+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Night Shows (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Former Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=236)
+---- Forum: Bluebird TV (/forumdisplay.php?fid=165)
+---- Thread: Bluebird TV - Chat & Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=19210)
RE: Bluebird TV - Chat & Discussion - headspin - 06-07-2010 22:25
(06-07-2010 22:17 )vostok 1 Wrote: We are talking about the 900 channels, not football, record labels etc.
Would another channel want to spend money to buy out a contract belonging to a Babe channel performer who quit their channel, hire lawyers, mount a legal challenge, go to court, or would they hire someone new without a contract?
I should have been clearer, I was talking about the movie arm of bluebird that some of the girls are supposedly tied to, if a big U.S xxx film maker wanted to take one of the girls for their own stable and the girl wants to leave as well then they'll just take them, wether it means court or out of court..... Like the football club analogy, the big clubs just get what they want....
RE: Bluebird TV - Chat & Discussion - amdixon_1 - 06-07-2010 22:48
(06-07-2010 21:22 )vostok 1 Wrote:(06-07-2010 13:34 )Freebird Wrote: the part i'm secretly looking forward to is seeing how many of the bluebird girls leave within 4 or 5 weeks of it starting. they may be under contract but i'd imagine in this business contracts are easy to get out of.
[i]"Be aware that under their contracts, they are not allowed to shoot for anyone else for 1 year after their contract ends, without our prior permission. You can understand that when we have paid for boobjobs etc etc, we need to protect the rights in their name and image."
"BB has rights over the use of contract girl during and after the contract. The rights are protected by law. If a person breaches those rights, he is liable."
Talk about selling your soul to the devil. Does anyone know if the girls had to sign the contracts in their own blood?
RE: Bluebird TV - Chat & Discussion - Regenerated - 06-07-2010 23:28
Seems like bluebird don't like us members having opinions.
RE: Bluebird TV - Chat & Discussion - MrJack - 06-07-2010 23:42
I think it's a bit disgusting to tie employees down for any period after their contract has finished.
I only hope the girls contacted their lawyers (although we know at least one didn't) or that they're comfortable being tied long term to this company for richer or poorer, better or worse...
I'm not even sure that's legal in the EU, if babe channels can be compared to football clubs, could out of contract girls be compared to Monsieur Bosman?
RE: Bluebird TV - Chat & Discussion - tsurugi - 06-07-2010 23:43
(06-07-2010 23:28 )Regenerated Wrote: Seems like bluebird don't like us members having opinions.
They do as long its the one shared by them. If we all bought into their bullshit they would still be here shoving more of it down are throats.
RE: Bluebird TV - Chat & Discussion - Regenerated - 06-07-2010 23:46
(06-07-2010 23:43 )tsurugi Wrote:(06-07-2010 23:28 )Regenerated Wrote: Seems like bluebird don't like us members having opinions.
They do as long its the one shared by them. If we all bought into their bullshit they would still be here shoving more of it down are throats.
exactly, they've shown disrespect to all of us. They just don't deliver when it comes to promises.
RE: Bluebird TV - Chat & Discussion - Gaz "AV1" Aston - 06-07-2010 23:55
(06-07-2010 23:42 )MrJack Wrote: I think it's a bit disgusting to tie employees down for any period after their contract has finished.
I'm not even sure that's legal in the EU, if babe channels can be compared to football clubs, could out of contract girls be compared to Monsieur Bosman?
I was going to post that exact comparison..
The case concerned freedom of movement for workers...Surely they cant restrict a female performer from working elsewhere in her chosen profession???
Would the same apply in the instance of a girl say leaving Bluebird to join playboy??
RE: Bluebird TV - Chat & Discussion - Regenerated - 07-07-2010 00:02
(06-07-2010 23:55 )astonv1 Wrote: I was going to post that exact comparison..
The case concerned freedom of movement for workers...Surely they cant restrict a female performer from working elsewhere in her chosen profession???
Would the same apply in the instance of a girl say leaving Bluebird to join playboy??
Agreed. Surely its an infringement of human rights laws to restrict work. When people are in a job and find a job elsewhere, then hand a notice in, the company cannot stop them from leaving. Would the same thing apply for example if somebody wanted to leave one law firm and go to work for another law firm, perhaps a rival?
RE: Bluebird TV - Chat & Discussion - MrJack - 07-07-2010 00:09
(07-07-2010 00:02 )Regenerated Wrote: Agreed. Surely its an infringement of human rights laws to restrict work. When people are in a job and find a job elsewhere, then hand a notice in, the company cannot stop them from leaving. Would the same thing apply for example if somebody wanted to leave one law firm and go to work for another law firm, perhaps a rival?
I think I have heard of no-compete clauses but I think that only entailed someone owning a business and having that business bought off them rather than a contract of employment. Where's a lawyer when you need one?!
RE: Bluebird TV - Chat & Discussion - chrislatimer - 07-07-2010 00:10
Critics corner is dead on their forum if anyone cares.
guess they got fed up.