Freya Le Roux - Gateshead

[Shutty238]

You ask what the difference is between AdultWork feedback and UKP reviews.

From a provider’s perspective, the difference is obvious.

On AdultWork, we can see exactly what is written about us, where it is written, and whether it crosses a line into something we consider too personal. We have visibility. We have context. We have the ability to decide whether we are comfortable with it.

We have none of that on UKP.

The issue has never been the existence of reviews. If somebody has had a good experience, say so. If somebody has had a bad experience, say so. That is the entire purpose of reviewing.

The issue is that many UKP reviews don’t stop at reviewing a service.

They often drift into lengthy, graphic, highly detailed descriptions that read less like consumer information and more like entertainment written for an audience.

At that point the review is no longer simply telling somebody whether a service was good or bad.

It becomes a detailed account of another person’s intimate interactions, written for public consumption, often with a level of description that would be considered vulgar, boastful or unnecessarily personal in almost any other context.

You may be comfortable with that.

Many providers are not.

That’s the distinction.

Nobody is asking for a veto.

Nobody is demanding UKP cease to exist.

Nobody is claiming members cannot discuss their experiences.

What we are saying is that providers are equally entitled to object when discussions move beyond factual reviews and into commentary, speculation, personal observations and intimate detail that serves no purpose beyond satisfying the curiosity of strangers.

And whilst people often describe these reviews as being contained within a private community, the reality is somewhat different. Anyone with an account can read them whenever they choose, and anyone sufficiently motivated can obtain access via a VPN or similar means. For providers who work anonymously, that creates an exceptionally volatile position to be in. Intimate details, personal observations and identifying information can be accessed, shared and circulated far beyond the audience they were supposedly intended for.

The irony is that many of the same people defending that behaviour would be deeply uncomfortable if equivalent discussions were taking place about their own private lives in a public forum they couldn’t access, moderate or respond to directly.

So the issue isn’t reviews.

It never was.

The issue is the belief that paying for a service automatically entitles someone to publish whatever level of detail they choose about another person and then act surprised when that person has an opinion about it.

Because there is a significant difference between informing consumers and creating a repository of intimate details about another human being for the entertainment and consumption of strangers. That distinction is precisely where many providers draw the line.

This in amongst the lengthy back and forth is I think the first time an attempt has been made at answering the question of why so bad here and no problem with AW, and I can actually get this in the way it's described. Whilst inevitably (sorry) we're not all going to agree, this at least has given me some understanding of why there was such a seemingly disproportionate response to a very low key review.

[The Outsider]

You ask what the difference is between AdultWork feedback and UKP reviews.

From a provider’s perspective, the difference is obvious.

On AdultWork, we can see exactly what is written about us, where it is written, and whether it crosses a line into something we consider too personal. We have visibility. We have context. We have the ability to decide whether we are comfortable with it.

We have none of that on UKP.

The issue has never been the existence of reviews. If somebody has had a good experience, say so. If somebody has had a bad experience, say so. That is the entire purpose of reviewing.

The issue is that many UKP reviews don’t stop at reviewing a service.

They often drift into lengthy, graphic, highly detailed descriptions that read less like consumer information and more like entertainment written for an audience.

*snip*

Thanks for the constructive reply.  I'm still confused about the nuance here though.  The AW field report Freya accepted onto her profile looks to me like it is just the kind of graphic, vulgar commentary, written for entertainment that you complain about happening on here.  Do you know why that was OK and accepted?

You actually are asking for a veto by requesting not to be reviewed on here.  At least Amber and Freya are.  You just don't want to seen by anyone associated with UKP.  Despite you and Amber being on here.   

As for the privacy argument, you can't have it both ways.  You can't complain about a paywall, then also complain that anyone can read what's on here. 

[puntingking]

You seem to have a lot of time on your hands lately. Time of the month, or punters just giving you a swerve ?   

 

[daviemac]

The one question that has been continually swerved has been the one regarding the review on AW.

I've asked on here and on another forum how an extremely graphic field report on AW was acceptable and approved to be published by Freya yet a respectful one here is objected to. There's been no reply, I can only assume it's the fact we are honest on this site and there's no facility here for a retaliatory negative comment to be posted.

The answer to that would be more important than whether or not I can post as a member and still be impartial.

[mcb]

I have no idea what Amber et al were hoping for, derailing this thread how they did. Certainly hasn't reflected favourably on them, and by extension, every one else mentioned (Freya, Ashton, etc).

Also don't know why Evie needed to butt in? Needed to borrow Amber's account to post because the forum's behind a login. So how did Evie know what was being posted, and that she'd like to throw her two pence in? Seems SP's are quite happy to use this forum (and other methods like Client Eye) to share information with each other, but don't think SS's should be extended the same courtesy. Absolute hypocrisy.

[MaxVerstappen]

Before we begin, let’s just run some numbers.

The UK population sits at roughly 68 million.

UKP reportedly receives around 40,000 daily visits.

40,000 ÷ 68,000,000 × 100 = 0.059%.

So congratulations. Daily traffic equivalent to approximately 0.06% of the UK population.

Now let’s compare that to AdultWork’s reported 14.5 million monthly visits.

14,500,000 ÷ 30 = 483,000 daily visits.

40,000 ÷ 483,000 × 100 = 8.3%.

 

What a load of shite. Don’t quit your day job!

Although having said that, I suppose you have to one day…

…as there is only so much cocksucking you can do before you get old…

but good luck to you regardless.

And stay strong

PS: did you notice I tried to copy your retarded writing style?! 

[Mr Garmin]

I wonder if Amber is going to be pissed off with Evie for getting her banned and she can no longer lurk on here?

[Placebo88]

I'd be sympathetic to arguments that related to personal discretion but UKP rules are now very strict about not violating this. Evie's main ostensible argument came over as a concern that some reviews were written pornography. Compared to the contents of her AW profile which according to her maths receives far more views than anything written on UKP the filthiest of reviews would appear tame. Freya may be a different case which is the danger of one person speaking on behalf of others.  This is a review of Le Roux but Freya herself did not type a single word in this demonstration.

Based on her views on moderation I guess Evie didn't get on with SAAFE. Is Amy still the main mod on there?

UKP is an escort/massage provider review site. It reviews people doing a chosen job. It does not randomly comment on women, nor people's private lives. Paid sex is business.

[toon972]

According to Evie in her calculations there are 68 million punters. I am going to look at my 8 year old grandson in a different way.
Also she has been allowed more freedom on here that we would have on SAAFE.

[OscarC]

Bit weird that Evie bangs on about privacy in her rants, yet openly has full face photos on her AW profile page

[Bertbanger99]

What's also in the SP favour is that they can see everything us lot write about them on here but us punters can't see what they write on clienteye, which may be bullshit and we can't dispute it

[daviemac]

What's also in the SP favour is that they can see everything us lot write about them on here but us punters can't see what they write on clienteye, which may be bullshit and we can't dispute it

UKP members are to blame for that, it used to be openly viewable but that all changed during a long thread on here about them.

[puntingking]

UKP members are to blame for that, it used to be openly viewable but that all changed during a long thread on here about them.

Maybe this site should change then to stop sps from viewing this site so that they can stop having a go at their punters for reviewing their sessions together 

[Shyandrew2001]

Now the so has been blocked has this thread not now reached it's conclusion. Seems a bit pointless to continue

[Kev3773]

Now the so has been blocked has this thread not now reached it's conclusion. Seems a bit pointless to continue

That's not for you to decide. It's a review that was hijacked but anyone can still comment on it.

[daviemac]

Maybe this site should change then to stop sps from viewing this site so that they can stop having a go at their punters for reviewing their sessions together 

It wasn't SPs viewing the site, it was ClientEye. They were watching the thread and closing all the loopholes than members were posting until the site is totally closed.

One member here had an account there but they knew about it.

[daviemac]

Seems a bit pointless to continue

Says the man who's still posting on it.   

BTW members are still free to discuss any of the SPs mentioned in this thread, that doesn't change just because the escort concerned is banned.

[Placebo88]

What's also in the SP favour is that they can see everything us lot write about them on here but us punters can't see what they write on clienteye, which may be bullshit and we can't dispute it

With ClientEye being a tool intended for flagging individuals who are a real problem I think it right that it tries to be strict about who can read. Reporting will never be done sensibly and honesty by all providers. We can only hope most use it fairly. Pleading innocent isn't proof of anything anyway and you read how well the responses here went, they'd have been better not knowing UKP existed.

Still wondering why Evie felt the need to get so involved when she does not even request not to be reviewed. I wonder if she is a lawyer in her day job? Surely not a statistician.

[Shyandrew2001]

Still wondering why Evie felt the need to get so involved when she does not even request not to be reviewed. I wonder if she is a lawyer in her day job? Surely not a statistician.

I guess we'll just have to wonder now because she can no longer reply.

[MaxVerstappen]

Still wondering why Evie felt the need to get so involved when she does not even request not to be reviewed. I wonder if she is a lawyer in her day job? Surely not a statistician.

I guess we'll just have to wonder now because she can no longer reply.

Send her a letter / PO Box 6769

[Kev3773]

Still wondering why Evie felt the need to get so involved when she does not even request not to be reviewed. I wonder if she is a lawyer in her day job? Surely not a statistician.

I guess we'll just have to wonder now because she can no longer reply.

Didn't you say it was pointless to continue this thread ? Yet here you are keeping it going 

[Mr Garmin]

I've always assumed that there are lines of communication between the powers that be on here and their counterpart on SP sites.

I base this on some of the reasons given for banning a member like 'requesting a discount for leaving good feedback'

That info has to come from somewhere and it's either direct from an SP or from one of their sites like CE.

[Shyandrew2001]

Didn't you say it was pointless to continue this thread ? Yet here you are keeping it going 

I thought you said it was ok to keep if going 🤷🏻

[Placebo88]

I've always assumed that there are lines of communication between the powers that be on here and their counterpart on SP sites.

I base this on some of the reasons given for banning a member like 'requesting a discount for leaving good feedback'

That info has to come from somewhere and it's either direct from an SP or from one of their sites like CE.

I think ClientEye is a phone app, not a site, and I'm pretty sure the lady who runs SAAFE won't even allow the mention of review sites.

The cases you refer to were most probably the result of escorts personally messaging admin/mods on here with evidence.

[Mr Garmin]

I think ClientEye is a phone app, not a site, and I'm pretty sure the lady who runs SAAFE won't even allow the mention of review sites.

The cases you refer to were most probably the result of escorts personally messaging admin/mods on here with evidence.

I used the word 'site' as a catchall for platforms for sharing info.

You may be right, but the mods on here do seem to be privy to information that's not easily accessible to me at least.

I've always just assumed that they either have covert logins on sites not normally accessible to punters or have 'tame' SP's who do and pass over relevant info on dodgy punters.

[Kev3773]

I thought you said it was ok to keep if going 🤷🏻

As I said it's not for you, or me for that matter to decide that. I wondered why you still wanted to post on it when you thought it was "pointless" ?

[The Outsider]

Still wondering why Evie felt the need to get so involved when she does not even request not to be reviewed. I wonder if she is a lawyer in her day job? Surely not a statistician.

I guess we'll just have to wonder now because she can no longer reply.

If you look at her "My Availability" tab, she writes, "I DO NOT WISH TO SEE ANYONE AFFILIATED WITH UK PUNITNG" in shouty capitals and with bits of bold.  If people abide by that there will be no reviewers booking her and thus no reviews. 

Ironically she was affiliated with UKP herself until she got her mate's account banned.   

[Kev3773]

If you look at her "My Availability" tab, she writes, "I DO NOT WISH TO SEE ANYONE AFFILIATED WITH UK PUNITNG" in shouty capitals and with bits of bold.  If people abide by that there will be no reviewers booking her and thus no reviews. 

Ironically she was affiliated with UKP herself until she got her mate's account banned.   

Thick as mince comes to mind 😂

[puntingking]

If you look at her "My Availability" tab, she writes, "I DO NOT WISH TO SEE ANYONE AFFILIATED WITH UK PUNITNG" in shouty capitals and with bits of bold. If people abide by that there will be no reviewers booking her and thus no reviews. 

Ironically she was affiliated with UKP herself until she got her mate's account banned.   

All folks have to do is to not type anything in their reviews of her that would identify them to the sp. 

[daviemac]

All folks have to do is to not type anything in their reviews of her that would identify them to the sp. 

That should be the standard for any member seeing any SP.

[puntingking]

That should be the standard for any member seeing any SP.

 

[AgedCases]

All folks have to do is to not type anything in their reviews of her that would identify them to the sp. 

That's me no longer leaving reviews then. I believe my punts are rather unique compared to others.

[puntingking]

That's me no longer leaving reviews then. I believe my punts are rather unique compared to others.

Another tip is to type up a review 2-3 months after the booking, by that time the sps will likely forgotten the meeting. 

[Mr Garmin]

Another tip is to type up a review 2-3 months after the booking, by that time the sps will likely forgotten the meeting. 

By that time I will likely have forgotten the meeting.

I type it up straight away while it's fresh in my mind and then wait some time before posting it (usually)

[JamesJ]

Don't think there is anything to stop you reviewing immediately but stating the meeting was 6 weeks ago. If it was up 4 flights of stairs and you're a slim fella, state that you are overweight and you struggled with the climb! If it makes you more comfortable doing that you can then still give all the accurate details for the rest of us but will throw the SP off the scent.

[Iloveoral]

That's me no longer leaving reviews then. I believe my punts are rather unique compared to others.

I wouldn't recommend that, possibly change a few details around to be less identifying, obviously use a punting phone, some simple basics should help