Mollysgame assaulted

[The_Grinder]

I now have been in further contact and am perfectly certain that her story is true. Have the greatest sympathy; an unidentifiable low life is making her life a misery.

The Gracefavours image shows signs of bruises on both arms but most of the bruising was, I'm informed, to her rib cage, strategically concealed by the red costume. It's a pity that AW doesn't provide the facility for punters to PM each other; otherwise cynics could quiz 'Mr-Long-Tongue'  .

Please don't accuse me of EAS or white knighting ! I am regretting posting this story now.

Thanks for the update, lets all remember this girl has been assaulted doing her job, I'd be pretty fucked off if someone assaulted me doing mine as I'm sure would most people who are earning a living, WG's run a risk for guys like us and get my respect for doing a difficult job, I'd like to think some of us on here make their working day more enjoyable, some others chose to assault, they will get theirs when karma does its deed.

[stuart131]

Publishing photos without the persons consent is illegal, if the girl has proof it wasn't allowed then its a data protection case

[hillingdonpete]

Publishing photos without the persons consent is illegal, if the girl has proof it wasn't allowed then its a data protection case

There is no doubt that you are a female. 

I would guess the person in question.

[stuart131]

I have a dick, do you want to see it

[hillingdonpete]

Show me.......

[stuart131]

No problrm

[stuart131]

Pm me

[WASA38]

It is evident that stuart131, like me, is a respecting client of Mollysgame who has maintained contact with her and is fully conversant with the dire potential ramifications for her of da26's regrettable posting.

Hilllingdonpete on the other hand has posted 100% Negative Reviews and most of his many Posts are offensively negative so his contribution to this thread is surely valueless. Some might say typical Chelsea FC fan but I couldn't possibly comment.

Am seeking to have the legally reprehensible  Posts and links deleted.

[masseyferguson]

It is evident that stuart131, like me, is a respecting client of Mollysgame who has maintained contact with her and is fully conversant with the dire potential ramifications for her of da26's regrettable posting.

Hilllingdonpete on the other hand has posted 100% Negative Reviews and most of his many Posts are offensively negative so his contribution to this thread is surely valueless. Some might say typical Chelsea FC fan but I couldn't possibly comment.

Am seeking to have the legally reprehensible  Posts and links deleted.

Hang on min, Gracesfavours (? ) posted that pic of herself on AW, it's not a problem to reproduce it here is it ? There are literally hundreds of AW id pics on UKP.
If the SP decided to set up a new profile, with pics, so soon after an assault ( ? ) then that's her lookout surely ?
Please explain if I missing something here, or please hold your hands up to a bit of white knighting.

[WASA38]

Hang on min, Gracesfavours (? ) posted that pic of herself on AW, it's not a problem to reproduce it here is it ?

No, she didn't. It was taken as part of AW's identification procedure and she declined AW's offer to make it public. AW were totally out of order doing so.
That's what I am informed and I have seen a download that substantiates it.

[Lilywhite]

No, she didn't. It was taken as part of AW's identification procedure and she declined AW's offer to make it public. AW were totally out of order doing so.
That's what I am informed and I have seen a download that substantiates it.

There is a tick box to make it un-viewable. Most people don't realise that is it shown by default. AW will not show it if you tick the 'make verification private' box.

[winkywanky]

WASA, are you saying she ticked the box to make the veri-pic unviewable, but that the Adultwork system (for whatever reason) actually did display it, unknown to her?

[socks]

It is evident that stuart131, like me, is a respecting client of Mollysgame who has maintained contact with her and is fully conversant with the dire potential ramifications for her of da26's regrettable posting.

Hilllingdonpete on the other hand has posted 100% Negative Reviews and most of his many Posts are offensively negative so his contribution to this thread is surely valueless. Some might say typical Chelsea FC fan but I couldn't possibly comment.

Am seeking to have the legally reprehensible  Posts and links deleted.

The evidence suggests to me that stuart 131 is Laura/Molly/Grace. No posting on anyone or anything else in the years they've been a member for a start.

[winkywanky]

'stuart' has one review, and not viewable.

[Kev40ish]

'stuart' has one review, and not viewable.

It wasn’t a review so it was moved.

[da26]

Just so I’m clear on the rules, do the various verification threads on here contravene privacy? (If so I didn’t know). Does this mean one should not post info from them outside into non verification threads? Also I didn’t post the actual picture but posted a link to the veri thread. Is this not allowed?

Would be good to know the rules on this for the future. Ta

[winkywanky]

It wasn’t a review so it was moved.

Ah, OK 

[Kev40ish]

Just so I’m clear on the rules, do the various verification threads on here contravene privacy? (If so I didn’t know). Does this mean one should not post info from them outside into non verification threads? Also I didn’t post the actual picture but posted a link to the veri thread. Is this not allowed?

Would be good to know the rules on this for the future. Ta

No you haven’t done anything wrong. It’s fine to link to the verification thread as the photo was in the public domain.

In the past it was only OldAdmin that would delete these photos, but the WG herself had to request it personally.

I’m not sure how it works now, as if the WG is not a member here, they can’t join at the moment to request it.

[socks]

Just so I’m clear on the rules, do the various verification threads on here contravene privacy? (If so I didn’t know). Does this mean one should not post info from them outside into non verification threads? Also I didn’t post the actual picture but posted a link to the veri thread. Is this not allowed?

Would be good to know the rules on this for the future. Ta

I think WASA has inadvertantly referred to you as the poster of the veri photo. You weren't of course, merely linking to the veri photo in the verification thread. Magnetico put it up, who himself is one of a number of people who provides a great service in bringing these verification photos together.

[scutty brown]

I'm rather surprised by the number of members in this thread who seem prepared to discredit Wasa's report and essentially call the girl a liar when they've no personal knowledge of what may have happened to her.
Pretty poor behaviour really.

[WASA38]

She sent me a screenshot of AW's 'Verification Complete' statement and from it I quote
'---the verifcation photograph you supplied is NOT visible to other members---' (their capitals).

I was not meaning to criticize da26 who did nothing wrong. What he did was just unfortunate, as was my ever having started the thread. The blame lies unarguably with AW but seeking redress would, i guess, be a tortuous process.

Thanks to Scutty and others giving me moral support. Maybe I am white knighting but I have simply been trying to make some sort of amends for having caused 'mollysgame' so much worry and, potentially, disastrous consequence. (not exaggeration, but confidential.)

I have asked admin to delete the photo but regret that it is still there. Perhaps he would do so if da26 requested it also.

[hillingdonpete]

Obviously the girl has sent you a screen shot of after she had updated her verifcation picture status 

Initially she had NOT checked the box. Her mistake.

Stop white knighting you fool.

Are you aware that DA26 only linked to the thread and was not the poster of the photo? 

what an imbecile you are.

[Students Notebook]

Obviously the girl has sent you a screen shot of after she had updated her verifcation picture status 

Initially she had NOT checked the box. Her mistake.

Stop white knighting you fool.

Are you aware that DA26 only linked to the thread and was not the poster of the photo? 

what an imbecile you are.

I really don't think there is any need to be so rude to WASA38, who by his own admission is "elderly and disabled".
Calling him an imbecile is unnecessary.
This is a punting forum .............NOT Twitter.

[Watts.E.Dunn]

I really don't think there is any need to be so rude to WASA38, who by his own admission is "elderly and disabled".
Calling him an imbecile is unnecessary.
This is a punting forum .............NOT Twitter.

Yes we can do with out that sort of coment here thanks!

[Students Notebook]

I really don't think there is any need to be so rude to WASA38, who by his own admission is "elderly and disabled".
Calling him an imbecile is unnecessary.
This is a punting forum .............NOT Twitter.

Yes we can do with out that sort of coment here thanks!

It's not entirely clear to me but I assume that you're agreeing with me ??

[scutty brown]

She sent me a screenshot of AW's 'Verification Complete' statement and from it I quote
'---the verifcation photograph you supplied is NOT visible to other members---' (their capitals).

I was not meaning to criticize da26 who did nothing wrong. What he did was just unfortunate, as was my ever having started the thread. The blame lies unarguably with AW but seeking redress would, i guess, be a tortuous process.

Thanks to Scutty and others giving me moral support. Maybe I am white knighting but I have simply been trying to make some sort of amends for having caused 'mollysgame' so much worry and, potentially, disastrous consequence. (not exaggeration, but confidential.)

I have asked admin to delete the photo but regret that it is still there. Perhaps he would do so if da26 requested it also.

No you are not white knighting and anyone who claims you are is an idiot.

[Watts.E.Dunn]

It's not entirely clear to me but I assume that you're agreeing with me ??

Yes!..

[WASA38]

Thanks guys.
To hillingdonpete: I thought it perfectly obvious from my comments that I realised that da26 had merely posted a link, not the image. But I am intrigued as to how he came across it. given it was for a SE London location.
As far as your so-called explanation is concerned; well I'd believe her version before yours any day.
Your posting style confirms the Chelsea FC stereotype. Uncouth.

[scutty brown]

Going slightly off-topic here, but something to remember in any future similar incident.
If a girl has been raped / sexually assaulted she is legally entitled to life-long anonymity and posting about it would be illegal. Even just listing her working name would be construed as identifying her.
Be careful, it doesn't take much to bust the law

[masseyferguson]

Going slightly off-topic here, but something to remember in any future similar incident.
If a girl has been raped / sexually assaulted she is legally entitled to life-long anonymity and posting about it would be illegal. Even just listing her working name would be construed as identifying her.
Be careful, it doesn't take much to bust the law

That would only apply after the rape / assault was legally established to have occurred by the courts, it doesn't apply to unsubstantiated allegations surely ?

[scutty brown]

That would only apply after the rape / assault was legally established to have occurred by the courts, it doesn't apply to unsubstantiated allegations surely ?

I'm no lawyer but I believe it does. Think about it, if what you say was correct then it would be OK to identify the victim before any trial, but not after the trial but thats clearly not how it works. Victims get protection pre-trial, and also post-trial even when a prosecution fails