All very interesting stuff.
I can't remember who said what now, but I strongly agree with the Occam's Razor principle that in the absence of certainty, the simplest explanation is usually the best. And the idea that S66 is consistently on a financial knife edge seems to be a simple explanation to so many questions. The slavish conformity to Ofcom rules, the daybabes-at-night phenomenon, the exodus of bigger hitters, the lack of sets, ridiculous breaches, etc... The money issue speaks to all of it.
A pertinent question was raised about whether or not this is simply an inevitability in the context of current viewing and consumption habits. Are babeshows just destined to go the way of CDs and video tapes -- an industry forever disrupted by the relentless march of the Internet?
My gut feeling -- sadly -- is that they are. Has anybody ever run a poll to see what proportion of us watch the shows on TV versus those that watch the webstreams? That might be interesting. To be honest, I don't even watch much regular TV on my TV anymore. I think generation behind me are so accustomed to getting all of their screen entertainment through the Internet that the migration from TV to computer will only accelerate.
And that represents a problem for the babeshows. Changing the channel on Sky gives you a choice between half-naked girls in the 900s and period costume dramas on ITV. But 'changing the channel' on the Internet gives you a choice between Babeshows and a boundless ocean of free porn. How do they compete with that?
As with any industry that has been affected by the Internet (music, TV, movies, publishing, etc.), my suspicion is that their survival is ultimately dependent on some enterprising producer lighting on a business model that works online. I have no idea what that might be or if it even exists. The upside, however, is that if they find one then they might escape the iron clutch of Ofcom once and for all. The downside is that such a solution may just be wishful thinking and that, in due course, the channels will simply fold one-by-one.
The internet march is an interesting and valid point.
In recent times for example I have subscribed to a few sites of certain babes, one who does nightshows and one who does daytime shows. I am being increasingly tempted to subscribe to a few sites of other babeshow babes too.
Added to that I have purchased some B2T vids.
The content is obviously better and stronger than I would see on non encrypted babeshow channels.
More themes, more sets, more outfits, more striptease, more variety, more filth. The main difference being I don't talk to the babes on the phone while watching their vids and viewing their pics. Of course I have the option to interact on webcam but I am not a great one for that tbh. So even though I am paying for the site subscriptions I am saving money rather than losing it because I am not paying for the calls to the channels so much.
Website stuff offers so much that conventional, non encrypted nightshows on all the channels can't.
Imagine the scenario. The babeshows get well and truly pissed-off due to Ofcoms iron fist control over the content of their shows, regular fines, and threats of closure always lingering. So much so, they splash some cash on the best legal team they can muster, and take the watchdog to court. There the Babechannels legal eagles stomp ofcoms team into the dirt. Thus winning the biggest morality case since Lady Chatterley.
They now have a much freer rein than ever and are at last allowed to show much stronger views of the girls. Including Open legged full frontal shots. Heavy petting girl sessions, daytime knickerless girls. All sounds good, everyone agree? But I don't want that. What I want is Ofcom still to be in charge but the channels and the girls breaking the rules now and again. That and only that Is what will bring these programmes back to how they used to be. And if they are not willing to do that, then they are just taking up valuable broadcasting time, and should bin this present day fucking nonsense once and for all.
I don't particularly want really strong stuff either RA, but the freedom for decent 2-4-1's and adventurous performances wouldn't go amiss either.
I get what your saying as in the 'boundary pushing' buzz but that's the point isn't it? Whilst things are like they are then they simply won't risk it at all because I assume they fear that Ofcom simply see them as a broadcasting cash machine. Some channels do seem to take this to unnecessary extremes at present though, so you have to assume they're caught between a rock and hard place. They may want to push things in order to increase revenue, but the potential fine that comes with it lands them straight back at square one if things go tits up.
It's sad but they seem to have adopted the attitude of 'if you can't beat em, join em' which is why I believe things must change because we're peddling backwards here.
(24-02-2015 21:46 )Rammyrascal Wrote: [ -> ]^^^
Bluebird winsaw definately.
Firstly I will give credit to Rammy on that assumption, chappers who run Bluebird TV was indeed also a snake in the grass. He didn't like the competition so played dirty and tried to also take a few of his competitors down via the ofcom route.
Secondly to take RA's point on board, every Country in the world has got a TV regulator so it's something we're always going to be stuck with. It just happens to differ from country to country. The UK is probably the most regulated in Europe when it comes to late night adult entertainment.
I posted this link on the ofcom section just to highlight that if you think ofcom are bad then take a read of this article -
https://melonfarmers.wordpress.com/2012/...ogramming/
Moving away from the ofcom issues, Studio66 have really got to buck up their ideas. For a while the show had picked up but in recent months it's been shockingly terrible. Even the departing Claire Richards has sunk to levels of mediocrity that I never thought was possible even from her.
^^^
we can't keep on agreeing like this sb
hope normal service is resumed soon
(25-02-2015 03:05 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ] (24-02-2015 21:46 )Rammyrascal Wrote: [ -> ]^^^
Bluebird winsaw definately.
Firstly I will give credit to Rammy on that assumption, chappers who run Bluebird TV was indeed also a snake in the grass. He didn't like the competition so played dirty and tried to also take a few of his competitors down via the ofcom route.
Secondly to take RA's point on board, every Country in the world has got a TV regulator so it's something we're always going to be stuck with. It just happens to differ from country to country. The UK is probably the most regulated in Europe when it comes to late night adult entertainment.
I posted this link on the ofcom section just to highlight that if you think ofcom are bad then take a read of this article - https://melonfarmers.wordpress.com/2012/...ogramming/
Moving away from the ofcom issues, Studio66 have really got to buck up their ideas. For a while the show had picked up but in recent months it's been shockingly terrible. Even the departing Claire Richards has sunk to levels of mediocrity that I never thought was possible even from her.
Almost every girl on every station, saving for one or two, are just mediocre to boring at best these days...i mean ignoring looks and personal preference you could struggle for performer of the night most nights.
I think it's just a sign of the times in the world of Babeshows....they seem to have been getting less and less risqué each year and with the current war on nudity/porn/glamour in the UK I fear it may only get even more tame and predicatble for the channels and most, if not all of the girls.
(24-02-2015 20:03 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]Don't you think its sometimes easier, and asking for less trouble, just to say "we haven't got the recording we are supposed to have made sorry" once in a while and take the small fine/slap on the wrist, rather than to hand over the red hot evidence and be caught bang to rights! 
In a word, no.
If a complaint had been made of a 'red hot' nature, it would be no defence to claim that you hadn't got the recording. You could in fact be heavily sanctioned for not having the relevant recording and thereby preventing the investigation of a 'red hot' complaint.
In order to not have the recording available and get away with a "small fine/slap on the wrist" the complaint in question would have to have been minor in nature in the first place. In which case not having the recording would actually be the greater offence.
So the answer is no, you can't get away with things that easily. Ofcom are unfortuntely not that dumb (if only).
Deliberately not having a recording available would be a dangerous game to play and could make Ofcom take stronger action than they otherwise would have done. Much better to let Ofcom see Fernanda's skirt out of place or whatever the alleged problem was.
Not having a recording available is grounds for cancellation of a broadcast license if Ofcom wanted to take it that far, which means that if you didn't have a recording available for them on purpose you'd presumably be covering up some issue of a similar magnitude.
(24-02-2015 20:28 )Rammyrascal Wrote: [ -> ]^^^^
It's not just s66 that grasses (telling tales as you call it) on other channels bronco, the other babeshows do it too, grassing up other babeshows.
The channels would be a lot better if they weren't grassing each other up all the time
Remember bangbabes? That was all s66 name another channel that tried to get another one shut down?
(25-02-2015 08:25 )BarrieBF Wrote: [ -> ]In a word, no.
'Red hot' was me over egging my pudding as usual. I was aware this wouldn't wash in the worst of cases and it wasn't meant as a description of what was on screen.
The particular offence mr mystery was talking about was daytime I thought so couldn't have been that bad.