Thanks for keeping an eye on me... firstly, again, I do not defend her, I defend accusations about myself. I’ve never once defended her negative actions.
Most of your comments about her (and especially about others) are fair/balanced, which is actually the main reason I don't really care but I forgot to mention it in my earlier post. However, some of your posts (or at least parts of them) are tantamount to white knighting and you don't seem to realise the various forms that it can take.
Let's start with your review of her, I'll repeat my last post in your review thread:
I don't think anyone thinks that punter was right but given the silence from the WG regarding key questions, it seems that he wasn't totally wrong either. I suppose it's not too important though but it would be nice and more helpful for others to know the whole truth.
Anyway, yes, I personally don't doubt your experience (because it's similar to my experiences) and I'm very glad you had a good time but I can see why others might, if not doubt you, at least question your intent with this review (such as myself, Pebble and VW), mainly because:
- You've attacked the OP of her recent negative both in his own review thread (fine) and again in your own review (not so great).
- You've not said anything that could be seen as even remotely critical about her and saying things like "there is no risk because I'm not a nutter" is a bit extreme/facetious considering she still has one other "legit" negative and 2 neutrals. There clearly is a risk, it's just probably still a small one. You also failed to mentioned your previous issues with her comms.
- The timing was convenient and while I don't doubt the coincidence in the timing of your actual punt, the timing of this review is a little suspicious (even though it probably should be applauded). And given how revealing about yourself you've been in this review (which is helpful for punters though), it's pretty much certain that she knows who you are now. So one has to wonder why you wanted that?
To add to that, saying "there is no risk because I'm not a nutter" has been proven to be further wrong given her numerous additional negatives and neutrals. Even though you made the comment before many of them, it still reads like a dig at all those reviewers, especially the ones prior to your review. You also also never answered my final question in that quote. To make it clearer to what I was getting at, it was the fact that you posted your review very soon/almost immediately after seeing her and you knew that she'd easily know it was you who wrote it. Given that you wanted to see her again (at least at the time), those actions seem like someone who wanted to quickly counteract her negative and possibly curry favour with her for your next meeting.
What you did, is undeniably what a white knight would do. However that, on it's own, is not proof that you are one. Also, don't get me wrong, a prompt review is mostly a good thing and I've very occasionally done that too but only when I've thought my identity hasn't been obvious and/or when I've not been planning to see them again soon (just sometime in the future).
As for the Santos thread, he is a total nut job. I stated that. I enjoy discussion with you Nigel as you can put your point across without being a cunt.
This may be a punters forum, but that doesn’t make what a punter did defendable. So if by calling santos a nut job makes me a white knight, then clearly his actions are being defended.
The Thomas Santos negative review is now more clear and even though he lied, she's lied even more. The thread didn't end very conclusively but his posts elsewhere were fairly definitive, see his helpfully highlighted quote in this post:
https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=216010.msg2190848#msg2190848No one defended the actions of the OP, indeed almost everyone rightly criticised him (including myself and bigthickdick). And if we're on the subject of what's defensible, her lies about what happened aren't (as illustrated by the screenshots and what the OP has said, even though he is an unreliable source). There's also the smaller lies such as when she claimed she blocked him (but didn't, as per the screenshots) and her manipulation of him (as shown in some of the screenshots, indeed they probably only show part of it). You can see how effective it was too because in that link just above, he says he felt sorry for her which is clearly because of her ridiculous and manipulative comments as shown in some of the screenshots but it's also because he's a fluffy and an idiot.
She also outed his nationality on here but still never bothered to report him on SAAFE or NUM (which is pretty much proof that she made him out to be worse than he actually was - even though he clearly is a weirdo). There's also plenty of other examples of poor behaviour and lies from Emily elsewhere on this forum.
Anyway, it wasn't the fact that you called the OP a nutjob, it was the fact that you repeatedly did it, didn't acknowledge any of the valid points he made or the evidence he produced and just went on to sing her praises. Let me try to go through your posts in that review thread to illustrate my point about your white knighting comments. In your first post you slag him off, rightly so, but mention nothing of how valid his (indirect) points about double booking and poor comms probably are:
I think the OP needs a negative... going in the room without the “I’m ready” text. I know this is a punters forum, but the OP is a bellend.
As an example of something much better to say, here's a much more balanced, non white knight post which still rightfully criticises the punter:
You sir, are a numpty. You went to the room and let yourself in without the 'ready' text? And you don't know why she was annoyed? Fuck me.....
That said your review has some useful information about potential double booking, but what a way to find out.
How was the other punter btw?
In your 2nd post you say:
I’ve seen her since this shitshow from the OP
https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=211126.0
Cracking girl. Honestly, I won’t hesitate in seeing her again. We actually got on quite well despite me having to let her down twice. Thought I might have got lots of abuse, but didn’t. Read the reviews on here and make your own mind up. I did.
Given that you also slag him off in your review, you really seemed to be working overtime to "nullify" everything he's said and promote your narrative as well as sending a very clear signal to the WG that you're supporting her.
Your third post was valid and helpful although you did ignore the evidence he posted (screenshots) supporting what he'd said and making Emily look like a liar and rather manipulative:
You really do need to move on from this, plenty more girls out there.
Your fourth post is again valid and correct but is getting rather repetitive:
Absolutely. Weirdo and a creep.
With your 5th post you jump at the opportunity to big her up. To be fair, it was in direct response to a question although what you say was a bit OTT or at least it's not how I (and some others on here) would describe her but these things are very subjective:
She’s very pretty facially. Lovely accent too, soft north eastern.
As your 6th post, after someone asks for a summary, you give one saying:
Basically some guy thought he was seeing an SP at a particular time, she says different. One word against another. However, the punter went to her place and let himself in without getting the “come up now” text. She’s good like, but not worth obsessing over, he’s like a jealous ex bf or something.
She may have double booked or extended a booking of an existing punt, we don’t know.
Any normal person would just post up his experience and move on.
However, based on the evidence the OP had provided at that point (screenshots), it wasn't just "one word against another", it definitely did look to be in the OP's favour and she was already a proven liar at that point but you don't acknowledge any of that although of course it definitely wasn't all certain either, as we don't have all the screenshots or call logs but those we did have supported the OP rather than her. However the OP has posted further clarification (in the link above) and Emily has remained silent and produced absolutely no evidence. Given that she's not afraid to be gobby, she's stayed quiet because she doesn't have any evidence and she's been caught out lying (she went silent when that previously happened too). You do make some other good points though.
You then got into a heated debate with bigthickdick, which he alluded to and linked earlier in this thread. As you say, at that point you were more defending yourself however he did make some good points and try illustrate how your posts (or at least big parts of them) were white knighting. I presume you took umbrage not just to what he was saying but the way he said it, which is fair enough up to a point.
If anyone think it’s white knight actions that agree her service is deminishing. So be it. If anyone thinks it’s white knighting to suggest an SP is probably better in 30 min bookings. So be it. There are some footballers who are better as subs. Saying that isn’t white knighting them.
It’s confirming the criticism of performance but accepting they can perform better under certain situations. This is good info and advice for punters so they don’t waste their money. Some girls just are, and lose their gusto or enthusiasm. They’re getting paid to fuck strangers and some are better actresses than others.
Yes, you did say her service seemed to be diminishing which definitely isn't white knighting, however it was after you said this:
Is it just me that thinks she doesn’t have that many negatives compared to her positives?
Is there a way to view the highest and lowest rated SP’s? As in % of negative to positive? A league of the most reviewed? Would be a nice filter to have.
Now I have no idea how you could come to that conclusion, especially since all her "peers" in terms of positive reviews have way less negatives and neutrals and that should've been obvious even just from the the top of your head. To be fair, I presume you were either trying to compare her to really crap escorts with very few positives and lots of negatives (which would be a bit odd though) or you just didn't think your comment through very well, hence you asked all those reasonable follow up questions.
As a side note, that page on the punting wiki with the table of NW escorts was created entirely by me but anyone can add to it and you (or anyone else) should feel free to if you know any other escorts in the North West who have more than 3 positive reviews on here.
As for your "better in 30 min" suggestion, let's break it down:
She’s a popular girl so it’s no surprise she’s burnt out. Would put me off the session if I got the life story of how a girl became an escort. It does seem to be the one hour bookings that are getting the neutrals though? Maybe she’s just best to have as a 30 min booking?
Being popular is absolutely no excuse for burning out nor does it mean it's "no surprise" (except perhaps for EE's who start out good). There are loads of popular girls out there who don't burn out, indeed most of them don't, especially the British.
Suggesting 30 mins seems rather speculative at best. It's good that you were trying to help but it seems to be fairly unfounded even at the time, hence it could be seen as white knighting. 3 of her neutrals are for 30 min bookings and so are 3 of her negatives (one of which isn't totally clear but the review does seem to suggest it was 30 mins and that's supported by most of his previous reviews too). Now I'm sure some were probably posted after you made that comment but many were before and I'm surprised you've still defended your comment in this thread given that it doesn't seem to be true based on her reviews.
Even just generally, if an escort is actually good, they'll almost always be able to perform well both a 30 minute or hour long booking, especially since those are so common. Not being good in longer bookings (1.5 hours +) might be a little more understandable, especially if she doesn't do them very often but it still wouldn't be a sign of a good escort. A good escort should be good regardless for how long you've booked for especially an hour or under. I've also personally not noticed any difference with different booking lengths (30 min and an hour), any differences have been mainly down to me (how long it takes me to cum/how many times, how long I like to spend on various activities etc) or other things related to the girl but not seemingly the length of time. Perhaps you or others have different experiences?
If some of you are foolish enough to believe the girl actually likes you, or should, you’re deluded. I don’t expect that. I do however expect a level of performance to make the experience enjoyable for me.
That sounds like a snide dig at her negative and neural reviewers and/or those who've commented unflatteringly about her, because no one has ever said that or even suggested anything close to it. Although if I had to nominate someone who was the closest, it might well be you:
Moved on to sex, she got on top, swapper to missionary then on to anal doggy, which she loved!
Nice little half an hour and I will be going back.
Nice girl, great techniques, and great value.
Not much more to add to be honest. I’m not going to get fluffy but she does come across as a genuinely nice girl. I’ll be back.
I’ve never once defended her negatives, as I believe punters should report on how they find a punt. I’ve reported negatively on popular girls before but always state that it was my experience, and leave people to make their own mind up.
As for the comment about me not having earned my free shag yet, that comes from a person who claims to have read all my posts, who clearly hasn’t and only picks things out for his own pathetic agenda. I’ve stayed MANY times that I’ll not see her again because there are many, many more women to get through, and new experiences.
As you can see, I've cherry-picked your comments as well and I don't deny most of your others are fine however the ones I have shown do at least have some white knight elements. Let's have a look at some more. This post report was silly, especially since VW's comments were justified as they highlighted her stupidity/lies/touting. It's also entertaining to see WG's spouting rubbish:
https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=221926.msg2248165#msg2248165Admin of course didn't act on that post report.
See the bits in bold in this post:
For me though, due to her low cost for the services on offer, it’s a risk worth taking though. £70 for 30 mins with a girl as hot as this with swallowing and guaranteed anal? She’s a bargain. Totally get your points though about the other things. But she’s young, and learning is guess. I’d see her again purely based on the fact she’s fairly close by to me, anal and swallowing, (don’t think she swallowed with me tho?) and inexpensive. Too may girls hiking prices up at the moment too. £100 plus for 30 mins for similar girls with these services included. And in some cases not even being good enough to justify their price. Anyway, I went off topic. Loads of girls out there to see though is my point and what I like about this place are the honest reviews and opinions. So you can pay your money and take your chance, all be it with less risk if you done your homework here.
She's not particularly young and she definitely still shouldn't need to be learning so much (obviously it's always a continual process though) because she's very experienced. That should have been obvious from her profile and reviews even at that point but also from the info in my review as well as what I PM'd you before you saw her. Being "young and learning" (which isn't really true anyway) is not in any way an excuse for her not being up to scratch so there was no point in even mentioning it, indeed bringing it up is a form of white knighting even if the rest of what you say is reasonable (although of course your "a girl hot as this" comment is very subjective/not one that everyone would agree with but obviously there's no harm in expressing an opinion).
You've also repeatedly defended first time reviewers (sometimes first time posters) who've written very positive reviews, against legitimate suspicion from other punters on here. No girl on here (certainly not in the North West) has ever attracted so many first time reviewers as this one. Just because you're experience might have been similar does not mean that the reviewer is definitely telling truth or that their motives were purely to help other punters (and motives are very important for reliable reviews, particularly in the long run). The scepticism on here is for the most part very healthy because it helps weed out the dodgy.
Of course some/many will be innocent but if they can't handle or at least understand the scrutiny then they were probably never going to become very helpful/reliable anyway. Since this site can't be perfect and it's very hard to know the truth/prove anything on anonymous forum, it is far better for this site to be too sceptical than too trusting. Anyone who wants more trusting can go on literally any other punting forum.
I initially exceeded the 20,000 character limit for posts (I didn’t even know there was one until now), so my post continues below.
