+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Night Shows (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Babestation (/forumdisplay.php?fid=99)
+---- Forum: BABESTATION TV (/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+---- Thread: The Freeview vs Sky content debate (/showthread.php?tid=8266)
RE: The Freeview vs Sky content debate - Deb x - 13-06-2009 14:28
shandyman Wrote:... party girls was, knowingly for them, a short term venture, where they thought sod it and did what they want near the end, damn the consequences.Just an idle thought, but I wonder if there's any chance of another one of these companies getting a short-term Freeview licence?
It might make some people very happy
And it would give BS/Cellcast something to think about.I'm also wondering what OfCom's (or whoever regulates competition in TV) stance is on monopolies
RE: The Freeview vs Sky content debate - aaron - 13-06-2009 14:29
vila Wrote:Quote:but what about if they don't get complaints and just issue a warning on what they see? do they have to be public about that too?I believe so. Ofcom is a public body and has to be accountable for everything it does.
I don't think that's correct. Ofcom is required by law to make it's broadcasting code public, so that everyone can see exactly what their rules are, but any other information is provided by them on an entirely voluntary basis and is usually limited to explaining how they have dealt with specific complaints.
However if you believe that documents exist that you would like to see and which haven't been made public by Ofcom, you can always make a request under the Freedom Of Information Act. This applies to Ofcom the same as it applies to any public body, but they could still reply that the document you're asking about doesn't exist.
RE: The Freeview vs Sky content debate - Shandy - 13-06-2009 14:54
aaron Wrote:vila Wrote:Quote:but what about if they don't get complaints and just issue a warning on what they see? do they have to be public about that too?I believe so. Ofcom is a public body and has to be accountable for everything it does.
I don't think that's correct. Ofcom is required by law to make it's broadcasting code public, so that everyone can see exactly what their rules are, but any other information is provided by them on an entirely voluntary basis and is usually limited to explaining how they have dealt with specific complaints.
However if you believe that documents exist that you would like to see and which haven't been made public by Ofcom, you can always make a request under the Freedom Of Information Act. This applies to Ofcom the same as it applies to any public body, but they could still reply that the document you're asking about doesn't exist.
cheers aaron, i did think it may have been something like that, but it was purely a guess lol.
RE: Babestation on Freeview channel 33 - Sooky™ - 13-06-2009 21:15
Censorship :-( Wrote:SxciiSooky Wrote:SNIP
Censorship :-( Wrote:It also means that you woudn't even have to waste any money.
if you think it's a waste of money, why are you texting in? surely the wiseness of a 'purchase' is the risk you take everytime you pay for anything - but you have to remember, these are girls who are willingly putting themselves on your screens every night and showing you their tits and ass. They are not performing monkeys who are there to adhere to your every command. As i said earlier - a little bit of perspective would be nice
Where did I say that I text in? I was simply responding to a post from matt38.
Also, I take great offence at your suggestion that I consider the babes to be 'performing monkeys' - where the hell did you get that from?
I think that I have made perfectly clear, in my time on this fourm, that my criticism of the Freeview output is aimed at the broadcaster, NOT the babes.
Please re-read my posts, as you seem to have inferred something that was not implied.
And at what point did I direct any of that at you personally?
Your particular post was simply given as an example of what is often said by a number of posters
But at no point did i refer to you by name or anything in my post, so none of it was aimed at you directly....so perhaps you need to reread my post and take it in context
*Just wanted you to know I wasn't having a go at you personally
RE: Babestation on Freeview channel 33 - Censorship :-( - 13-06-2009 22:19
SxciiSooky Wrote:Censorship :-( Wrote:SxciiSooky Wrote:SNIP
[quote=Censorship :-(]It also means that you woudn't even have to waste any money.
if you think it's a waste of money, why are you texting in? surely the wiseness of a 'purchase' is the risk you take everytime you pay for anything - but you have to remember, these are girls who are willingly putting themselves on your screens every night and showing you their tits and ass. They are not performing monkeys who are there to adhere to your every command. As i said earlier - a little bit of perspective would be nice
Where did I say that I text in? I was simply responding to a post from matt38.
Also, I take great offence at your suggestion that I consider the babes to be 'performing monkeys' - where the hell did you get that from?
I think that I have made perfectly clear, in my time on this fourm, that my criticism of the Freeview output is aimed at the broadcaster, NOT the babes.
Please re-read my posts, as you seem to have inferred something that was not implied.
SxciiSooky Wrote:And at what point did I direct any of that at you personally?
Your particular post was simply given as an example of what is often said by a number of posters
But at no point did i refer to you by name or anything in my post, so none of it was aimed at you directly....so perhaps you need to reread my post and take it in context
SNIP
LOL! You chose to quote a line that I wrote, headed, as all quotes are, with '{name of author} wrote:', then write your reply underneath, apparently in response to that quote, and we are not supposed to link the two? Come off it.
Anyway, I don't wish to argue (honest!
), so, as you claim not to be directing your comments at me, can I assume that you will have no problem deleting the part of my post that you quoted? If so, I will happily remove my replies.Normally, I wouldn’t make such a big deal out of it, but I do feel uncomfortable with the 'performing monkeys' reference.
SxciiSooky Wrote:*Just wanted you to know I wasn't having a go at you personally
Much appreciated, thank you.
RE: The Freeview vs Sky content debate - Sooky™ - 13-06-2009 22:37
to delete the specific part of the post would mean deleting the post in its entirity - so no, I won't be - sorry
RE: The Freeview vs Sky content debate - Censorship :-( - 13-06-2009 23:32
SxciiSooky Wrote:to delete the specific part of the post would mean deleting the post in its entirity - so no, I won't be - sorry
How would deleting the part of my post that you chose to quote in your reply, which you claim does not direct your response at me, require the deletion of the whole post?
RE: The Freeview vs Sky content debate - Sooky™ - 14-06-2009 00:15
Since you may not be aware, there is a time limit as to how long can pass before you can no longer edit your posts - that is why
Now - can this go back on topic as this is a thread for the debate of freeview/sky content - not an explain yourslef in your posts thread
I have stated that my post was not aimed directly at you - so I really fail to see the continued issue
RE: The Freeview vs Sky content debate - Censorship :-( - 14-06-2009 11:36
SxciiSooky Wrote:Since you may not be aware, there is a time limit as to how long can pass before you can no longer edit your posts - that is why
No, I was not aware of that.
SxciiSooky Wrote:Now - can this go back on topic as this is a thread for the debate of freeview/sky content - not an explain yourslef in your posts thread
I have stated that my post was not aimed directly at you - so I really fail to see the continued issue
In the spirit of moving on, we shall have to agree to disagree on that.
Get Babestation off freeview! - Shandy - 14-06-2009 14:13
Since it went on freeview, us sky peeps have had to suffer with a tame and pale version of Babestation.
stuff the people moaning about day girls going on the night shows, i think this is a more valid point
(Please note this is mostly a humourous post to lighten things up since the whole bitchin about day girls on night has been done to death and beyond...............
)