Asked not to post review on UKP

[Home Alone]

You really should check your grammar before calling out people for being thick and stupid.

+1. 

[lillythesavage]

Surely the simple answer is " I have no idea what you are talking about " 

Not let on you are here, deny and there is no discussion to be had,  , review if you wish and not if you think it will ID you.

Starting a thread about the discussion has exposed you anyway, 

[20jay]

☝️This site is all about reviews and warnings or recommendation of the working girls . There is not point to discussing the matter with them ...

[Atrueyorkie]

☝️This site is all about reviews and warnings or recommendation of the working girls . There is not point to discussing the matter with them ...

+1

[Steely Dan]

The 2 members politely disagreeing have significant review contributions.

This.

While I want this thread to get back on path, I must state that pbrown355 is an excellent contributor to this site and we need more like him.  We just have a disagreement today on a point - very normal.

(But, ha ha, I have 8 'reviews' on the international board, and a fair few of my reviews are parties or MFF, so I am winning.  Catch up dude!  )

[Hobbit]

I think people should stop this cock measurement competition and get the topic back on track.

[lamboman]

I think people should stop this cock measurement competition and get the topic back on track.

No SP has ever mentioned UKP to me but if they did I'd simply say I'm not a member and review them anyway.

[pbrown355]

Well i have met around 3000 WGs over the decades give or take and most COULD do something else. The fact was for some being a WG was the quickest way to make good money very quickly, in fact virtually straight away. They COULD make hundreds a day but not have to train for years or otherwise to make the same money.

Some were as thick as two short planks, the same percentage as civvies i have met, yet despite being intellectually dim they were street smart enough to become an indoor WG and be able to make good money.

This is more like what I meant. Before anyone says I'm backtracking, maybe I am, but this does explain the point I was trying to make but was too lazy to think it through and type extra words.
Also thanks for the recognition of my review count but it doesn't make my post look any better.

[pbrown355]

And Steely Dan there's another review coming any day now and I'm not willing to include your international reviews on a basis that I haven't worked out yet. So my dick's bigger than your dick (probably isn't)
I'd include an emoji but don't know how to make them work.

[pbrown355]

And back on track, just ignore any questions about the site and review anyway.

[smiths]

No SP has ever mentioned UKP to me but if they did I'd simply say I'm not a member and review them anyway.

I never mention UKP to WGs nowadays but in UKPs early days some of us wanted to spread the word it existed, and in fact a few WGs i had already punted with before i joined were members on here, all later banned. In those days another punting site was king, dominated by pimps, sickening fan boys and bad WGs mainly. UKP fortunately has been number 1 for years now.

A few WGs have said have you heard of UKP in recent years, i just said never heard of it and steer things back to sex.

[20jay]

I don't generally answer WG's questions, nothing about me, not my real name, whether I'm seeing other girls, or where I live or what I'm doing here...nothing, just some general innocuous chitchat, that's it

[thundercrackerxx]

I always pretend I haven't heard of the site then leave my review a few weeks or a month later with no details specific enough to be recognized.

[lamboman]

I don't generally answer WG's questions, nothing about me, not my real name, whether I'm seeing other girls, or where I live or what I'm doing here...nothing, just some general innocuous chitchat, that's it

I don't mention UKP but apart form that I'm lucky I can be honest.
No SP could remotely understand what I did for a living so they just shut up.

[20jay]

I'm in the same position, but it's none of the tart's business. The hookers are not our friends its not dating its just business. A business that is illegal and in the worst case scenario you are the asshole while the whore is the poor thing.
So I remain cautious.

[lillythesavage]

I never mention UKP to WGs nowadays but in UKPs early days some of us wanted to spread the word it existed, and in fact a few WGs i had already punted with before i joined were members on here, all later banned. In those days another punting site was king, dominated by pimps, sickening fan boys and bad WGs mainly. UKP fortunately has been number 1 for years now.

A few WGs have said have you heard of UKP in recent years, i just said never heard of it and steer things back to sex.

Anything on the net that lasts will become more well known one way or another, loose lips or search engines  .

That does not mean you have to answer a question about it with loose lips, just say never heard of it, end of conversation, we all practice some sort of deceit, should not be hard to tell that little white lie 

[daviemac]

I'm in the same position, but it's none of the tart's business. The hookers are not our friends its not dating its just business. A business that is illegal and in the worst case scenario you are the asshole while the whore is the poor thing.
So I remain cautious.

It's only illegal if the escort is underage, trafficked or coerced, otherwise nothing illegal about it.

[OakTree]

I cannot imagine any WG mentioning Ukpunting to a random punter without some sort of prompt or hint from that punter.

I can only think of one time it was mentioned to me and that was on a return visit to a girl I’d reviewed and she worked out it was probably me.

Out of all the probably hundreds of other meets I’ve had it’s never been mentioned.

[Bonker]

The point of view I subscribe to is my loyalty, duty even, is to this site first and anything else second. I expect other punters to post honest reviews and am obliged to do the same in return.

[northface]

I agree we should not discuss this site with service providers and keep reviewing to help other punters.

What I don't understand that service providers can be members on here and join in our conversations with the same ones giving the above advice out.

It seems a bit contradictory to me.

[Atrueyorkie]

I cannot imagine any WG mentioning Ukpunting to a random punter without some sort of prompt or hint from that punter.

I can only think of one time it was mentioned to me and that was on a return visit to a girl I’d reviewed and she worked out it was probably me.

Out of all the probably hundreds of other meets I’ve had it’s never been mentioned.

It happened to me randomly on one of my first punts. Random but it came across that way, random. It was just like do you know this site and she gave a brief summary of what she thought of it. That was all after we had finished and I didn’t say anything apart from one of my fake names

[RedKettle]

I agree we should not discuss this site with service providers and keep reviewing to help other punters.

What I don't understand that service providers can be members on here and join in our conversations with the same ones giving the above advice out.

It seems a bit contradictory to me.

It is a pragmatic position. In reality you cannot stop them signing up under cover so better to allow them to be members and know who is who.

Also the few that survive on here often add useful information or point of view.

[Malvolio]

I cannot imagine any WG mentioning Ukpunting to a random punter without some sort of prompt or hint from that punter.

I can only think of one time it was mentioned to me and that was on a return visit to a girl I’d reviewed and she worked out it was probably me.

Out of all the probably hundreds of other meets I’ve had it’s never been mentioned.

I can as it happened to me on my last punt.  I think the popular London WGs are all well aware of this site.

[LLPunting]

I can as it happened to me on my last punt.  I think the popular London WGs are all well aware of this site.

Any girl reviewed positively or reviewed neg because of BB or reviewed to have delivered a (good) service of interest perhaps off menu (regardless of rating) will have likely had the review or post waved in her face by some leech or indiscrete active member.
There will of course be the WKs and scammers who might inform neg reviewed SPs to curry favour or ask for a bribe to post a countering review.
Plenty of black hats and skulkers on our side of the reservation exploiting the good folk, possibly more of them than bad SPs.

[Whiteknight]

There will of course be the WKs and scammers who might inform neg reviewed SPs to curry favour or ask for a bribe to post a countering review.

Exactly like you said, some punters are after the brownie points

Those SP had negative reviews on here seem to stay away.  Those had Positive or Neutral, seem to be causing more of a fuss and make a challenge.

[puntingpumping1920]

Well i have met around 3000 WGs over the decades

Hidden Image/Members Only

[king tarzan]

Hidden Image/Members Only

👍👌

[Nice_guy_eddy]

You really should check your grammar before calling out people for being thick and stupid.

Oh come on who gives a fuck about spelling. No one.
We are all here to post about us  shagging prozzies and give reviews so others can have a good time or not get ripped off.

If the spelling thing is the best you can can come up with as a come back maybe you shouldn't have bothered and just kept scrolling. 

Stop being so petty.

[daviemac]

Oh come on who gives a fuck about spelling. No one.
We are all here to post about us  shagging prozzies and give reviews so others can have a good time or not get ripped off.

If the spelling thing is the best you can can come up with as a come back maybe you shouldn't have bothered and just kept scrolling. 

Stop being so petty.

He has a point, if one member is going to call another stupid he should check his post for errors first, or better still don't call others stupid.

[Fuzzyduck]

Oh come on who gives a fuck about spelling. No one.
We are all here to post about us  shagging prozzies and give reviews so others can have a good time or not get ripped off.

If the spelling thing is the best you can can come up with as a come back maybe you shouldn't have bothered and just kept scrolling. 

Stop being so petty.

You're brave to stick your head up after the stunt you tried to pull. I'm more bothered about deceitful pricks like you taking a condescending tone on members when you're trying to bluff your ass out of a hole you dug yourself.

[Heph]

...

It's there bread and butter but they are so thick and stupid to realise that..

Just because there shortcomings get exposed they get a big fat shit on there whore face and deservedly so..

...

So Simpletto 👍👍👌👌

You really should check your grammar before calling out people for being thick and stupid.

Oh come on who gives a fuck about spelling. No one.
We are all here to post about us  shagging prozzies and give reviews so others can have a good time or not get ripped off.

If the spelling thing is the best you can can come up with as a come back maybe you shouldn't have bothered and just kept scrolling. 

No: he's right.

Spelling, of itself, doesn't indicate much one way or another - after all, we all make mistakes and have different priorities. However, errors don't positively add any benefit or clarity, so someone who frequently writes stuff like "I should of done... / I could of done..." is just not observing or thinking, because there are no instances where those mistakes make the slightest sense, or fit, in any context - so those writers ARE being quite stupid.

And when those same people turn on others, with a characteristic cocky rudeness for "their shortcomings" and for being "thick and stupid", well... a lack of basic self-awareness is never a good look - and we may all quietly note their effing stupidity.



KT: you often make valuable contributions to the board, and I am duly grateful for that. But the quote in question, and the many we see like it, are not valuable, and their inadvertent effect is they make you look daft, which is regrettable. I wish you'd stop those kind of remarks and concentrate on producing more of the good stuff. 

[shed]

KT: you often make valuable contributions to the board, and I am duly grateful for that. But the quote in question, and the many we see like it, are not valuable, and their inadvertent effect is they make you look daft, which is regrettable. I wish you'd stop those kind of remarks and concentrate on producing more of the good stuff. 

Not sure why you think you are qualified to make judgements like that. You have both been members for eight years and he has done in that time 300 reviews more than you. In my opinion best pull your neck in and show him more respect. His quotes are different and in his own style. So chill 

[Home Alone]

I regret that, as the member whose response to Oak Tree's post #49 was to agree with him, I didn't go on to remind him that he always has the option of ignoring any other member whose writing 'style' he finds banal and/or annoying.

I did that to King Tarzan some considerable time ago. Unfortunately, when someone else quotes K T, I then get that quotation, even though I had ignored it originally.

Ah well, that's life I guess.

[contentguy]

I’m with Fuzzy on this, I’m looking forward to an explanation from Nice_guy_eddy, about his request for info on someone he’d seen. 

She’s weird, distinctive and NGE says he’s not got dementia.

[Heph]

Not sure why you think you are qualified to make judgements like that. You have both been members for eight years and he has done in that time 300 reviews more than you. In my opinion best pull your neck in and show him more respect. His quotes are different and in his own style. So chill

It's my opinion and personal judgements are just that - personal - requiring no qualification... just like yours. However, I measured and qualified my observations: and similar ones have been levelled many times before by others. In this case, the central one is that being nasty with one's opinion of others' stupidity, tends to have more zing if you can construct a few sentences of your own which aren't full of the kind of clangers that most others have learned to avoid before they get to secondary school.

So, thanks, but no thanks.

[OakTree]

I regret that, as the member whose response to Oak Tree's post #49 was to agree with him, I didn't go on to remind him that he always has the option of ignoring any other member whose writing 'style' he finds banal and/or annoying.

I did that to King Tarzan some considerable time ago. Unfortunately, when someone else quotes K T, I then get that quotation, even though I had ignored it originally.

Ah well, that's life I guess.

I can’t say I found what he said banal or annoying. If anything I found the irony of his post quite amusing.

[webpunter]

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

You've been prolific with 17 since 2014

Other than for your one review last month outta the blue [the 1st in some 3 years] i would have been figuring that you had possibly retired, on 16 not out   

Are we expected to believe you've had 26 punts since 2015?

[webpunter]

Ex-fucking-actly

When it comes anything regarding UKP, deny everything 

External Link/Members Only

You've missed one.

Rule number 3 - read and note rules 1 & 2

On the very odd occasion a burd has mentioned UKP & did i know anything about it

Like they seemed a bit concerned about the kind of stuff on 'it' [err like mostly accurate !]

A bit hard to suggest to them that i know nowt about punting, so whilst responding nope that i had looked @ pro$$ienet

Tho this mostly seemed to be reviews on parlours

& as i have a leaning towards massage stuff this fits in & kills off the convo

[Heph]

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

You've been prolific with 17 since 2014

Other than for your one review last month outta the blue [the 1st in some 3 years] i would have been figuring that you had possibly retired, on 16 not out   

Liverpool's reply, entirely irrelevant to the valid and interesting point about being asked to self-censor by an escort, was to first and only knock the number and relative 'hold-out rate' of reviews made by the OP. I pointed out that Liverpool's own output was hardly exemplary by [nb] his own standards, not mine. And to address this wider point, I went on to add...

We review when it strikes us a good thing to do, and for lots of different reasons: many of which are fine judgement calls. We needn't worry about him, you or me holding back.

And, yes, after 2 years of a pandemic, where, (much like Liverpool himself) I confined myself to regulars which the review rules prohibit me from re-reviewing ad nauseum, I did recently post a review of a new punt made earlier in this year. I have two more in the pipeline, which are only being deferred to avoid risk of personal identification. That OK with you?

[Liverpool]

Liverpool's reply, entirely irrelevant to the valid and interesting point about being asked to self-censor by an escort, was to first and only knock the number and relative 'hold-out rate' of reviews made by the OP. I pointed out that Liverpool's own output was hardly exemplary by [nb] his own standards, not mine. And to address this wider point, I went on to add...
 

And, yes, after 2 years of a pandemic, where, (much like Liverpool himself) I confined myself to regulars which the review rules prohibit me from re-reviewing ad nauseum, I did recently post a review of a new punt made earlier in this year. I have two more in the pipeline, which are only being deferred to avoid risk of personal identification. That OK with you?

My post referenced the OPs about not reviewing well reviewed girls on UKP. So totally relevant.
You have no idea about my punting before, during or after the pandemic so it would be wrong to say I confined myself to regulars.
Suggest you check the rules. You can re-review someone you have seen. Touting only comes an issue if that person is the only one you review.

[GingerNuts]

My post referenced the OPs about not reviewing well reviewed girls on UKP. So totally relevant.
You have no idea about my punting before, during or after the pandemic so it would be wrong to say I confined myself to regulars.
Suggest you check the rules. You can re-review someone you have seen. Touting only comes an issue if that person is the only one you review.

Someone could be touting one SP while also reviewing others.

[king tarzan]

Someone could be touting one SP while also reviewing others.

I don't believe Mr Liverpool for a split second is a tout or anywhere near that sort of character..
He's had issues with my views, fair play against his view of the world..

[GingerNuts]

I don't believe Mr Liverpool for a split second is a tout or anywhere near that sort of character..
He's had issues with my views, fair play against his view of the world..

I didn't say Mr Liverpool is a tout. I pointed out it's possible for someone to tout one SP while also reviewing others.

[king tarzan]

I didn't say Mr Liverpool is a tout. I pointed out it's possible for someone to tout one SP while also reviewing others.

Whoever it is that's on them..
Certainly Mr Liverpool no way, that's for sure...

[GingerNuts]

Whoever it is that's on them..
Certainly Mr Liverpool no way, that's for sure...

You got there eventually

[Liverpool]

Certainly Mr Liverpool no way, that's for sure...

 

[lillythesavage]

I didn't say Mr Liverpool is a tout. I pointed out it's possible for someone to tout one SP while also reviewing others.

It is possible to tout using any comment on any thread, just post a link to all the places she is available, and a massive Gif/picture/pictures, like a circus sticking up posters, or an ad for sweets in the Beano .

 

[webpunter]

Duly noted
Deferring, always the best strategy
So its OK, just about 

And, yes, after 2 years of a pandemic, where, (much like Liverpool himself) I confined myself to regulars which the review rules prohibit me from re-reviewing ad nauseum, I did recently post a review of a new punt made earlier in this year. I have two more in the pipeline, which are only being deferred to avoid risk of personal identification. That OK with you?

[Lou2019]

I'm in the same position, but it's none of the tart's business. The hookers are not our friends its not dating its just business. A business that is illegal and in the worst case scenario you are the asshole while the whore is the poor thing.
So I remain cautious.

Illegal, what are you talking about. Come on get your facts right 

[king tarzan]

Illegal, what are you talking about. Come on get your facts right 

Do you pay tax???


So shut your ruus cluut boombacluut keyboard up woman!!!