(21-07-2011 03:34 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]For me a webstream is simply not the same as a TV channel. Connecting it to the TV would help, but I like the thought that its live and on TV. And financially it would fail, at least any time in the next 3 years. The big strength of being onSky is that channels are in the EPG and anyone with a Sky box can access them without tech skills or rewiring. The web has literally hundreds of sites, another porn site would get lost in the crowd.
Id also like to see some sex in normal TV. It used to happen. Comedy, satire, cabaret shows used to feature the odd risque sketch. These days you have to have a certificate stating that any sex/nudity is dramatically justified and we have segregation. Mainstream TV = pretent adults have no interest in sex.
A man after my own heart.
(21-07-2011 13:00 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]A man after my own heart
Except that eccles probably doesn't need to feel that there's some frowning, head-shaking watchdog element - be it Ofcom or any other - tutting away somewhere in the background to properly enjoy it ("Sir! Sir! Rules are being broken! Look! Check out the disapprovers! Their almost palpable outrage is giving me a stiffy!"
).
(21-07-2011 18:54 )Addison Wrote: [ -> ] (21-07-2011 13:00 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]A man after my own heart
Except that eccles probably doesn't need to feel that there's some frowning, head-shaking watchdog element - be it Ofcom or any other - tutting away somewhere in the background to properly enjoy it ("Sir! Sir! Rules are being broken! Look! Check out the disapprovers! Their almost palpable outrage is giving me a stiffy!" ).
As I said before, it's a psychological condition
I wonder what it's called in shrink terms?
The thing is Stan, without Ofcom you'd derive no enjoyment at all from these channels. If Ofcom said tomorrow that open leg pussy shots were allowed then you'd go off in a huff, or moan that the channels were boring because all you could see was wall to wall pussy.
Your 'specialist' taste does rather negate your constant moaning about Ofcom, because in fact they're integral to you getting your rocks off!
Interesting though
(21-07-2011 19:45 )Digital Dave Wrote: [ -> ]Your 'specialist' taste does rather negate your constant moaning about Ofcom, because in fact they're integral to you getting your rocks off!
I recollect mentioning a similar thing a few months ago.
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid722591
So you did Skate! Spot on.
So should we all tell Stan that hes banned, so he enjoys sneaking back when noones looking?
How many people have erased those useless ofcom mandated bookends. You know the ones that advertise the adult channels as been 18+
I still don't think this is an effective way of managing people accidentally going on the adult services on freeview so genuine question.
I personally think the channels should be pin protected on freeview in the way xtreame is but codes provided for free or the channel moved right down the bottom of the EPG.
This would prevent people from accidentally viewing them and maybe ofcom wont give the channels a hard time.
So how many people have erased those useless ofcom mandated bookends
(21-07-2011 23:50 )mr anonymous Wrote: [ -> ]This would prevent people from accidentally viewing them and maybe ofcom wont give the channels a hard time.
Or maybe Ofcom don't give a flying fuck how many precautionary measures are in place and will continue to hound them regardless.
(21-07-2011 19:45 )Digital Dave Wrote: [ -> ]Your 'specialist' taste does rather negate your constant moaning about Ofcom, because in fact they're integral to you getting your rocks off!
But it doesn't, does it? And they're not.
Ofcom rule with a rod of iron. There's no gray areas with them. In their twisted view, the channel is either breaking the regs or it's not. Sometimes they decide they are (breaking the regs) even when they're not.
What's needed is a regulator with some common sense. A regulator that will accept and recognise that these are adult channels and that, in all honesty, they can turn a blind eye to them.
I've tried to explain how it's the channels that push bounderies and take liberties with the guidlines that 'float my boat', but few seem to understand my thinking
Talking of which, time and again Ofcom argues that people can see the channels by accident, and some parents dont know the channels exist so they cant exercise parental control.
Does anyone think babe channels should be opt in? Meaning they should be pin protected or hidden in brand new boxes, but can be unprotected as a block or unhidden?
A woman I know recently expressed surprise that adult channels were on her Sky box. Shes pretty niave to be honest, but even so I though she at least knew what was on her EPG. Ive also heard of people mixing up the channel numbers, 190 Sony TV+1 and 910 Babestation Xtra, 590 Gospel Channel and 950 Asian Babes, that sort of thing, 980 BBC1 E Mids and 908 Babeworld.
I have also heard tales of woe from people with who delete channels on Freeview boxes in kids bedrooms, rescan and dont realise the channels have come back. Some boxes even automatically rescan, so they might not know its happened. There are 2 Sky boxes and 3 Freeview where I live and I certainly dont want to be running round setting them all up every few weeks.
What I am not suggesting is having to enter a PIN each time you change channel, just a oneoff opt in when the box is first used.