The UK Babe Channels Forum

I've just noticed in somebody's post that a babestation show was recently found in breach, can somebody confirm this? Can't seem to find a reference to it.

^^^ http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid855900

Just read about the current investigations and seriously at this rate the babes will be wearing burkahs within a year or two.
Look babechannels, now is the time to put your differences aside and start making a stance against Ofcom because they are clearly targeting you because you won't fight back and you will eventually pay the ultimate price. The only way to beat Ofcom, is to join forces and take them on as an industry and not as individual companies.

...and see them all taken off the air

(17-07-2011 15:35 )Steve Sm© Wrote: [ -> ]^^^ http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid855900

Thanks for that, so it seems babestation can be got after even with a dutch license, as so few have come against bs this kind of confirms to me that they're behind all the complaints against the other channels

Close, the channel behind all the complaints does start with a "B"...

I was just reading some of the ofcoms brodcast bullitin, what a load of shit that they come out with. They need to losen the ropes alittle bit for some of the night shows, they get very boring becasue the girls cant move in a sexual manner as much as they used to be able to do.

But i do agree to some extent some of the rules that are set in place for the nightshows, like not showing full gentials to the camera, but i think that they should be alowed to rub oil or loation on their genitals area afterall its the 18years over channels.

Feel free to argue if you dissagree with anything i have posted above.

(17-07-2011 16:45 )gazfc Wrote: [ -> ]

(17-07-2011 15:35 )Steve Sm© Wrote: [ -> ]^^^ http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid855900

Thanks for that, so it seems babestation can be got after even with a dutch license, as so few have come against bs this kind of confirms to me that they're behind all the complaints against the other channels

Sky channel 909 "Get luck TV" does not have a Dutch licence and Cellcast/BS don't own the channel , Cellcast lease the air time from a company called "Grandiose Limited" , it was Grandiose that was found "in breach "not Cellcast . Sky Ch 906 is the channel with the Dutch licence . Sky Ch 910 also has a Ofcom licence and not Dutch .

Here is a selection of Gold Plated Pension's reading of the situation from the last bulletin -

(04-07-2011 19:45 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: [ -> ]Elite TV must feel somewhat relieved in that Ofc@m state that they are not proposing any regulatory penalty at this time but that these breaches will be held on file. Reading between the lines this means that once they have processed all the breaches against RLC and issued a financial penalty against Playboy TV and Just4us Limited (putting RLC out of business) then they will concentrate again on Elite TV (pro-active monitoring of this broadcaster will continue during this period)...

...So expect some serious financial penalties to be issued that will more than likely put some broadcasters out of business...

...Without even going to my crystal ball expect to see a total eradication of babe shows on the FTA EPG within 6 months...

...Be fully compliant with all demands made by Ofc@m that the shows become so tame they go out of business due to a lack of income...

Of course this is all theoretical boll#cks as no one knows the ultimate aim of the regulator, we need a mole.

Now he has done some sterling work here in the full posts, summarising and raising the issues. But I suspect that some of this analysis is exaggerated?

I suspect the recent clampdown arose due to shows going consistently too far about a year ago? (I'm thinking bang babes such as Jet Black sessions/the pad where about 3-4 padlings were effectively doing nightshows but with bikinis on). So now the channels are living with the new guidelines. Sure its restrictive but they are currently living within those guidelines, our tastes are taking a hit but they are still making money. Is there any real reason to think they will restrict any further?

I would be hopeful that if Elite (as an example - see highlight above) can show that they have taken steps to keep within guidelines, and demonstrate that it is working (much less breaches - plus they lead to further steps taken - they reprimanded a cameraman! poor guy), then the penalties may be waived or held. We all know they can demonstrate that as we have all seen the effects. The bulletin section detailing Elite's response shows that is exactly what they are doing. I doubt if the regulator-to-business relationship is as hostile an interaction as we might think it is.

It seems like we'd have to live with the content we have now, but I doubt if further developments would happen. Perhaps more internet content like BS/BB have developed. Talk of newspapers, legal cases, lobbying MPs all seems bombastic and unlikely to do anything to me. Perhaps even needless if the extra content is available in parallel content online.

Clearly I may be naive on this.

(17-07-2011 17:47 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ]

(17-07-2011 16:45 )gazfc Wrote: [ -> ]

(17-07-2011 15:35 )Steve Sm© Wrote: [ -> ]^^^ http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid855900

Thanks for that, so it seems babestation can be got after even with a dutch license, as so few have come against bs this kind of confirms to me that they're behind all the complaints against the other channels

Sky channel 909 "Get luck TV" does not have a Dutch licence and Cellcast/BS don't own the channel , Cellcast lease the air time from a company called "Grandiose Limited" , it was Grandiose that was found "in breach "not Cellcast . Sky Ch 906 is the channel with the Dutch licence . Sky Ch 910 also has a Ofcom licence and not Dutch .

Once again thanks, hmmm still why so few? The other channels are getting hammered compaired to them, the 2 b's working together?