Live Sex on TV tonight
Re: Live Sex on TV tonight
ive seen more tit on babechat on a monday afternoon, check it out on ch 906. You get some tasty burgers on there.
Re: Live Sex on TV tonight
Neil
You beat me to that about Babe Star...
It's a shame, as I've heard from a few of the girls that it is/was great to work for.... Hopefully it'll be back soon. And... How are you these days.. Better I hope.
Rico
Unfortunately you brought all this on yourself by posting about b/g..... Haven't you learned yet what this place is like when full on h/c is mentioned as being on an encrypted channel... LOL.
But at least tonight you have a few of the most popular UK girls there, with Faye, Starr, Susie and Leah.. They could rape him as they all do b/g+
You beat me to that about Babe Star...
It's a shame, as I've heard from a few of the girls that it is/was great to work for.... Hopefully it'll be back soon. And... How are you these days.. Better I hope.Rico
Unfortunately you brought all this on yourself by posting about b/g..... Haven't you learned yet what this place is like when full on h/c is mentioned as being on an encrypted channel... LOL.
But at least tonight you have a few of the most popular UK girls there, with Faye, Starr, Susie and Leah.. They could rape him as they all do b/g+
<http://www.ukindiangirls.net>
<http://www.anglo-indian-girls.com/Sahara>
<http://www.saharagetsdirty.com>
<http://anglo-indian-girls.com/saharagetsdirty/index.php>
<http://www.anglo-indian-girls.com/Sahara>
<http://www.saharagetsdirty.com>
<http://anglo-indian-girls.com/saharagetsdirty/index.php>
Re: Live Sex on TV tonight
Rico wrote:
> In answer to you all, I can only quote Karina Currie who made
> the point very well in answer to a similar query about another
> TV station:
> She said: "And for the guys who are constantly on the gripe
> about u.k laws on what we can and can't show, how about you put
> up the money for the fines and lawsuits that occur... cause all
> of you don't seem to understand the machine that is ofcom as
> you keep saying it's down to the company to push for the change
> in law but obviously think this all happens for free! hmmmm
> wake up and smell the coffee!"
> We would love to show you the full on shots but this is
> England!! We do what we can.
So why suggest on here that you can show more than you actually can?
> In answer to you all, I can only quote Karina Currie who made
> the point very well in answer to a similar query about another
> TV station:
> She said: "And for the guys who are constantly on the gripe
> about u.k laws on what we can and can't show, how about you put
> up the money for the fines and lawsuits that occur... cause all
> of you don't seem to understand the machine that is ofcom as
> you keep saying it's down to the company to push for the change
> in law but obviously think this all happens for free! hmmmm
> wake up and smell the coffee!"
> We would love to show you the full on shots but this is
> England!! We do what we can.
So why suggest on here that you can show more than you actually can?
broadcast video and dvd services
Re: Live Sex on TV tonight
Joe
Fine thanks, the problem I found with Babestar was all the dirty talk really didn't sit well. The girls didn't sound comfortable saying it, and at least a couple of the girls on there (Kat and Racheal for instance) are only glamour models anyway. So the "dirty talk" really was strange.
Also they were apparently in trouble for the swearing on TV and the rubbing of pussies through their panties. No hands down etc etc
Yet people on this forum insist that TV companies show hardcore. I have to agree that Rico shouldn't really post on here about hardcore but as Live XXX was mentioned Karina has repeatedly made the point that if they went further they would be taken off the air. Babestar is proof of Karina's point
Anyway, thats it now I am sick of the whole thing. Basically the guys who continually moan, stop watching it!!! Simple as
Neil
Fine thanks, the problem I found with Babestar was all the dirty talk really didn't sit well. The girls didn't sound comfortable saying it, and at least a couple of the girls on there (Kat and Racheal for instance) are only glamour models anyway. So the "dirty talk" really was strange.
Also they were apparently in trouble for the swearing on TV and the rubbing of pussies through their panties. No hands down etc etc
Yet people on this forum insist that TV companies show hardcore. I have to agree that Rico shouldn't really post on here about hardcore but as Live XXX was mentioned Karina has repeatedly made the point that if they went further they would be taken off the air. Babestar is proof of Karina's point
Anyway, thats it now I am sick of the whole thing. Basically the guys who continually moan, stop watching it!!! Simple as
Neil
http://www.celebritiesrus.com/blog
Re: Live Sex on TV tonight
My thought's exactly PKay.
I asked Karrina Currie the same question when she came back with the same answer and got no reply.
Everyone knows what can and can not be shown so why stations like this pretend they will show any different is beyond me, apart from to deliberately con.
I asked Karrina Currie the same question when she came back with the same answer and got no reply.
Everyone knows what can and can not be shown so why stations like this pretend they will show any different is beyond me, apart from to deliberately con.
Re: Live Sex on TV tonight
Neil - Babestar is off air with tech problems. The process to be taken off air is not that quick, ofcon cannot just click thier fingers and woosh your gone!!!!
Do some research before opening your mouth.
And I'll say it again for all the ofcon quoters:
Ofcon`s Code is not legislation, it is a set of GUIDELINES for TV broadcasters, made under a requirement by the law and thus should conform to the law.
Is it a rule of thumb that a public body can break the law until challenged? Aren`t they supposed to abide by the law, to set a good example, to support the legal framework, by default? They are after all granted their powers by the law. If they expect broadcasters to obey their guidelines then surely, the guidelines themselves must be seen to be lawful?
Ofcon could not find any evidence to suggest R18 porn would cause `serious imparement to minors`. Indeed, hardcore was legalised at R18 by the High Court because the BBFC could find no evidence either and, in their charter, the VRA, it is clear that they can only interfere where there is a likelihood of harm. So, in the year 2000 the High Court said that the risk to children from hardcore material was so small that a ban on the sale of hardcore material could not be justified - that`s British Case Law, hardcore porn is not obscene, it does not possess the power to corrupt and deprave, or in words of one syllable that even the moronic cunts at Ofcon can understand, it aint bad for kids! Now, as I`ve said many times, if it is deemed OK for adults to take R18 into the home, because the non-existent risk to children cannot justify a ban, it follows that the method by which adults take R18 into the home is irrelevant if no serious harm can be caused to anyone. This not only has implications for the legality of the mail order ban but, it completely destroys Ofcon`s reasons for banning transmission of R18 in their guidelines. R18 poses no serious threat to the under 18s, therefore the under 18s need no unnecessary protection from it.
The OPA, and it`s secondary Acts, the VRA and Comms Act, all require proof or judgement that some material is dangerous or corrupting in order to restrict access to it legally. Any unjustified ban or restriction is a breach of Freedom of Expression. Ofcon have failed to provide such justification, indeed, they admit in their R18 report that there is no evidence to suggest R18 could cause serious imparement to minors. Ofcon openly admit to enforcing a `precationary` restriction, which by definition is disproportionate and unjustified, relying totally on personal taste and opinion as to its necessity. Ofcon therefore have openly admitted to enforcing an illegal ban. Now why does anyone need to take them to court in order to ignore that particular guideline? Any money they fine the TV companies will have been obtained illegally and under false pretences - that`s fraudulent and extorting money through menacies.
The law does not say Ofcon can ban any harmless, legally available material from the airwaves. It says they should abide by "generally accepted standards". Indeed, if we consult the ECHR case law on the issue (as ALL public bodies are required to do BY LAW), the opposite has been stated, and it is in fact unlawful under the terms of Art. 10 to use a broadcast licensing system to restrict ANY legally available material (Groppera AG v Switzerland, 1990). Are we to assume that in Ofcon`s opinion, the law itself is not a generally accepted standard? Are we to accept that even though the High Court deemed hardcore material was not obscene and thus incapable of corrupting young minds, that Ofcon can over rule and ignore that judgement? Ignorance of the law is no defence, so exactly what is it that Ofcon are relying on to defend their unjustified actions - their own opinions?, a belief they are above the law? They do not have a rights abusing, law breaking leg to stand on.
Do some research before opening your mouth.
And I'll say it again for all the ofcon quoters:
Ofcon`s Code is not legislation, it is a set of GUIDELINES for TV broadcasters, made under a requirement by the law and thus should conform to the law.
Is it a rule of thumb that a public body can break the law until challenged? Aren`t they supposed to abide by the law, to set a good example, to support the legal framework, by default? They are after all granted their powers by the law. If they expect broadcasters to obey their guidelines then surely, the guidelines themselves must be seen to be lawful?
Ofcon could not find any evidence to suggest R18 porn would cause `serious imparement to minors`. Indeed, hardcore was legalised at R18 by the High Court because the BBFC could find no evidence either and, in their charter, the VRA, it is clear that they can only interfere where there is a likelihood of harm. So, in the year 2000 the High Court said that the risk to children from hardcore material was so small that a ban on the sale of hardcore material could not be justified - that`s British Case Law, hardcore porn is not obscene, it does not possess the power to corrupt and deprave, or in words of one syllable that even the moronic cunts at Ofcon can understand, it aint bad for kids! Now, as I`ve said many times, if it is deemed OK for adults to take R18 into the home, because the non-existent risk to children cannot justify a ban, it follows that the method by which adults take R18 into the home is irrelevant if no serious harm can be caused to anyone. This not only has implications for the legality of the mail order ban but, it completely destroys Ofcon`s reasons for banning transmission of R18 in their guidelines. R18 poses no serious threat to the under 18s, therefore the under 18s need no unnecessary protection from it.
The OPA, and it`s secondary Acts, the VRA and Comms Act, all require proof or judgement that some material is dangerous or corrupting in order to restrict access to it legally. Any unjustified ban or restriction is a breach of Freedom of Expression. Ofcon have failed to provide such justification, indeed, they admit in their R18 report that there is no evidence to suggest R18 could cause serious imparement to minors. Ofcon openly admit to enforcing a `precationary` restriction, which by definition is disproportionate and unjustified, relying totally on personal taste and opinion as to its necessity. Ofcon therefore have openly admitted to enforcing an illegal ban. Now why does anyone need to take them to court in order to ignore that particular guideline? Any money they fine the TV companies will have been obtained illegally and under false pretences - that`s fraudulent and extorting money through menacies.
The law does not say Ofcon can ban any harmless, legally available material from the airwaves. It says they should abide by "generally accepted standards". Indeed, if we consult the ECHR case law on the issue (as ALL public bodies are required to do BY LAW), the opposite has been stated, and it is in fact unlawful under the terms of Art. 10 to use a broadcast licensing system to restrict ANY legally available material (Groppera AG v Switzerland, 1990). Are we to assume that in Ofcon`s opinion, the law itself is not a generally accepted standard? Are we to accept that even though the High Court deemed hardcore material was not obscene and thus incapable of corrupting young minds, that Ofcon can over rule and ignore that judgement? Ignorance of the law is no defence, so exactly what is it that Ofcon are relying on to defend their unjustified actions - their own opinions?, a belief they are above the law? They do not have a rights abusing, law breaking leg to stand on.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Re: Live Sex on TV tonight
If you've got the majority of the costs in place now for the tv channel, why not have 2 or 3 cams at different angles feeding internet cams? Set up a site, where existing viewers can log in using e.g. sky viewing card ID and a password you let them have at the start of the show, and then they can watch the normal feed on tv and their choice of (harder) feed online, or even charge ala livexxx.tv.
I know zero about regulations etc, but it seems this would bring in a fair share of the people who subscribe to e.g. livexxx.tv's website.
And as for the show tonight, any chance of a moneyshot being shown (with the obvious out of screen)?
I know zero about regulations etc, but it seems this would bring in a fair share of the people who subscribe to e.g. livexxx.tv's website.
And as for the show tonight, any chance of a moneyshot being shown (with the obvious out of screen)?
Re: Live Sex on TV tonight
Jacques
I've heard a few reasons why Babe Stars off air.. One being tech problems an other being they had the wrong licence and of course they went too far for an unencypted LIVE channel ! ?
I was told last night they'll be back Tuesday
I've heard a few reasons why Babe Stars off air.. One being tech problems an other being they had the wrong licence and of course they went too far for an unencypted LIVE channel ! ?
I was told last night they'll be back Tuesday
<http://www.ukindiangirls.net>
<http://www.anglo-indian-girls.com/Sahara>
<http://www.saharagetsdirty.com>
<http://anglo-indian-girls.com/saharagetsdirty/index.php>
<http://www.anglo-indian-girls.com/Sahara>
<http://www.saharagetsdirty.com>
<http://anglo-indian-girls.com/saharagetsdirty/index.php>
Re: Live Sex on TV tonight
Neil
You say that Rico shouldn't really post on here about hardcore then make an excuse for them doing it.
From what I've seen on posts of people asking about hardcore it is, apart from a few exceptions, just that a question on why when they clam to show hard that they don't.
I've never watched 'babe - anything' simply because it's UK so will be soft but will 'moan' about the posts promoting it as hardcore because it's a con.
There are countless posts on this site from within the industry warning people about rouge elements, no shows, cons etc so I see the posts against Rico's deliberate mislead exactly they same.
Punters warning other Punters against the reality of these types of stations.
Andy
You say that Rico shouldn't really post on here about hardcore then make an excuse for them doing it.
From what I've seen on posts of people asking about hardcore it is, apart from a few exceptions, just that a question on why when they clam to show hard that they don't.
I've never watched 'babe - anything' simply because it's UK so will be soft but will 'moan' about the posts promoting it as hardcore because it's a con.
There are countless posts on this site from within the industry warning people about rouge elements, no shows, cons etc so I see the posts against Rico's deliberate mislead exactly they same.
Punters warning other Punters against the reality of these types of stations.
Andy
Re: Live Sex on TV tonight
From Babestar TV
A few people have been asking about why the channel is off air. To clear up the confusion I'd like to let everyone know that here at Babestar TV we have been experiencing "artistic differences" among the crew. Girls have been disturbed to find camera men playing with sex toys in the studio and have been refusing to come to work.
This was reported to ofcom who approve every script before the show goes on air and monitor it at twenty minute intervals to check it is really live. Ofcom have therefore had to investigate the matter and the police have been involved. The whole situation has been very distressing for all those concerned. We hope that the channel will be back soon.
thank you for your patience,
Bridgit,
executive producer
A few people have been asking about why the channel is off air. To clear up the confusion I'd like to let everyone know that here at Babestar TV we have been experiencing "artistic differences" among the crew. Girls have been disturbed to find camera men playing with sex toys in the studio and have been refusing to come to work.
This was reported to ofcom who approve every script before the show goes on air and monitor it at twenty minute intervals to check it is really live. Ofcom have therefore had to investigate the matter and the police have been involved. The whole situation has been very distressing for all those concerned. We hope that the channel will be back soon.
thank you for your patience,
Bridgit,
executive producer