(10-05-2013 13:29 )Rammyrascal Wrote:  . how do you know it was Jamie or anyone else at s66 that is making the 241's at rlc how they are at the moment and has made some posts on here disappear for whatever reason. yes there is seemingly evidence s66/elite have grassed on rlc in the past but it doesn't mean they've grassed on rlc again I remember rlc being targeted by another channel NOT S66 and had to tone things down back then,

(10-05-2013 14:30 )mr mystery Wrote:  snip

(10-05-2013 15:13 )Rammyrascal Wrote:  thought you did know about rlc since you mentioned about a channel boss offering to send Ofcom evidence by courier which was what Jamie apparently did. which is why I said how do you know it was Jamie or s66 that has apparently grassed rlc and it could have been another channel etc

(10-05-2013 09:55 )mr mystery Wrote:  Maybe RLC got the nod that a little rat of a channel boss (channel represented on this forum) was up to his tricks again ? and was recording the RLC channels on DVD looking for anything a little risky, so he could inform Ofcom and offer to send the evidence to Ofcom by courier like he has done to rivals in the past (verified by Ofcom) so RLC are playing safe .
Now let me think again what channel was found "in breach" not long ago concerning 2-4-1's so maybe wants other channels to suffer the same fate, o yes it begins with a S and ind in a 6

(12-05-2013 08:56 )Prince Henry Sinclair Wrote:  

(10-05-2013 09:55 )mr mystery Wrote:  Maybe RLC got the nod a channel boss (channel represented on this forum) was up to his tricks again ? and was recording the RLC channels on DVD looking for anything a little risky, so he could inform Ofcom and offer to send the evidence to Ofcom by courier like he has done to rivals in the past (verified by Ofcom) so RLC are playing safe .

May I ask if there is there any evidence of what you suggest or is it pure speculation? I wondered because the Bang Babes Youtube account seemed to point the finger in another direction entirely. So I was curious if these statements made from time to time about who sent material to Ofcom were backed up by anything in the way of evidence or is it all guesswork?

(31-10-2012 12:13 )MONEY BANG Wrote:  Wow, I'm shocked! I thought it was "The Mary Whitehouse Brigade" that made these complaints, however it seems that rival channels love to use Ofcom to put others out of business.

Quote:As I explained on the phone over the last 6 weeks we have noticed
the level of content on the channels above coming more and more
sexually explicit with it now reaching a point where its is clearly
pornographic.

The recordings listed are just a few that we thinking clearly
demonstrates that this is something that is happening on a regular
basis and is clearly intended.

We are concerned that the level of content is not only having a
hugely negative affect on our business but also reflects badly on the
industry as a whole.

This is also now affecting the moral of our staff and is generally
quite concerning as its happening on such a regular basis.

We have invested heavily in our business and feel content and
behaviour as such as this affects the whole stability of our industry.
Its important that as an industry we all act responsibly in our duties
as broadcasters and it seems that the channels above are
continually going way beyond the mark in terms of the level of
content available.

Please accept this letter and its contents as a formal complaint of
the listed broadcasts.

We would not like our details disclosed to the broadcaster and
request privacy in dealing with this matter

We would appreciate your assistance in looking into this matter and
acting to prevent it continuing.

Look forward to hearing back from you.

Quote:We have continued to monitor certain channels in the Adult area of
Business, the EPG, and in particular the “Tease Me” channels. We feel
compelled to report that, despite several recent Ofcom published
decisions with regard to this genre, as well as Chris Banatvala’s
letter to all such free to air channels dated 3 August 2009, many
channels are continuing unabashed and on a daily/nightly basis,
and that this broadcaster has deliberately continued to broadcast
material that goes far beyond established limits.

By way of example, the “Tease Me 2” channel, on its “Bang Babes”
programme on Tuesday 24th November 2009, from 23:26pm
showed clear footage of 2 female presenters simulating sex acts
including oral sex, fisting, rimming and masturbation with each
other. At times, the models spat on each other and showed genital
detail. Obviously this is unacceptable, and only encourages other
licensees to broadcast similar. We will courier to you this afternoon
a DVD recording of this broadcast for your ease of reference,
(though we appreciate that you will seek a copy directly from the
relevant licence holder). We would be grateful if you would please
confirm receipt of the same. We would be grateful if you could
please treat this email as a formal complaint on a confidential basis,
and would invite Ofcom to follow up this complaint with the
appropriate broadcaster in its usual way. Thanks and kind regards.

Thanks to NOTW for requesting this information. Hopefully the forum can now see that it is other Babe channels that do not want explicitness on TV.

(31-10-2012 13:37 )Chilly Wrote:  The rival channel/owner that put the likes of Bailey's shows under the Ofcom spotlight

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=30822&pid=785522#pid785522

(01-11-2012 16:35 )Digital Dave Wrote:  It should be easy to deduce which channel it is if the business's post code (or that of their stooges) is detailed in the complaint. I couldn't read much of the complaint list as I was getting too angry!

Chilly flagged up a post yesterday from a channel owner (posted last year) and suggested he was the one. I agree, in fact I'd put money on it.

The use of language is the same in the post as in the complaint to Ofcom. Furthermore, it's known that there was no love lost between BangBabes and the person in question. This person also used to run BangBabes.