The UK Babe Channels Forum

Some one needs to play this to the maggots at Ofcom. They need some re-education.

Well thats the only thing that OfCom can never be accused of...Being wankers!! Stuffy old T**ts more like...

(21-09-2011 23:06 )continental19 Wrote: [ -> ]Some good ideas Eccles, tell me whats the target we're reaching for?

You set me thinking there. What are we aiming for?
100,000 and a petition "is eligible for debate in the House of Commons". It was initially described as guaranteed debate, but I suppose they have to give themselves an out in case 20,000 petitions reach that number. Of course its no use being debated if every single MP is against it, like the petition to bring back the death penalty for smurfs. Generally MPs are such tarts* that a crowd will leap onto any large bandwaggon, but it would be nice to have some as active supporters before getting to 6 figures. (* in a nice way, its called being responsive to public opinion :-> )

Realistically 100,000 votes could take a while without backing from a strong media compaign. Its not just about babe channels, its also about arbitrary misuse of power by a regulator that has no external moderation. Mainstream TV channels and newspapers ought to be terrified of that. "If self-regulation fails the only alternative is statutory regulation". Really? We dont have that for films**, DVDs, music or books. Instead there are things called Courts. (** yes, content is regulated for extreme violence and sex, but noone imposes political balance).

10,000 gets onto the page 1 of all petitions, and gets noticed.

1,000 gets onto page 6 of all petitions, above popular issues like increasing the speed limit and stopping shale gas facking. Getting to 4 digits is an important psychological milestone. 1,000 votes is a lot to ignore, and there are journalists out there who look for issues they can champion. WE ARE ALMOST 1/4 Of THE WAY ALREADY - WE CAN REACH 1,000.

WHEN we reach 1,000 votres I will crack open a bottle of vintage 2011 Thunderbird. A bottle of Fullers if we reach 10,000 and a bottle of champers if we get to the magical 100,000.

(22-09-2011 00:19 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Cameron the one you promised to do away with in 2009 if you ever came to power. Like all politicians Cameron is a 2 faced fuckface of a liar.

No, that's not true. Cameron has never promised to abolish Ofcom or even suggested it. He proposes to take some of its powers away that's all and that won't interfere with Ofcom's power to enforce it's broadcasting code.

With the coalition government of the day cutting everything in there path, surely the government are aware of the amount of millions Ofcom are wasting in there so called channel regulations? Well it appears they don't
Another member mentioned that the PM said that he would take some of Ofcoms powers away? well which powers are they? It seems Ofcom do what the F**k they want when they want, and decide to manipulate the rules to suit them those overpaid WANKERS
To them its a matter of how you word or should i say re word what the rules specifically mean? What's this shit all about
Any idiot with half a brain cell could do that, and they must be getting paid a shed load more than what I'm being paid.
Look I'm 38 yrs of age, and i don't want to be told what i can and cannot watch, and if the TOSSERS at ofcom tell me that it might cause offence if someone stumbles on an adult channel and see a OH SHOULD I DARE SAY IT A " PUSSY " that it could cause wide harm and offence what F**KIN BOLLOCKS its that simple. At least SKY TV have put a 4 digit PIN so you can block them.
I tell you everyone its pure and simple BULLSHIT

The only favour Ofcom are doing me right now is allowing me to get more sleep as with the dumbing down of the channels it seems rather pointless staying up all night anymore just to see lame material being dished up

We can all remember the days when bang babes used to look so erotic and naughty....it pisses me off to have to reminiss and try to think back in time!!!! It seems like an eternity has passed since I could have a decent WANK ....Now the only way I refer to the word WANK is when I think of those OfCom people they are all WANKERS...but the word doesn't quite ring true as these people are obviously incapable of such a pastime!!! if the Government wish to make cutbacks and save a little dignity SACK OfCom and do us all a favour.....

Now I'm a massive fan of Lucy Summers for example but last night on RLC the best way I could describe her show was average at best, it's was sexy but wasn't in any way erotic or titalating, now this wasn't her fault for one minute it's just that's she's one of the models which Ofcom are constantly monitoring and a lot of this has been down to the fact that other babe channels have been snitching on her to Ofcom out of jealousy, pure and simple and this has to stop, it's fucking sucidal and does nobody any favours in the long term. We are now getting to the stage where's it's difficult to tell the good models from the crap ones. I'm fucking sick to the back teeth of this. I also want erotic show's, not sexy one's as at the end of the day it just destroys the whole purpose of the channel's and render's them pointless. I'll be having another early night tonight as my dreams are more erotic than the current shit that is fucking up our enjoyment, they are not even entertaining anymore, I hope the situation doesn't worsen as 2011 has been a fucking disastrous year for the channels with the demise of Bangbabes, Sport, the only new addition being Xxpanded TV and the least said about that channel the best. Winter is coming soon and I really hope for a more positive turn of events to get us through the cold and miserable months ahead.

Over 240 votes now.

(28-09-2011 21:54 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Over 240 votes now.

i dont want to put a dampener on things but surely we will need the backing of some of the channels if we are to go any further at some stage? i mean if they are happy with the way things are theres not a lot we can do is there?i would have thought by now we would have heard from at least two of their spokes persons on what their intentions are