Babestation - General Chat & Discussion

Can I ask if the same is happing with bs blue & extra or jest bs1. If it's jest bs1 then it sounds like they are using a Producer that done not no what he or she is doing & dose not no how to produces a babes show.

This no naked rule.... the ones who don't anyway must be having a good old snigger behind the scenes

so if the Prof is right Mr Murdoch isn't just content in getting rid of Page 3, he wants the babe channels off SKY as well!! So with that in mind, should we declare war on Mr Murdoch instead of OFCOM or fight for the channels right to exist on two fronts me thinks?

I still do not think this has got anything to do with SKY whatsoever. They have never dictated policy. Besides they have always distanced themselves from such channels stating numerous times they have no control over them as they do not own them.

It's not SKY that decides whether or not they are allowed to broadcast its ofcom. The only part SKY play a part in is designating them a slot on the EPG and collecting payment for rental space. That's it, there is no war being waged by the Murdoch empire on them because if there was they'd sooner just pull the plug on the lot of them than tell any one channel to tone it down.

Believe me when I say this but SKY don't give 2 shits about Babestation or any other channel that they collect rent money from. SKY are far too busy negotiating terms with the sports giants and football leagues. With regards to Page 3 in the Sun that was entirely different as Murdoch is responsible for every single page in that paper. Ofcom is the enemy, not SKY

(15-04-2015 18:24 )babelover48 Wrote:  so if the Prof is right Mr Murdoch isn't just content in getting rid of Page 3, he wants the babe channels off SKY as well!! So with that in mind, should we declare war on Mr Murdoch instead of OFCOM or fight for the channels right to exist on two fronts me thinks?

I'll say it again. Page 3 has not gone, it still appears in the sun newspaper regularly and when it isn't in the paper, there is a page 3 online on the page 3 website.

I'm with sb (yes a rare moment of agreement with sb). I don't think babestation's current goings on has anything to do with sky. As he's said, sky has said numerous times they don't own or control them. It's someone at bs/csllcast. Hope whoever it is changes their mind

Yes it is a rare moment when me and Rammy agree It just annoys me when I see SKY somehow being blamed into this current shambles at Babestation.

Lets just take the SKY question again. Right well firstly last year the Murdoch empire secured complete control over SKY Italia and SKY Deutchland. With regards to what the Germans get to see on the TV compared to us is night and day as they are allowed to show hardcore porn, not to mention all the late night seedy channels and adverts that currently air allnight long but guess what the Murdoch Empire also don't give 2 shits about it either.

SKY are a business designed to make money. Whatever thoughts the murdochs have on what is broadcast are private, who knows maybe Rupert is Babestations number 1 caller for all we know.

Right so onto last nights show and frankly it was embarrassing and in particular the antics of BS1 was an insult. It would have been more dignified for them just to give us a black screen instead of only broadcasting the face of the babe in question whenever they did anything remotely interesting to set our pulses racing.

Hang your heads in shame BS over such a shabby output. The word disgrace doesn't even go far enough as far as I'm concerned.

this could be the simple fact that they get more business off free view. they may want to encourage every 1 migrate to the freeview platform, as you have a tv you can get babestation. they could then drop sky and save a chunk of change.

regardless, until babstation come's and say's something we wont know.

(01-04-2015 12:45 )TheProf Wrote:  Whilst OFCOM is undoubtedly the ultimate arbiter of acceptability of Babeshow content - do not forget that SKY and FREEVIEW carry the channels on their platforms, and have an equally powerful say as to whether the shows get on air or not. They will certainly not want any public rows about unencrypted 'porn' being shown on their platforms.

Furthermore, unlike OFCOM, they are not obliged to publish any informal 'discussions' they might have had with BS about content restrictions - so could this be an explanation for the sudden cooling of BS content?

I wish you'd stop posting this conspiratorial nonsense. You've made the same point in numerous posts and it's just rubbish.

(15-04-2015 20:36 )Rammyrascal Wrote:  

(15-04-2015 18:24 )babelover48 Wrote:  so if the Prof is right Mr Murdoch isn't just content in getting rid of Page 3, he wants the babe channels off SKY as well!! So with that in mind, should we declare war on Mr Murdoch instead of OFCOM or fight for the channels right to exist on two fronts me thinks?

I'll say it again. Page 3 has not gone, it still appears in the sun newspaper regularly and when it isn't in the paper, there is a page 3 online on the page 3 website.

I'm with sb (yes a rare moment of agreement with sb). I don't think babestation's current goings on has anything to do with sky. As he's said, sky has said numerous times they don't own or control them. It's someone at bs/csllcast. Hope whoever it is changes their mind

I am not sure what sun newspaper Rammy reads but there has been no page 3 girl in mine since January.

Tend to agree with this Sky being to blame as not correct. Very simply they are not placing the same restrictions on other channels so Cellcast could call foul if they tried to restrict their output.

I'm edging back to wage dispute with the girls