Author Topic: Hannah James Glasgow  (Read 3109 times)


8 review(s) for Glasgow Blonde (3 positive, 2 neutral, 3 negative) [Indexed by Sinz]

Offline pilgrim

External Link/Members Only  or External Link/Members Only
I made my booking with Hannah via the phone, there then followed a series of hard sell txts and then a call wanting me to take up the offer of a duo with her mate External Link/Members Only  or External Link/Members Only .  Must have been a quiet day.   No discount was forthcoming when asked for, the actual duo rate is higher than their separate hourly rates FFS!  I agree with other comments about it not being a discreet location with plenty of curtain twitchers and as it was a nice day, folk milling about and Hannah standing it the window with the curtains around her frantically waving.  Hannah opened the door and ushered me in, she introduced me to Marissa who was sat on a couch, she could barely look away from her phone to say “Hi”. So I thought shes going to be a bundle of fun if I go for a duo. No chance. Hannah is keen on her piercings and tattoos, both nipples had some sort of bone like bar and were semi off limits as they were sensitive and the nose had something in it.  I would dispute the size 8 stated in the profile, as per her pics she never fully undressed and kept her midriff covered.  Once in the bedroom she asked me if I wanted Marissa to join us, I declined so she txted Marissa then gave me a towel and showed me to the bathroom.  In between rounds she got one of those vaping contraptions out and started puffing away, she also had a big glass of orange juice for herself but no offer of refreshments for the punter.  Overall she did what was asked but shes very blasé about it, no enthusiasm.

Offline Happyjose

Good, credible review. Deserved neutral

Thanks for posting.


Offline tazman1002001

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Banned
  • Posts: 4,403
  • Likes: 1
  •  
  • Reviews: 0
External Link/Members Only  or External Link/Members Only
I made my booking with Hannah via the phone, there then followed a series of hard sell txts and then a call wanting me to take up the offer of a duo with her mate External Link/Members Only  or External Link/Members Only .  Must have been a quiet day.   No discount was forthcoming when asked for, the actual duo rate is higher than their separate hourly rates FFS!  I agree with other comments about it not being a discreet location with plenty of curtain twitchers and as it was a nice day, folk milling about and Hannah standing it the window with the curtains around her frantically waving.  Hannah opened the door and ushered me in, she introduced me to Marissa who was sat on a couch, she could barely look away from her phone to say “Hi”. So I thought shes going to be a bundle of fun if I go for a duo. No chance. Hannah is keen on her piercings and tattoos, both nipples had some sort of bone like bar and were semi off limits as they were sensitive and the nose had something in it.  I would dispute the size 8 stated in the profile, as per her pics she never fully undressed and kept her midriff covered.  Once in the bedroom she asked me if I wanted Marissa to join us, I declined so she txted Marissa then gave me a towel and showed me to the bathroom.  In between rounds she got one of those vaping contraptions out and started puffing away, she also had a big glass of orange juice for herself but no offer of refreshments for the punter.  Overall she did what was asked but shes very blasé about it, no enthusiasm.

I did find her slightly distant at the start of the booking as well but felt she got right into when we got into it the booking .
Banned reason: White-knight abusing facility to change another punters negative review and then getting abusive after his touting and white-knighting is exposed. Previously banned for similar reasons.
Banned by:

Offline Happyjose

I did find her slightly distant at the start of the booking

 As I said, Pilgrims review is credible, not least for its objectivity.



« Last Edit: June 16, 2017, 04:33:22 pm by Happyjose »

Offline tazman1002001

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Banned
  • Posts: 4,403
  • Likes: 1
  •  
  • Reviews: 0
As I said, Pilgrims review is credible, not least for its objectivity.

I think there is a echo in here?
Banned reason: White-knight abusing facility to change another punters negative review and then getting abusive after his touting and white-knighting is exposed. Previously banned for similar reasons.
Banned by:

Offline Juilius_Sneezer

I think there is a echo in here?
I think there is an echo in here?

Sorry couldn't resist  :D

Objectivity being all good. I get where Pilgrim is coming from. Need to revisit her where I don't cock the meet up to actually decently review  :lol:

Offline Happyjose

I think there is a echo in here?

Well if it's worth saying once, it's worth saying again, particularly as your first contribution to this thread could be interpreted by a casual reader as an attempt to undermine the rating given to this prossie and defend your own recent positive review. While I'm sure that's not the case I'm happy to expand.

The OP identifies several issues that contribute to his neutral rating, these include:

1 Unsolicited calls/texts
2 Hard sell of duo service
3 Discretion of location in general
4 Discretion of prossie (waving at window)
5 Tits being semi-off limits
6 Size being misrepresented on profile
7 No offer of refreshment
8 Lacklustre service/attitude

This is what I mean by objectivity. All of this is useful to a potential punter.

While I realise some of the above may have been unique to the OP's experience, some of the issues would likely be the same for any punter.

As you have posted on this thread and contrasted your own experience perhaps you could comment on the 8 issues I have identified. I'm sure it would be useful to any punter considering booking this prossie




Offline tazman1002001

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Banned
  • Posts: 4,403
  • Likes: 1
  •  
  • Reviews: 0
Well if it's worth saying once, it's worth saying again, particularly as your first contribution to this thread could be interpreted by a casual reader as an attempt to undermine the rating given to this prossie and defend your own recent positive review. While I'm sure that's not the case I'm happy to expand.

The OP identifies several issues that contribute to his neutral rating, these include:

1 Unsolicited calls/texts
2 Hard sell of duo service
3 Discretion of location in general
4 Discretion of prossie (waving at window)
5 Tits being semi-off limits
6 Size being misrepresented on profile
7 No offer of refreshment
8 Lacklustre service/attitude

This is what I mean by objectivity. All of this is useful to a potential punter.

While I realise some of the above may have been unique to the OP's experience, some of the issues would likely be the same for any punter.

As you have posted on this thread and contrasted your own experience perhaps you could comment on the 8 issues I have identified. I'm sure it would be useful to any punter considering booking this prossie

6 points mentioned I had no issues at all with so must have just been for the Op... See below some details on a couple of points raised -

Point 3 - yes this flat is in the middle of a residential area, that's been made very clear but I didn't have an issue, I parked round the corner and walked to her flat, her instructions were very clear so no issues for me ..... But yes I agree it's not discrete.

Point 8 - I mentioned in my review that she was quiet but I didn't think she was reserved she let me do what ever and I sucked the hell out of her perky peirrced tits and let me do what ever I wanted and performed reallly well, I think with a second or third visit she would open up more to chatting etc but she did open up a bit more after taking a big load from me.

Hope this helps..... Maybe if you visit her you can also share your experiences?
« Last Edit: June 17, 2017, 10:27:32 am by tazman1002001 »
Banned reason: White-knight abusing facility to change another punters negative review and then getting abusive after his touting and white-knighting is exposed. Previously banned for similar reasons.
Banned by:

mavgoose

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Guest
That review is as close to a negative as you can get.

Any minimal thoughts of visiting this girl , even if she was in a city centre location , have evaporated. Just like her faux cigarette break. Sounds to me like a right dozy cow.

Offline Happyjose



Hope this helps..... Maybe if you visit her you can also share your experiences?

Unlikely, as lack of enthusiasm/engagement is a deal breaker, and it's one of the few things that seem consistent across the two reviews. That's the beauty of UKP, reviews are subject to reasonable enquiry and the devil is often in the detail

Thanks for responding though

Agree with Mavgoose's comments.

Offline tazman1002001

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Banned
  • Posts: 4,403
  • Likes: 1
  •  
  • Reviews: 0
Yeah each to there own .... I will def be back...like I said with time I think this girl will just get better and better .... But that's just my opinion
Banned reason: White-knight abusing facility to change another punters negative review and then getting abusive after his touting and white-knighting is exposed. Previously banned for similar reasons.
Banned by:

Offline J_H

Great review, great discussion (no snarking) - that's what this Forum is here for.

mavgoose

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Guest
Agreed. We are all adults that can make our own minds up.

Offline mickey1967

New profile with face pics now up

Offline tazman1002001

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Banned
  • Posts: 4,403
  • Likes: 1
  •  
  • Reviews: 0
New profile with face pics now up

Same profile ...face pic has always been up
Banned reason: White-knight abusing facility to change another punters negative review and then getting abusive after his touting and white-knighting is exposed. Previously banned for similar reasons.
Banned by: