(16-10-2009 01:30 )oxygenIT Wrote: [ -> ]Although it wasn't the fault of the girls themselves (as we've seen much more 'full on' from these two) that was another pathetic 2-4-1 with Karina and Caty. It was virtually non-contact the entire time all the 'dancing' and bobble-heading around each other is ridiculous.
It really doesn't make any sense to have it so tame once the Freeview hours and from what I can tell there's no valid reason for it.
Thanks, I'm glad someone else brought this up - I was hesitating about doing it myself second time around!
(16-10-2009 01:37 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]If you'd read my post properly, vila, you'd have seen that I clearly stress my gratefulness. Sheesh!
Quote:when did the channels you'll now be boycotting last broadcast anything worthy of an upload?
This implies that Dirk's recent uploads weren't worth the effort, all I'm saying is that I think they were.
(16-10-2009 01:55 )vila Wrote: [ -> ] (16-10-2009 01:37 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]If you'd read my post properly, vila, you'd have seen that I clearly stress my gratefulness. Sheesh!
Quote:when did the channels you'll now be boycotting last broadcast anything worthy of an upload?
This implies that Dirk's recent uploads weren't worth the effort, all I'm saying is that I think they were.
Yes, but you implied I was ungrateful. Just because I consider Cellcast's output worthless, doesn't mean that in the grand scale of things I'm ungrateful to those people that upload material.
(16-10-2009 00:28 )vila Wrote: [ -> ]As far as I'm concerned this just reinforces my view that the Freeview 'rules' are entirely a Cellcast thing. If they were the result of a directive from Ofcom they would be in an orderly form that could be understood by everyone.
On the contrary - surely if they were cellcast's own rules they would know what they are
They would know their own rules and they would be easy to distribute and enforce amongst their own employees,
The confusion comes when you have to play by someone elses....and are unsure what they are
(16-10-2009 02:53 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, but you implied I was ungrateful. Just because I consider Cellcast's output worthless, doesn't mean that in the grand scale of things I'm ungrateful to those people that upload material.
That wasn't my intention. We seem to have been reading each other's posts from slightly different perspectives. Most of us in this thread are coming from the same basic position and it would be a pity to fall out over misunderstandings in a side issue, so let's just agree that neither of us intended any offence.
(16-10-2009 03:38 )SxciiSooky Wrote: [ -> ]They would know their own rules and they would be easy to distribute and enforce amongst their own employees,
I’m not sure about that. Cellcast’s inter-staff communications don’t seem to be very good – think about Mod-Sta’s efforts to sort out a simple matter like the 4:3 camera problem.
My main reason for thinking it can’t be Ofcom is very straightforward and has been put many times in different ways by different posters in different threads. There’s no way Ofcom could justify or enforce different standards between satellite and terrestrial broadcasts. The Broadcasting Code draws no distinction between satellite and terrestrial platforms. The only rule they can use in respect of the way the girls speak and behave and the only one they’ve ever used, as far as I know, is the rule against ’adult sex material’. The way the girls speak and behave when the show is going out only by satellite doesn’t constitute ’adult sex material’ or Ofcom would have taken action. There is only one Broadcasting Code and only one definition of ‘adult sex material’, therefore the same language and behaviour couldn’t constitute ‘adult sex material’ in a terrestrial broadcast. So there would be no point in trying to implement different rules because there would be no way they could be enforced.
If the different rules have originated in any way from Ofcom it could only be because Cellcast have agreed to them, even though there is no compulsion to do so. The responsibility, therefore, would still rest with Cellcast.
(15-10-2009 22:58 )Winston Wolfe Wrote: [ -> ]as far as these channels are concerned, the "do gooders" at OFCOM see them more as "advertising" than "entertainment".
That is very true Winston Wolfe and that's a big part of the problem. Anyway I still think Babestation is great, regardless of the negativity in this thread. They still have great girls and I'll still be watching it. But yes to Ofcom the channels are just advertising and that's one of the main reasons they don't like them.
I have also stopped recording the shows. I just watch 30 minutes or so at midnight on freeview before going to sleep. The novelty of having 4 babe channels available on freeview has worn off.
The only thing different in the last couple of weeks has been the introduction of a few new girls and Lori regularly being topless.
From what I've seen and reading the reports, the girl-girl stuff, where there has been any, has tamed down considerably from that of a few weeks ago.
I am convinced that this is due to Cellcast rather than ofcom instructions.
Maybe they are taming it down now, in order to up their game when Bangbabe starts on freeview next month.
(15-10-2009 23:42 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]What I've often wondered when these Ofcum debates take place, is whether or not they're aware how much of a laughing stock their organisation is, and how much they're held in contempt by rational-thinking people. And more to the point, if they are aware, does it matter or concern them one iota?
No, because these people are very highly paid and therefore convinced that they must be doing a great job.
(15-10-2009 02:13 )vila Wrote: [ -> ]I know we shouldn't pay too much attention to what Opposition leaders say when an election is looming, but I noted David Cameron's words when he was talking about drastically trimming Ofcom:
"Give Ofcom, or give a new body, the technical function of handing out the licences and regulating lightly the content that is on the screens."
Cameron also said that the changes would not affect Ofcom's ability to enforce it's broadcasting code.
(15-10-2009 23:42 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]What I've often wondered when these Ofcum debates take place, is whether or not they're aware how much of a laughing stock their organisation is, and how much they're held in contempt by rational-thinking people.
Ofcom have said in the past that they get very few critical letters from the public and this shows how good a job they must be doing.
(16-10-2009 11:42 )cosmonaut Wrote: [ -> ] (15-10-2009 02:13 )vila Wrote: [ -> ]I know we shouldn't pay too much attention to what Opposition leaders say when an election is looming, but I noted David Cameron's words when he was talking about drastically trimming Ofcom:
"Give Ofcom, or give a new body, the technical function of handing out the licences and regulating lightly the content that is on the screens."
Cameron also said that the changes would not affect Ofcom's ability to enforce it's broadcasting code.
What do you mean by 'also'? Isn't that what I've quoted? I was drawing attention to the actual wording he used: '
regulating lightly'. To me, that doesn't equate to the heavy-handed approach we see at the moment. Dishing out five- and six-digit fines is 'enforcing heavily' in my book.