The Freeview vs Sky content debate

i would have thought that freeview viewers would be happy to have any babestation content on their screens. a couple of years ago i only had freeview and the best i got was party people on smile tv at 1am. it's really quite cheap to buy a dish and a box and get all the 900 channels for free so if anybody's that enraged i suggest they do this. i think there's a thread in the tech section that tells you how to do it.

of course sky wins this they been doing it a lot longer then freeview has they know the limits of sky by now, as of the freeview standards one exception the last few months of party girls it been quite tame when compared to sky. the downfull of these types of shows on freeview is they will have more people watching then on sky meaning more likely hood of complaints but to my knowledge there was zero complaints for party girls to my knowledge, so why are they playing it safe now cell cast knows how far they can go but are playing it safe for some reason and the too close to the kids channel excuse does not cut it for me

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.

Freeview viewers should be saluting Cellcast for bringing babe shows to freeview when no other company has done it.

elgar1uk Wrote:Freeview viewers should be saluting Cellcast for bringing babe shows to freeview when no other company has done it.

And we do, or at least I do.

What is so frustrating, and evidenced in my increasingly more exasperated postings in here, is that they don't simply show us the same standard of product that they show Sky viewers. What is the problem?

They were doing it a few months back, because as far as I can tell Party Girls was more or less the same standard as Babestation 1 and 2 material shown on Sky. (And for the finicky, I mean before there was any post-Freeview dilution of BS1.) As far as I am aware PG didn't provoke any complaints. So, I repeat, what is the problem?

And above all, there are members here who are Freeview staff and we know that the Forum is monitored in the studio, so we know they are aware of the dissatisfaction amongst the Freeview audience. Why don't they respond and explain their position? Before anyone else says it, yes, I know they aren't obliged to do so but I would have thought they would want to in their own self-interest.

party girls was actually raunchier than babestation at that time, so if anything, sky viewers had to suffer with a tamer show than freeview, simply put, party girls was on a short term licence and a producer decided to see what they could get away with. who knows if there were complaints or anything, just cos we don't know, doesn't mean there weren't any, so we can't just assume, obviously with babestation they are thinking more long term. party girls took 4 months to go topless as has been stated, so it could be that long before cellcast allow babestation on freeview to match the level sky had, obviously they're taming down sky's show before midnight so they can say its pretty much the same show on both. bs1 at the mo on sky is totally tame compared to bs2 at the mo and whilst they're obviously still getting quite a bit of business on the phone, they won't speed up getting it back to how it was. this forum prob only makes up like 5% of the audience, and then a fraction of that are actually complaining, so maybe they don't feel they need to explain anything.

shandyman Wrote:party girls was actually raunchier than babestation at that time, so if anything, sky viewers had to suffer with a tamer show than freeview, simply put, party girls was on a short term licence and a producer decided to see what they could get away with.

This is my point. They now know what they can get away with, so why the caution?

Quote:who knows if there were complaints or anything, just cos we don't know, doesn't mean there weren't any, so we can't just assume

I thought someone who regularly monitors Ofcom had already posted somewhere in here to the effect that no complaints were received?

Quote:party girls took 4 months to go topless as has been stated, so it could be that long before cellcast allow babestation on freeview to match the level sky had

Why should the situation need to be tested again?

vila Wrote:

shandyman Wrote:party girls was actually raunchier than babestation at that time, so if anything, sky viewers had to suffer with a tamer show than freeview, simply put, party girls was on a short term licence and a producer decided to see what they could get away with.

This is my point. They now know what they can get away with, so why the caution?

i think its more that they're waiting for the "mary whitehouse" lot (the complainers about this sort of programming) to stop watching, before getting it back to sky's previous lever. new channels like this attract their attention, simple as. again see the bit i mentioned that you didn't quote. Party Girls was started knowing they only had a short term licence, about 6 months or something like that, babestation is long term, they don't wanna get fined or have it shut down as they want it to be there to stay. if party girls was intended to stay, they would have used the babestation brand name. it simply makes perfectly logical business sense.

vila Wrote:

Quote:who knows if there were complaints or anything, just cos we don't know, doesn't mean there weren't any, so we can't just assume

I thought someone who regularly monitors Ofcom had already posted somewhere in here to the effect that no complaints were received?

i don't know how it works, but if ofcom monitors the channels, would it be public knowledge if they issued a warning? yes if they have complaints they have to make it public they got them and that they have dealt with them, 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?

vila Wrote:

Quote:party girls took 4 months to go topless as has been stated, so it could be that long before cellcast allow babestation on freeview to match the level sky had

Why should the situation need to be tested again?

see my first comment.

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.

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.

well kelly bell mentioned about nearly gettin the pad fined for not wearin knickers on the day show a month or so back, but i don't see that on the ofcom site, which is why i questioned it. maybe they hear unofficial rumblings before action is taken? anyway like i said, 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. babestation is a long term venture, simply put, they're not gonna be as risky