^
I appreciate yours and others thanks. I suggested pm-ing only because this level of detail does not always go down well with some on here. Also any answers to the questions you ask are bound to involve some little speculation and a degree of educated guess work. Some would argue that is not best to be placed in the public arena. However, I've tried to include things in my replies only if I have fair reason to believe it or am clearly labelling it as more speculative.
I recall one night babe arriving rushed on to set for her very first show (an unintended stream showing her) outfit in place and all, but only then, when she should by rights have already been live on TV, was she shown the rudiments of her pervcam and details of how to use it on her laptop screen! The lack of prep was palpable. Other new babes are clearly unaware of rules until they fall foul of them. For instance: A recent inductee had to have her audio cut when almost straight away she started talking of her pervcam being on and ready for action! Cue a mouthed "oh sorry" when she was told she shouldn't be refering to it directly on mic. 66 often gives off this sort of ad hoc impression with how babes present themselves early on.
AFAIK, Ofcom inform the operators of details of any show being complained about pretty soon after getting the complaint. The regulator then assess the complaint and decides if it warrents further investigation. They may request video of the babes transmissions from the operator, etc. All this may lead to sanction (often a fine). I explain this process because I feel many guys don't think of the impact even that intial assessment notification can have on the babe involved or, particularly if there's been a build up of complaints over a short period of time, on the operation as a whole. I've said before that Ofcom haven't fined a babeshow for years; that's true and speaks to a certain tolerance these days. BUT, even so, when multiple notifications come in over a relatively short period there must be some trepidation and fear of being overseen that has to eventually instill itself. There must be a cumulative worry to each period of uncertainy before the babe or babes is cleared. Presumably word comes down from the top once there's a feeling the company is being targeted that the producers should pull the babes back somewhat until they can stave off what is happening. This is what's happened recently at 66 days I think.
Here's the specifics of the published issues as you asked for them: Dave_A pulled out the major complaint you mentioned
here. That one got to the investigation stage. He then noted a second one
here. The third I don't think anyone reported on the forum but can be found
here. The last two were complaints about daytime babes and were assessed but found not worthy of investigation. As I say even that sort of judgement is not to be underestimated in how it can impact things onscreen I feel.
Maintaining a healthy TV presence looks to be nigh on essential for this size of operator. And more specifically, there, presumably, isn't the capacity in the web only audience as yet that there is in the TV one. How many of these shows could be sustained at once do you think..? Give it time mate tho, give it time.