(08-07-2010 15:02 )babestation Wrote: its not my place (or yours really) to speak about our licenses
Why not? Are they some sort of secret?
(08-07-2010 15:02 )babestation Wrote: you will know yourself that the levels on sky have been pushed ever further in the past year or so, you just need to look at the daytime shows for evidence of that. - - - > when we launched on sky back in 2002, we weren't doing what we were doing today, everything has to start somewhere and hopefully grow.. we haven't been around for 8 years for nothing
I can't disagree with that, but you are highlighting the very point I'm trying to make. Babestation has indeed been a pioneer of what is acceptable to be shown on these channels, but that is exactly my point. The level of what is acceptable to be displayed on our tv screens
has already been established, so there's no reason Freeview should not come up to that standard. Sure, the levels on Sky have been pushed, but other channels have pushed them higher than Babestation just recently (and, ok, some went too far) so even if Freeview BS was the same as Sky BS it would still be milder than a lot of what is shown on Sky.
One aspect that really baffles me is why the level on Freeview fluctuates so much. When the channel numbers were re-arranged at the end of September 2009 Freeview instantly went up to virtually Sky standard. That lasted only a week, maybe less, before it was knocked back down to way below what it had been
before the channel re-numbering. Then in November it surged up again but later was once more brought down. These ups and downs have continued to take place ever since - it's a constant roller coaster.
Another puzzle is that the periodic taming of Freeview sometimes (possibly always?) coincides with an increase in the strength of material on Sky. Unless the lack of opportunity to see Sky content on the web stream or forum posts over the last few months has put me vastly out of touch, there's been an increase in the amount of sexual simulation now permitted on BS's Sky show lately, if a few recent forum posts are anything to go by (Dani/Tammy 2-4-1, Karina solo). At the same time, the girl/girl sessions on Freeview have for the most part descended to the level of farce. Compare the Dani/Tammy 2-4-1 in Sky a few nights ago with the Linsey/Lolly effort the same night on Freeview. Chalk and cheese, or rather cheese and chalk. Dani and Tammy's h/j, b/j and cum-swallowing simulations were the most prolonged and graphic I've ever seen on these channels and I'm sure would never be allowed on Freeview in the current climate, but why should Freeview simultaneously be dumbed down from its previous existing strength?
In the past, when Karina has gone nude on Freeview her 'landing strip' (for want of a better term) has been unashamedly on display but last night every time she turned onto her back the camera moved so that nothing below her waist was visible except for a few fleeting instances when changing position. The censorship on occasions like that is so obvious it becomes intrusive and completely spoils the show.
A very similar set of circumstances happened exactly a year ago. In July 2009 Freeview content had been slowly improving until it became evident from the pre-Freeview web stream that there was a significant increase in the strength of the Sky show (the studio had apparently been told they could step things up a bit). At the same time as this was happening, the Freeview content suddenly started to get tamer again. It seems that every time the Sky show gets a bit stronger, the Freeview show is knocked back a bit before being allowed to start progressing again.
(08-07-2010 15:27 )Rogerbee Wrote: One doesn't make it balanced.
And the rest of my post . . . ?
(08-07-2010 15:42 )mr mystery Wrote: and hope one day you will get to see a full strength show earlier than midnight.
I would like to see a full strength show on Freeview at any time, before or after 12am. At the moment we don't get a full strength show at all.