(01-07-2011 21:41 )Renfrew169 Wrote: [ -> ]The news about RLC and no posting videos was the point of my earlier post - these guys at Ofcom have got the bit between their teeth and I don't think we should help them destroy any more channels!
I know it seems like we are being censored but if we apply it to ourselves surely it's discretion......... valour and all that.
I don't know what the future holds but I would hate to think that the pursuit of perceived freedom on the forum contributed to the evidence used by Ofcom.
It doesn't matter, because other than the evidence already existing for Ofcom to find on their own, for as many people here that agree to be discreet in their comments, there is always someone who will make a very revealing comment. This has happened with Sport, as we all would agree to keep things quiet when a good show happened, yet someone would always write something like "Oh my god, she had her pus&y wide open for all to see!!!", and it would be back to sqaure one again. What's odd to me about this ban on content is that Red Light has been quite tame!
I still continue to be discreet, despite my Babestation comments, but those don't matter when it comes to Ofcom.
I have never (and still don't) subscribe to this notion that we need to be discreet because of Ofcom. Ask yourselves this: If this forum (or any other of its type) had never existed, do you really believe the Babeshows would be any more explicit than they are now? You may well believe they would be, I certainly do not.
mrmann Wrote:Here's the last video in her thread :
http://www.megaporn.com/?d=Y3H2LQ2R
When you said 'on the back with legs open' I thought you meant
facing the camera. I'm sorry, it must seem like I'm simply refusing to see what you're seeing, but I didn't notice anything in that clip that we don't get on the other channels.
[quote='StanTheMan' pid='854301' dateline='1309562136']
I have never (and still don't) subscribe to this notion that we need to be discreet because of Ofcom. Ask yourselves this: If this forum (or any other of its type) had never existed, do you really believe the Babeshows would be any more explicit than they are now? You may well believe they would be, I certainly do not.
No you are quite right, i don't think they would be necessarily more explicit but it may be that they would not have excised such large fines. And on principle I just don't think we should make their job easy.
(02-07-2011 00:15 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]I have never (and still don't) subscribe to this notion that we need to be discreet because of Ofcom. Ask yourselves this: If this forum (or any other of its type) had never existed, do you really believe the Babeshows would be any more explicit than they are now? You may well believe they would be, I certainly do not.
mrmann Wrote:Here's the last video in her thread :
http://www.megaporn.com/?d=Y3H2LQ2R
When you said 'on the back with legs open' I thought you meant facing the camera. I'm sorry, it must seem like I'm simply refusing to see what you're seeing, but I didn't notice anything in that clip that we don't get on the other channels.
Definitely NOT facing the camera, though that would be nice
Seriously though, we don't see that exact position with that angle on any other channel, especially not Elite. When they do it on Elite, you never see the vagina, as the cameraman is at a safe angle, but on Babestation, the women can push their hips up and show more, sometimes close to full frontal in that position, and also full frontal at times. Karina was the best for this, and was allowed to show more than practically all of them. One of the only redeeming qualities about Babestation, other than a few of their women.
At the risk of getting bollocked by the powers that be- and going slightly off topic....
Did you guys know that Sport didn't pay any of the girls for it's last month because of that fine
(09-08-2011 19:35 )Dylan Devere Wrote: [ -> ]At the risk of getting bollocked by the powers that be- and going slightly off topic....
Did you guys know that Sport didn't pay any of the girls for it's last month because of that fine
Well that's fucking disgraceful and I hope all the models have taken legal action against the company. The same thing happened when Hotel Voyeur also closed down a few years ago. This is the nasty side to the industry and all the models have my deepest sympathies on this issue.
(24-06-2011 15:46 )Chilly Wrote: [ -> ]Take a deep breath before you reply to this thread, Scottishbloke. 
so they were not fined for the content of the show ? so whats bugging the rest of the channels,what is their reason for such a drastic drop in quality of the shows?no other sanctions have come into place since the sport went belly up what i have heard about
(09-08-2011 19:44 )shankey! Wrote: [ -> ] (24-06-2011 15:46 )Chilly Wrote: [ -> ]Take a deep breath before you reply to this thread, Scottishbloke.
so they were not fined for the content of the show ? so whats bugging the rest of the channels,what is their reason for such a drastic drop in quality of the shows?no other sanctions have come into place since the sport went belly up what i have heard about
No, fined for non cooperation and not supplying recordings, but dont be surprised if there is a principle that when recordings are not supplied the fine is at least as much as it would have been.
The Sport Channels have further "in breach" findings against them since they paid the £90,000 fine for not supplying recordings , this time it was for the content of the shows . So the other channels are probably being cautious until they hear what sort of sanctions Ofcom will give Satellite Entertainment Limited this time . See Below for the latest Sport XXX "in breach" findings
(24-07-2011 19:17 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: [ -> ][quote='Gold Plated Pension' pid='866279' dateline='1311030510']
With a fine of £90,000 issued against Satellite Entertainment Limited on the 24th June 2011 for not providing recordings against nine broadcasts, the regulator has struck again.
Ten more investigations against the licensee for channels 967 Sport XXX Girls, 954 Essex Babes and 955 Northern Birds have been concluded and ALL found 'In Breach'.
Office Girls, SportXXX Girls, 5 April 2011, 22:00: Breach of BCAP Rule 4.2 & Licence Condition 11.
40+ Readers Wives, Essex Babes, 5 April 2011, 22:00 to 23:00: Breach of BCAP Rule 4.2 & Licence Condition 11.
Office Girls, Sport XXX Girls, 6 April 2011, 22:00 to 23:00: Breach of BCAP Rule 4.2 & Licence Condition 11.
40+ Readers Wives, Essex Babes, 7 April 2010, 22:00 to 23:00: Breach of BCAP Rule 4.2 & Licence Condition 11.
Sport XXX1, Northern Birds, 8 April 2011, 22:00 to 00:00: Breach of BCAP Rule 4.2 & Licence Condition 11.
Sport XXX1, Northern Birds, 10 April 2011, 22:00 to 00:00: Breach of BCAP Rule 4.2 & Licence Condition 11.
Office Girls, SportXXX Girls, 10 April 2011, 21:00 to 22:00: Breach of BCAP Rules 4.2 & 32.3 & Licence Condition 11.
40+ Readers Wives, Essex Babes, 10 April 2011, 22:00 to 23:00: Breach of BCAP Rule 4.2 & Licence Condition 11.
Office Girls, SportXXX Girls, 13 April 2011, 21:00 to 22:00: Breach of BCAP Rules 4.2 & 32.3 & Licence Condition 11.
Office Girls, Sport XXX Girls, 14 April 2011, 00:00 to 01:00: Breach of BCAP Rule 4.2 & Licence Condition 11.
It is not known who made the complaints but the way Ofc@m have stated this leads ne to believe it is from a rival broadcaster.
They probably had to sell/lease their channels in order to pay the fine and the girls .
You might think that if SEL were fined because of someone they leased the channels to they might try and get that money back from the sub contractor and not have any thing more to do with them until they paid up. Instead it sounds like they took money off the models, and not necessarily the ones whose shows were found in breach.