Vice Article - Inside 'UK Punting' – The TripAdvisor of Sex Workers

[liamdawson19]

Just seen this posted on Vice

External Link/Members Only

[fredpunter]

Just seen this posted on Vice

External Link/Members Only

Another nail in the coffin for respectable journalism. Quoting posts out of context and neglecting to mention that posters of that ilk are generally banned quickly and heavily criticised by other members.

[mediumjoe]

 I found it generally interesting particularly the statistics, the trouble is all the quotes  apart from one from Nick were from WG's,  just didn't get the punters point of view.  If you believe the girls we are all vicious horrible blackmailers.

[GoodIdea]

It does provide a very one sided view of the place thats true but the quotes from the wgs on there were eye raising to be sure. Perhaps i'm just too naive though.

[OldAdmin]

Thanks for the publicity 

[Happyjose]

Thanks for the publicity 

  Expect a spike in new members

[Blackpool Rock]

To be expected really but the article didn't mention that perhaps Punters need their own forum (which is exactly what we have  ) where dangerous girls / thieves etc can be warned about.
Guys have UKP and girls have their own fluffy sites like SAAFE but that didn't take a slating for the Feminazi shit that's posted 

[mace-window]

Is the girl in the video of this article is this WG by the way????
External Link/Members Only

[Ali Katt]

Gavin McInnes was co-founder of Vice, he left in 2008. I wonder what he thinks of these pro-feminist, anti-male articles?

External Link/Members Only

Vice has become a lefty media mouthpiece, it's not as bad as Huff Po or Young Turks, but it's on that side of the spectrum.

With regards the article the woman who wrote it is a Guardian contributor. Should tell you all you need to know. What women forget is men communicate with a series of innuendo, in jokes and foul mouthed rants, we rarely cry on each other shoulders - this is dying out in the workplace due to feminzais and SJWs and it is affecting staff morale. What people also forget is nobody questions Tripadvisor when a decimating review is published which affects the owners' business; yet they question us for reviewing women who fail to deliver even a "Mcblowjob" service. Why? Because they are women? If you want to go deeper prostitution continues to grow in the 21st century due to feminism, butt-ugly women with standards that are too high, women not fucking their husbands, promiscuous 20 year olds who won't settle down, women making themselves deliberately unappealing by piling on the pounds and wearing men's clothes because of natural beauty campaigns - these are all by-products of feminism which the rainbow flag waving, refugee pole smoking author supports. It may be fun now, but book groups in Vegan cafes with yoghurt weaving 50 stone rug suckers won't be a substitute for a good man and children.

[MoTToM]

What a load of bollocks that article is (to absolutely no-one's surprise). Vice has been an SJW, fake news, shitshow for a while now, so the dishonesty and bias is only to be expected (Vice News still does proper journalism from time to time, though - warzone reports and the like).

Still, on the plus side, Vice is only discrediting itself further, as curious types may read the article and decide to check out UKP for themselves and recognise the misrepresentations. If they have an open mind, that is, and half a brain. Those with a tendency to label anything and everything as 'racist' and 'sexist' and so on are beyond rational persuasion anyway.

[Simmo87]

another half baked story from a shit journo, as normal they never tell the full story,misquote and twist facts to suit.

 

[Ali Katt]

It's a forum of locker-room talk at its worst. Men share tips on where best to find 'street girls' by hanging out near homeless hostels!

Course it is Sophie.

[Charliebp]

Fair and a balanced in the same way Fox News is also fair and balanced.

(sarcasm for those who cannot tell)

[OldAdmin]

Vice is the Breitbart of the far-left.

[sparkus]

It's actually not very well written and not very informative.  Try harder, love!

I imagine Vice has regressed back to Sugar Ape on Nathan Barley as stuff like this smacks of "Go on, go wank off a builder!":

External Link/Members Only

[Ajb153]

Expect a spike in new members

Yeah I'm one of them lol

[sparkus]

Yeah I'm one of them lol

Just like when Harriet Harman stood up and denounced %%%.  Thanks, love!

[Yeboahsleftfoot]

A load of shite written by an ugly ginger, from the service provider's perspective, with no thought that we need an unbiased voice and no mention of the shitshow of crappy whores who rip of punters and far outnumber the good girls. Who'd have thunk it! 

[Scotpunter]

The one thing that piece misses out on is that the Sex workers it describes are service providers. With the ability of the buying public to review any service on the internet, why should sex work be any different?

[Chuckman]

Nice to read a balanced and well-thought out article about the site. Oh wait it wasn't, it was just the usual collection of sloppily written rubbish masquerading as journalism.

She said she tried to post on here; wonder what her username was?

[mediumjoe]

Well she didn't last long.  Don't know how Admin sniffs them out .

[ClarkeOfTheCourse]

They should have asked the "Wolf of the West End" for a quote

[stampjones]

Its quite funny actually. Gives a shout out to NIK.
Impressive how they understand what the site is but basically spend most of the article ignoring that
Like I say, quite funny imo

[stampjones]

Its quite funny actually. Gives a shout out to NIK.
Impressive how they understand what the site is but basically spend most of the article ignoring that
Like I say, quite funny imo

PS didnt mean it was funny cos it quotes NIK - just thought that was cool!

[OldAdmin]

Gives a shout out to NIK.

Another trainee journalist / researcher did contact me last year, with a dozens of questions, I told her I couldn't answer because I don't have time.

Maybe in the future I will just push them to NIK. He can be UKP's press agent

[arthur]

'..but several others tell me they have been after posting: "I was banned from the site for defending myself when I changed my prices," says one. "I was sworn at and called names."

How many prossies have been banned for arguing a change in price. Can anyone think of a thread where this happened?

[mediumjoe]

Well Admin, that's not such a bad idea, your "company" is now of a size with 120,000 members? And God only knows how many casual visitors, it's probably overdue.

Not sure which company would be of comparable size, but it would be a household name.

Press liaison officer Nick,   Sounds good to me, after all he has written a book on the subject!

[stampjones]

Another trainee journalist / researcher did contact me last year, with a dozens of questions, I told her I couldn't answer because I don't have time.

Maybe in the future I will just push them to NIK. He can be UKP's press agent

Well he's a obviously bit of a celebrity now - how long before he's on question time?
"The question is which London prossie takes it up the arse with most enthusiasm? Theresa? No, lets go to NIK first"

[vw]

A load of shite written by an ugly ginger, from the service provider's perspective, with no thought that we need an unbiased voice and no mention of the shitshow of crappy whores who rip of punters and far outnumber the good girls. Who'd have thunk it! 

the mind boggles as to why someone reported this post ?

Is ugly a new race ?

[brownman]

Read the whole thing. Typical SJW women's studies journalist. Makes WGs out as helpless victims who always try to give a good service. Demonised punters for giving their opinion, and takes a tiny minority as the rule.
The bit about Romanian WGs is not even racism, it's just a fact that a lot of guys have experienced.
She tries to push the Nordic model near the end, WGs would have real fun when their supply of punters dry out, but the crazy ones won't be deterred from stalking.
 

[NIK]

wanted to know why such a site even needs to exist, so I got in touch with Nik, who founded UKPunting in 2010 "as an alternative to the existing sites", to ask him why he wanted a site where sex workers didn't have a voice.

He told me via email: "All existing sites were funded by advertising from service providers, therefore they had, and still have, vested interests in portraying a favourable and often false image of the paid sex scene. Negative reports were often suppressed and people like myself who told the truth were hounded and eventually banned. A number of like minded punters suggested I start an alternative."



The lying bastard. I never responded to anyone via email. That is taken from a post I made on here.
Don't you just love the integrity of journalists? 

[Blackpool Rock]

The lying bastard. I never responded to anyone via email. That is taken from a post I made on here.
Don't you just love the integrity of journalists? 

Fake news doesn't just affect Trump then, perhaps you should defend yourself on Twitter 

[Blackpool Rock]

The one thing that piece misses out on is that the Sex workers it describes are service providers. With the ability of the buying public to review any service on the internet, why should sex work be any different?

They also didn't touch on the fact that girls are very highly paid service providers and for many punters it takes them a day's pay to get an hours punt only to find out the service provider is crap.
If it was a builder or plumber etc then everybody would be on the side of the person who had been ripped off, perhaps one day we will have a UKP TV show like watchdog 

[MrMatrix]

wanted to know why such a site even needs to exist, so I got in touch with Nik, who founded UKPunting in 2010 "as an alternative to the existing sites", to ask him why he wanted a site where sex workers didn't have a voice.

He told me via email: "All existing sites were funded by advertising from service providers, therefore they had, and still have, vested interests in portraying a favourable and often false image of the paid sex scene. Negative reports were often suppressed and people like myself who told the truth were hounded and eventually banned. A number of like minded punters suggested I start an alternative."

The lying bastard. I never responded to anyone via email. That is taken from a post I made on here.
Don't you just love the integrity of journalists? 

it doesn't surprise me TBH. Sorry to hear they have lied at your expense. I know who I believe NIK.   

[Titti Tatti]

Agree it's a very poorly written article BUT that doesn't mean it's 100 percent wrong.


As the posts on this thread shows there is a very strong group think on here.  I would sum it up as pump, dump and run from the money grabbing whores. The O/T section has a strong right wing libertarian bias. That's all fine for some of 'us', but surely punting attracts people with various range of attitudes to paying for sex, women, politics and even ...dare I say it on here....FEMINISM.

Does a different POV matter? I think it does and the aggressive attitude s towards the game stops this site from being a force for improving the situation.  It's aLways the WGs fault. EG Only they ever run late or fail to show except where a punter will praise them for being fine accepting him letting the agreement start or cancelling late. You don't have to be a member at SAAFE to know no shows is a big problem that changes the WGs attitude towards bookings. Similarly there was a poster on the Soho thread who explained you could promiss a girl 30 and once she got naked change you mind and say you only want to spend 20. It's an example of dishonesty and deception and yet the only 'crime' we report is B+S.

There was another thread where there was the usual they are all money grabbing ho's and someone pointed out it was called capitalism and all he cared about was for a service he agreed on was delivered proffesionally just as if she'd been a plumber.  His argument was disparched with the usual cries of white knight.

Fine if you are happy being part of a heard mentality. But those attitudes become more entrenched as they attract like 'minds'.  Recognise and challenge group think.  It's good for you.

[Happyjose]

Agree it's a very poorly written article BUT that doesn't mean it's 100 percent wrong.


As the posts on this thread shows there is a very strong group think on here.  I would sum it up as pump, dump and run from the money grabbing whores. The O/T section has a strong right wing libertarian bias. That's all fine for some of 'us', but surely punting attracts people with various range of attitudes to paying for sex, women, politics and even ...dare I say it on here....FEMINISM.

Does a different POV matter? I think it does and the aggressive attitude s towards the game stops this site from being a force for improving the situation.  It's aLways the WGs fault. EG Only they ever run late or fail to show except where a punter will praise them for being fine accepting him letting the agreement start or cancelling late. You don't have to be a member at SAAFE to know no shows is a big problem that changes the WGs attitude towards bookings. Similarly there was a poster on the Soho thread who explained you could promiss a girl 30 and once she got naked change you mind and say you only want to spend 20. It's an example of dishonesty and deception and yet the only 'crime' we report is B+S.

There was another thread where there was the usual they are all money grabbing ho's and someone pointed out it was called capitalism and all he cared about was for a service he agreed on was delivered proffesionally just as if she'd been a plumber.  His argument was disparched with the usual cries of white knight.

Fine if you are happy being part of a heard mentality. But those attitudes become more entrenched as they attract like 'minds'.  Recognise and challenge group think.  It's good for you.

Bollocks. You're as guilty of selective reading and bias confirmation as the 'journalist' in question.

[Midori]

The article was incredibly one sided.

I think as a whole, a site like this one is needed, to review girls practice. I imagine it wouldn't be nice to read bad things about yourself, but at the same time the punter is paying a lot of money and like other service providers there should be a way of recommending or warning people. I use Amazon to buy electrical goods and I always read the reviews first. I use trip advisor as well for my holidays. Why should us girls not be held accountable for the service we provide?

Also, articles like this and mumsnet seem to miss the point that if you are reviewed positively, it actually generates more business for us WG's, because more people pay attention to reviews than just the contributors. Also, it's a good learning tool, to learn where to improve.

I hate this diatribe that WG's are victims. Most of us choose this profession and we are renumerated well for it. Who is this victim really? A WG managing her own business and getting paid £100 an hour plus, or someone working on a 0 hour contract earning £7.20 an hour with no job security making the people at the top rich?

But you'll never see these type of things said about sex work. Better not disturb the status quo 

[fredpunter]

Agree it's a very poorly written article BUT that doesn't mean it's 100 percent wrong.


As the posts on this thread shows there is a very strong group think on here.  I would sum it up as pump, dump and run from the money grabbing whores. The O/T section has a strong right wing libertarian bias. That's all fine for some of 'us', but surely punting attracts people with various range of attitudes to paying for sex, women, politics and even ...dare I say it on here....FEMINISM.

Does a different POV matter? I think it does and the aggressive attitude s towards the game stops this site from being a force for improving the situation.  It's aLways the WGs fault. EG Only they ever run late or fail to show except where a punter will praise them for being fine accepting him letting the agreement start or cancelling late. You don't have to be a member at SAAFE to know no shows is a big problem that changes the WGs attitude towards bookings. Similarly there was a poster on the Soho thread who explained you could promiss a girl 30 and once she got naked change you mind and say you only want to spend 20. It's an example of dishonesty and deception and yet the only 'crime' we report is B+S.

There was another thread where there was the usual they are all money grabbing ho's and someone pointed out it was called capitalism and all he cared about was for a service he agreed on was delivered proffesionally just as if she'd been a plumber.  His argument was disparched with the usual cries of white knight.

Fine if you are happy being part of a heard mentality. But those attitudes become more entrenched as they attract like 'minds'.  Recognise and challenge group think.  It's good for you.

some of your points carry some truth in some circumstances - but not about this article. If there appears to be "herd mentality" (note the spelling) it's because there is little dispute over the clear fact that the article is shit. 

Another thing quoted is some lass saying they get slagged off if they don't offer oral or kissing ... but doesn't mention that she probably advertises these services but then declines to offer them once she's pocketed the punter's cash. Anyone who wrote a review of such a lass and didn't mention this would be encouraging the dishonesty, not "respecting her as a human being".   

[NIK]

Agree it's a very poorly written article BUT that doesn't mean it's 100 percent wrong.


As the posts on this thread shows there is a very strong group think on here.  I would sum it up as pump, dump and run from the money grabbing whores. The O/T section has a strong right wing libertarian bias. That's all fine for some of 'us', but surely punting attracts people with various range of attitudes to paying for sex, women, politics and even ...dare I say it on here....FEMINISM.

Does a different POV matter? I think it does and the aggressive attitude s towards the game stops this site from being a force for improving the situation.  It's aLways the WGs fault. EG Only they ever run late or fail to show except where a punter will praise them for being fine accepting him letting the agreement start or cancelling late. You don't have to be a member at SAAFE to know no shows is a big problem that changes the WGs attitude towards bookings. Similarly there was a poster on the Soho thread who explained you could promiss a girl 30 and once she got naked change you mind and say you only want to spend 20. It's an example of dishonesty and deception and yet the only 'crime' we report is B+S.

There was another thread where there was the usual they are all money grabbing ho's and someone pointed out it was called capitalism and all he cared about was for a service he agreed on was delivered proffesionally just as if she'd been a plumber.  His argument was disparched with the usual cries of white knight.

Fine if you are happy being part of a heard mentality. But those attitudes become more entrenched as they attract like 'minds'.  Recognise and challenge group think.  It's good for you.

I assume you never experienced the totally pro sp, anti punter dishonest sites we suffered pre UKP?

[timsussex]

As previously noted - great publicity - or it would be if it was on somewhere that anyone reads

[Yeboahsleftfoot]

the mind boggles as to why someone reported this post ?

Is ugly a new race ?

The comment was factual, certainly not racist, some of my best friends are ginger....

[NIK]

The comment was factual, certainly not racist, some of my best friends are ginger....

As we know 'offence' is the new default for many people today.

There was an old saying which kids of my generation were familiar with
'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but calling name never hurt me.'
Now it seems calling names devastates the poor sensitive snowflakes. 

They want to grow some backbone and fuck off and get a life. 

[Matium]

Agree it's a very poorly written article BUT that doesn't mean it's 100 percent wrong.


As the posts on this thread shows there is a very strong group think on here.  I would sum it up as pump, dump and run from the money grabbing whores. The O/T section has a strong right wing libertarian bias. That's all fine for some of 'us', but surely punting attracts people with various range of attitudes to paying for sex, women, politics and even ...dare I say it on here....FEMINISM.

Does a different POV matter? I think it does and the aggressive attitude s towards the game stops this site from being a force for improving the situation.  It's aLways the WGs fault. EG Only they ever run late or fail to show except where a punter will praise them for being fine accepting him letting the agreement start or cancelling late. You don't have to be a member at SAAFE to know no shows is a big problem that changes the WGs attitude towards bookings. Similarly there was a poster on the Soho thread who explained you could promiss a girl 30 and once she got naked change you mind and say you only want to spend 20. It's an example of dishonesty and deception and yet the only 'crime' we report is B+S.

There was another thread where there was the usual they are all money grabbing ho's and someone pointed out it was called capitalism and all he cared about was for a service he agreed on was delivered proffesionally just as if she'd been a plumber.  His argument was disparched with the usual cries of white knight.

Fine if you are happy being part of a heard mentality. But those attitudes become more entrenched as they attract like 'minds'.  Recognise and challenge group think.  It's good for you.

You're on the wrong site.

You should be on Prossienet not UKP.

[The Owl]

The truth is rarely what one side or the other portrays it as. Often the truth sits uncomfortably in the middle somewhere and is often denied by many of the individuals from both sides because it exposes some of the holes in their agendas and beliefs.

[HighlyMotivated]

The truth is rarely what one side or the other portrays it as. Often the truth sits uncomfortably in the middle somewhere and is often denied by many of the individuals from both sides because it exposes some of the holes in their agendas and beliefs.

+1 for the wise Owl!

As previously noted - great publicity - or it would be if it was on somewhere that anyone reads

Vice are huge mate. Not exactly bastions of journalism, but a very popular media company for many years now

[Dicky]

What a shit article. As an aside, I checked the girl out on twitter...would not pay more than 50/hour for her...face has a pump and dump dead fish type look. Also looks a bit manly from some angles.

Back to the article...the first rule of journalism - approach a subject without any bias. This girl evidently came to the site probably biased from mumsnet posts and looked for examples to support her points. Even her examples were flawed. If I pay 120-150 for an hour, I do not expect a dead fish type service and certainly not for the girl to use her legs to push me away from full penetration.  Or for a munter with a bad attitude to advertise herself as a passionate GFE.  It would be the equivalent of Soph Wilinson to go to a pricey restaurant only to find that the food she ate has a healthy helping of the waiter's sperm. I wonder how she would react and what kind of a review she would give on a review website. Because in negative reviews that is pretty much what happens - the girl misadvertises or does not provide the services she promised and charges more than what the top professionals in the country charge for.   

Does the article have a comments option?  I thought about tweeting her what a shit article it was, but that would only give a sub standard journalist more oxygen.

[OldAdmin]

According to the site stats for yesterday (screenshot below), barely anything has registered, looks like average traffic levels. Which is not surprising as Vice is not as established in the UK as it is in North America.

Hidden Image/Members Only

I only see a small surge in non-UK new members (mostly American), but that is most likely related to something else as that surge started few days prior.

But I'm sure other journalists and more feminazis now know about UKP, which is something I wanted. Thanks to that fake Mumsnet troll for kicking it all off 

[OldAdmin]

I assume you never experienced the totally pro sp, anti punter dishonest sites we suffered pre UKP?

Maybe he's one of the many Pro$$ieNet fluffies who slagged off this site when it was first setup but the death of Pro$$ieNet meant they've had to migrate to here with new usernames and identities.

[HighlyMotivated]

Those stats are absolutely bonkers, especially given the lack of advertising and social media presence.

Admin, I know you've said you have no plans to monetise the site, but should that change do send me a PM as I have some success in this field (assuming you don't have the know-how already) 

[OldAdmin]

The feminazis say that External Link/Members Only is ran by pimps and not sex workers, with their agenda being in the interests of pimps.

I don't know about ECP but I do know another "charity" that claims to be anti-sex-trafficking and campaigns for "decriminalization" is actually ran by a pimp. He uses the "charity" as a protection racket for brothels and agencies in his area, to make himself money from "donations", as well as campaigning for changes in law to secure his income (in favour of making brothels legal) and given his prossies are British, he is against EU prossies coming to UK (the "anti-trafficking" part of his "charity"). According to a well known WG, at the end of shifts in local parlours his criminal lackey mates would pressure WGs to hand over part of their day's earnings to "the charity" (i.e. his pocket). The pimp also runs a "punting" forum and has been endlessly claiming for past 15 years how he is "unbiased" because he's never paid for sex and not involved in prostitution at all, but as exposed last year, he is actually a pimp who has multiple apartments that WGs rent out to his for their incalls and he also manages their AW profiles. He uses his forum to promote the WGs that work for him (making more money from their vaginas) and also has other local pimps advertise on his site. He regularly boasts of being an "alpha-male" and boasting about people he's beaten up and challenging anyone who disagrees with him for a fight, and if they lose then he is right and they are wrong. Classic definition of gutter thug pimp.

The pimp, who goes by the name of "Angel", and many others like him, hates this site and has been attacking us since 2010. So that's one thing the trafficking pimps and feminazis have in common, they can't stand UKP.