(24-09-2014 19:13 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ]Just thought i'd post this info and definition of a conspiracy theory seeing has it's being discussed in this thread 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
Thats what theyd like us to think. You do realise all clicks on that link are monitored, dont you?
I think a lot of us had hopes about what EF would be. I certainly did. Lets concentrate on what it is, another babe channel, rather than some wishlist. It stands or falls on its content.
(24-09-2014 18:08 )Money_Shot Wrote: [ -> ]The suggestion is that S66 had their eyes on a deal with XtremeFilth for a while and once it was finalised decided not to continue with S66 USA.
A
suggestion only? That's disappointing isn't it? There's nothing to say this holds any further water than my
suggestion.
So regardless of success you believe they simply "
had their eye on XtremeFilth" ?
I would say this happened
because S66 USA was failing.
They wouldn't cancel a lucrative show on a whim would they? There has to be a reason and failure seems the only logical answer to me.
(24-09-2014 18:08 )Money_Shot Wrote: [ -> ]I get the feeling that like all conspiracy theorists you knew what your conclusion was first, that you were being lied to, and you then constructed your own version of events to try and support that conclusion.
Obviously. I don't see your point here?
(24-09-2014 18:57 )woolleysheep Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't previously posted in this thread, let alone ventured any opinion on the subject, but the bandwagon theory seems so nonsensical I couldn't resist.
First of all, as Money_Shot pointed out, we don't know exactly what the circumstances were in which Studio 66 were discontinued. But that doesn't matter, because even if bandwagon were right that it simply didn't do well enough it's hard to believe that Studio 66 would care very much.
Perhaps they should have called it 'Elite TV'
No .....wait.....
(24-09-2014 21:41 )munch1917 Wrote: [ -> ]How is this a fact? Where is your proof of this statement?
Good questions munch.
The correct answers are that it isn’t a fact and winsaw has no proof.
His statement is incorrect, plain and simple.
Studio 66 don’t exercise full control over the channel’s output and neither do Ofcom require them to.
Ofcom’s requirements in this respect have already been posted earlier in this thread by mr mystery, but we can repeat them here.
The license holder must have “general control over which programmes and other services and facilities are comprised in the service (whether or not he has control of the content of individual programmes)".
As anyone can see, Ofcom's requirements are quite clear. They don't require the licence holder to have "full control" and they explicitly state that the licence holder does not need to have control over the content of individual programmes.
Ofcom also state that the licence holder does not need to carry out "day to day activities to ensure compliance". The licence holder is "responsible for putting in place adequate compliance arrangements, including retaining recordings of programmes, and for ensuring that the service as broadcast, complies with all the relevant Ofcom codes", but is not required to monitor the output day by day.
From information posted here, I gather that Studio 66 do in fact monitor Xtreme Filth for compliance purposes, even though Ofcom do not require them to. As such, Studio 66 are doing more as the licence holder to ensure compilance than is actually required of them.
In conclusion the "full control" theory has no basis in fact. It isn't a requirement of Ofcom and it isn't something being practiced by Studio 66.
(25-09-2014 10:00 )Bandwagon Wrote: [ -> ]A suggestion only? That's disappointing isn't it? There's nothing to say this holds anymore water than my suggestion.
So regardless of success you believe they simply "had their eye on XtremeFilth" ?
I would say this happened because S66 USA was failing.
They wouldn't cancel a lucrative show on a whim would they? There has to be a reason, failure is the only logical answer to me.
You misread my comments. I didn't say I believed anything. The suggestion I was referring to is what others have posted here, not what I posted. I was pointing out that your reasoning is pure speculation, and no more valid than alternative speculation which several others have posted, these other posters including someone who actually worked in the industry himself for several years.
(25-09-2014 10:00 )Bandwagon Wrote: [ -> ] (24-09-2014 18:08 )Money_Shot Wrote: [ -> ]I get the feeling that like all conspiracy theorists you knew what your conclusion was first, that you were being lied to, and you then constructed your own version of events to try and support that conclusion.
Obviously, I don't see your point here?
I'll explain the point then. Your way of looking at things is what's known as confirmation bias, the tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms your own belief or hypothesis. It contrasts with a neutral way of looking at things, in which you examine the evidence first and then form the conclusion at the end, rather than working backwards from the conclusion, which is what you agreed above that you (obviously) did.
(25-09-2014 13:13 )Money_Shot Wrote: [ -> ]You misread my comments. I didn't say I believed anything. The suggestion I was referring to is what others have posted here, not what I posted. I was pointing out that your reasoning is pure speculation, and no more valid than alternative speculation which several others have posted, these other posters including someone who actually worked in the industry himself for several years.
I know my reasoning is pure speculation etc, I've never claimed otherwise.
Also, if your referring to the same forum member I believe you are, he also stated that S66 USA would fail
(25-09-2014 13:13 )Money_Shot Wrote: [ -> ]I'll explain the point then. Your way of looking at things is what's known as confirmation bias, the tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms your own belief or hypothesis. It contrasts with a neutral way of looking at things, in which you examine the evidence first and then form the conclusion at the end, rather than working backwards from the conclusion, which is what you agreed above that you (obviously) did.
And what conclusion can we work backwards from? Isn't that the point - we don't know?
Anyway, you guys believe what you want and I'll believe what my trusty eye balls are showing me.
S66 in disguise
(25-09-2014 10:35 )admiral decker Wrote: [ -> ] (24-09-2014 21:41 )munch1917 Wrote: [ -> ]How is this a fact? Where is your proof of this statement?
Good questions munch.
The correct answers are that it isn’t a fact and winsaw has no proof.
His statement is incorrect, plain and simple.
Studio 66 don’t exercise full control over the channel’s output and neither do Ofcom require them to.
Ofcom’s requirements in this respect have already been posted earlier in this thread by mr mystery, but we can repeat them here.
The license holder must have “general control over which programmes and other services and facilities are comprised in the service (whether or not he has control of the content of individual programmes)".
As anyone can see, Ofcom's requirements are quite clear. They don't require the licence holder to have "full control" and they explicitly state that the licence holder does not need to have control over the content of individual programmes.
Ofcom also state that the licence holder does not need to carry out "day to day activities to ensure compliance". The licence holder is "responsible for putting in place adequate compliance arrangements, including retaining recordings of programmes, and for ensuring that the service as broadcast, complies with all the relevant Ofcom codes", but is not required to monitor the output day by day.
From information posted here, I gather that Studio 66 do in fact monitor Xtreme Filth for compliance purposes, even though Ofcom do not require them to. As such, Studio 66 are doing more as the licence holder to ensure compilance than is actually required of them.
In conclusion the "full control" theory has no basis in fact. It isn't a requirement of Ofcom and it isn't something being practiced by Studio 66.
dude you are just wrong, did you never read what happened to sport when they were renting there channel out to bluebird,
they were adhering to the minimum levels you state and they were told that was not good enough,
to state that ofcom do not require a channel to be monitored for compliance on a daily basis is just not true and makes you look foolish,
i like the end of your statement where you agree with me that 66 do monitor them and there for have full control over what is shown on air
(25-09-2014 14:30 )winsaw Wrote: [ -> ]to state that ofcom do not require a channel to be monitored for compliance on a daily basis is just not true and makes you look foolish,
Here we go again. Typical straw man argument.
Note: a "straw man" argument creates the illusion of having argued against a proposition, by deliberately replacing it with a different proposition and then refuting that false argument instead of the original proposition.
The Ofcom rules I copied from their website and quoted here do not state that Ofcom do not require a channel to be monitored for compliance on a daily basis. This is what's known as a deliberate winsaw lie.
As Ofcom clearly explain in the rules I quoted they require channels to be monitored for compliance on a daily basis, but they do not require that monitoring to be performed by the licence holder. It's acceptable to Ofcom for that monitoring to be carried by a third party.
Here's a repeat of Ofcom's words as copied from their website:
The licence holder is "responsible for putting in place adequate compliance arrangements, including retaining recordings of programmes, and for ensuring that the service as broadcast, complies with all the relevant Ofcom codes". The licence holder does not need to carry out "day to day activities to ensure compliance".
winsaw's argument seems pointless, given that all the relevant information is available on the Ofcom website.