Goodness, and there's me thinking it was just a matter of getting an eyeful.
To many big words in this thread... So this is what it's like to
be dumb
Gents, I love this place.
An interesting chat about The Powers That Be: enlightened, informative and educational. (I'll make the Boffins read it as soon as they've stopped playing World of Warcraft). That's followed by a gigantic picture of a lass with a pair of enormous hooters and a cry to sign her up. I won't tell you which posting drew my eye the most.
(06-10-2009 02:41 )Colbert Rules Wrote: [ -> ]Bob try to sign Demi from Party People, she's a babe.
I second that Colbert, i really miss her from our screens
(06-10-2009 02:25 )vostok 1 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-10-2009 00:46 )IanG Wrote: [ -> ]vostok1, your points are all valid however, the babe channels do not fall under normal TV programming guidelines (but the sex channels do). The difference is that the babe channels operate both as a premium rate telephone service and, simultaneously, the promotional advertising for that service. Although changes are afoot in the newer Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) Directive, issues of product placement obvously feature in what the babe channels actually 'sell'. The fact is, Ofcom, ICSTIS and the ASA all share some regulatory responsibility over the babe channels - there's a schizophrenic maelstrom of codes and legislation that the channels have to conform to.
Thanks for the insight there IanG. Very informative.
However, I always found the ASA and Phone Pay Plus (formerly known as ICSTIS) guidelines fairly clear cut and easy to understand and interpret.
I also believe that the ASA and Phone Pay Plus regulations that the channels have to operate under to be of benefit to the viewer, since they are there to protect the consumer. And these clear and fair rules also benefit the broadcasters since all channels have to adhere to the same regulations, which in turn creates a level playing field for all Babe Shows.
I remember Tease Me TV falling foul of ICSTIS for offering sex chat during the day and also continuing conversations on with under-age callers and Babe Star getting into trouble with the ASA for advertising a live service when infact they were playing a pre-recorded loop masquerading as a live broadcast.
When fines are issued in these situations I believe that this is fair, as guidelines are clear on what they can and can't do. And consumers as well as the young are not exploited.
As I said in the previous post, if the broadcasters want to operate their services to levels and limits that they themselves consider appropriate, then that is fine. However, if they are unhappy about unspecified Ofcom codes then perhaps it is time to demand some sort of clarification and use legally recognised TVWF directives rather than operate in a way that they think will keep Ofcom happy. But as I said before, if the money is being made, then why would they want to change the way things are? And what are they really doing to change things, if they want to?
Vostok1, this is probably not the place to carry on this discussion however, I'd say people should read the LSE report Ofcom commissioned into "the effects of pornography" back in 2003/4. The interesting point, at least to my way of thinking, is that this doesn't stick to what the Comms Act requires of Ofcom (i.e. the "protection of the under 18s").
The LSE report is in two distinct sections - protection of the under 18s and, oddly, the supposed effects on the over 18s. The first section re under 18s - the bit Ofcom are leaglly required and empowered to pay attention to - concludes that there's no direct evidence of any harm of porn to children. Of course that doesn't surprise me as evolution wouldn't and doesn't create creatures that can be damaged by a full working knowledge of their means of reproduction (no matter what their age).
The second part of the report then drifts off into a pointless exercise because what adults do has bugger all to do with what's on TV (unless of course all the raping and pillaging of yesteryear can be arributed to Stone/Bronze/Iron Age TV services...?).
could sum 1 please tell me who the girls are in the advert wen the show goes on a break!
i would really like to know thanks
Juliet, Sammie Pennington and Chelsea, they have all since moved to other channels
Julite = TVX
Sammie Pennington = Elite daytime only
Chelsea = BangBabes
There is enough threads on them all if you look in both day and night sections of the forum!
thank you blue army ur a legend
New advert a great idea! How about;
Monica
+/- Amy +/- Chelsea(Tara) ???
+ +/- Karen Wood if she's still on the channel, haven't seen her for a while. (You'd have to work in calf shots somehow though
)
CP would have an advert that's better than most shows
Incidentally I did find out that although it's not Bob himself doing the voiceover for the current advert, he did write it. Unsurprisingly.