Babestation - General Chat & Discussion

(17-10-2011 12:24 )aaron Wrote:  Don't you have to click on Other to get a separate menu?

No, all the 900 channels are there as standard when I select the "All Channels" option on the Sky EPG. The only channels I have on the "Other" menu are some regional variations.

(17-10-2011 12:24 )aaron Wrote:  

(16-10-2011 23:27 )iloveMegan Wrote:  

(16-10-2011 20:19 )aaron Wrote:  On Sky the adult channels are not even on the main menu of channels.

Yes they are, on my box at least.

Don't you have to click on Other to get a separate menu?

The adult channels EPG guide can be accessed when you select "all channels" in the Sky channel guide , the adult channels also have their own section in the Sky channel guide , so can be accessed either by selecting "all channels" or by selecting "Adult" in the Sky guide menu.

(17-10-2011 01:17 )vila Wrote:  How can a channel clearly labelled 'ADULT' in the EPG be "stumbled across" or otherwise accessed accidentally? Before you mention the 'up' and 'down' buttons, it's impossible to reach the Freeview babe channels by that route without first passing through an information screen warning of the following adult content from whichever direction you approach it. That's no different from having a separate listing – you still have to make a deliberate decision to view the channels. All but a few Freeview equipments have the facility to remove unwanted channels.

Your argument isn't accepted. 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.

(17-10-2011 01:17 )vila Wrote:  Why should there be a "shipload" or "barrage" of complaints? Ofcom's own research, gathered from focus groups which were heavily biased in favour of those sections of the community most likely to object, found that there was general public acceptance of the channels.

Your argument isn't accepted. Whether there is general acceptance or not there are always people willing to complain.

(17-10-2011 01:17 )vila Wrote:  Even if there are a few complaints, the only "nuisance" BS would have to deal with would be to provide Ofcom with recordings of the alleged offensive material. Given how far other channels have had to go before Ofcom even investigate, they probably wouldn't be required to answer any questions, let alone suffer an 'In Breach' verdict.

It's understandable to me that they don't want their output being scrutinised. You may hold a different view.

(17-10-2011 01:17 )vila Wrote:  You would be hard put to justifiably describe anything shown on BS as "too raunchy".

It's not my opinion that counts.

(17-10-2011 01:17 )vila Wrote:  The babe channels are now dealt with under advertising regulations, so if BS is so concerned about complaints it's difficult to understand all their fraudulent advertising (e.g. frequent references to Xtreme being a "porn channel" or in many cases "hard porn", and the admission by 'babestation' that they don't always send buyers the picture featured in the advert they have responded to).

So in what way is Babestation Xtreme not a porn channel?

(17-10-2011 01:17 )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?

(18-10-2011 11:08 )admiral decker Wrote:  Your argument isn't accepted.

The thanks beneath my post suggest otherwise.

(18-10-2011 11:08 )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 11:08 )admiral decker Wrote:  Your argument isn't accepted.

See above.

(18-10-2011 11:08 )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 11:08 )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 11:08 )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 11:08 )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 11:08 )admiral decker Wrote:  

(17-10-2011 01:17 )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.

(18-10-2011 14:33 )vila Wrote:  I've given a clear account if why it isn't

(18-10-2011 14:33 )vila Wrote:  Edited for typo.

You missed a typo





*maintaining the general air of pedantry in this thread

(18-10-2011 17:56 )Sooky™ Wrote:  You missed a typo

You're so good to me!

Really used to like this channel,But find myself switching over more and more.
Needs new babes or more use of some of the babes they allready have.
All they need is for Ella to go naked or get some new blood.

(18-10-2011 14:33 )vila Wrote:  

(18-10-2011 11:08 )admiral decker Wrote:  Your argument isn't accepted.

The thanks beneath my post suggest otherwise.

No, your argument still isn't accepted. Not by Babestation anyway.

(18-10-2011 14:33 )vila Wrote:  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.

Children do that all the time.

(18-10-2011 14:33 )vila Wrote:  

(18-10-2011 11:08 )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.

Your argument isn't accepted. Not by Babestation anyway.

(18-10-2011 14:33 )vila Wrote:  

(18-10-2011 11:08 )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.

Now you're just being pedantic.

(17-10-2011 01:17 )vila Wrote:  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.

You're argument isn't accepted. Not by Babestation anyway.

(19-10-2011 09:43 )loveass Wrote:  Really used to like this channel,But find myself switching over more and more.
Needs new babes or more use of some of the babes they allready have.
All they need is for Ella to go naked or get some new blood.

For me Babestation has fallen behind Elite & RLC, and even the single channel of Storm are giving them a run.

BS has some truly great babes But instead of the girls being given true justice on the screen, they are literally competing against OSGs and interruptions. You can't even see the whole body of the babes, when they only have a third of the screen.

Surely B/S must look a the other channels,and think,god what are we doing,if not they must be blind,because at the moment their not in the same league,