11-10-2019, 17:54
(11-10-2019 16:58 )Wardjackson Wrote: [ -> ](11-10-2019 16:04 )Dave_A Wrote: [ -> ]That is really sad. Are there really “fanboys of one particular channel”? As someone who, for example, used to really look forward to nipslips on Fernanda’s shows, I would not have dreamt about complaining about anything on BS if it might lead to a tightening of rules. I also have to say that I cannot understand how anyone could be offended by the content currently being complained of. There was more flesh on show in the womens’ athletics championships (in a strict Muslim country) than you can see some days on the Babeshows TV channels!!(11-10-2019 11:55 )Wardjackson Wrote: [ -> ]I really cannot understand the mentality of anyone wanting to spend their time making complaints such as these. The channels are locked by default on a new Sky box, so can only be watched if the subscriber overrides this. They are complaining about a bit too much thigh or buttock, not that anything might be described as pornographic. What on earth do they get out of it?
I would hazard a guess and say the majority of the complaints made to Ofcom about the babe channels, aren't by the general public offended by what they see , but are made by people connected to rival channels. or by fanboy's of one particular channel (sawboss)trying to grass up a rival channel (Babestation) of their beloved channel (S66)
Ofcom once released information that one unnamed babe channel had been recording breaches by a rival channel(Bang Babes), and offered to send DVD's of the incidents to Ofcom by courier .
Also there has been incidents of producers saying they had sent complaints to Ofcom about girls from rival channels.
Babe channel Girls themselves have also taken to social media in order to complain about and highlight girls from rival channels breaking the rules .
I wouldn't be surprised if some complaints are made vindictively by girls or producers etc that have been lot go or sacked in order to get back at their former employer .
I used to enjoy nipslips too but increasingly if a babe has a fresh outfit my first thought is does it comply followed by is she web only now because I don't want to have to think about a group of people being hounded by officialdom when they were just trying to entertain me (whether they make money or not).
I couldn't agree more with your comment about double standards. I don't see the distinction related it being supposedly an advert.
When I read the bulletin I did notice that S66 didn't defend themselves much. Maybe they couldn't. So and so wore this top. It's fact, but all they said was that they're in the adult section of the EPG, it would be unlikely to be seen by a child and that it was an isolated incident. Ofcom didn't agree.
Presumably S66 feel that they can't do anymore than they have done already to comply with the law without lessening our enjoyment.
Turning to the remark about rival licensees telling tales. I do recall a message on the Firestorm chatroom a couple of years ago written, I would say by James McCann, that suggested that there was (is) a gentleman's agreement in place to prevent this.