Should House of Divine (HOD) Reviews be banned from UKP?

[SlamBoy]

Note: I am not lobbying Admin, any moderator or anyone else either directly or indirectly with this post. I thought a discussion about the never-ending abuse of UKP and its members by HOD and its touts is worthy of a long overdue discussion.

BACKGROUND:

As almost every experienced punter on UKP knows, over the years there has been a continual assault on the UKP forum by HOD and its touts, flooding the boards with:

(1) fake positive reviews,
(2) defences of HOD and its misleading practices, and
(3) tenuous HOD related posts to keep the HOD name on the forum and in the minds of UKP members.

In essence, HOD has continually been trying to use UKP as its own free marketing platform - and in doing so, it and its touts have continually broken the UKP rules and misled punters.

UKP Admin and its moderators have done a fantastic job of acting on tout reports (and proactively seeking them out) and banning HOD and its touts where they come to light. The latest was only yesterday: https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=249479.0

However, we all know that it sometimes takes a while before HOD and its touts can be legitimately called out. By the time that happens, they have already enjoyed the free advertising this forum provides, and have already misled punters into buying their services with their fake reviews.

ISSUE:

Is enough now enough? Would UKP be right to exclude House of Divine (HOD) reviews from the forums?

I am going to list the arguments for and against below, and reach a conclusion:

REASONS WHY HOD REVIEWS SHOULD BE BANNED FROM UKP:

1.    There is a well documented history of fake positive HOD reviews being posted on UKP by HOD touts
2.    Punters have been misled by those fake positive reviews before the authors are identified and banned as HOD touts
3.    HOD and its touts continually abuse UKP by continually posting such reviews
4.    HOD and its touts continually abuse unsuspecting UKP punters by misleading them with such reviews
5.    HOD continually misleads punters by posting:

            a.  old photographs of their WGs (on their website and Twitter) to make them appear younger
            b.  airbrushed photographs of their WGs (on their website and twitter) to make them appear more attractive
            c.  misleading ages of their WGs who are always older than stated on their website
            d.  misleading services - many of their WGs do NOT offer the services advertised - they are happy to bait punters.

6.    HOD is a completely dishonest business, it is in the business of misleading punters and taking their cash by any means necessary.
7.    Given the above, HOD should not be allowed to use UKP as a platform to promote its business.
8.    HOD has a well documented hatred of UKP and its punters.
9.    HOD has talked down UKP and its members on many occasions on their Twitter.
10.  On a cost/benefit analysis - when the few genuine reviews of HOD girls are weighed against the incessant fake touting reviews - the benefits obtained by UKP members of those few genuine reviews are completely offset by the dishonest and misleading deluge of fake HOD reviews.
11.  The only way to stop HOD using UKP to do the above and mislead UKP punters is to exclude HOD reviews from UKP.

REASONS WHY HOD REVIEWS SHOULD NOT BE BANNED FROM UKP:

1.    There might a genuine review of a HOD girl once in a while which provides useful information.

CONCLUSION

On balance, my own view is that:

(a) although there might be the odd useful HOD review here and there (and I have reviewed HOD myself- both positively and negatively), the detriment to UKP members of the continual presence of HOD touts massively outweighs the benefits of the odd genuine review, and therefore,

(b) if UKP closed the curtains on the dishonest HOD business and its continual abuse of this forum and its punters, it would, on balance, not negatively affect the usefulness of UKP but have a net positive effect.

I look forward to your views . . .

[jesse4585]

A powerfully laid out argument.

I'd add (c) - if HoD reviews continue to be allowed,  there might be cases where genuine punters get wrongly identified as touts, and then we lose folk who might otherwise have been valuable contributors.  I'm not saying any of your points are wrong,  but in at least some cases,  it is possible to have a great experience at HoD.  (I know as I've had this myself, and the only reason I didn't review is as I'd already reviewed the girl in question at another agency - my first review.)   So I would think it's possible for some to genuinely have multiple good punts there...

As someone with only 2 reviews I don't expect my view to count for much, but I think this possibly might be a good idea.

[Liverpool]

OP, re your point 5: this is hardly a practice that HOD is guilty of alone. A lot of the agencies (Diva etc) have airbrushed pics, services listed that aren't done by the girl and so on. We would have to treat with caution all agency reviews as a result.

[SlamBoy]

OP, re your point 5: this is hardly a practice that HOD is guilty of alone. A lot of the agencies (Diva etc) have airbrushed pics, services listed that aren't done by the girl and so on. We would have to treat with caution all agency reviews as a result.

That's right, of course.

However, the difference between HOD and other agencies is that whereas the agencies do have airbrushed photos etc., HOD actually lies about all of their deceitful practices. HOD claims they don't do it. They have a "photographer verified" B.S. guarantee - it seems all of their practices are particularly deceitful.

There is a punter on here (I can't remember who) who can retell the story of HOD promising to be truthful and then going back on all of those promises.

[fudi_maar]

About 2 years ago there was a poster here called TrevorN who made his utter hatred for HOD and TPC obvious. Together with a handful of others, they would high-jack every HOD/TPC post or review and turn it into a foul-mouthed, mud-slinging match,
which never really ended well. Anyone posting anything positive about these two establishments was attacked right from the get go and accused of being a tout. Many guys were banned - some of them were genuine touts, and many were just genuine.
People were afraid to positively review these venues, or to even come to the defence of anyone else who did.

Of course, after each ban, the haters all "knew from the start this guy was a touting c*nt" etc etc. It turns out that TrevorN
was totally un-hinged and went to the extreme of videoing punters entering HOD premises and doxxing them on twitter. His own
personal vendetta caused much grief here. He was eventually banned on here when this happened.

The point I am making is that it's very easy to start a hate campaign against any particular agency/provider and there is a lot of
lee-way for anyone who does that (in terms of not being banned), whereas if someone defends that agency/provider then they are walking on thin ice. Two years ago, with the constant narrative of HOD/TPC being "lying, money-grabbing, cheating c*nts", meant that any sensible discussion was silenced. It's a bit like immigration - the only opinion people are allowed to have is "Mass immigration is good" - trying saying anything else in public and you get accused of racism.

The very fact that you created this thread (excellent presentation of your points, BTW) means that it will now deter some genuine punters from posting a positive HOD review for a while. And that cannot be good for any of us. We need to hear the positives as well as the negatives. We need as many punting options available in our toolkit as possible.

(PS - for the record, I have never been to HOD, but a lot of the good reviews (from senior members) means that I will try them out in a couple of weeks.)

[SlamBoy]

The point I am making is that it's very easy to start a hate campaign . . .


The very fact that you created this thread (excellent presentation of your points, BTW) means that it will now deter some genuine punters from posting a positive HOD review for a while. And that cannot be good for any of us. We need to hear the positives as well as the negatives. We need as many punting options available in our toolkit as possible.

(PS - for the record, I have never been to HOD, but a lot of the good reviews (from senior members) means that I will try them out in a couple of weeks.)

Can you for one moment be actually serious? I have compiled a number of non-emotive, reasoned points about this issue and you are going to distill it to be a 'hate campaign' that 'cannot be good for any of us''?

[SlamBoy]

About 2 years ago there was a poster here called TrevorN who made his utter hatred for HOD and TPC obvious. Together with a handful of others, they would high-jack every HOD/TPC post or review and turn it into a foul-mouthed, mud-slinging match . . . Many guys were banned - some of them were genuine touts, and many were just genuine.

Maybe you'd like to Admin and the Moderators know which 'genuine' punters they banned for being touts?

[smiths]

Not up to me of course but if it were I wouldn't ban HOD reviews but I would carefully check out newbies that turn up out of the blue in particular, and others that not only tout hard for HOD but who also defend them even when some other posters post their experiences of HOD. The recently banned John2K wasn't satisfied with just doing reviews on HOD WGs, he took it a stage further by trying to defend them and undermine my experiences and opinions of them. A non biased punter simply doesn't act like that in my over 10 years of posting on 3 punting forums.

IMO its also important to remember a reason UKP became so popular is because the pimps who run HOD, the divines ruled the roost on another punting forum, if a punter dared post a negative experience of a WG at HOD they were jumped on by loads of HOD arselickers. I experienced it myself though gave as good as I got. Also HOD bribed a number of willing punters like VT who admitted it and now banned off here for taking bribes off pimps with then secret discounts in exchange for positive reviews and defending them on that forum now gone. NIK and now admin on here got rid of the divines years ago off here. Pimps wont undermine and corrupt UKP and those of us that care about that will do our best to out such cunts. If some on here don't like that its a case of tough shit.

HOD WGs can offer punters good service, as ever it depends on the WGs attitude BUT also the maid/receptionist. Like all brothels they want to cram in as many punters per day as possible which suits both the WG and the pimp. HOD have a history of trying to cut some punters time short which helps them squeeze in more punters, they don't do it all the time but they do do it sometimes.

[smiths]

About 2 years ago there was a poster here called TrevorN who made his utter hatred for HOD and TPC obvious. Together with a handful of others, they would high-jack every HOD/TPC post or review and turn it into a foul-mouthed, mud-slinging match,
which never really ended well. Anyone posting anything positive about these two establishments was attacked right from the get go and accused of being a tout. Many guys were banned - some of them were genuine touts, and many were just genuine.
People were afraid to positively review these venues, or to even come to the defence of anyone else who did.

Of course, after each ban, the haters all "knew from the start this guy was a touting c*nt" etc etc. It turns out that TrevorN
was totally un-hinged and went to the extreme of videoing punters entering HOD premises and doxxing them on twitter. His own
personal vendetta caused much grief here. He was eventually banned on here when this happened.

The point I am making is that it's very easy to start a hate campaign against any particular agency/provider and there is a lot of
lee-way for anyone who does that (in terms of not being banned), whereas if someone defends that agency/provider then they are walking on thin ice. Two years ago, with the constant narrative of HOD/TPC being "lying, money-grabbing, cheating c*nts", meant that any sensible discussion was silenced. It's a bit like immigration - the only opinion people are allowed to have is "Mass immigration is good" - trying saying anything else in public and you get accused of racism.

The very fact that you created this thread (excellent presentation of your points, BTW) means that it will now deter some genuine punters from posting a positive HOD review for a while. And that cannot be good for any of us. We need to hear the positives as well as the negatives. We need as many punting options available in our toolkit as possible.

(PS - for the record, I have never been to HOD, but a lot of the good reviews (from senior members) means that I will try them out in a couple of weeks.)

Well it was me that helped seal TrevorNs fate as I passed a PM he sent me on to admin and within minutes he if it was a he was banned. His sort arent welcome on UKP.   :thumbsdown:On your TPC point in fact 11 or so posters were banned who were connected to them in some way including the pimp who runs it posing as someone else and the pimp who used to run it with her. Both of them broke UKP rules by double nicking and others got banned for various reasons including making threats and touting. Admin did a much needed purge in my book. IMO the effect of that has been very healthy for UKP. UKP ISNT a pimps appreciation forum, if that's what some want go and start one.

Its also the case as reported by some posters back then that TPC were swapping WGs and not telling punters and generally the service offered was hit and miss. Well complaining about that seemed to have some effect because more positive experiences have been reported since. IMO pimps need to be kept on their toes and UKP can help with that. I got loads of stick on here for pursuing the now banned VT who I knew as fact was a wrong un, he was a pimps tout who sold his posts and reviews for his own benefit, to get rid of him purged UKP of a VERY bad influence as I saw it. He was banned for taking bribes off pimps, sums him up, total scum.

[Stephan200210]

Given the turnover of "talent" at HOD, surely UKP reviews are a good (the only) was of getting any intel on a girl one might want to see. And great when someone TOFTs so that the others can benefit. But clearly, the intel is only any good if it is honest and genuine. I think all sites have issues with weeding out fake and self promoting reviews. Surely that takes vigilance and diligence on the part of the administrator/monitor. But to ban all reviews about HOD - which it does make up a lot of the market - would surely be a dis-service to the many punters who rely on reviews. While I certainly understand the issues raised in the well argued initial post, I just think a total ban on HOD reviews is a step too far and many of the issues can be dealt with without such a drastic step.

[scutty brown]

problem is, where do you draw the line?
If you ban HOD reviews, then you have to ban reviews of the Milton Keynes brothels as well

Taking things further, we have exactly the same problem in Cardiff with Portfolio and a couple of other agencies, should be ban all their reviews?
And then you have the historic issues with the pimps at the northeast parlours.......

Once you start censoring reviews then you run the risk of becoming over-critical in what you allow and you begin to kill the attraction this site has for punters. I think a general ban would be a mistake, but I do believe  its an imperative for all of us to be more questioning when reviews for parlours appear. Not just HOD, but ALL large-scale agencies and parlours. Its unfortunate that one of our most succesful members in outing fake reviews - VW / VirtualWaster seems to have retired. We need to emulate his energy in exposing the shite that some pimps post

[Stanford97]

TrevorN was totally un-hinged and went to the extreme of videoing punters entering HOD premises and doxxing them on twitter. His own
personal vendetta caused much grief here. He was eventually banned on here when this happened.

What did HoD do to Trevor? Maybe he was given a £1k gift card by his gran for Christmas.


I’d like to see an automated warning on all HOD reviews. Personally I couldn’t give a flying fuck about their touting but I think newbies deserve to be warned.

[SlamBoy]

What did HoD do to Trevor? Maybe he was given a £1k gift card by his gran for Christmas.


I’d like to see an automated warning on all HOD reviews. Personally I couldn’t give a flying fuck about their touting but I think newbies deserve to be warned.

That's a great point.

What sort of warning were you thinking of? Something along the lines of a standard 'warning' text attached to the review that highlights the ongoing and pervading issues associated with HOD that may or may not be covered in the review, such as:

misleading photos,
misleading ages,
misleading services,
conveyor-belt,
time clipping.

i.e. things that are continual complaints about HOD, but may otherwise be missing from a particular review. That way, newbies would automatically have those issues highlighted to them, no matter the review.

[SlamBoy]

problem is, where do you draw the line?
If you ban HOD reviews, then you have to ban reviews of the Milton Keynes brothels as well

Taking things further, we have exactly the same problem in Cardiff with Portfolio and a couple of other agencies, should be ban all their reviews?
And then you have the historic issues with the pimps at the northeast parlours.......

Once you start censoring reviews then you run the risk of becoming over-critical in what you allow and you begin to kill the attraction this site has for punters. I think a general ban would be a mistake, but I do believe  its an imperative for all of us to be more questioning when reviews for parlours appear. Not just HOD, but ALL large-scale agencies and parlours. Its unfortunate that one of our most succesful members in outing fake reviews - VW / VirtualWaster seems to have retired. We need to emulate his energy in exposing the shite that some pimps post

Both fair points.

[tyler6749]

I think the comments made are fair as the only point of UKP is to get genuine feedback and reviews so that we are better informed. But heres the issue. I've only posted a couple of reviews on HoD and Egos. The moment I posted anything on HoD (an experience I enjoyed but had its flaws in hindsight) I was attacked for being a tout!! So i haven't posted anything meaningful since as you just get attacked and accused of bering something you're not. Now don't get me wrong, i don't give a flying fuck what anyone thinks or says as i know they wouldn't say it to my face, but in the interests of helping I thought it was worth sharing.

[SlamBoy]

I think the comments made are fair as the only point of UKP is to get genuine feedback and reviews so that we are better informed. But heres the issue. I've only posted a couple of reviews on HoD and Egos. The moment I posted anything on HoD (an experience I enjoyed but had its flaws in hindsight) I was attacked for being a tout!! So i haven't posted anything meaningful since as you just get attacked and accused of bering something you're not. Now don't get me wrong, i don't give a flying fuck what anyone thinks or says as i know they wouldn't say it to my face, but in the interests of helping I thought it was worth sharing.

If your reviews seem touty- then people will call them out.

However

It is curious though how many of the HOD touts have numbers in their profile name . . . maybe the numbers in your name alerted UKP members to you possibly being a tout - bots have numbers in their name - so do pimps who can't be bothered to waste time thinking up unique handles.

Just like the guy banned yesterday:

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=249479.0

And just like another new one from only today (his first post in four years as a member):

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=249596

[SlamBoy]

I think the comments made are fair as the only point of UKP is to get genuine feedback and reviews so that we are better informed. But heres the issue. I've only posted a couple of reviews on HoD and Egos. The moment I posted anything on HoD (an experience I enjoyed but had its flaws in hindsight) I was attacked for being a tout!! So i haven't posted anything meaningful since as you just get attacked and accused of bering something you're not. Now don't get me wrong, i don't give a flying fuck what anyone thinks or says as i know they wouldn't say it to my face, but in the interests of helping I thought it was worth sharing.

And I just went through your post history - ABSOLUTELY EVERY POST YOU HAVE EVER MADE on UKP has been about HOD or HOD related brothels like EGO and Anabelles - and it is all supportive and positive -

Maybe that also made people think you are a tout.

If it posts like a tout and acts like a tout - it probably is a tout.

[Stanford97]

That's a great point.

What sort of warning were you thinking of? Something along the lines of a standard 'warning' text attached to the review that highlights the ongoing and pervading issues associated with HOD that may or may not be covered in the review, such as:

misleading photos,
misleading ages,
misleading services,
conveyor-belt,
time clipping.

i.e. things that are continual complaints about HOD, but may otherwise be missing from a particular review. That way, newbies would automatically have those issues highlighted to them, no matter the review.

I’d just like it stated that they’re a provider at the low end of the market and that they’ve a long history of providing fraudulent information and attempting to post fake reviews. In the name of neutrality you could say that they’ve also been a genuine provider for xx years and have provided a service some/many people have been content with.

And just like another new one from only today (his first post in four years as a member):

If he’s been using HoD for four years he might have a few negative reviews to catch up on.

[SlamBoy]

I’d just like it stated that they’re a provider at the low end of the market and that they’ve a long history of providing fraudulent information and attempting to post fake reviews. In the name of neutrality you could say that they’ve also been a genuine provider for xx years and have provided a service some/many people have been content with.

Good idea.

[Charlie Chalk]

I've never been to HoD and, based on what I've read on here over the last 3 years or so, I have no intention of ever using them.

I was initially minded to agree with you Slamboy, and you put forward some very good reasons why reviews of HoD WG's should be banned. But having read the responses, I think that a ban would be counter-productive.

UKP exists purely for the benefit of the punter. This means we need members posting plenty of reviews and experiences. The forum feeds off information, it is the lifeblood of the forum. Without info, and without the ability to trust the majority of members who post information, the forum would end up like certain other fora which have bitten the dust since UKP came along.

There is absolutely no doubt that HOD's owners engage in some shady/sharp business practices. Cutting punters time short, airbrushing of pics, spamming this site and so on. There is also no doubt that some of their WG's do actually provide good service - it they didn't, they would have gone out of business long ago. So there is a place for HoD, there is a demand for their WG's and punters would no doubt continue to go there even if there was a ban on HoD reviews. The difference is, they would be going in unarmed with the information they need to ensure they don't fall foul of HoD's tricks. Worse still, if HoD were banned from this site completely, it could lead to a perception that UKP is being unfair and holds some kind of grudge against them, which in turn would mean this site loses some of its USP in that it tells the truth, be it good, bad or indifferent.

Finally, as Scutty said, where would you draw the line? HoD may be one of the worst, but they are far from unique in what they do. We would run the risk of banning all pimps and their WG's, all agencies - what about indies who have done the same?

I think the integrity of this site is paramount, as is the ethos that members should be able to find out as much information as possible before they make a decision on parting with their hard-earned. If someone has a good punt at HoD and wants to contribute by posting a Positive then they should do so, as it may help others. It's just that, in the case of HoD, such reviews may generate a bit more discussion than normal because of HoD's history. No honest member who has done his research and posts an unbiased and factual review, free from fluffy bollocks, should have anything to fear. In the end, we're all grown ups. Equally, Negative reviews are at least as important as they will serve as a warning to others, just as they would with indies. There are still plenty of experienced posters on here who have a sixth-sense for weeding out the touts and long may they continue to do so. It all helps to paint a full picture of HoD and in the end, is the truth - which is what makes this site what it is.

[Kev40ish]

I've never been to HoD and, based on what I've read on here over the last 3 years or so, I have no intention of ever using them.

I was initially minded to agree with you Slamboy, and you put forward some very good reasons why reviews of HoD WG's should be banned. But having read the responses, I think that a ban would be counter-productive.

UKP exists purely for the benefit of the punter. This means we need members posting plenty of reviews and experiences. The forum feeds off information, it is the lifeblood of the forum. Without info, and without the ability to trust the majority of members who post information, the forum would end up like certain other fora which have bitten the dust since UKP came along.

There is absolutely no doubt that HOD's owners engage in some shady/sharp business practices. Cutting punters time short, airbrushing of pics, spamming this site and so on. There is also no doubt that some of their WG's do actually provide good service - it they didn't, they would have gone out of business long ago. So there is a place for HoD, there is a demand for their WG's and punters would no doubt continue to go there even if there was a ban on HoD reviews. The difference is, they would be going in unarmed with the information they need to ensure they don't fall foul of HoD's tricks. Worse still, if HoD were banned from this site completely, it could lead to a perception that UKP is being unfair and holds some kind of grudge against them, which in turn would mean this site loses some of its USP in that it tells the truth, be it good, bad or indifferent.

Finally, as Scutty said, where would you draw the line? HoD may be one of the worst, but they are far from unique in what they do. We would run the risk of banning all pimps and their WG's, all agencies - what about indies who have done the same?

I think the integrity of this site is paramount, as is the ethos that members should be able to find out as much information as possible before they make a decision on parting with their hard-earned. If someone has a good punt at HoD and wants to contribute by posting a Positive then they should do so, as it may help others. It's just that, in the case of HoD, such reviews may generate a bit more discussion than normal because of HoD's history. No honest member who has done his research and posts an unbiased and factual review, free from fluffy bollocks, should have anything to fear. In the end, we're all grown ups. Equally, Negative reviews are at least as important as they will serve as a warning to others, just as they would with indies. There are still plenty of experienced posters on here who have a sixth-sense for weeding out the touts and long may they continue to do so. It all helps to paint a full picture of HoD and in the end, is the truth - which is what makes this site what it is.

A very good post, which I do agree with.
I would hate to see any form of censorship on the site. There are always people on here who will push their agenda or tout on here.

It has been happening since the start of the site and on any review forum, but where do you draw the line once you start restricting reviews and comments.

The people on the site and Admin have always done a great job at identifying touts, yes some may get through, but that’s the nature of a review site. If they are restricted you risk alienating people who have genuine reviews posting.

[scutty brown]

Part of the difficulty as well is the fact that some members don't accept that the deceit goes on.......for example its not unusual for a newbie poster to start a new thread over a Cardiff Portfolio girl, usually either asking for info about her, or making some complimentary comment about her. Yet despite the number of related bannings for touting by Welsh members there is still an inclination by many to disbelieve that the posts are malicious. To my eyes these posts are highly suspect, but few agree with me.
There's also a problem in that if you banned reviews of Portfolio then you'd end up blocking a significant number of real  reviews: without them there wouldn't be a lot left of of the Welsh board. Same would apply if we blocked the NE agencies as well.
Maybe there should be some kind of red flag warning system whereby the admin or maybe helper teams could annotate a review or post thought to be touting, but I suspect that would create more arguments than it solves.

[Malvolio]

I'd suggest that no reviews of any agency / knocking shop / working WG are banned, but punters should apply their own due diligence and not believe everything they read on here.

It was before I joined UKP, but I punted at HoD over 10 times and probably had more good punts than bad punts.   Eventually I stopped using them due to the WGs I liked leaving and problems with making a reliable booking.

[Stephan200210]

Agree re UKP readers doing their own Due Diligence and also having a healthy scepticism. I think it is a learning process and those that are active here know the signs to look for in fake reviews and touting. And if they do not, I am confident someone will "call out" a fake review pretty quickly. We get to know who are the "trusted reviewers" on here and give them the appropriate weight to their reviews and comments. Let this forum, and the comments and reviews, speak for themselves and the "truth will out". By now, everyone should be wary of HOD, and their tricks. Caveat Emptor - but that does not mean stop using them.

[massagepuntingfan]

I tend to agree with the above - not banning HOD reviews. I've been to HOD Barons Court 3 times in the last few years. Parlours aren't my thing, I find the conveyor belt system problematic, but the fact it's close to where I live made it an attractive proposition and the first two times I visited were enjoyable experiences with WGs who were well reviewed by 'trusted' reviewers on this site. Their reviews aided my decision and I wasn't let down.

The point being not everyone who writes an HOD review is a tout and just by clicking on a members reviews and seeing if he has a general sweep of reviews I can decide to believe whether the reviews are genuine or not. This site is a hive of punting information and to delete all of them on the strength of the OP's arguably justified dislike and distrust of the brothel might not be of benefit to membership as a whole.
 

[notcalledchris]

Personally id like to see more hod reviews because they would be useful in sorting the wheat from the chaff.  They have plenty of new girls without reviews.

[smiths]

Agree re UKP readers doing their own Due Diligence and also having a healthy scepticism. I think it is a learning process and those that are active here know the signs to look for in fake reviews and touting. And if they do not, I am confident someone will "call out" a fake review pretty quickly. We get to know who are the "trusted reviewers" on here and give them the appropriate weight to their reviews and comments. Let this forum, and the comments and reviews, speak for themselves and the "truth will out". By now, everyone should be wary of HOD, and their tricks. Caveat Emptor - but that does not mean stop using them.

I disagree those who are active here know the signs, some haven't got a clue which can be a problem as they defend the dodgy believing the punter accusing them of being dodgy is a twat. Personally I stopped punting through HOD a long time ago on principle, I had many PM exchanges elsewhere with the divines and it was clear their view was punters negative experiences shouldn't be posted about, no problem punters posting their positives experiences of course.

But I agree punters should be able to review the HOD WGs as they so wish on UKP, but as ever admin decides what occurs on here.

[RobinBrod]

I've only been to HoD once, when I saw Milly. My review is on UKP. I only went because I had a particular urge for a black girl and Milly seemed to scratch that particular itch. I gave her a positive rating, and I'm not an HoD tout! There are not many girls on the HoD roster that really call to me to go back there.

I would not be in favour of banning HoD reviews. It's usually perfectly possible to see through those touting, and it's up to us to use our discretion as to what we believe or not. As an example there are some reviews for Big Breasted women which are so over the top they make me laugh. However, each to their own and I read them for amusement. That doesn't mean I'm going to follow their recommendations. HoD provides a specific service - maximum time as far as I understand it of 60 minutes. We all know that their photos (like Maxes) are usually photoshopped, so let's not be surprised by that. We also know that their timings can be poor (putting it mildly). In other words we are all experienced enough to see through the bullshit and make up our own minds.

[Jonestown]

Personally I think that a miscarriage of justice has gone down here. The present take down HoD discussion has its immediate origins in John2K’s 11 reviews and 150 or so postings, and whist acknowledging the reviews were all HoD, they are in the main far from complimentary to the girls, and certainly not uncritical of the organisation its self. His 150 posts cover a wide range of topics and yes the guy was highly opinionated and didnt seem to suffer fools gladly, he was a solid contributor in the short time he was here, especially in the Soho Walk Up thread. I just wonder if anyone actually read the body of what he wrote/contributed before they pulled he trigger on him.

[tyler6749]

And I just went through your post history - ABSOLUTELY EVERY POST YOU HAVE EVER MADE on UKP has been about HOD or HOD related brothels like EGO and Anabelles - and it is all supportive and positive -

Maybe that also made people think you are a tout.

If it posts like a tout and acts like a tout - it probably is a tout.

I rest my case..I said what I reviewed you attack it...and frankly I dont give a fuck.

[tyler6749]

And I just went through your post history - ABSOLUTELY EVERY POST YOU HAVE EVER MADE on UKP has been about HOD or HOD related brothels like EGO and Anabelles - and it is all supportive and positive -

Maybe that also made people think you are a tout.

If it posts like a tout and acts like a tout - it probably is a tout.

It may sound odd to you but ive had good experiences, starting with Ego, then Anabellas then HoD. Ive stuck to what I know and as you will also have read I have not been entirely complimentary on the forum. But as you seem to be the arbiter of all things punting, crack on with your opinions and good luck for the future. It's made my point.

[JamesKW]

There are obviously punters that like HOD,since they have lasted a number of years and maybe they would appreciate reliable positive or negative reviews.

[Illya Kurakin]

I disagree those who are active here know the signs, some haven't got a clue which can be a problem as they defend the dodgy believing the punter accusing them of being dodgy is a twat. Personally I stopped punting through HOD a long time ago on principle, I had many PM exchanges elsewhere with the divines and it was clear their view was punters negative experiences shouldn't be posted about, no problem punters posting their positives experiences of course.

But I agree punters should be able to review the HOD WGs as they so wish on UKP, but as ever admin decides what occurs on here.

I have had mixed experiences at HoD over the years and try and avoid it when I can but think the reviews here are helpful. I think the weight and quality of a punter's posts and reviews allows others to make their own informed choices about the veracity of those reviews. The shaming and removal of 'John2K' also seems illustrative that touts get caught. 

[dubs]

Bad idea to ban a brothel/agency, how else would potential customers know what to expect.  Admin does everything he can to root out touts, pimps etc so what's left should be genuine reviews and that's the purpose of this site.  So, if HoD are providing a bad service, let's read about it in Neutral/Negative reviews from genuine punters.

Oh and your reasons #7 and #11 are not really reasons are they?

[WARSZAWA16]

Bad idea to ban a brothel/agency, how else would potential customers know what to expect.  Admin does everything he can to root out touts, pimps etc so what's left should be genuine reviews and that's the purpose of this site.  So, if HoD are providing a bad service, let's read about it in Neutral/Negative reviews from genuine punters.

This would be my view too. For these reasons I do not think a blanket ban would be a good idea. I have only visited the HoD establishments a few times and the timekeeping there is one particular bugbear of mine. I do look at their website every now and again though to keep up to date with the girls that are working there. That being the case I visited there only recently to see one particular girl. This now leads me to a dilemma. Do I review (it would be a positive and generally complimentary) and maybe attract what I would view as unjust criticism or, being a sensitive soul(!), just not bother?         

[fudi_maar]

Delete - duplicate

[fudi_maar]

Do I review (it would be a positive and generally complimentary) and maybe attract what I would view as unjust criticism or, being a sensitive soul(!), just not bother?   

This is exactly the point I was making when I wrote this :

The very fact that you created this thread (excellent presentation of your points, BTW) means that it will now deter some genuine punters from posting a positive HOD review for a while.

Given that practically everyone who has responded to this wonderfully level-headed, mature discussion on the matter is against the OP's idea of banning HOD, it's good to see that common sense has prevailed.

Happy punting.

[sunnyj]

I've only been to HoD once, when I saw Milly. My review is on UKP. I only went because I had a particular urge for a black girl and Milly seemed to scratch that particular itch. I gave her a positive rating, and I'm not an HoD tout! There are not many girls on the HoD roster that really call to me to go back there.

I would not be in favour of banning HoD reviews. It's usually perfectly possible to see through those touting, and it's up to us to use our discretion as to what we believe or not. As an example there are some reviews for Big Breasted women which are so over the top they make me laugh. However, each to their own and I read them for amusement. That doesn't mean I'm going to follow their recommendations. HoD provides a specific service - maximum time as far as I understand it of 60 minutes. We all know that their photos (like Maxes) are usually photoshopped, so let's not be surprised by that. We also know that their timings can be poor (putting it mildly). In other words we are all experienced enough to see through the bullshit and make up our own minds.

+1
I too used HOD only once to scratch my Korean itch. 

[smiths]

I have had mixed experiences at HoD over the years and try and avoid it when I can but think the reviews here are helpful. I think the weight and quality of a punter's posts and reviews allows others to make their own informed choices about the veracity of those reviews. The shaming and removal of 'John2K' also seems illustrative that touts get caught. 

Yes I agree. Good work done by the mod daviemac to ban John2K who was as clear a HOD tout as day is day and night is night to me.

[PatMacGroin]

A generally well presented argument OP, but I agree with the consensus that banning HoD would not ultimately be in any ones best interest.

- I'm not sure how practical or straight forward it would be for Admin to implement. Presumably the URL name could be blocked from posts, but that probably wouldn't completely stop variations of the name being used in posts by determined touts, or newbies that could claim to be unaware of the ban.

- A blanket ban on any Service Provider compromises the integrity of UKP. Where would the line be drawn? In the absence of any information, I'd imagine many punters that like the look of their website would take a chance. As long as they are still being discussed on here members can do their own research and make up their own minds.

- So every review is a valuable resource, Negatives, Neutrals and Positives. The positives can't all be fakes posted by touts. I usually prefer not to use Parlours/Agencies myself but obviously many members do (and they seem to be the only option in many area's). I've never been to HoD, but I wouldn't rule it out completely. If I ever do, I'm glad to have this resource available, so that I'm not walking in blind.

Which means it comes down to experienced members helping Admin to weed out the touts. I'll admit I also feel like dubious reviews are not being challenged as much as they used to. Over the last 3-4 months I've noticed a lot coming from new members or long time inactive members that get my suspicions up. Personally, I can be overly suspicious so I have avoided calling them out, but I've tried to keep an eye on them and then been surprised that so few are being challenged at all. As Scutty mentioned above, voices like VirtualWaster have been surprisingly quiet. Maybe they have been put off by complaints of hostile attitudes discouraging contributions?

[earlgreyman]

It's tough for newbies to not get caught out by b&s and other types of nefarious pimp tricks. We've all been there at some point throughout our punting lives and got caught out, even after years of experience. I personally have never visited HOD in its present form at least, but know of its reputation and stay well clear. UKP has blacklisted loads of WGs in the past.

A review submission warning, could be a good idea for certain high risk establishments.

Anyway. ALL reviews should be taken with a pinch of salt. It's down to us punters to do our due diligence, cross reference, double and triple check if we care that much spending our hard earned money. At the end of the day, we all have a choice to walk if we sense something's not right. Might be hard to spot a tout review at first, but I think these pointers should help avoid bullshit and getting a decent punt:

* Much fluffiness, white knighting and "doth protest too much" attitudes to responses are clear indicators of a touting review. If someone is a naturally fluffy reviewer, then they should learn quickly and understand it's not wise to be like that on UKP forums.

* Too many reviews of same WG or establishment. Pretty obvious. Whilst not always true, is enough to start "shill" alarm bells ringing. Check through a reviewers previous punt reviews and cross ref with others!

* I'd usually only trust a WG's reviews if she has 3+ reviews indexed. Never trust AW or site based reviews.

* Use your gut, if something seems too good to be true. It usually is TGTBT.

* If you're super keen, be prepared to TOFTT if she is a new WG on the scene. Intel helps! Keep it low budget, else you're likely to get burnt.

[romano77]

+1
I too used HOD only once to scratch my Korean itch. 

Same here

[OldAdmin]

Unless I forgotten, in this site's 9 year history there is no ban on reviews for any service provider, you even occasionally see positive reviews for prossies on the blacklist.
So that should answer this thread.

[Charlie Chalk]

Unless I forgotten, in this site's 9 year history there is no ban on reviews for any service provider, you even occasionally see positive reviews for prossies on the blacklist.
So that should answer this thread.

It was a good question OP which generated plenty of discussion and we now have a final ruling from The Boss. What is still required is continuing monitoring of reviews by the more experienced members to identify and weed out the wrong-uns. There seems to have been a few established members who have gone quiet over the last few months so hopefully some others can step up to the plate.

[Veritas01]

This may be pro-removing HOD reviews or anti, but probably pro.

As someone who started punting recently (2 months ago), I've checked out numerous reviews on this site, and some of them seem very hostile when people get called out for seemingly no reason (to my inexperienced eyes at least).

I can't seem to post any reviews yet anyway, but still I don't think I would want to for fear of being called out and branded a tout.

For instance, I've had 3 punts so far: 1 with a girl from AW (negative/neutral), 1 with a girl from an agency (neutral/positive) and 1 with a girl from HOD (positive) - should I even bother posting a HOD review? Will anyone believe me?

[Jonestown]

This may be pro-removing HOD reviews or anti, but probably pro.

As someone who started punting recently (2 months ago), I've checked out numerous reviews on this site, and some of them seem very hostile when people get called out for seemingly no reason (to my inexperienced eyes at least).

I can't seem to post any reviews yet anyway, but still I don't think I would want to for fear of being called out and branded a tout.

For instance, I've had 3 punts so far: 1 with a girl from AW (negative/neutral), 1 with a girl from an agency (neutral/positive) and 1 with a girl from HOD (positive) - should I even bother posting a HOD review? Will anyone believe me?

If you look at the stickie on posting a review in the first forum “UK Punting” it will guide you through it.

[boardyhell]

from my experience most of the reviews of the girls i have seen on hod ring true, some good girls on there
not perfect but i would be extremely pissed off if they shutdown, reviews on here are valuable

[PatMacGroin]

This may be pro-removing HOD reviews or anti, but probably pro.

As someone who started punting recently (2 months ago), I've checked out numerous reviews on this site, and some of them seem very hostile when people get called out for seemingly no reason (to my inexperienced eyes at least).

I can't seem to post any reviews yet anyway, but still I don't think I would want to for fear of being called out and branded a tout.

For instance, I've had 3 punts so far: 1 with a girl from AW (negative/neutral), 1 with a girl from an agency (neutral/positive) and 1 with a girl from HOD (positive) - should I even bother posting a HOD review? Will anyone believe me?

- Do the reviews for all 3.

- Expect to be challenged on them.

- Answer questions, defend your review against challenges, or just choose to ignore any responses. That's your choice, just be an adult about it and don't take it personally.

- Continue to post comments and reviews and hope that your input helps others as much as the previous information and advice provided by the thousands of previous UKP members has helped everyone else on here. Without reviews and comments there is no UKP.

(As an honest personal observation of my own:
- If you're afraid of what you might see written on a screen from a bunch of strangers I'm surprised you have the balls to visit a WG in person... That's the sort of reaction you could expect.
- Also, if your review had even a whiff of touting I'd probably be one of the users to throw a few challenges your way "for seemingly no reason", simply based on your user name alone. The nickname "Veritas01" gives me a raised eyebrow straight off the bat, in the very same way I would scoff at a tout nickname of "It'sTheHonestTruth,Guv'nor01")

[getsbettereverytime]

here's an idea, it would make money for this site, have a section for services offered, so instead of making fake reviews there is a section where they pay to advertise whats available, and its clear for everyone viewing its a for sale section not a review section?

Some people might like that, others will ignore it as clearly cant be trusted. Makes money for the site etc.

just an idea.

[SlamBoy]

This may be pro-removing HOD reviews or anti, but probably pro.

As someone who started punting recently (2 months ago), I've checked out numerous reviews on this site, and some of them seem very hostile when people get called out for seemingly no reason (to my inexperienced eyes at least).

I can't seem to post any reviews yet anyway, but still I don't think I would want to for fear of being called out and branded a tout.

For instance, I've had 3 punts so far: 1 with a girl from AW (negative/neutral), 1 with a girl from an agency (neutral/positive) and 1 with a girl from HOD (positive) - should I even bother posting a HOD review? Will anyone believe me?

SO: you've been a member for TWO MONTHS. And you've posted NOTHING. Literally NOTHING. And then, for your first post, despite the thousands of threads you could post on, you resurrect a thread from TWO MONTHS ago about HOD that had previously died a death - preempting, of course, your own positive review of HOD.

In answer to your question: given the above circumstances, no they probably won't.