Because up until now I wasn't given any reason to believe I'd get a genuine response, so resorted to playing along with the tirade of personal dislike dumped on someone who is, after all, just someone making a living having a laugh whilst presenting on a shopping channel.
But thanks for your considered response. To give my answer to your points -
I'm sure that if Peter's handling of the model's clothing were any kind of problem, it would have been addressed off-camera by now, and any objections dealt with. I don't think Peter is a heterosexual (despite his various accounts of 'Bet', who I think is intended as a fictitious 'prop', much in the spirit of Larry Grayson's 'Slack Alice' etc) - not that that's any of my business - so has no personal gratification getting close to female models.
I think the accusation of deception would be valid regarding flexi-pay were the information not liberally shown on screen at all times. Any newcomer to Ideal World can, I think, easily spot the price at the bottom, and the divisions of that proce at the top. I think it's all fairly clear. He does forget to mention the intricacies of flexi-pay, but then doesn't always actually reach the end of a sentence!
Peter's innuendo. There I partially agree. Occasionally, I do find it inappropriate, but not excessive. It's on-the-edge silliness, and occasionally, it goes over the edge. I do feel that this kind of thing is more liberally used the later in the schedule he is.
Anyway, thanks for not resorting to the kind of name-calling used elsewhere on this often vitriolic thread.
L.