Elite TV / Studio 66 - General Chat & Discussion

(02-02-2015 05:07 )winsaw Wrote:  dose where the channels server is based have any bearing on who regulates what
...

Not really, what matters is where the people controlling the site are based. Playboy moved their sites outside the UK, but still got done because ATVOD decided the sites were still under UK control, so therefore were still under UK regulatory jurisdiction.

(01-02-2015 13:26 )circles_o_o_o Wrote:  Which is more important, though?
A plain girl putting in the effort -v- a pretty girl being lazy.

A lot of my favourites are not in my top ten in terms of looks but watchable because of their attitude, willingness to please, ability on the phone and quality of performance.
But thats just me .

^^^ For me the looks are very important, I can't watch a girl I'm not particularly attracted to regardless of her performance level. There are a few top performers over on BS that I never watch, they do nothing for me in the looks department and little Bandwagon says no
If I can't find a girl that fits both bills I go on the net and delve around the countless cams & videos - that's me.

I would like to think if the channels were guiding their performers in the correct manner, we wouldn't even have this choice to make and only the looks would be up for selection; sadly this isn't the case.

I always used to think it would be impossible for me to perceive any babe to be perfect in terms of looks and performance, attitude and ability and everything else. One lady has proved me wrong but to strike that perfect balance is still incredibly tough.

These rules on what they can and what they can't show really pisses me off, the reason being is that I watch most of the babe shows through the Internet. And that means if I want to I can watch the babestation unleashed shows where anything goes. But I don't want to see gaping pussies and arseholes, so I never watch. All I want from these shows is a little tease and titillation. But in my opinion if that T and T never has and never will have a meaningful result. Meaning the occasional flash and slip. Then even the most gorgeous of girls are just on a pointless excercise.

[Deleted as I got my facts all wrong and I don't want to spread disinformation.]

(02-02-2015 11:12 )RESPONSIBLE ADULT Wrote:  ...I can watch the babestation unleashed shows where anything goes. But I don't want to see gaping pussies and arseholes, so I never watch. All I want from these shows is a little tease and titillation...

Funny how this is isn't it. For all the regulator's fears that if they were not around the floodgates would open I would like to think that, all else being equal, market forces and guy's general tastes would set the bar for most babe shows at something less than "gaping pussies and arseholes".

(02-02-2015 19:26 )ShandyHand Wrote:  So, s66's current webstreams are presumably covered by their current Ofcom licenses.

And, as I see it, any further streams s66 put on their website Ofcom would deem as "licensable" too (and therefore censorable). So I maintain that if they wished to put any second angle stream up these days, showing anything stronger than the norm, Ofcom would have their say and it would have to go behind the paywall. (I still say that the bosses saw the way things would go and dropped the previous experiment with a second camera because of this, although there may have been other factors in that decision.)

So s66's website is covered by ATVOD (for video clips and stills thereof) and by Ofcom (for the streams). Tight as a drum!

I don't know much about BS's 'hotter' streams. They should be either paywalled or under their Dutch NICAM license since editorial control would surely be deemed to be over here.

I'm sorry to be awkward, but everything you say here is wrong.

You don't need an Ofcom license to put on a webshow. Ofcom don't regulate internet broadcasts. Studio 66's current webstreams are not covered by their current Ofcom licenses. Any further streams Studio 66 put on their website would not be licensable either and regardless of content type they wouldn't have to go behind a paywall.

Babestation Unleashed is not licensed by NICAM or anyone else. So far there is no rule either here or in the Netherlands that regulates linear internet broadcasts. The internet is simply beyond the scope of TV regulators, unless the material qualifies as video on demand for regulation by ATVOD.

ATVOD guidance 3.18 referring to content that "may be subject to the relevant broadcast regulation" only applies in cases where "relevant broadcast regulation" actually exists and at this time there is no broadcast regulation of the internet. Note that it only says that content MAY be subject to the relevant broadcast regulation.

I suppose they could bring shows circa 2009 back. With the rule breaking again accepted like it was then, but only to show via the web. But if they did that, would we be happy? No, because no rules would be broken. And that is what made the shows so good back then. They broke the rules, and that is where the attraction lay. Not in gleaming sets and paddling pools.

(02-02-2015 09:18 )snookered147 Wrote:  I always used to think it would be impossible for me to perceive any babe to be perfect in terms of looks and performance, attitude and ability and everything else. One lady has proved me wrong but to strike that perfect balance is still incredibly tough.

Is her first name Rachel by any chance?

(03-02-2015 00:55 )Broncobilly Wrote:  

(02-02-2015 09:18 )snookered147 Wrote:  I always used to think it would be impossible for me to perceive any babe to be perfect in terms of looks and performance, attitude and ability and everything else. One lady has proved me wrong but to strike that perfect balance is still incredibly tough.

Is her first name Rachel by any chance?

You were meant to make it not look so obvious .