The UK Babe Channels Forum

Concerning what girls it was that got the "in breach" rulings against Studio 66, Ive just been looking on this forum and others to look for any caps or vids posted of Studio 66 girls that dated to around the time when the Studio 66 breaches took place, and were wearing the outfits Ofcom describe .

Ofcom describe the girl that breached their rules on the 4th of June as wearing "a thong and white vest top",
From looking through caps of Studio 66 girls posted around that date on the Liveshow forum, i see Hannah Martin was wearing a vest top and thong,
Also if i'm understanding the dates of caps posted on the same forum, Hannah was also wearing what looked like a gold swimsuit around the 6th of June .

Another cap/vid of Hannah from a different date but close by, shows her with her hand inside her swimsuit looking like she is having a pussy rub .

So my guess is, the girl on both occasions was Hannah Martin .

(24-10-2014 18:06 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ]So my guess is, the girl on both occasions was Hannah Martin .

Give that girl a medal, not a telling off.

TickleTheOrc Wrote:I looked through that day and didn't see any of the things Ofcom mentions. I figured giving their specific wording, that the violations would be blatant, but I'm certainly not seeing what ever they are seeing.

The timing is very specific which suggests a few one offs rather than something that happened through the night.

Ask Not What Ofcom Can Do For You, Ask What You Can Do For Ofcom

Chief Executive (London base)

The Ofcom Board is now seeking to appoint a new Chief Executive to lead the organisation.

The challenge is considerable: to ensure that the communications sector delivers the best for citizens and consumers through competition, innovation, investment and quality of service, building on the benefits that Ofcom has already secured.

The Board is looking for someone with considerable skill and experience but also someone motivated by wanting to make a positive difference. Jobs

Quote:Ofcom is the UK regulator for the TV and radio sectors, fixed line telecoms, mobile, postal services and the airwaves over which wireless devices operate.

With a strong performance culture and collegiate working environment, Ofcom is at the heart of one of the UK’s most
dynamic and fast-moving sectors.

The Ofcom Board is now seeking to appoint a new Chief Executive to lead the organisation.

The challenge is considerable: to ensure that the communications sector delivers the best for citizens and consumers through
competition, innovation, investment and quality of service, building on the benefits that Ofcom has already secured.

The Board is looking for someone with considerable skill and experience but also someone motivated by wanting
to make a positive difference.

In particular, the candidate needs:
• Strong intellect: Analytical, intellectually robust and commercially astute; able to develop and articulate clear strategic options, evaluate potential outcomes, and plan effective implementation, with real attention to delivery.

• Effective leadership: First class management experience, comfortable operating at Board level, with exceptional
communication skills and proven capability to provide inspirational leadership at all levels.

• Political acumen: Deep understanding of the public policy environment in which Ofcom and the companies it regulates
operate in. Effective engagement with public institutions and stakeholders such as the UK Government, Parliaments, National Assemblies, European bodies, regulated businesses and other regulators.

The successful candidate will also need to demonstrate an authoritative understanding of issues in the sectors that
Ofcom regulates, ideally with exposure to the development and implementation of policy and strategy in these areas.

Please apply for an application pack to: ofcom@zygos.com or call 020 7881 2900.

Closing date: Monday 27 October 2014 at 5pm.

Ofcom is an equal opportunity employer. It wishes to reflect the diversity of contemporary UK society and is therefore actively seeking to recruit colleagues from all cultural and ethnic backgrounds, as well as those who have a disability.

Those S66 shows "In Breach" sound excellent! Any vids or caps available guys?

Is Ofcom Pitching To Regulate Google and Facebook?

Remember when Ofcom put itself forward as the backstop regulator for newspapers? It now seems to be hinting it could be the right body to regulate search engines and forums. The information was in reply to a question from an MP but the question may have been planted, and it is possible that Select Committees give advance warning of questions, except in hostile interrogations, so they get coherent thought out answers.

Quote:The chief executive of media regulator Ofcom has said technology companies such as Google and Facebook have “social responsibilities” and it is “absolutely right to ask what society should expect of those organisations”.

Ed Richards said it was important to ask questions about “what goes over these networks and to what extent we as a society are comfortable with the world that is creating”.

His comments came after the new director of GCHQ, Robert Hannigan, called on US tech companies to do more in the fight against terrorism in the Financial Times, declaring that privacy had never been an “absolute right”.

Ofcom’s chair, Patricia Hodgson, said: “It’s certainly the case that there has been a struggle to keep up with this shift [in] the use of social media, the most extreme abuses of it, for terrorism or illegal pornography.”

Richards, the former adviser to Tony Blair who will step down from Ofcom at the end of this year, said: “I think it’s fair to say that there are social responsibilities that come with a media that are as prevalent and significant as those social media [companies] have become.

“It’s absolutely right to ask what society should expect of those organisations as responsible companies with an impact on society.”

The chair and chief executive of Ofcom were giving evidence to the Commons culture, media and sport select committee on Tuesday as part of a review of the regulator’s work.

Richards declined to comment specifically on Hennigan’s remarks but said: “At one level what he is saying is clearly right in the sense that social media are being used by all sorts of different communities, clearly including terrorist and jihadi [groups], and are part of the way that groups like that communicate.”

The pair were responding to a question from committee member and Labour MP Jim Sheridan about the unregulated nature of companies such as Google and Facebook who largely fall outside of Ofcom’s remit.

Sheridan said the companies’ representatives, when they had appeared before the committee, “don’t take their social responsibilities all that seriously”.

Richards said there were “at least three issues – one is the security issue which the new director of GCHQ touched upon, there are content and citizen protection issues, things like pornography and bullying, and then there is a wholly different set of economic issues as well which we do tend to get involved in, things like net neutrality.

“The area where it is most difficult and people are exploring, and for sure we are involved in discussions from time to time, is that area of what goes over these networks and to what extent we are as a society comfortable with the world that [it] is creating, in particular in relation to children.”

Hodgson said: “There are obviously arrangements whereby the government can categorise material [relating to terrorism or illegal pornography] and issue take-down notices.”

But she said there were “very great difficulties where that material is on the cusp, that doesn’t fall very clearly under those arrangements”.

Guardian 4 Nov 2014

^^^ It is potentially significant the sort of language being used here. There has certainly been efforts from the likes of Cameron to impose some sort of regulation on the 'internet' in general, leading to the 'porn filters' from the leading isp's, and the requirement for age verification on uk based adult sites, but this is a bit of a shift, firstly using terrorism as part of the argument, and secondly, directing the attack at social media sites like facebook.
While it may be true that terrorist groups may use the likes of facebook, suggesting that regulation of the site will help stop terrorism seems extremely far fetched to me. Facebook is inherently insecure, and no serious terrorist or organised crime organisation is likely to use it as a crucial part of its communication network. Its about on the same level as the public and mobile telephone networks, suggesting it should be regulated is like suggesting that all telephone calls should be monitored without the need for special court orders (which probably already happens more than we know, step forward GCHQ).

This could well be the first step in another round of attempts to chip away at the 'freedom' of the internet. Its kind of ironic that google is one of the companies in the line of fire and one of the most likely suspects to stand up and oppose this kind of thing. Google, perhaps more than any other single company, monitors our every step on the net, in the interests of delivering its advertising to us, yet it will likely oppose the government doing a similar thing for its own ends. Our potential 'freedom' from being monitored on the net may rest with one of the companies doing the most monitoring!

EDIT : Another thought has occurred to me.
Following the Snowden revelations regarding security services snooping on our activities in dubious, and often downright illegal ways, there has been a major backlash in the US in particular. Many big tech companies such as google and microsoft, have been forced to come clean about their ties with the security services and to openly speak out against the snooping that they have been forced to be involved in.
We know as well that the UK has been used (through GCHQ) as a means of carrying out snooping via the backdoor, side-stepping the regulations supposedly in place in the US itself.
So, is this potential widening of regulation here in the UK actually being 'encouraged' by the yanks as a means of furthering their online snooping? As they are forced to step back on this issue in their own country, are they seeing the UK as an easier and more compliant place in which to stick their mucky little noses into all our businesses?

Or, I was just reading this morning that this whole issue has surfaced during a legal case which has highlighted the fact that the security services here have been intercepting communications between lawyers and their clients, something which has previously been an absolute no-no, that lawyer/client relationship is meant to be sacrosanct. These intercepted communications could then have been used secretly against the clients, potentially causing a series of mis-carraiges of justice. Perhaps this widening of the emphasis to the internet as a whole, and the fight against terrorism is really just an attempt by the powers that be to cover their butts and deflect the attention from a potentially embarrassing legal dilemma.


It will be interesting to see who ends up filling the upcoming vacancy at Ofcom. Their background and experience could tell us a lot about where Ofcom is likely to be heading, and what the emphasis of its regulatory authority is likely to be in the coming years. It may well be that broadcast content takes a backseat as they concentrate more on the net and selling off the mobile broadcast spectrum. Whether that would mean a loosening of rules for things like the babechannels, or whether things would just go into a holding pattern as they are, no better no worse, only time will tell.

Just came across this link and thought it would be useful in the discussion relating to the future of the channels. Wasn't exactly sure where to put it, but this thread seems one of the more active ones so I put it here.

http://sexandcensorship.org/2014/11/uk-w...-new-laws/

(09-11-2014 21:19 )gunnar Wrote: [ -> ]Just came across this link and thought it would be useful in the discussion relating to the future of the channels. Wasn't exactly sure where to put it, but this thread seems one of the more active ones so I put it here.

http://sexandcensorship.org/2014/11/uk-w...-new-laws/

New laws about web censorship? Good.

What! He says good? Yes, because it will force Cameron and the other sexless nonentities, as well as the hypocrites, to have a proper public debate about the effect of these laws, and subject them to proper scrutiny. Also if laws are excessive they can be challenged in court by anyone affected.

Up to now Cameron has acted like Putin, personally ordering ISPs to block sites that dont work the way he wants. That isnt Tory party policy. The Dept for Culture and Other Crap hasnt published an impact assessment or run a consultation. MPs have not had the chance to debate how it would work (like the European Arrest Warrant). And because it is "voluntary" it cant be challenged in court.

No, Dave decided, Dave ordered. One man one vote.

Heres a thought. In Dave world anyone visiting a porn site has to give the pornographer credit card identification - name, date of birth, credit card number - and possibly address. Sooner or later that data will be hacked and details of everyone who visited a porn site will be published, possibly by an antiporn religious group.

People will be hounded out of their jobs for perfectly legal relaxation - vicars visiting gay sites, teachers, MPs. Does that make society safer?

Other sites will leak credit card data to organised criminals who will suck peoples accounts dry. Banks will refuse refunds saying customers acted recklessly.

Some people might even be blackmailed - imagine what the Russians or North Koreans would pay for information about senior military officers, MPs, newspaper editors, etc with troubled marriages and an interest in, ahem, niche websites.

Yup, lets have a proper debate about the impact.

Sex & Censorship Wrote:New laws and legislation have been drawn up to compel British-based web sites to verify the age of their visitors before presenting age-restricted content after dubious statistics have emerged stating one in twenty visitors to adult web sites were ‘children.’
...
take issue with the statistics and believe them to be deliberately misleading, ATVOD’s language is all about access to children, in their annual reports they claim we prevented xxx number of children accessing adult content based. The simple fact is they do not know, they treat every debit card transaction that either fails verification or is processed without verifying the customer’s age as a child.
...
Interestingly with this move the government will inadvertently be pushing young porn consumers to the tubes, the torrents and be ultimately responsible for stimulating a renewed piracy market for the adult industry.

In a break with well established tradition of bulletins being issued at least 2 weeks apart, one has been issued today, just one week after the last one.

This doesnt seem to be due to a build up of loads of decisions, but more due to a desire to rush out a decision against RT (formerly Russia Toady) as the tanks are rolling into the Ukraine.

It seems RT might have been a tad biased in its reporting of events earlier this year. No doubt the Russians will be trembling given the warning that further breaches might result in sanctions after an 8 month investigation.

The bulletin provides a perfect illustration of Ofcoms complete lack of proportionality.

Decision 2 is against the BBC (Newsbeat) which broadcast a jihadi comparing real fighting with a video game. Wrong but most people would see that as illustrating the jihadis lack of morality. Real men women and children do not get killed or maimed in games.

A far more stupid, trivial waste of time was the investigation of Bam Bam At Breakfast (Jack FM South Coast, not to be confused with any other radio stations with similar names). They broadcast a reference to an estate agency that referred to it as "the toast" of National Estate Agency Awards 2013, "toast" supposedly implying that the estate agents had won the award: “Bam Bam at Breakfast with Lovett International Estate Agents, the toast of the National Estate Agency Awards 2013. Our toast is burnt – it won’t win any awards”.

Yeah, like anyone cares. Award winning estate agency? So what. Besides the slogan specifically referred to not winning awards, so its a bit of a mixed message.

Despite that Ofcom wasted months of their time investigating and landed the broadcaster with thousands of pounds of costs, in terms of management time, attendance at hearings and possibly legal advice.

Meanwhile Jago Pakistan Jago (HUM Europe) broadcast what sounds like an entire show pushing a cleaning product and a clothing brand. The result was the same as for Bam Bam, an entry in the bad boy book and told not to do it again. Ofcom even "welcomed" improved compliance measures (how many stations have promised the same? Strangely Ofcom never welcome exactly the same when a babe channel improves things.)

For sheer stupidly the investigation of Tudno FM (Llandudno) takes the biscuit. Its a small local community radio station that was advised by the fire brigade to move their equipment in case it burnt the place down. The station went off air for 2 weeks but did not tell Ofcom, meaning they did not adhere to their key licence commitments. However there was no commercial gain. They did not change from broadcasting local content to nonstop gangster rap. There was no realistic alternative to going off air. They just did not think to make the call. Waste Of Money, Brains And Time as my mate used to say (WOMBAT). (Waste of Oxygen Brains And Time when she felt particularly strongly.)

Huge number of complaints against the BBC and ITV dismissed at the first hurdle as usual, plus a few against C4 and Five. One against Gay Network (what did they expect? Irish broadcaster Gay Byrne?). One against God TV (the main character is never seen?) One against Psychic TV (apparently its a bit occult) and one against RT (Russia Toady) for advertising of all things. Group tours of Ukraine perhaps, special deals for servicemen on leave perhaps?

No Relation



Probably best not to check out his photos and videos, its a serious subject.