Ofcom Discussion

(08-01-2013 13:31 )schmoo Wrote:  Also, re my/your "vexatious" comment, i meant to suggest that it also works the other way too - by that, i mean Ofcom are "vexatiously" targeting the channels in respect of breaches and punishments etc.

Ah yes, good point!

I believe the channels are just following a pre-conceived idea of allowing the StatusQuo to continue. Why change things when everything at the moment seems to be profitable. If the channels really are dropping each other in the shit. Then they need commending for the simplicity of their plan, First I'll drop you in it, then you can drop me in it. Then the both of us will drop them twats from that other channel deep in it. Then we can all walk away and let them cunts from Ofcom take the flak from our poor deluded fans, And there you go, Ofcom are happy because they are seen by their pay-masters as getting results. The channels are happy because they still manage to get 1.53 or 2.00 per minute out of their customers without really doing fuck all. And the people who phone, well they are also happy because they like to be called "baby" by a girl on a premium rate phone line. The only people who are not happy are the people who have come to expect adult material on an adult programme. Grrrrr!

(08-01-2013 16:37 )RESPONSIBLE ADULT Wrote:  I believe the channels are just following a pre-conceived idea of allowing the StatusQuo to continue. Why change things when everything at the moment seems to be profitable. If the channels really are dropping each other in the shit. Then they need commending for the simplicity of their plan, First I'll drop you in it, then you can drop me in it. Then the both of us will drop them twats from that other channel deep in it. Then we can all walk away and let them cunts from Ofcom take the flak from our poor deluded fans, And there you go, Ofcom are happy because they are seen by their pay-masters as getting results. The channels are happy because they still manage to get 1.53 or 2.00 per minute out of their customers without really doing fuck all. And the people who phone, well they are also happy because they like to be called "baby" by a girl on a premium rate phone line. The only people who are not happy are the people who have come to expect adult material on an adult programme. Grrrrr!

Good post RA...

Oh course an easy way to break the cycle is stop calling the cunts and watch the fuckers burn. The only thing that matters a fuck in this game is CASH! Deprive the cunts of this and either they will change or go under and if they do go under they fucking deserve it (so do the moaning bitches) for the gross inaction... BTW this might even make one of "them cunts" in 'compliance' at OFPRICK redundant but I very much doubt it...

Shylok

This is fast becoming a three-way war between us ('people who have come to expect adult material on an adult programme' as RA so rightly puts it), Ofcom, and the FanBoys. Unfortunately the FB clearly out-number us. There's loads of the silent fuckers out there, pouring their cash into the Babeshow machine come rain or shine. If only they'd realise how hard the producers and girls are laughing as they skip to the bank.

Enjoy!!!:

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=52551

Shylok

Lol it's true what one of the posts said above, people just get off by being called "baby" and being told "do u like that" when they call the girls

(08-01-2013 00:37 )Digital Dave Wrote:  Why would people be targeting Chatgirl TV? It's a pretty dumb strategy to go after the most boring and bland channel in the 900s, apart from XXXpanded, which also received a complaint! Very odd.

i would say its strategy to keep them were they are, some channel don't want it to become a big 4 as this would hit their pocket,
if chatgirl seams to be in trouble all the time playboy will be less likely to give them a night show, best way to beet the competition don't let it get started in the first place

In the 50s, 60s and 70s Russia and the USA had a nuclear defence strategy called Mutually Assured Destruction, MAD for short. The idea was that both sides had weapons so devastating that neither side would risk starting a nuclear war. Even if they fired first the retaliation would wipe them out.

What we seem to be seeing is little bursts of MAD, by people who dont understand they should not press the red button, rather than sustained nonstop retaliation, and the gradual destruction of all players as they make the environment more and more toxic.

Its the innocent victims that bother me.

Ofcom have fined Playboy a total of £100,000 for allowing under-age access to pornographic content on two of it's websites.
This case has been ongoing for a while, and we have mentioned it here before, but this is the final adjudication from our great protectors! The internet is once again safe thanks to Ofcom

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/...53967.html

http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2013/01/16/pla...-children/

How can they fine them though, as they don't have the porn filter thing on yet, or whatever it is that they were starting to do.

Plenty of sites allow anyone to gain entry to, so how can they legally fine a Playboy site?