The pictures I have uploaded were from the same girl. They were there before her profile was verified. I was monitoring the build up of that profile till it got verified, hence, the pictures I have uploaded.
It is very commun for différent wags to use same profile when someone is leaving the job then another one is starting. It saves up time for them than opening a new profile and waiting for verification which takes a long process.
Megan is an innocent lady who has lived in Uk not for a long time. She has just started this new job. I feel it is not fair for her to get that negative review it will affect her work for a long time. Also she provide a very good service not like other Romanians and all.
Anyway, what's done is done. I will leave a review on Megan shortly
Cheers,
P.s apology for typos as I'm writing from my phone
No: a negative is not only entirely fair - it is a requirement under the circumstances. You do not appear to understand that a bait and switch situation is unacceptable. It is a deception played upon an unwilling customer for the convenience of the vendor or pimp. The practise needs to be severely discouraged and punished, and not, as you are proposing, tolerated … which will only encourage more SPs & pimps to lie to prospective customers.
The whole beauty of AW, checked and balanced for honesty by UKP members who are prepared to put in the time and risk, is that it plays a role in helping promote
transparency,
trust and
safety that works for all parties, and leads to the goal of all round
satisfaction with the transaction. Transparency and trust are essential ingredients to achieving safety and satisfaction. That WGs have to go through a process in order to be verified, and have to bear some basic resemblance to whom they claim to be, is the non-negotiable first step towards transparency.
From the customer's perspective, the AW verification system is deeply flawed, of limited use and is regrettably easily abusable by vendors. But it's one of the very few things that we do possess, (along with our ability to turn on our heel, if we feel we have been cheated) and it needs to be jealously protected and improved - not subverted for the convenience of a pimp or some new SP intent on side-stepping verification.
If someone is not prepared to go through the minor inconvenience of that first procedure, or if they wish to abuse it, that speaks truth to their untrustworthiness.
I have a strong distaste for the casualness with which accusations of touting or white-knighting sometimes abound on this site. But the tone of your writing and the greater concern you express for the future earnings of someone
whom you openly acknowledge is cheating the system (and thereby us), is clearly against the ethos of this site. I cannot see that the positive review you are posting on this one can in any way be trusted - and, in fact, I think the whole thing needs to be called out.
What do other punters think?