(18-10-2011 10:08 )admiral decker Wrote: Your argument isn't accepted.
The thanks beneath my post suggest otherwise.
(18-10-2011 10:08 )admiral decker Wrote: Many people opposed to adult channels on freeview have stressed the point that they are only a few numbers away from channels for children, so contrary to what you claim the easy availability and access of adult channels on freeview is in fact made into an issue, whereas complaints about adult channels on Sky don't seem to feature that argument.
The fact that it isn't a feature of complaints against Sky has no bearing on whether it's a valid argument for Freeview. I've given a clear account of why it isn't – in any normal method of accessing channels you CANNOT accidentally access Babestation. The only way it could happen is if the channel were to be accessed by someone keying in a random number. Anyone who is reckless enough to do that has no grounds for complaint.
(18-10-2011 10:08 )admiral decker Wrote: Your argument isn't accepted.
See above.
(18-10-2011 10:08 )admiral decker Wrote: Whether there is general acceptance or not there are always people willing to complain.
That applies to any and every aspect of television broadcasting, so is irrelevant to the present discussion and in any case doesn't constitute a "shipload" or "barrage".
(18-10-2011 10:08 )admiral decker Wrote: It's understandable to me that they don't want their output being scrutinised. You may hold a different view.
I do, considering how innocuous their output is in comparison with that of all the other babe channels that I know of.
(18-10-2011 10:08 )admiral decker Wrote: It's not my opinion that counts.
OK, if you want to play semantics I'll rephrase:
One would be hard put to justifiably describe anything shown on BS as "too raunchy".
(18-10-2011 10:08 )admiral decker Wrote: So in what way is Babestation Xtreme not a porn channel?
It doesn't show porn. Porn is R18 Cert, or equivalent, which isn't allowed on UK television, Dutch licence or no Dutch licence.
(18-10-2011 10:08 )admiral decker Wrote: (17-10-2011 00:17 )vila Wrote: Besides all of the above, the claim made was that Cellcast believe the taming is necessary to safeguard their presence on the platform.
Yes. That seems to be the one thing that everyone agrees on, so what's your problem exactly?
I think the rest of my paragraph would make my point to anyone of reasonable intelligence with a basic grasp of the English language.
Aside from anything else, you appear to be missing the entire point that I'm making, which is this:
It isn't about Freeview versus Sky, which is what all your above arguments address. This is about Sky BS versus Freeview BS. BS's Sky output is already tamer than any of the other channels and yet no matter how strong or tame their Sky content is, they always ensure that their Freeview content is tamer.
In other words, even if their output during Freeview hours was the same strength as their Sky-only output, it would still be a lot tamer than the general level of Sky content and would therefore satisfy even your arguments, let alone mine.
Edited for typo.