The girls aren't allowed to suck their fingers anymore?

I don't think there is much doubt that most channels are in decline, call revenue has been slowly declining over the last few years fact according to some channels themselves, this is evident by some channel reducing call prices to encourage more calls, then there's other channels flooding the screen with more and larger pic/vid OSG's adverts than they have done previously to try and encourage people to spend money this way, whether this decline is down to Ofcom the present economic climate or the availability of free to view web sites is uncertain, Cellcast put the decline down to the present economic climate .

On the subject of the producers imo they are stuck in between a rock and a hard place, if they play safe we moan about them and playing to safe may result in the girls getting less calls leading to less revenue for the channel bosses, if they push things slightly and a girl has a slip someone will report the show and Ofcom finds them in breach, the producer is then made the scape goat and gets the sack.
Many of the channels when they get found in breach put the blame on the producers and sack them to appease Ofcom, Bang Media sacked the producers that were producing the Amanda Jemma Jey lolly pop show, Elite TV sacked the producer that was producing the Caty Cole Michelle Thorn 2-4-1 show, RLC always sack the producers when they get in breach rulings, no wonder some producer are shit scared when a girl so much as scratchers her tit, they know full well the channel will offer them up as a sacrificial Lamb to Ofcom if the channel gets in Ofcom trouble .

agree with you mrmystery that the producers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. as you say if they play it safe they get flack and potentially lose calls, if they push it they risk getting trouble with Ofcom and if the channel they are on gets in trouble with Ofcom they will lose their job

as for the channels in decline. ive said often yes they aren't as good as they were at their best, but they are still good given the current rules and are seemingly getting a good amount of calls each night and aren't as bad as some forum members think they are and for me aren't in decline any more and i always find babes and shows to watch

Totally agree mr mystery. All that stress for just £80 a shift!

In this latest case though I think the producer was wrong and should've been fired, but Playboy were also at fault for obviously not training their staff properly. Since the big clampdown of 2010 there have been certain red flags for Ofcom and simulating sex acts is one of them. It's total nonsense of course and there's far stronger stuff on free mainstream TV, but the rules (as munch1917 has pointed out) are clear.

I'm surprised that nobody in the studio said 'hang on a minute' when the producer outlined what he wanted to do. I'd also have thought that Danni Harwood was experienced enough to know the rules too.

Edit: Actually, to follow my own logic, if the producer hadn't been adequately trained then it wasn't his fault, it was his employer's. Sorry Mr Producer if you're reading this!

(23-09-2013 22:13 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  RLC never broke any rules, ofcom simply moved the goalposts. Sexual innuendo is not against the rules. RLC are pussys for giving in so easily and like I have said have taken their place alongside Studio66 in the hall of shame as the channels that are shit scared of ofcom.

Would you prefer RLC go the way of Bangbabes by sticking two fingers at Ofcom & go out of business?

No I'm not saying that or even suggesting that before you or anybody else tries to take any of my posts out of context. Everybody knows how gutted I am to see any of the channels go out of business, I was a massive fan of Bangbabes and ofcourse SportXXX.

What I am saying is that channel execs who do not at least present a good argument to ofcom are gutless and to fire the producer in question is not right.

Also ok it says in the rule book to mimic sexual activity is outlawed. Yeah and how many shows have we already seen where this clearly hasn't been taken all that seriously and to be honest with you I thought even ofcom were fine to turn a blind eye to that one too.

Can I just state that it is near impossible to put on a nightshow without some sort of sexual innuendo or mimicking taking place. Had RLC had any balls and challenged ofcom over that ruling then I would have had more respect for them even if it resulted in a punishment hence the reason I will stand by my original comments.

remember Jamie (studio66tv) saying a while ago that the babeshows are over regulated and he'd love to challenge Ofcom but it wouldn't be worth all the hassle, time and effort it would take to challenge Ofcom.

so you'd have respect for rlc if they ignored Ofcom and Ofcom punished them by taking their licences away like what happened to bangbabes who kept ignoring Ofcom and ended up having their licences taken away? rather the channels play it safe and not get their licences taken away and go off air

im sure the channels would love to challenge Ofcom and it might happen in the future

whenever the channels are found in breach for this sort of thing they begin their defence by saying the producer in question has been sacked. i wonder if they really do sack them or if it's just a go-to response.

(25-09-2013 15:35 )beardedbob Wrote:  whenever the channels are found in breach for this sort of thing they begin their defence by saying the producer in question has been sacked. i wonder if they really do sack them or if it's just a go-to response.

Surely most of the staff are on causal contracts so "sacked" is a meaningless term. The channel just doesnt employ them on satellite TV for a month or so. The real test would be if they were employed anywhere in the media empire in any capacity - making R18 films in Ibiza, directing private cams, running a sex shop - or if the media empire ever bought content they made off book - or if they were back on the payroll 6 months later or working for a related company. If I sack someone they stay sacked. Is it the same here?

And do you suppose Ofcom check?

(29-09-2013 01:09 )eccles Wrote:  Surely most of the staff are on causal contracts so "sacked" is a meaningless term.

I think alot of them will be employed in a similar way to the girls.

I remember talking to Paige Tyler one morning on Bikini Babes when she wasn't feeling too well. She said they couldn't get a stand-in at short notice so she had to make the effort because if the babe didn't turn up, nobody else got paid either.

I posted in the Ofcom thread that in Ofcom's bulletin that Playboy TV Chat had told Ofcom they had sacked the producer, well that's not entirely correct, the actually wording in Ofcom's bulletin is "dismissed" not sacked , just thought i'd mention that for those debating the matter .

As for the staffing situation concerning the babe channels some employees are classed permanent staff and some are not, i'm guessing the amount of permanent staff varies from channel to channel, Cellcast for instance mentioned themselves in one of their company statements that as part of their cost cutting measures they were reducing the number of permanent staff numbers .

{edit} I'm guessing that some people like me have seen various girls mention when they are leaving a channel to join another or stopping working on the babe channels altogether that they can't leave straight away as they have to fulfil the shifts they are contracted to do, some have even mentioned that they can't start working straight away for another company after leaving the one they last worked on do to contract issues, so i'm guessing some girls and producers aren't just on some sort of casual contract but are on one that guarantees them a certain amount of shifts and probably a minimum wage and one that stops them from just quitting one channel to work on another, i should think that only applies to the established big hitters of they babe channels though, some seem to work on a pay as you go one shift at a time scenario with no guaranteed shift contracts .