(25-02-2015 14:59 )KerrAvon Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn't believe a lot of company's description of their 'principle' activity.
If stated incorrectly in their accounts it would constitute a criminal offence.
Assuming Cellcast are committing a criminal offence, as you claim, and are hiding their true activities, how do we know that they are "an international telecoms tech company".
And what does that even mean? International yes, because they are involved in Babestation in Germany and other countries. Telecoms yes, because Babestation is inevitably telecoms? Tech? What are they doing that's tech? You can say the paywall they developed for BabestationX was tech. What else have they done that makes them tech?
(25-02-2015 15:10 )tony confederate Wrote: [ -> ]And what does that even mean?
As you seem to have realised "an international telecoms tech company" is just a posh way of saying they run phone in channels.
(25-02-2015 12:51 )Digital Dave Wrote: [ -> ]are no longer involved in producing their own content, sub-contracting to Red Light in Bristol.
Since when did Playboy produce babe shows anyway? Apart from that short lived daytime show, which was very short lived.
(25-02-2015 13:55 )Bandwagon Wrote: [ -> ]Some good points there Digital Dave, I believe everything broadcast will eventually end up web based anyway. I also suspect the only reason that hasn't already happened is because many areas don't support the necessary bandwidth required to make that plausible ( I can vouch for that) So the question then will be how all that is regulated, and what level of content will be enforced/permitted, thus potentially landing us right back where we are now today or even worse 
Digital Dave and Bandwagon are bang on here. Once bandwidth is sound enough across the country and smart TVs are bedded in enough homes, what is now broadcast TV will move more and more online. That is a genuine game changer.
What are schedules and watersheds at that stage? Ofcom (or whatever has replaced it by then), along with the government of the day, are unlikely to want to see completely unregulated content being broadcast. Some new control mechanism will be required once more. We can only hope someone recognises the need to treat adults as adults at that stage and puts the onus once again where it should be by having parents regulate what their child watches. (That doesn't seem very likely if the current climate persists does it.) That is why any moves on regulating this sort of stuff online (ATVOD for instance) are so insidious. They will be late to the table on to-Smart TV regulation (regulation is always reactionary) but they will try to stop what they don't like hitting the main window into our homes.
Of course the other intriguing question, one that has been touched on above, is exactly what level of content it is that we want from our babe shows (provided the channels can manage to survive to the true web-TV dawn)?
To me a babe show is not really a babe show if it looks like porn. My dream for my web TV is for babe shows, feed in HD quality, that look something like Bangbabes of 2010! Those are the type of visuals that I would be happiest with. (And the type of service I am most likely to spend money supporting.) Bikinis and such during the day with nothing too direct to camera. Anything but pussy during the night. (Or simply have two separate feeds, with different protection methods if you like, and let the consumer choose which one is for them)... Well I can dream can't I?!
(25-02-2015 14:59 )KerrAvon Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn't believe a lot of company's description of their 'principle' activity.
So if you don't believe Cellcast's main activity is running phone in channels, what do you think their business really is?
Don't say "an international telecoms tech company" because as others have pointed out that's just another way of saying phone in channels.
(25-02-2015 15:10 )tony confederate Wrote: [ -> ]If stated incorrectly in their accounts it would constitute a criminal offence.
Assuming Cellcast are committing a criminal offence, as you claim, and are hiding their true activities....
Never claimed they were pal, just saying that what a company, including Cellcast, puts as their Principal Activity may be totally accurate or may not be. Would you put your life on any company being totally accurate? I wouldn't. Especially as wording can be made ambiguous.
Are Cellcast not looking into gambling and gaming for the future? I don't know whether that is designed to support their current activities or a complete change in direction.
If it's the latter, then we have our answer as to how things are likely to turn out. Interesting that RLC are also using gambling advertisement to support themselves too.
It all seems quite desperate to me, hence my reasoning for thinking were close to being up the proverbial creek.
So you can go around the woods and back again, but for me it still remains that regulations need to change.
(25-02-2015 16:21 )KerrAvon Wrote: [ -> ]what a company, including Cellcast, puts as their Principal Activity may be totally accurate or may not be. Would you put your life on any company being totally accurate? I wouldn't.
Yes, because if a PLC (such as Cellcast) misstates its principal activities that is a material misstatement of fact which is held to be defrauding shareholders. The penalties for fraud can be very severe.
To repeat Doc Holliday's question, if you don't believe Cellcast's main activity is running phone in channels, what do you think their business is?
(25-02-2015 14:04 )Prince Henry Sinclair Wrote: [ -> ]Since when did Playboy takeover Red Light?
I know that Red Light supply the girls and produce Playboy TV Chat for them, but since when did the Red Light channels become Playboy ones?
I know they are RENTED from Playboy but that's another matter entirely.
Playboy have not taken over RLC, their relationship is more of a partnership as they have worked with each other for a long time with Pumpkin producing a lot of content for Playboy,
Playboy TV Chat has always been a holly owned RLC channel, to be clear i don't mean own the tv channel i mean the content on it,
they did a deal with Playboy to use there name/brand, this is why not all girls work on 902 as they set down rules on what type of girl could be on there ie girls with the Playboy look only,
(25-02-2015 12:51 )Digital Dave Wrote: [ -> ]Cellcast (Babestation channels): Cellcast are not purely a babe channel operator and are in fact an international telecoms tech company. They run babe channels (also astrology and psychic channels) as a testbed for their systems and to generate cash. Admiral Decker is wrong when he conflates Cellcast's poor figures with Babestation. As Hannah's Pet regularly reminds him (only to be ignored), these losses are for the group as a whole, and we don't know how much of this is down to Babestation.
You say I'm wrong, but my version of the facts is nevertheless closer to the truth than yours.
Unless you can prove otherwise?