Sin TV - General Chat & Discussion

Apparently its children that need protection. Not that kids should be up that late nor watching tv unsupervised. But Broncobilly, are you saying that the girls on Sky are no fun? Please do eloboate. They have been looking like they are enjoying themselves very much. What kind of fun are they not having exactly?

(19-04-2015 17:01 )Broncobilly Wrote:  The protection thing is a laugh who are we protecting? Since the dawn of the internet people can access free pornography so not allowing fun on a babe show is just stupid. As for ofcom they have not banned fun Sin have decided that for themselves to force people to use the streams.

Not gonna happen on tv for sure, however, that doesnt mean it wont happen elsewhere perhaps

(19-04-2015 08:12 )gunnar Wrote:  ^If it does happen, don't tell Rammy, he'll drain the entire UK water supply having cold showers.

(19-04-2015 17:35 )Mellie D Wrote:  Apparently its children that need protection. Not that kids should be up that late nor watching tv unsupervised. But Broncobilly, are you saying that the girls on Sky are no fun? Please do eloboate. They have been looking like they are enjoying themselves very much. What kind of fun are they not having exactly?

(19-04-2015 17:01 )Broncobilly Wrote:  The protection thing is a laugh who are we protecting? Since the dawn of the internet people can access free pornography so not allowing fun on a babe show is just stupid. As for ofcom they have not banned fun Sin have decided that for themselves to force people to use the streams.

I think Bronco is severely misguide here. The idea of having encryption is to ensure that people under a certain age, can not access the material concerned. This is because to subscribe and access material, an age check can be made om the method of transaction. For example, pay by credit card, your age can be checked, pay by sms , your age can be checked.
Yes, we all know the systems can be bypassed sometimes and yes, there's lots of material elsewhere on the internet, but SinTV would only be concerned with accessing their material from their sources, as this is what OFCOM will hold them to account over.

We all (well, those sensible enough to) know that there are rules that have to be obeyed, and Sin are just doing this.

I hardly think the ramblings of self appointed experts on a forum can be used as a serious defence to OFCOM when they impose fines for breach of rules, unless these self appointed experts are prepared to agree to pay all fines if their advise is taken and then proven incorrect?
Nope, no takers?

There's always a few (generalising now, not having a go at bronco) that think they know better and are happy to criticise and expect channels to push the limits and break the rules, but those few are usually also the few that aren't prepared to stand up and be counted, to put their money where their mouths are, and are quick to be missing when the shit hits the fan/

keyboard warriors, and keyboard experts, neither any use, just let the channels do their thing!
Sin TV will do its thing, will offer a service, and if you like it, then use it, and if you don't like it, then don't use it.
simples!

(19-04-2015 17:35 )Mellie D Wrote:  Apparently its children that need protection. Not that kids should be up that late nor watching tv unsupervised. But Broncobilly, are you saying that the girls on Sky are no fun? Please do eloboate. They have been looking like they are enjoying themselves very much. What kind of fun are they not having exactly?

(19-04-2015 17:01 )Broncobilly Wrote:  The protection thing is a laugh who are we protecting? Since the dawn of the internet people can access free pornography so not allowing fun on a babe show is just stupid. As for ofcom they have not banned fun Sin have decided that for themselves to force people to use the streams.

Its a parents job to monitor what kids watch of course they need protection, as for the shows well each to there own.

Thank you as always for replying x

(19-04-2015 18:19 )welshken Wrote:  

(19-04-2015 17:35 )Mellie D Wrote:  Apparently its children that need protection. Not that kids should be up that late nor watching tv unsupervised. But Broncobilly, are you saying that the girls on Sky are no fun? Please do eloboate. They have been looking like they are enjoying themselves very much. What kind of fun are they not having exactly?

(19-04-2015 17:01 )Broncobilly Wrote:  The protection thing is a laugh who are we protecting? Since the dawn of the internet people can access free pornography so not allowing fun on a babe show is just stupid. As for ofcom they have not banned fun Sin have decided that for themselves to force people to use the streams.

I think Bronco is severely misguide here. The idea of having encryption is to ensure that people under a certain age, can not access the material concerned. This is because to subscribe and access material, an age check can be made om the method of transaction. For example, pay by credit card, your age can be checked, pay by sms , your age can be checked.
Yes, we all know the systems can be bypassed sometimes and yes, there's lots of material elsewhere on the internet, but SinTV would only be concerned with accessing their material from their sources, as this is what OFCOM will hold them to account over.

We all (well, those sensible enough to) know that there are rules that have to be obeyed, and Sin are just doing this.

I hardly think the ramblings of self appointed experts on a forum can be used as a serious defence to OFCOM when they impose fines for breach of rules, unless these self appointed experts are prepared to agree to pay all fines if their advise is taken and then proven incorrect?
Nope, no takers?

There's always a few (generalising now, not having a go at bronco) that think they know better and are happy to criticise and expect channels to push the limits and break the rules, but those few are usually also the few that aren't prepared to stand up and be counted, to put their money where their mouths are, and are quick to be missing when the shit hits the fan/

keyboard warriors, and keyboard experts, neither any use, just let the channels do their thing!
Sin TV will do its thing, will offer a service, and if you like it, then use it, and if you don't like it, then don't use it.
simples!

I am not asking and never will ask for a channel to break the rules. I am simply contributing to the forum and putting the odd idea out there. I certainly do not think I know better.

Well I'll say it again. I've really enjoyed the girls when they've been on the X Streams but the SKY output is still too censored so TV wise I've been less than impressed with Sin TV.

Sure all the channels have to abide by ofcom regulations and Sin TV is no exception, I just feel that the we can't push things too much reason has been used as a rather convenient scapegoat. I address this issue to all the channels and not just Sin TV

(19-04-2015 18:43 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Well I'll say it again. I've really enjoyed the girls when they've been on the X Streams but the SKY output is still too censored so TV wise I've been less than impressed with Sin TV.

Sure all the channels have to abide by ofcom regulations and Sin TV is no exception, I just feel that the we can't push things too much reason has been used as a rather convenient scapegoat. I address this issue to all the channels and not just Sin TV

maybe you should address it to OFCOM and david Cameron? they seem to be the ones calling the shots without being realistic or being aware of what todays internet is or can do

(19-04-2015 17:37 )Mellie D Wrote:  Not gonna happen on tv for sure, however, that doesnt mean it wont happen elsewhere perhaps

(19-04-2015 08:12 )gunnar Wrote:  ^If it does happen, don't tell Rammy, he'll drain the entire UK water supply having cold showers.

can at least hope for the sight of louise and mellie together on tv one day. as for the sintv babes not having fun, I don't get that impression. whenever ive watched sintv, either on sky or the x-streams, I see the sintv babes having plenty of fun either with another sintv babe or whoever is producing them behind the scenes.

Ive no problems with the output sintv has done on sky, its not really any different to the other Ofcom controlled babeshows on sky and don't think Ofcom is a convenient scapegoat for the channels output, if the channels fall foul of Ofcom, they will get sanctioned and eventually get taken off the air

(19-04-2015 18:22 )Broncobilly Wrote:  

(19-04-2015 17:35 )Mellie D Wrote:  Apparently its children that need protection. Not that kids should be up that late nor watching tv unsupervised. But Broncobilly, are you saying that the girls on Sky are no fun? Please do eloboate. They have been looking like they are enjoying themselves very much. What kind of fun are they not having exactly?

(19-04-2015 17:01 )Broncobilly Wrote:  The protection thing is a laugh who are we protecting? Since the dawn of the internet people can access free pornography so not allowing fun on a babe show is just stupid. .As for ofcom they have not banned fun Sin have decided that for themselves to force people to use the streams

Its a parents job to monitor what kids watch of course they need protection, as for the shows well each to there own.

Thank you as always for replying x

Totally Totally agree with this. It is the parents job to monitor and control access to the material. We live in a society where too many parents don't take enough interest in what their kids are doing or accessing, they would prefer to let the state take over the responsibility for looking after their kids and limiting freedom on the internet.
Sadly, too many kids have too much internet access too easily, through ipads, phones, TVs, PCs in their rooms, etc etc. Yes, the parents should be controlling this a lot more, but sadly, too many are clueless or are too busy still growing up themselves, or simply don't care. and the result is that the rest of us, who can make our own choices, are now limited in those choices.

what made me reply was your line 'As for ofcom they have not banned fun Sin have decided that for themselves to force people to use the streams'

to say that SinTV have decided to ban fun to force us to use the streams, that's just plain daft!

(19-04-2015 18:46 )welshken Wrote:  

(19-04-2015 18:43 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Well I'll say it again. I've really enjoyed the girls when they've been on the X Streams but the SKY output is still too censored so TV wise I've been less than impressed with Sin TV.

Sure all the channels have to abide by ofcom regulations and Sin TV is no exception, I just feel that the we can't push things too much reason has been used as a rather convenient scapegoat. I address this issue to all the channels and not just Sin TV

maybe you should address it to OFCOM and david Cameron? they seem to be the ones calling the shots without being realistic or being aware of what todays internet is or can do

This is a good place to raise questions and debate the questions. As viewer's we want entertainment.

if we see a girl we like then we call which generates revenue for the channel which means they stick around and everyone wins.