+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: UK Babe Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Forum: Broadcasting Regulations (/forumdisplay.php?fid=138)
+---- Thread: Ofcom Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=14756)
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
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Digital Dave - 08-01-2013 12:43
(08-01-2013 12:31 )schmoo Wrote: Also, re my/your "vexatious" comment, i meant to suggest that it also works the other way too - by that, i mean Ofcom are "vexatiously" targeting the channels in respect of breaches and punishments etc.
Ah yes, good point!
RE: Ofcom Discussion - RESPONSIBLE ADULT - 08-01-2013 15:37
I believe the channels are just following a pre-conceived idea of allowing the StatusQuo to continue. Why change things when everything at the moment seems to be profitable. If the channels really are dropping each other in the shit. Then they need commending for the simplicity of their plan, First I'll drop you in it, then you can drop me in it. Then the both of us will drop them twats from that other channel deep in it. Then we can all walk away and let them cunts from Ofcom take the flak from our poor deluded fans, And there you go, Ofcom are happy because they are seen by their pay-masters as getting results. The channels are happy because they still manage to get 1.53 or 2.00 per minute out of their customers without really doing fuck all. And the people who phone, well they are also happy because they like to be called "baby" by a girl on a premium rate phone line. The only people who are not happy are the people who have come to expect adult material on an adult programme. Grrrrr!
RE: Ofcom Discussion - shylok - 08-01-2013 16:52
(08-01-2013 15:37 )RESPONSIBLE ADULT Wrote: I believe the channels are just following a pre-conceived idea of allowing the StatusQuo to continue. Why change things when everything at the moment seems to be profitable. If the channels really are dropping each other in the shit. Then they need commending for the simplicity of their plan, First I'll drop you in it, then you can drop me in it. Then the both of us will drop them twats from that other channel deep in it. Then we can all walk away and let them cunts from Ofcom take the flak from our poor deluded fans, And there you go, Ofcom are happy because they are seen by their pay-masters as getting results. The channels are happy because they still manage to get 1.53 or 2.00 per minute out of their customers without really doing fuck all. And the people who phone, well they are also happy because they like to be called "baby" by a girl on a premium rate phone line. The only people who are not happy are the people who have come to expect adult material on an adult programme. Grrrrr!
Good post RA...
Oh course an easy way to break the cycle is stop calling the cunts and watch the fuckers burn. The only thing that matters a fuck in this game is CASH! Deprive the cunts of this and either they will change or go under and if they do go under they fucking deserve it (so do the moaning bitches) for the gross inaction... BTW this might even make one of "them cunts" in 'compliance' at OFPRICK redundant but I very much doubt it...
Shylok
RE: Ofcom Discussion - StanTheMan - 08-01-2013 20:45
This is fast becoming a three-way war between us ('people who have come to expect adult material on an adult programme' as RA so rightly puts it), Ofcom, and the FanBoys. Unfortunately the FB clearly out-number us. There's loads of the silent fuckers out there, pouring their cash into the Babeshow machine come rain or shine. If only they'd realise how hard the producers and girls are laughing as they skip to the bank.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - shylok - 09-01-2013 15:07
Enjoy!!!:
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=52551
Shylok
RE: Ofcom Discussion - shano123 - 09-01-2013 16:17
Lol it's true what one of the posts said above, people just get off by being called "baby" and being told "do u like that" when they call the girls
RE: Ofcom Discussion - winsaw - 09-01-2013 17:35
(07-01-2013 23:37 )Digital Dave Wrote: Why would people be targeting Chatgirl TV? It's a pretty dumb strategy to go after the most boring and bland channel in the 900s, apart from XXXpanded, which also received a complaint! Very odd.
i would say its strategy to keep them were they are, some channel don't want it to become a big 4 as this would hit their pocket,
if chatgirl seams to be in trouble all the time playboy will be less likely to give them a night show, best way to beet the competition don't let it get started in the first place
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 11-01-2013 02:19
In the 50s, 60s and 70s Russia and the USA had a nuclear defence strategy called Mutually Assured Destruction, MAD for short. The idea was that both sides had weapons so devastating that neither side would risk starting a nuclear war. Even if they fired first the retaliation would wipe them out.
What we seem to be seeing is little bursts of MAD, by people who dont understand they should not press the red button, rather than sustained nonstop retaliation, and the gradual destruction of all players as they make the environment more and more toxic.
Its the innocent victims that bother me.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - munch1917 - 16-01-2013 14:30
Ofcom have fined Playboy a total of £100,000 for allowing under-age access to pornographic content on two of it's websites.
This case has been ongoing for a while, and we have mentioned it here before, but this is the final adjudication from our great protectors! The internet is once again safe thanks to Ofcom
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/playboy-fined-over-porn-websites-accessible-to-children-8453967.html
http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2013/01/16/playboy-fined-100000-for-failing-to-protect-children/
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mrmann - 16-01-2013 14:34
How can they fine them though, as they don't have the porn filter thing on yet, or whatever it is that they were starting to do.
Plenty of sites allow anyone to gain entry to, so how can they legally fine a Playboy site?