Hi Colonel,
In a thread you started earlier today (Babestation, Babecast bye bye?) you said:
"Looks like Ofcom feels the same way about these and similar channels that we do, and have an ultimatum: go subscription or be closed down."
Why is it that yourself and the BGAFD community feels the same way as ofcom?
Even if these channels went to subscription on satellite they wouldn't be much stronger than they are now, (TVX Call Girls live after 11pm being an example of this.)
Do the majority of posters on here feel that ultra soft f.t.a shows such as Babestation/Babecast/Bangbabes is stopping an R18 strength subscription channel from making it to UK airwaves, or that it that they take money out of the pockets of UK organisations/webmasters by showing free wank material? ("free" being the fact that you don't have to call and text these shows if you don't want too.)
In my own experience, watching these free channels has encouraged me to put money in the pockets of UK porn companies, I subscribed to Killergram when Delta White and Anaya Leon (2 ex babestation girls) started working for them and I'm sure that Killergram/Pornostatic would agree that the "name value" of performers from these channels such as Jen Keelings/Kiesha Kane/Lyka Lopez has made them money.
You only have to look at the amount of messages that appear on this site asking " N E 1 AV PICS OR VIDS OF VICTORIA, DIONNE, WHATS ER NAME OFF OF BABECAST" to see that these free to air programs is creating an interest in UK performers, admittedly only a small minority of the Girls that work on these shows do boy/girl hardcore, but those that do can carry off their exposure from f.t.a to the hardcore work that they also do, making more money for themselves and the companies that produce hardcore material that feature them.
I realise that it is annoying for you when these requests for "pics of whats er name off babecast" appear on your forum and that you want to scream "JUST GOOGLE HER EFFING NAME" and smash their Burberry clad skulls against the pavement, but they are asking for information on UK talent, not for info on Jenna Jameson or Tera Patrick, and I would think that creating widely known talent from the Babe shows, that have enough cross-over appeal to appear in mags such as Nuts and Zoo is a good thing for UK porn?
I see these shows as a similar thing to "feature dancing" in the US, porn stars touring the country at strip clubs, to create more exposure for themselves and sell more Porn movies that they star in. Also look at Jenna Jameson, she made her name from appearing in "E! Wild on", a show shown on the free cable network E! Entertainment, that featured her touring exotic beaches talking to women in bikinis. You don't get more softcore than that!
Plus don't these channels create a slightly more stable income for uk talent? Look at the example of Carmel Moore as mentioned on the main forum this week: She is now doing Bangbabes because work slowed down a little recently. I'm sure Angel Long, Harmony Hex, Lolly Badcock, even Cathy Barry welcome the income these shows provide.
Also, don't forget this type of channel exisits on the continent where you can watch hardcore via your satellite dish through subscription. So there obviously is a demand for this type of thing.
I just find it strange that this forum, of all places, would agree with ofcom proposals in relation to porn, even if it is ultra soft porn.
So the question is to both the Colonel and the BGAFD community is: why does the BGAFD family want to see these channels closed down, or go subscription and loose money and eventually close down ( XXX 4U being the example.)
Thanks for taking the time to read.
Question for Colonel re Babestation etc.
Re: Question for Colonel re Babestation etc.
For some inexplicable reason these channels make shit loads of money and because they make shit loads of money, until the Status Quo changes, we don't get to watch R18 on TV. This is why there is so much contempt. They are funded by fools and governed by twunts.
The broadcasters are as guilty as Ofcon. Under current legislation Ofcon have a duty to protect the consumer from false and ambiguous advertising. Not one member form the 'Cartel' will openly on this forum answer the question: "what do you show, what do you say you show and what does Ofcon say you can show?". Not one. Why? Because they lose the shit loads of money they are conning .... sorry ... coining in.
We are all familiar with the Ofcon Code , it being set of guidelines to current broadcasting law and nothing more as it is not on the Statute Books and has not been laid before Parliament. They are made under a requirement by the law and therefore should conform to the law. Thus by definition if you follow the guidance you would comply with the law and would not be prosecuted/fined for anything that you broadcast.
Now, the Department of Culture Media and Sport state that "In order to encourage free movement of broadcasts, all broadcasting must comply with the European Directive, "Television Without Frontiers" or TVWF.
Broadcasting matters covered by the Directive include sports rights, right of reply, advertising, sponsorship and protection of minors." The key word there is MUST. All broadcasting MUST be compatible with the TVWF Directive.
So if we look at Article 22 of TVWF:
1. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that television broadcasts by broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not include any programmes which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, in particular programmes that involve pornography or gratuitous violence.
2. The measures provided for in paragraph 1 shall also extend to other programmes which are likely to impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, except where it is ensured, by selecting the time of the broadcast or by any technical measure, that minors in the area of transmission will not normally hear or see such broadcasts.
3. Furthermore, when such programmes are broadcast in unencoded form Member States shall ensure that they are preceded by an acoustic warning or are identified by the presence of a visual symbol throughout their duration.
So by explicit instruction from the DCMS, the above, from the TVWF Directive, must comply with the Broadcast Code and current Broadcast Law.
Article 22(1) From the Ofcon Code, R18 strength pornography has been banned by the code.
Now the High Court said this was not obscene and not likely to seriously impair the moral or psychological development of minors. That is the current legal position, it is now a matter of Case Law and legal precedent made at a Judicial Review. And then subsequently ignored by the Ofcom Code.
Article 22(2) extending to 22(1), says that programmes that are `only`likely to impair minors, can be transmitted at an appropriate time when minors are unlikely to be viewing OR, where technical measures prevent likely access. The PIN system is deemed effective in allowing violent films to go out at times of the day when children ARE likely to be viewing but, deemed totally ineffective for late night broadcasting of R18 type material when minors are NOT likely to be viewing. Now `porn` and `violence` are not allowed to appear together at R18, and the BBFC enforce that rule with truly religious passion. So exactly what did the Ofcom Content Board Members find so `strong`that in their opinion R18 was more harmful to minors than either the BBFC allow or, the High Court could find evidence for?
22(2) actually states that if there is only a likelihood that children could be impaired by certain material, but not `seriously` then, the transmission can go ahead at an appropriate time or at any time where technical measures permit pre-watershed broadcast. For a decision to ban R18 to be legal, it has to be accompanied by proof that there is a likelihood of `serious` impairment, which currently, simply does not exist.
Now we take a look at Article 2:
Article 2(3) At the same time, TVWF requires member states do not restrict the retransmission of TV programming originating in other EU states as long as it meets TVWF rules. ... In this way the TVWF creates a single market in the EU TV industry. So, as none of the foreign adult services (bar one) have been proscribed since 2000, we must assume that these services do indeed comply with the TVWF rules else the DCMS would have acted to proscribe them, as they did with Xtasi.
It follows then that Ofcom cannot have applied the TVWF rules correctly and indeed have created an isolated market actively excluding `EU strength` adult channels being carried by domestic cable and satellite services. This quite obviously goes against the stated objectives of TVWF to create a single market and, affects those `fundamental public interests` such as Freedom of Expression with regard to TV broadcasting.
All this appears to be rather disproportionate and unjustified, relying totally on personal taste, morality and opinion as to its necessity.
R18 strength material can be broadcast but Ofcon will never get a 'fuck you' whilst the broadcasters make shit loads of money out of sad sacks believing they hype and the ambiguous advertising.
Ergo this is good news.
The broadcasters are as guilty as Ofcon. Under current legislation Ofcon have a duty to protect the consumer from false and ambiguous advertising. Not one member form the 'Cartel' will openly on this forum answer the question: "what do you show, what do you say you show and what does Ofcon say you can show?". Not one. Why? Because they lose the shit loads of money they are conning .... sorry ... coining in.
We are all familiar with the Ofcon Code , it being set of guidelines to current broadcasting law and nothing more as it is not on the Statute Books and has not been laid before Parliament. They are made under a requirement by the law and therefore should conform to the law. Thus by definition if you follow the guidance you would comply with the law and would not be prosecuted/fined for anything that you broadcast.
Now, the Department of Culture Media and Sport state that "In order to encourage free movement of broadcasts, all broadcasting must comply with the European Directive, "Television Without Frontiers" or TVWF.
Broadcasting matters covered by the Directive include sports rights, right of reply, advertising, sponsorship and protection of minors." The key word there is MUST. All broadcasting MUST be compatible with the TVWF Directive.
So if we look at Article 22 of TVWF:
1. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that television broadcasts by broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not include any programmes which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, in particular programmes that involve pornography or gratuitous violence.
2. The measures provided for in paragraph 1 shall also extend to other programmes which are likely to impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, except where it is ensured, by selecting the time of the broadcast or by any technical measure, that minors in the area of transmission will not normally hear or see such broadcasts.
3. Furthermore, when such programmes are broadcast in unencoded form Member States shall ensure that they are preceded by an acoustic warning or are identified by the presence of a visual symbol throughout their duration.
So by explicit instruction from the DCMS, the above, from the TVWF Directive, must comply with the Broadcast Code and current Broadcast Law.
Article 22(1) From the Ofcon Code, R18 strength pornography has been banned by the code.
Now the High Court said this was not obscene and not likely to seriously impair the moral or psychological development of minors. That is the current legal position, it is now a matter of Case Law and legal precedent made at a Judicial Review. And then subsequently ignored by the Ofcom Code.
Article 22(2) extending to 22(1), says that programmes that are `only`likely to impair minors, can be transmitted at an appropriate time when minors are unlikely to be viewing OR, where technical measures prevent likely access. The PIN system is deemed effective in allowing violent films to go out at times of the day when children ARE likely to be viewing but, deemed totally ineffective for late night broadcasting of R18 type material when minors are NOT likely to be viewing. Now `porn` and `violence` are not allowed to appear together at R18, and the BBFC enforce that rule with truly religious passion. So exactly what did the Ofcom Content Board Members find so `strong`that in their opinion R18 was more harmful to minors than either the BBFC allow or, the High Court could find evidence for?
22(2) actually states that if there is only a likelihood that children could be impaired by certain material, but not `seriously` then, the transmission can go ahead at an appropriate time or at any time where technical measures permit pre-watershed broadcast. For a decision to ban R18 to be legal, it has to be accompanied by proof that there is a likelihood of `serious` impairment, which currently, simply does not exist.
Now we take a look at Article 2:
Article 2(3) At the same time, TVWF requires member states do not restrict the retransmission of TV programming originating in other EU states as long as it meets TVWF rules. ... In this way the TVWF creates a single market in the EU TV industry. So, as none of the foreign adult services (bar one) have been proscribed since 2000, we must assume that these services do indeed comply with the TVWF rules else the DCMS would have acted to proscribe them, as they did with Xtasi.
It follows then that Ofcom cannot have applied the TVWF rules correctly and indeed have created an isolated market actively excluding `EU strength` adult channels being carried by domestic cable and satellite services. This quite obviously goes against the stated objectives of TVWF to create a single market and, affects those `fundamental public interests` such as Freedom of Expression with regard to TV broadcasting.
All this appears to be rather disproportionate and unjustified, relying totally on personal taste, morality and opinion as to its necessity.
R18 strength material can be broadcast but Ofcon will never get a 'fuck you' whilst the broadcasters make shit loads of money out of sad sacks believing they hype and the ambiguous advertising.
Ergo this is good news.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Re: Question for Colonel re Babestation etc.
Thanks for the enlightenment as to how the BGAFD forum feels Jacques. I truly understand the resentment about the Adult channel, TVX and others. I feel it too!
I would have thought that since they make truck loads of money through handcuffing subscribers to 12 month contracts, that they would be able to address the issue of R18. But as you say, since they are already making an awful lot through soft core, then I guess they are happy.
Although I didn't think that FTA such as Bangbabes would have prevented broadcasters from wanting to show R18 on a subscription basis, since both hardcore (subscription) and softcore "babe style" (free to air) exist side by side in Europe on Hotbird.
btw: Is "TVX Mole" an actual employee of TVX?
I would have thought that since they make truck loads of money through handcuffing subscribers to 12 month contracts, that they would be able to address the issue of R18. But as you say, since they are already making an awful lot through soft core, then I guess they are happy.
Although I didn't think that FTA such as Bangbabes would have prevented broadcasters from wanting to show R18 on a subscription basis, since both hardcore (subscription) and softcore "babe style" (free to air) exist side by side in Europe on Hotbird.
btw: Is "TVX Mole" an actual employee of TVX?
Re: Question for Colonel re Babestation etc.
Vostok,
I humbly refer you to Jacques' post- which is infinitely better than anything I could have written.
But one caveat. I hope that we note our favourite performers and go and buy their stuff- DVDs, videos etc- from them and cut out the middlemen of these shit channels.
Take Essex Babes...the 40+ Readers Wives on there will be missed by me- the likes of Wendy Taylor, Naomi and Victoria. They will lose income- and the fatcat bosses of these channels will move onto something else.
So buy the girls' goods- give em the cash and lets see them nude on DVD at 10am- not merely topless at 10pm.
I humbly refer you to Jacques' post- which is infinitely better than anything I could have written.
But one caveat. I hope that we note our favourite performers and go and buy their stuff- DVDs, videos etc- from them and cut out the middlemen of these shit channels.
Take Essex Babes...the 40+ Readers Wives on there will be missed by me- the likes of Wendy Taylor, Naomi and Victoria. They will lose income- and the fatcat bosses of these channels will move onto something else.
So buy the girls' goods- give em the cash and lets see them nude on DVD at 10am- not merely topless at 10pm.
Re: Question for Colonel re Babestation etc.
Colonel wrote:
"So buy the girls' goods- give em the cash and lets see them nude on DVD at 10am- not merely topless at 10pm."
I totally agree Colonel! My almost complete DVD collection of the works of Michelle B, Leah Jaye, and Rio Mariah is testimony to that.
However, as I said in the first post, seeing girls on soft FTA babe shows encouraged me to purchase hardcore work that they have gone on to make and subscribe to a British site producing fantastic quality material that is constantly updated, (killergram) instead of cash just going to US firms such as Zero Tolerance and 3RD Degree.
At this very moment I have Yvette from Babestation on in the background. I know there is no chance in hell that I will ever see whats inside of her panties, but it is a nice (free) distraction to look at when there isn't the appetite for full on viewing. It beats the repeats on TVX anyway.
"So buy the girls' goods- give em the cash and lets see them nude on DVD at 10am- not merely topless at 10pm."
I totally agree Colonel! My almost complete DVD collection of the works of Michelle B, Leah Jaye, and Rio Mariah is testimony to that.
However, as I said in the first post, seeing girls on soft FTA babe shows encouraged me to purchase hardcore work that they have gone on to make and subscribe to a British site producing fantastic quality material that is constantly updated, (killergram) instead of cash just going to US firms such as Zero Tolerance and 3RD Degree.
At this very moment I have Yvette from Babestation on in the background. I know there is no chance in hell that I will ever see whats inside of her panties, but it is a nice (free) distraction to look at when there isn't the appetite for full on viewing. It beats the repeats on TVX anyway.
-
Johnnyboy 22
- Posts: 715
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Question for Colonel re Babestation etc.
Yes i like to have a look at night at all the channels on offer. Whilst we are on the subject of these girls, theres a little gem xalled Lyndsay who presents lads lounge during the day now that is one hottie.
-
Karina Currie
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Question for Colonel re Babestation etc.
Hi Guys
Sorry Jaques but i have to respond to this..........
which types of channel are you refering to when you accuse them of hindering R18 transmission?
Also which channels are you accusing of being a con?
If, and surely thats if, you mean the FTA phone shows then i question where you are coming from? After all, it's these shows that are the ones under fire is it not?
FTA babe shows are not conning people, what you see is what you get as strictly regulated by ofcom and icstis. You choose to watch, You choose to phone, You choose to pay ?1.50 p/m for the pleasure. Nobody puts a gun to the callers head and forces him to dial the eleven digit number, and then wait, in sexstations case, approx 90 secs to get connected. Any adult with an oz of common sense knows that it's tame in comparison to the shows early days, but hey ITC were just leaving and ofcom had to find their feet.
In regards to them stopping R18 transmission i laugh haughtily and put this to you, have you ever considered the knock on effect that televising R18 would have on the countrys few hundred, licence paying sex shops? Hmmm business may slow then shops may close, leaving the local councils and Government slightly out of pocket, wouldn't you think?
Take some of these licence fees as an example and you'll catch my drift
Barking/Dagenham ?19,000 p/a
Bromley ?8271 p/a
Manchester ?7100 p/a
Blackpool ?6555 p/a
Rochdale ?6500 p/a
I couldn't find the costs for central London (i wonder why?) but if Barking is anything to go by then its bloody expensive.
Try thinking out of the "fat porn baron sitting on his piles of conned wonga" box.
FTA shows do nothing but titilate, entertain and most importantly launch new gorgeous porn talent, and give current talent a regular platform to promote themselves as any self respecting model/actress should. we haven't got the luxery of the Richard and Judy show to promote our new spunk filled, arse gaping porno flick.
right sorry for that but i had to get right on my soap box for this one, because as much as you are entitled to your opinion Jaques, and you do well to bolster your argument with copies and pastes, blaming FTA and softcore channels for the lack of R18 on your T.V is ignorant and niave.
still friends?!blush!
hugs to all
Karina xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sorry Jaques but i have to respond to this..........
which types of channel are you refering to when you accuse them of hindering R18 transmission?
Also which channels are you accusing of being a con?
If, and surely thats if, you mean the FTA phone shows then i question where you are coming from? After all, it's these shows that are the ones under fire is it not?
FTA babe shows are not conning people, what you see is what you get as strictly regulated by ofcom and icstis. You choose to watch, You choose to phone, You choose to pay ?1.50 p/m for the pleasure. Nobody puts a gun to the callers head and forces him to dial the eleven digit number, and then wait, in sexstations case, approx 90 secs to get connected. Any adult with an oz of common sense knows that it's tame in comparison to the shows early days, but hey ITC were just leaving and ofcom had to find their feet.
In regards to them stopping R18 transmission i laugh haughtily and put this to you, have you ever considered the knock on effect that televising R18 would have on the countrys few hundred, licence paying sex shops? Hmmm business may slow then shops may close, leaving the local councils and Government slightly out of pocket, wouldn't you think?
Take some of these licence fees as an example and you'll catch my drift
Barking/Dagenham ?19,000 p/a
Bromley ?8271 p/a
Manchester ?7100 p/a
Blackpool ?6555 p/a
Rochdale ?6500 p/a
I couldn't find the costs for central London (i wonder why?) but if Barking is anything to go by then its bloody expensive.
Try thinking out of the "fat porn baron sitting on his piles of conned wonga" box.
FTA shows do nothing but titilate, entertain and most importantly launch new gorgeous porn talent, and give current talent a regular platform to promote themselves as any self respecting model/actress should. we haven't got the luxery of the Richard and Judy show to promote our new spunk filled, arse gaping porno flick.
right sorry for that but i had to get right on my soap box for this one, because as much as you are entitled to your opinion Jaques, and you do well to bolster your argument with copies and pastes, blaming FTA and softcore channels for the lack of R18 on your T.V is ignorant and niave.
still friends?!blush!
hugs to all
Karina xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
A Lady on the streets but a Whore between the sheets aka Karina C.
Porn is an art form. The most Basic, natural human expression, displayed for the pleasure of others. Everyone can do it, but not many do it well
Luv what you do and Fuck like you mean it
Porn is an art form. The most Basic, natural human expression, displayed for the pleasure of others. Everyone can do it, but not many do it well
Luv what you do and Fuck like you mean it
Re: Question for Colonel re Babestation etc.
> which types of channel are you refering to when you accuse them
> of hindering R18 transmission?
> Also which channels are you accusing of being a con?
There are countless examples both on this forum and on others of the "con". It is not restricted to just one channel. For examples do a search for Rico on promo and note the ambiguity.
> FTA babe shows are not conning people, what you see is what you
> get as strictly regulated by ofcom and icstis.
Icstis no longer exist they now PhonepayPlus, a bit picky but a valid point none the less. How could a babe channel get away with it? Two pairs of knickers for gods sake!!! Still you've nothing to worry about the girls desperation is almost that of the viewers.
> have you ever considered the knock on
> effect that televising R18 would have on the countrys few
> hundred, licence paying sex shops?
Yes, we as a consumer don't get charged ?25 form some second rate Rude Britannia crap. Secondly the License fee, should AITA not be doing more to lobby the excessive cost? But then With Red Jerry at the helm, that's not going to happen is it? Paymaster wouldn't like it. Still you don't need a licence in 'Free Europe' and the two live happily side by side.
> Jaques, and you do well to bolster your argument with copies
> and pastes
Not so, taken directly from a letter written by me to Riverside House.
Sorry but whilst there is still money from selling softcore, there will never be change, a judicial review or any form of challenge to Ofcon. I haven't even got to the cosy little arrangement yet.
Then there is the ?25,000 fine for transmitting sexually explicit material 15 minutes after the 9pm watershed. Anyone been watching Five Life lately? No fine for them. So why didn't the broadcaster stand-up to Ofcon? Because they can still coin it in under the current status quo.
> of hindering R18 transmission?
> Also which channels are you accusing of being a con?
There are countless examples both on this forum and on others of the "con". It is not restricted to just one channel. For examples do a search for Rico on promo and note the ambiguity.
> FTA babe shows are not conning people, what you see is what you
> get as strictly regulated by ofcom and icstis.
Icstis no longer exist they now PhonepayPlus, a bit picky but a valid point none the less. How could a babe channel get away with it? Two pairs of knickers for gods sake!!! Still you've nothing to worry about the girls desperation is almost that of the viewers.
> have you ever considered the knock on
> effect that televising R18 would have on the countrys few
> hundred, licence paying sex shops?
Yes, we as a consumer don't get charged ?25 form some second rate Rude Britannia crap. Secondly the License fee, should AITA not be doing more to lobby the excessive cost? But then With Red Jerry at the helm, that's not going to happen is it? Paymaster wouldn't like it. Still you don't need a licence in 'Free Europe' and the two live happily side by side.
> Jaques, and you do well to bolster your argument with copies
> and pastes
Not so, taken directly from a letter written by me to Riverside House.
Sorry but whilst there is still money from selling softcore, there will never be change, a judicial review or any form of challenge to Ofcon. I haven't even got to the cosy little arrangement yet.
Then there is the ?25,000 fine for transmitting sexually explicit material 15 minutes after the 9pm watershed. Anyone been watching Five Life lately? No fine for them. So why didn't the broadcaster stand-up to Ofcon? Because they can still coin it in under the current status quo.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Re: Question for Colonel re Babestation etc.
One other thing Karina, would you like to answer the following question? I have asked it many times on here and nobody has ever answered it.
"What do you show, what do you say you show and what does Ofcon say you can show?"
Maybe you could get others in the industry to answer the same question?
"What do you show, what do you say you show and what does Ofcon say you can show?"
Maybe you could get others in the industry to answer the same question?
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
-
Karina Currie
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Question for Colonel re Babestation etc.
Thanks for your reply Jacques
You often mention looser euro politics vs the u.k and I understand your frustrations, but lets get this straight are we or are we not discussing what is happening in this country? i would love it if we could follow europes sex industry standard but we can't.
Two pairs of knickers can hardly be seen as a con for goodness sakes! i personally only wear and will always only wear one pair of knickers. it gets kind of warm down there! for the girls that wear 2, well what can i say, the reasons are varied, from to much pussy lip slippage to the girls own personal choice but rules state no ringskin and no visable curtains or short and curlys, 9pm-10pm fully dressed no panties on show at all, topless from 10pm but on FTA you cannot appear gratuitious, you must keep things in context no foul overtly sexual language on mic and no sexual simulation of any kind including the vigourous sucking of digits, think fhm implied girl/girl. subscription stuff isn't much better, when we ended up being told that it must all be simulated and obviously simulated. no wagging the tail! so there you have your cons and limitations. if your talking about false advertising on subscription soft channels then complain to trading standards if you haven't already, surely if it is seen as false advertising then you have a case do you not? Most guys either from mates or web reviews will pretty much be aware of the strength of uk subscription channels yet you sound as if all these poor saps are being led blind then rinsed of their money. Why shouldn't there be a market for softcore? you have little faith in the buying public jacques. in this day and age when we have so much choice, so many outlets, if softcore wasn't desired it wouldn't be produced. it's a buyers market believe me.
As for the licences, i admire any organization who takes on the bigboys but do you honestly think they could make a difference in a world still programmed to view porn as a dirty sub-culture. Sex shops without the need for a licence would pop up everywhere and oh no we can't have that, god help the poor wee kiddies! just finding a suitable location for a shop without 20,000 petitions coming up is nigh on impossible because we live on top of each other, europes a much bigger place with the capability of not encroaching on suburban family filled places.
I'm not just saying all this because i'm working on a FTA show and i have a vested interest, thats only part of it, what i'm saying is, it is as it is and the companies that will be most affected are fighting it, who knows from one day to the next what the regulators will impose, what ever their name may be. But to constantly berate these channels for most of the problems with viewing restrictions, when it's generally just the shows viewers, talent and sometimes producers that pop into these forums your constantly attacking the supposed girls you come on this site for.
i know this is not an intentional outcome of yours and its not personal to any of the girls, who are just doing their job and trying to pay their bills like everyone else and to lose this regular adult orientated entertainment would mean a lot of girls retiring to more reliable "normal jobs"
porn really is a true calling, there's just not enough money in it for it to be anything but.
once again rant over, i might think of something else to say later but i've run out of steam. ohhhh i do like a good debate
hugs xxxxx
Karina
You often mention looser euro politics vs the u.k and I understand your frustrations, but lets get this straight are we or are we not discussing what is happening in this country? i would love it if we could follow europes sex industry standard but we can't.
Two pairs of knickers can hardly be seen as a con for goodness sakes! i personally only wear and will always only wear one pair of knickers. it gets kind of warm down there! for the girls that wear 2, well what can i say, the reasons are varied, from to much pussy lip slippage to the girls own personal choice but rules state no ringskin and no visable curtains or short and curlys, 9pm-10pm fully dressed no panties on show at all, topless from 10pm but on FTA you cannot appear gratuitious, you must keep things in context no foul overtly sexual language on mic and no sexual simulation of any kind including the vigourous sucking of digits, think fhm implied girl/girl. subscription stuff isn't much better, when we ended up being told that it must all be simulated and obviously simulated. no wagging the tail! so there you have your cons and limitations. if your talking about false advertising on subscription soft channels then complain to trading standards if you haven't already, surely if it is seen as false advertising then you have a case do you not? Most guys either from mates or web reviews will pretty much be aware of the strength of uk subscription channels yet you sound as if all these poor saps are being led blind then rinsed of their money. Why shouldn't there be a market for softcore? you have little faith in the buying public jacques. in this day and age when we have so much choice, so many outlets, if softcore wasn't desired it wouldn't be produced. it's a buyers market believe me.
As for the licences, i admire any organization who takes on the bigboys but do you honestly think they could make a difference in a world still programmed to view porn as a dirty sub-culture. Sex shops without the need for a licence would pop up everywhere and oh no we can't have that, god help the poor wee kiddies! just finding a suitable location for a shop without 20,000 petitions coming up is nigh on impossible because we live on top of each other, europes a much bigger place with the capability of not encroaching on suburban family filled places.
I'm not just saying all this because i'm working on a FTA show and i have a vested interest, thats only part of it, what i'm saying is, it is as it is and the companies that will be most affected are fighting it, who knows from one day to the next what the regulators will impose, what ever their name may be. But to constantly berate these channels for most of the problems with viewing restrictions, when it's generally just the shows viewers, talent and sometimes producers that pop into these forums your constantly attacking the supposed girls you come on this site for.
i know this is not an intentional outcome of yours and its not personal to any of the girls, who are just doing their job and trying to pay their bills like everyone else and to lose this regular adult orientated entertainment would mean a lot of girls retiring to more reliable "normal jobs"
porn really is a true calling, there's just not enough money in it for it to be anything but.
once again rant over, i might think of something else to say later but i've run out of steam. ohhhh i do like a good debate
hugs xxxxx
Karina
A Lady on the streets but a Whore between the sheets aka Karina C.
Porn is an art form. The most Basic, natural human expression, displayed for the pleasure of others. Everyone can do it, but not many do it well
Luv what you do and Fuck like you mean it
Porn is an art form. The most Basic, natural human expression, displayed for the pleasure of others. Everyone can do it, but not many do it well
Luv what you do and Fuck like you mean it