+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: UK Babe Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Babeshows - General Chat & Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=18626)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590
RE: Elite TV/Studio 66 - General Chat & Discussion - tony confederate - 25-02-2015 14:10
(25-02-2015 13:59 )KerrAvon Wrote: I wouldn't believe a lot of company's description of their 'principle' activity.
If stated incorrectly in their accounts it would constitute a criminal offence.
Assuming Cellcast are committing a criminal offence, as you claim, and are hiding their true activities, how do we know that they are "an international telecoms tech company".
And what does that even mean? International yes, because they are involved in Babestation in Germany and other countries. Telecoms yes, because Babestation is inevitably telecoms? Tech? What are they doing that's tech? You can say the paywall they developed for BabestationX was tech. What else have they done that makes them tech?
RE: Elite TV/Studio 66 - General Chat & Discussion - Count Spankula - 25-02-2015 14:21
(25-02-2015 14:10 )tony confederate Wrote: And what does that even mean?
As you seem to have realised "an international telecoms tech company" is just a posh way of saying they run phone in channels.
RE: Elite TV/Studio 66 - General Chat & Discussion - schvall - 25-02-2015 14:43
(25-02-2015 11:51 )Digital Dave Wrote: are no longer involved in producing their own content, sub-contracting to Red Light in Bristol.
Since when did Playboy produce babe shows anyway? Apart from that short lived daytime show, which was very short lived.
RE: Elite TV/Studio 66 - General Chat & Discussion - ShandyHand - 25-02-2015 14:54
(25-02-2015 12:55 )Bandwagon Wrote: Some good points there Digital Dave, I believe everything broadcast will eventually end up web based anyway. I also suspect the only reason that hasn't already happened is because many areas don't support the necessary bandwidth required to make that plausible ( I can vouch for that) So the question then will be how all that is regulated, and what level of content will be enforced/permitted, thus potentially landing us right back where we are now today or even worse
Digital Dave and Bandwagon are bang on here. Once bandwidth is sound enough across the country and smart TVs are bedded in enough homes, what is now broadcast TV will move more and more online. That is a genuine game changer.
What are schedules and watersheds at that stage? Ofcom (or whatever has replaced it by then), along with the government of the day, are unlikely to want to see completely unregulated content being broadcast. Some new control mechanism will be required once more. We can only hope someone recognises the need to treat adults as adults at that stage and puts the onus once again where it should be by having parents regulate what their child watches. (That doesn't seem very likely if the current climate persists does it.) That is why any moves on regulating this sort of stuff online (ATVOD for instance) are so insidious. They will be late to the table on to-Smart TV regulation (regulation is always reactionary) but they will try to stop what they don't like hitting the main window into our homes.
Of course the other intriguing question, one that has been touched on above, is exactly what level of content it is that we want from our babe shows (provided the channels can manage to survive to the true web-TV dawn)?
To me a babe show is not really a babe show if it looks like porn. My dream for my web TV is for babe shows, feed in HD quality, that look something like Bangbabes of 2010! Those are the type of visuals that I would be happiest with. (And the type of service I am most likely to spend money supporting.) Bikinis and such during the day with nothing too direct to camera. Anything but pussy during the night. (Or simply have two separate feeds, with different protection methods if you like, and let the consumer choose which one is for them)... Well I can dream can't I?!
RE: Elite TV/Studio 66 - General Chat & Discussion - Doc Holliday - 25-02-2015 15:18
(25-02-2015 13:59 )KerrAvon Wrote: I wouldn't believe a lot of company's description of their 'principle' activity.
So if you don't believe Cellcast's main activity is running phone in channels, what do you think their business really is?
Don't say "an international telecoms tech company" because as others have pointed out that's just another way of saying phone in channels.
RE: Elite TV/Studio 66 - General Chat & Discussion - KerrAvon - 25-02-2015 15:21
(25-02-2015 14:10 )tony confederate Wrote: If stated incorrectly in their accounts it would constitute a criminal offence.
Assuming Cellcast are committing a criminal offence, as you claim, and are hiding their true activities....
Never claimed they were pal, just saying that what a company, including Cellcast, puts as their Principal Activity may be totally accurate or may not be. Would you put your life on any company being totally accurate? I wouldn't. Especially as wording can be made ambiguous.
RE: Elite TV/Studio 66 - General Chat & Discussion - Bandwagon - 25-02-2015 15:28
Are Cellcast not looking into gambling and gaming for the future? I don't know whether that is designed to support their current activities or a complete change in direction.
If it's the latter, then we have our answer as to how things are likely to turn out. Interesting that RLC are also using gambling advertisement to support themselves too.
It all seems quite desperate to me, hence my reasoning for thinking were close to being up the proverbial creek.
So you can go around the woods and back again, but for me it still remains that regulations need to change.
RE: Elite TV/Studio 66 - General Chat & Discussion - tony confederate - 25-02-2015 15:33
(25-02-2015 15:21 )KerrAvon Wrote: what a company, including Cellcast, puts as their Principal Activity may be totally accurate or may not be. Would you put your life on any company being totally accurate? I wouldn't.
Yes, because if a PLC (such as Cellcast) misstates its principal activities that is a material misstatement of fact which is held to be defrauding shareholders. The penalties for fraud can be very severe.
To repeat Doc Holliday's question, if you don't believe Cellcast's main activity is running phone in channels, what do you think their business is?
[split] Elite TV/Studio 66 - General Chat & Discussion - winsaw - 25-02-2015 15:50
(25-02-2015 13:04 )Prince Henry Sinclair Wrote: Since when did Playboy takeover Red Light?
I know that Red Light supply the girls and produce Playboy TV Chat for them, but since when did the Red Light channels become Playboy ones?
I know they are RENTED from Playboy but that's another matter entirely.
Playboy have not taken over RLC, their relationship is more of a partnership as they have worked with each other for a long time with Pumpkin producing a lot of content for Playboy,
Playboy TV Chat has always been a holly owned RLC channel, to be clear i don't mean own the tv channel i mean the content on it,
they did a deal with Playboy to use there name/brand, this is why not all girls work on 902 as they set down rules on what type of girl could be on there ie girls with the Playboy look only,
RE: Elite TV/Studio 66 - General Chat & Discussion - admiral decker - 25-02-2015 15:51
(25-02-2015 11:51 )Digital Dave Wrote: Cellcast (Babestation channels): Cellcast are not purely a babe channel operator and are in fact an international telecoms tech company. They run babe channels (also astrology and psychic channels) as a testbed for their systems and to generate cash. Admiral Decker is wrong when he conflates Cellcast's poor figures with Babestation. As Hannah's Pet regularly reminds him (only to be ignored), these losses are for the group as a whole, and we don't know how much of this is down to Babestation.
You say I'm wrong, but my version of the facts is nevertheless closer to the truth than yours.
Unless you can prove otherwise?