Sportxxx - Chat & Discussion

You can depend on it!
They don't call me the enforcer for nothing

(22-06-2011 23:19 )Foxy Wrote:  Ah thanks my sweet I'm sure everything will be fine.

But hey, useful to know for future ventures lol

Love Foxy xxxxxxxxx

(22-06-2011 23:16 )dirtyharry1962 Wrote:  Well if they do try not paying you Foxy, give me a shout and I'll come down and 'change their minds' I'm quite good at extracting funds!!!

(23-06-2011 17:22 )Rammyrascal Wrote:  got some denni tayla news. denni has posted today she is joining chatgirl tv doing dayshows with her first one next tuesday 28th and doing webcam shows with babeworld.

she has said she wont do nights now unless she gets a very good offer and she can put on a show which she feels she cant do at the moment

Pleased to hear that Denni has some work and income - I wish her well.

(23-06-2011 14:26 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(22-06-2011 04:37 )Renfrew169 Wrote:  

(22-06-2011 00:26 )five pound coin Wrote:  {stuff}

That's one of the funniest 'quotes' I've ever read. I don't often laugh out loud at something I read, but that did it.

(22-06-2011 00:26 )five pound coin Wrote:  [snip] ... So feel free guys to jump right in there again about the Cellcast OSG and other stuff you haven't got the first clue about, but feel you have the right to have an opinion on!

We don't have to have worked in television to know that BS's OSG are intrusive and deeply annoying, five pound coin. Babestation is the equivilent of one of those websites that hits you with 101 pop-ups and advertisements before you get chance to look at the site itself. High production values don't always mean good.

I'm pleased that the {stuff} made you laugh - however I can't take any credit for it - I assume that the moderator was the one with the excellent sense of humour - it made me laugh too.

This has just been posted by another forum member "mr anderson"on another part of this forum , i thought i would post it in it's entirety on this thread because it could be why the Sport channels have been sold off or leased

(24-06-2011 14:40 )mr anderson Wrote:  http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcasting...ofcom.html

Ofcom has today fined Satellite Entertainment Limited (SEL) £90,000 for "serious and repeated" breaches on its Essex Babes, Northern Birds and Live XXX Babes channels.

SEL was called to a meeting on May 9 at Ofcom about the three channels, all available in the adult section of Sky's electronic programme guide.

Ofcom was particularly concerned about SEL's repeated refusal to supply recordings of programming on the channels, as required under its broadcast licence.

The regulator also noted that SEL had "lost control of its own services" during a six-week period by "allowing another company to transmit using its licences".

Ofcom judged that the breaches were so serious as to require the imposition of a £90,000 fine on SEL, payable to the HM Paymaster General.

"After considering all of the evidence and representations made to it, the committee decided that these Licence Condition 11 breaches were so serious and repeated that a financial penalty should be imposed," said Ofcom.

"The committee considered that the licensee's refusal to supply Ofcom with recordings constituted a very serious licence contravention. The committee noted that the licensee's behaviour served only to frustrate the regulatory process and that this was unacceptable.

"The committee further considered that for a six-week period the licensee had lost control of its own services. The committee found this failure to maintain control of its service to fall far beneath the standards required of a licence holder."

SEL is no stranger to rebukes from Ofcom, after being rapped for ten breaches of the Broadcasting Code in 2007 and 2008, as well as a further six breaches last year.

The broadcaster's Sports XXX Babes service was fined £20,000 in 2008, while SEL was also criticised in November 2010 for material transmitted on Sport XXX Girl.

So i just wonder if in order to pay the Ofcom fine SEL had to sell or lease the channels to raise some capital to keep going , SEL i believe still own the Asian channel , probably without selling some of their channels they would not have been able to pay the Ofcom fine and may well have gone bust like Bangbabes .
It doesn't seem morally right that they have to pay a fine for breaches that another company was responsible for IMO and the same company has now taken over again .

I hate to ask it, but does anybody else have a case of Deja-vu?

i do this is bangbabes the sequel as bang didnt co-operate and look what happened to them

mr mystery/ mr anderson post is very interesting and also very worrying. There have been many posts on the Forum encouraging various companies to " challenge" Ofcom but it seems that SEL has done so and paid the price for it.

There are one or two morals to this. Firstly, if you are going to defy the authorities, it needs a coordinated unified approach ( individual companies will always be picked off one by one), secondly, it's not a good idea to have the intended course of action advertised or encouraged on a public forum such as this ( it may be that this only encourages the authorities to ramp up the fines to make an example of the recalcitrant ) and thirdly ( being a cynic) where the channels are going wrong is in the descriptions they are using, they should try" 40+ embarrassing bodies" or " Northern Birds - experimental drama " - they would then be able to show anything they liked and when they were reported it would all be turned away as perfectly acceptable **?!!*.

This is an appalling situation, this channel and the two others have been forced off the screen by double standards operated by the authorities. It, and it's sister channels, have now been sanitised and homogenised. I deal with the agents of the authorities every day; some of these agencies are merciless in following their own agendas which are often light years distant from the statutes which either set them up or regulate them. This is clearly a similar case.

I am not given to inflammatory language but one has to wonder what is the difference between this type of overreaction by Ofcom and the so called thought police of the Eastern Block in the 20th century.

I'm going to give a big 'big up' to all those who have defended SportXXX.

I liked Sport precisely because it looked as though it had been produced in the shed at the end of the garden.

Being produced in the allotment didn't mean it was inferior to any of the other channels. Surprisingly, to the knockers of Sport, it was the combination of dodgy production values combined with top class performers, that made it different from the other channels. Happy now are we with the same girl, no matter how good, splayed across four channels. That's freedom of the market for you, love freedom of the market as long as I control the market, you plebs don't want actual choice, you want our choice and you'll like it. (First Law Of the BabeChannels). A certain not red channel is learning this well. Boo.

See how childish am I?

(24-06-2011 20:06 )Captain Vimes Wrote:  I'm going to give a big 'big up' to all those who have defended SportXXX.

I liked Sport precisely because it looked as though it had been produced in the shed at the end of the garden.

Being produced in the allotment didn't mean it was inferior to any of the other channels. Surprisingly, to the knockers of Sport, it was the combination of dodgy production values combined with top class performers, that made it different from the other channels. Happy now are we with the same girl, no matter how good, splayed across four channels. That's freedom of the market for you, love freedom of the market as long as I control the market, you plebs don't want actual choice, you want our choice and you'll like it. (First Law Of the BabeChannels). A certain not red channel is learning this well. Boo.

See how childish am I?

This post admirably sets out so well what I have failed miserably to explain in the past. The description is so so accurate.

Top post!!

(24-06-2011 19:16 )Renfrew169 Wrote:  mr mystery/ mr anderson post is very interesting and also very worrying. There have been many posts on the Forum encouraging various companies to " challenge" Ofcom but it seems that SEL has done so and paid the price for it.

There are one or two morals to this. Firstly, if you are going to defy the authorities, it needs a coordinated unified approach ( individual companies will always be picked off one by one), secondly, it's not a good idea to have the intended course of action advertised or encouraged on a public forum such as this ( it may be that this only encourages the authorities to ramp up the fines to make an example of the recalcitrant ) and thirdly ( being a cynic) where the channels are going wrong is in the descriptions they are using, they should try" 40+ embarrassing bodies" or " Northern Birds - experimental drama " - they would then be able to show anything they liked and when they were reported it would all be turned away as perfectly acceptable **?!!*.

This is an appalling situation, this channel and the two others have been forced off the screen by double standards operated by the authorities. It, and it's sister channels, have now been sanitised and homogenised. I deal with the agents of the authorities every day; some of these agencies are merciless in following their own agendas which are often light years distant from the statutes which either set them up or regulate them. This is clearly a similar case.

I am not given to inflammatory language but one has to wonder what is the difference between this type of overreaction by Ofcom and the so called thought police of the Eastern Block in the 20th century.

well said and agree totally and backs up what jamie (elitetv boss) has said he'd like to challenge ofcom but at the moment its too much hassle and risk and this proves it so for now he's sitting tight waiting to see what happens with ofcom