Elite TV / Studio 66 - General Chat & Discussion

Well I'm glad we agree on one thing Rammy

With regards to the 2 for 1, it only lasted a few minutes so I'd hardly be putting into any sort of really good category but at least it's a move in the right direction as far as I'm concerned

(24-02-2015 01:49 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  As glad as I am to see the return of a waterbased 2 for 1 set tonight I'm somewhat confused.

Right so we have Victoria who works for Studio66 in the bath with Jess who works for Xtremeflith.

What next I wonder, are they going to be joined by a girl from RLC.

So lets assume they are both different companies - What's the likelyhood of Studio66 going to ofcom and snitching on Xtremefilth.

Different companies who all share the same studio and now they even mix the same girls together. Maybe its about time the mods merged all the Threads together as this 3 channel nonsense is a lie, always has been and always will be.

as usual you make good sense

(23-02-2015 20:42 )ShandyHand Wrote:  @ RUsure "Wanted" was perhaps the wrong word. I should have said "felt the need to go" tamer. I think they really felt their license could be threatened by just 1 or 2 more breaches.

I wouldn't go as far as you on the producer side. I don't know where the specific allegations you make originate. I merely think he sees it as his job not to let things ever go too far on-screen. Better to frustrate the freeloader visually and possibly encourage a call instead, rather than let him get himself off for nothing, is the secondary attitude I think.

As for Jamie I'll merely say again that he may not be as much 'in charge' at s66 as he once was. (I wish someone could put me straight on this if this feeling is incorrect.) He also certainly feels the political pressure being heaped on his corner of the industry as can be seen from the stuff quoted in The Guardian article I linked to a while back. Who would not in his shoes?

I think it can be very tempting to excuse the girls of all blame in this scenario. But, as you imply, I think this would also be a mistake. Some of the girls have definitely taken advantage of the situation and made the channel's output even worse than it should have been at times. But again who can really blame them in the circs? But yes others are more to blame.

Unlike you I wouldn't go into the realms of conspiracy with this though. The worst I would say is that many politicians including the PM see votes in hitting the so-called pornography of these easy targets. Hopefully, the tide will turn again at some point as their focus shifts to some other short-termist agenda.

It’s nice to hear your articulately reasoned comments. I appreciate your points of views.

I have indeed been making these allegations about this particular producer on s66 for some considerable time now (and that is all that they are). But they are based upon intense scrutiny and logical deductions formed from the deep analysis of observed behaviours. However, without proof, fallible humans are prone to making errors. But I am nevertheless a man of my convictions.

“Seeing it as his job not to let things go too far on screen” is undoubtedly the perception that he projects upon the girls in the studio; and certainly the justification that he would argue, to legitimise his actions. However, I am convinced that there is a much more sinister, pernicious, and deep-seated aversion to women underlying his camera-antics and direction of shows… When people are observing and commenting upon the fact that the producer keeps regularly cutting to the screen graphics even when there is obviously no indication of any slips… these are indicative of his work.

As for my theory about the establishment i.e., the driving forces behind Ofcom and politicians who feel threatened by women; this is a much more complex subject, because the moral arguments are shrouded in subterfuge as a cover for their real motivations.

(23-02-2015 21:53 )Captain Vimes Wrote:  I agree with the Admiral's general thrust of his argument, us military types tend to stick together, but it was prefaced with the phrase I have no evidence and the Admiral is usually a stickler for accuracy.

To be fair, the Admiral was being too modest. The only part of his analysis which you could say is lacking in evidence was his contention that Studio 66's revenues must have been hit in recent times and that they have suffered a similar drop in business to Babestation. But there is actually some evidence of this.

Was there not a report in one of the newspapers in which someone from Studio 66 complained about having been hit by regulation and having lost out to competition from the internet? I suggest that this is reasonable evidence of the Admiral's contention and that he's being too modest when he says that he has no proof of Studio 66's decline. But perhaps he didn't see that article?

(23-02-2015 21:53 )Captain Vimes Wrote:  I agree with the Admiral's general thrust of his argument, us military types tend to stick together

Thank you for your confidence, good Captain.

I apologise that my evidence is not as complete as we would like.

(23-02-2015 20:42 )ShandyHand Wrote:  I think they really felt their license could be threatened by just 1 or 2 more breaches.

I'm sure they do feel that.

I haven't read the Ofcom bulletins for a while, but when I used to look through them the complaints on babe channels were almost always about Studio 66.

(24-02-2015 07:44 )marlowe Wrote:  Was there not a report in one of the newspapers in which someone from Studio 66 complained about having been hit by regulation and having lost out to competition from the internet? I suggest that this is reasonable evidence of the Admiral's contention and that he's being too modest when he says that he has no proof of Studio 66's decline. But perhaps he didn't see that article?

You make a good point, although I'm not sure if that report you refer to was specific enough to be evidence in the case.

OK, well assuming the channels are in as much trouble as we think, then where do the problems dwell and what can they do?

I believe the real issue here is the ever developing easy access of the internet, smart phones, tablets, etc, etc.
So as we all know, the internet beats the TV content hands down in regards to explicit choice, so here we have enemy numero uno.
I believe the TV format still holds it's own strengths though; speaking for myself, sometimes I can't be arsed to go online so picking up the sky remote is still and always has been the easiest way to entertain myself. Not to mention the huge picture we can typically enjoy the images on, which is a big plus for me, I love my big TV!
So the point I would like to make from just a customer/regular guy is this:
If the channels were given just a little more leeway I think it could make a huge difference. I'm not suggesting Ofcom would ever allow some of the things we see online, but the difference between the two formats is too great in my opinion.
This means the shows can be so repetitive and dull at times, these restrictions are clearly killing the scene.
If there was ever a time for the babe channels to unite and make the necessary changes then it is now. I don't know how they would/could do that but it really needs to happen.
Obviously this is an old record, but after reading Admiral's post and reading of their troubles, I find this most alarming of which I think we could all agree.
Something needs to happen.

I apologise for taking this thread off topic in this fashion, but it seemed relevant to tie in with the previous discussions.

I know we can all bicker & snipe at times (all good fun) but I like to think we would all endeavour to support the babe channels and hopefully see them stay afloat and improve.

So in short, they need to tackle these restrictions now before the internet swallows them whole and we lose the 900's to the pages of history.

These girls give a interesting insight to what it's like to work for STD 66/Golden Girls

(15-01-2015 00:18 )nikkilord1 Wrote:  Thank you for your response thats exactly why i left every time i moved i was screamed at and was told i couldnt wear a thong. I even got bollocked by saying "i cant do that naked" and i was wearing blouse. Skirt and tights!

(11-02-2015 23:12 )Mellie D Wrote:  I did start on mornings when I started the channels. As for no energy, GGTV has no producer so I can't do a lot in the tiny set I have with the tiny furniture they put in the set and remaining in shot without being behind the graphics, which I have no idea where they are because I can't see the output.

GGTV demanded that I did dom on my last show and wanted again for the next show, but don't worry, I wont be doing dom or any other theme with them again at GGTV because I hate the travel to London. For now, I am going to put down the phone and mic and concentrate on my other projects and music. I need to have a producer as I used to move around all the time and I hate being made to feel static. I also hate being told not to do things that I KNOW are OFCOM safe as I used to be a producer and know all about compliance. The new studio had so much potential but they seem to have no idea what to do with it, and I can't work in the depth-less sets provided.

Obviously these 2 girls were talking about working on GG, but like admin as stated GG is fully a STD 66 channel and production ..
Other former STD 66 girls have mentioned recently on twitter that it's more of a relaxed working atmosphere on BS than their previous channels .

So i think it's safe to say that STD 66 don't have enough producers to put on good shows on all their channels, and are running shit scared of Ofcom, and with good reason .
Without actually checking, STD 66 produced shows have probably in the last few years had more in breach rulings against them than the other channels put together (don't quote me on that),
With their bad compliance record any more in breach rulings could result in a big fine for STD 66.
If admiral decker's description of STD 66 being likened to a corner shop with falling revenue, (or something like that) then a big fine could be the end of them .

Now then on to the in breach rulings, some of these have come about through plain incompetence and stupidity on STD 66's part .
Some have come about through routine monitoring by Ofcom and not all through complaints by the general public or a rival channel (Ofcom have said this themselves)

The last in breach ruling they got the other week came about through incompetence, they were found in breach for not being able to supply recordings of their programs to Ofcom, they said someone forgot to connect up the recording equipment when they moved studios lol .

Another incompetent thing they did was to broadcast a live girl topless just after 9pm, they know this is against the rules, they then panicked switched from the live feed to a recording, the recording was also of topless girls lol , Ofcom found them in breach . STD 66 put it down to human error i believe .

On another occasion they were found in breach for broadcasting topless girls for a short time after 5.30am, apparently STD 66 said the producer had gone home early and no one noticed the time, or words to that effect .
Then there was the in breach ruling for advertising on screen links to their own website containing R18 material

Then there was the most stupid thing they did, they advertised mobile phone downloads on tv,that led to R18 material, Ofcom noticed this and downloaded one for themselves, they informed STD 66 not do do this, Ofcom checked to see if STD 66 had stopped sending these downloads and found STD 66 had failed to stop advertising on TV and sending people links to R18 content, Ofcom enquired why they hadn't stoped this practice, STD 66 said they hadn't had time to stop promoting and sending R18 downloads to peoples phones,or something like that, they got found in breach .

After this in breach ruling Ofcom monitored this situation, they once again downloaded a pic/vid advertised on screen by STD 66, once again they were presented with pic/links to R18 material, STD 66 were found in breach again, STD 66 put it down to human error i believe .

If they had competent staff they could have avoided many in breach rulings .
To me it looks like from what the GG girls say and through what STD 66 tell ofcom concerning human error that don't have enough crew or competent crew behind the scenes, this had led to them being the orchestra of some of their Ofcom problems .
Im guessing the lack of crew and competent crew is probably down to staff cutting costs ? .

PS, the Ofcom in breach are from memory, i haven't recently checked them, but they do represent the general jist of the rulings .

(24-02-2015 10:44 )Bandwagon Wrote:  I like to think we would all endeavour to support the babe channels and hopefully see them stay afloat and improve.

Not much chance of that I'm afraid. Certain posters here are so relentlessly negative that the idea of supporting any of the channels would strike them as very odd.