through the law (and ofcom in tvland is the law) repeatly broke the code of broadcasting and were warned laughed it off.

the apartheid era in south africa was completley different, and for the record defying the rules didnt bring apartheid to a end.

Quote:And that is exactly where the parallel exists. That exact same thing could have been said when people first defied South Africa's race laws, but they persevered and ultimately won.

they didnt win though as the black populatation didnt bring apartheid to a end the rest of the world did, and the prime minster of south africa at the time



in summerising not the same AT ALL

ofcom were well within their rights to do what they have done to bangmedia ,even if it is a shame. which it is as bangbabes had improved ten fold the past month

(27-11-2010 19:33 )Scotsman Wrote:  It's pretty obvious what he said and why he said it. However, I fail to see how continually breaking the rules until your channels get taken away and you're no longer allowed to broadcast ever again is ever going to stop Ofcom...

in summary YOUR NOT

A lot of people on this thread have said about using pin protection for these channels and what they show, I would just like to say that Ofcom has in the past stated that pin protection is NOT adequate as they feel that children can easily bypass this and that most parents just don't bother to set it up in the first place..

Now I'm not going to say that all what has happened is the fault of only one party, as I for one did like the fact that BB did try to push the boundaries but did themselves no favours in not responding to what Ofcom put in front of them, but there is a much wider issue at stake here in just how free are we to watch what we want on TV?

I feel that the only way to change what we see at night is to directly contact Ofcom and the local MP (for what good that may do) to change the law. As for the daytime service then common sense should prevail, if you are going to have a woman dressed in next to nothing on TV don't do anything that can be taken as sexual (hard I know for this type of channel).

(27-11-2010 18:58 )chrislatimer Wrote:  comparing the serious 25 year struggle the black population in south africa had due to apartiheld, to ofcom and bangbabes. stantheman that is the most retarded thing i have seen posted on this forum, and cwpussylove posts here.

idiotic dont do it justice

Agreed!

(27-11-2010 19:51 )orchid500 Wrote:  A lot of people on this thread have said about using pin protection for these channels and what they show, I would just like to say that Ofcom has in the past stated that pin protection is NOT adequate as they feel that children can easily bypass this and that most parents just don't bother to set it up in the first place..

Fair point about parents not setting it up, but what I'm saying is the channels should be PIN protected in the same way the PPV adult channels currently are, only free. If the material on those channels is hidden behind only a PIN, surely the babeshows, which are tamer, can be too?

(27-11-2010 19:51 )orchid500 Wrote:  A lot of people on this thread have said about using pin protection for these channels and what they show, I would just like to say that Ofcom has in the past stated that pin protection is NOT adequate as they feel that children can easily bypass this and that most parents just don't bother to set it up in the first place..

Now I'm not going to say that all what has happened is the fault of only one party, as I for one did like the fact that BB did try to push the boundaries but did themselves no favours in not responding to what Ofcom put in front of them, but there is a much wider issue at stake here in just how free are we to watch what we want on TV?

I feel that the only way to change what we see at night is to directly contact Ofcom and the local MP (for what good that may do) to change the law. As for the daytime service then common sense should prevail, if you are going to have a woman dressed in next to nothing on TV don't do anything that can be taken as sexual (hard I know for this type of channel).

That's proof right there that Ofcom wants to control everything. Have they taken a servey from every single resident in the U.K to determine whether they monitor what their kids watch or whether they use encryption? NO!!!!!!! They are obviously making up all of this nonsense, so that they have an excuse to not allow the channels to go to encryption. Encryption means the channels can show pretty much what they want, leaving Ofcom with little power to regulate, which is not what Ofcom wants. If Ofcom can't regulate, then there's little way for them to fine a channel and make money from them for overstepping the bounderies. It's beyond ridiculous to lie and say that pin protection isn't good enough to protect children. Any child who might possibly be offended by any material on these channels, is not going to be able to find out what the pin number is, because their parents aren't going to tell them. The children will also be in bed during this time anyway, and it's not like seeing a vagina is going to harm the rare child who happens to be lucky and turns to the adult channels.

So basically, we can't even see an uncensored nude woman on encrypted TV, yet we can see it on non adult channels without encryption. That makes a lot of sense. Don't give me that CONTEXT stuff again