Excluding those SPs who are pimped and far from independent, many others work in parlours where they generally see whoever walks through the door. Similar with escorts working via agencies. Sexual acts may have limitations and barriers, but the theoretical 'right to say no' and select punters is rarely a practical one which can be exercised.
My point was that an individual SP's personal circumstances both financial and how she works, can dictate how selective she can be. I would suggest many who rely totally on prostitution and who have had a barren week will be unlikely to turn down a booking.
Many WG's say no absolutely all the time it's just that they say "yes" to the money and then proceed to say no throughout the punt (despite things having already agreed to the services) regardless of what you say and do (once you've handed over the cash).
As TailSeeker has suggested, most of the non-crap escorts will often choose to totally reject the client and their cash in order to save themselves from a likely bad encounter/one not worth the money.
You also seem to overestimate how many WGs are financially desperate. It's usually only the really thick ones (such as the timewasters or those have no concept of any sort of saving), the really ugly or those with serious addictions/habits who struggle. The vast majority of full time escorts make more than enough money to live on, especially the ones who use it top up their benefits.
Nonetheless, there are some who're desperate, some who struggle with saying no/confrontation and some who's working practices mean they don't turn down bookings but I think they're mostly in the minority and even then they usually change over time (realising they need to learn how to deal with it or realise that dealing with a bad punter ain't worth the cash or just from taking advice from others, e.g. on SAAFE).
Parlour girls are even more likely to reject clients because they have the support and safety of the other girls and staff close by (unless perhaps the owner takes a different view and enforces it, which is mostly rare among popular parlours) and they can usually rely on picking up a new/replacement client from those who walk in.
It's similar with most agencies although there are dodgy ones out there, e.g. from talking to current and former agency girls, Manchester Elite would happily let girls reject clients but Secrets wouldn't.
I think the big problem is that it's often counted as a negative if someone refuses to see a punter. If you agree a WG should be able to refuse to engage with a punter, then it shouldn't be an auto neg if they do so (granted for indies it should be for a valid reason, where as parlours and agencies, those can't be laid out in advance).
Where have you see people slating a WG for refusing to see a client? There are very occasional neg reviews but as far as I can see whenever that happens it's more likely the OP gets criticised.
For example, despite you subtly whinging about your neg review in reply #16, you weren't criticised for excerising your right to refuse, you were criticised for not making things clear on your profile or during comms thus messing him about (because he turned up understandably expecting a punt when that should've been prevented) and on a tangent your lying about your vital stats/cup size:
https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=173011I know I can be a bit slow at times but I'm missing your point here, the money laundering charges may have been dropped but they pleaded guilty to running a brothel. They got suspended sentences and had to pay £350,000. If they were to start operating again they would be prosecuted again.
Whether someone else opens the premises as a brothel is irrelevant to this couple, the new owners, however, run the same risk of prosecution.
Interesting that the IT guy got prosecuted as well.
I think his point is that the main aim was prosecuting for tax evasion and money laundering (as he said in his first post), which failed. Given that it went to court they were always going to be prosecuted for brothel keeping but that wasn't the goal.
If they start operating again then they probably would be prosecuted but only because it would likely be easier given the previous conviction and the fact that a new conviction would lead to jail time due to the suspended sentence.
The new owners absolutely do not run the same risk of prosecution and the evidence for that is the fact that they're still up and running fine, as are the many other parlours in Greater Manchester that have not been targeted by the police (targeted for charges/prosecution I mean - the police are well aware of all the main parlours and indeed sometimes visit them to check on the girls etc).