Popular media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

UKPunting is a free, independent and not-for-profit paid sex buyer site.




Author Topic: SEXY ENGLISH MILF (aka Trublu1979)  (Read 33259 times)

Offline smiths

ChloeKisses on auto-censored is clearly an absolute fucktard.

She's making up stories to defend this vile prossie. She reckons we have no right to review prossies if they don't want us to. She thinks revealing a punter's first name and occupation is not so bad. What does she have to gain from this defence? She clearly hates punters and at least that auto-censored thread shows her true colours.

That said, there are a few voices of reason on that thread.

I too feel for the guys involved, but Adam is quite right in sticking to his guns. I believe she'll do fuck all as Adam has her details and I have every faith he'll use them in defence of our members. She's already backed down on her blog  :drinks:

I have asked for a legal eagle to tell me i am wrong for posting that a punter can do a review of any WG that advertises in the public arena without her permission, just as a person can review a Hotel or Restaurant without seeking their permission first. If that were the case it would apply to ANY post about a WG on ANY punting forum, you would have to seek her permission first which she obviously wouldnt give if it were something negative. :hi:


Offline Admin

  • Site Owner
In her first blog posting she said "When you complain to UKPUNTING THIS IS THE RESPONSE YOU WILL RECIEVE"

Actually she got banned not because of the complaint but she bombarded me with messages by abusing the report facility like a crazed person.

Offline Dani

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 2,593
I know some girls do not like reviews if they details personal details or activities not normally on offer but to threaten to and almost out people in her blog was unbelievable.
Some clients do slip up and tell us a lot more info than they should but we get paid a high amount of money to be discreet with any info we may have.  Its an unsaid part of our job.

I have clients that have given me their home addresses, have transferred money into my bank so I now have their bank details, have sent me emails form work email addy yet the thought of outing any one of them has never even crossed my mind even those I no longer see.

She seems to have mental health issues from the way she is carrying on.  All she had to do was ask each client when they visit to not leave a review anywhere. 
I read the reviews and there was nothing in them that could cause her to be outed in any way.  Just because she chooses to offer her services much cheaper on RBs is not a reason to try and out anyone.  I really hope this is a learning curve for her but I very much doubt it as it is quite obvious her issues are not going to be solved without outside intervention (in other words she is a total nutjob)

Offline Jimmyredcab



Why panel should not have the right to talk about his experience eludes me. This ain't north korea and last time I checked you were allowed to say pretty much whatever you want in this country.

One small caveat, it has to be within the boundaries of the law.

Libellous remarks are illegal on here as they would be in a printed newspaper, for example accusing a girl of dealing drugs when we have no proof would not be appropriate.

We certainly don't need permission to review the quality of a prostitute just as I don't need to get permission to file a review on the quality of a hotel.

If Galahad choses to have a no-reports list that is his business, I am confident that will never happen here.  :hi:

I have asked for a legal eagle to tell me i am wrong for posting that a punter can do a review of any WG that advertises in the public arena without her permission, just as a person can review a Hotel or Restaurant without seeking their permission first. If that were the case it would apply to ANY post about a WG on ANY punting forum, you would have to seek her permission first which she obviously wouldnt give if it were something negative. :hi:

I would assume it would follow all present guidelines regarding the printed word, whether on paper or the net. As long as what is written is not libelous, and/or breaks current laws, (eg extreme offensive posting, hate crimes etc), then there is nothing in the Current Law that prevents reviews. Saying a prossie is a thief can be seen as libel, (if no proof), but saying she gave a poor service is not, (as that is subjective).

Whilst prostitution is not illegal, the practice is not perceived by the court to be within standard morals. How can a prossie sue for defamation of character over a review, when her character would not be seen by the courts as "good"? If the services are listed on her profile, then to review them can not be libelous.

I remember when someone wanted to sue for defamation for being called a grass. He was advised that as offering information to the police was a moral obligation, there was no grounds for libel.

Offline Jimmyredcab

  All she had to do was ask each client when they visit to not leave a review anywhere. 


I think the main problem was the reduced rate offered in the reverse booking.

A few years ago a girl gave me a reduced rate on the condition that I did not disclose it in any review ------------ that seems a fair request to me.

Offline Kram

Well I've loaded that gun with a massive Chill Pill to fire into her gob  :D

I could think of somewhere else to aim it

Offline Admin

  • Site Owner
I remember when someone wanted to sue for defamation for being called a grass. He was advised that as offering information to the police was a moral obligation, there was no grounds for libel.

I was served with legal notices / threats from a London solicitor a few months ago.

Apparently it is defamation to say a prossie did OWO because she only offers 'time and companionship'.

This is the alleged libellous post:
https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=10911.msg165700#msg165700

She has now vanished. The legal papers I was served by her solicitor contained her full name, which was enough to find out more about her. As far as I know she was a Chinese student, possibly here on Student Visa.

A while later I caught her positing a review for herself, unsurprisingly the reviewer 'wouldnt go into detail' in "his" review  :rolleyes:

Offline smiths

I would assume it would follow all present guidelines regarding the printed word, whether on paper or the net. As long as what is written is not libelous, and/or breaks current laws, (eg extreme offensive posting, hate crimes etc), then there is nothing in the Current Law that prevents reviews. Saying a prossie is a thief can be seen as libel, (if no proof), but saying she gave a poor service is not, (as that is subjective).

Whilst prostitution is not illegal, the practice is not perceived by the court to be within standard morals. How can a prossie sue for defamation of character over a review, when her character would not be seen by the courts as "good"? If the services are listed on her profile, then to review them can not be libelous.

I remember when someone wanted to sue for defamation for being called a grass. He was advised that as offering information to the police was a moral obligation, there was no grounds for libel.

Sounds perfect sense to me and is my understanding of the situation. Punting often of course comes down to taking the punters word for what he has posted, the usual on punting forums is to take the punters word unless its believed or known by admin that he is lying. Thats obviously because the punter is the one doing the paying and thus the reviewing.

So if we go on this being the case a WG who advertises on the net as a WG has absolutely no legal grounds to get a review and/or post about her deleted. In which case its entirely up to the punter and/or the sites admin whether he/they wish to request it being deleted if she asks for it to be so. In this case the review was a positive with nothing dodgy about it by a credible punter poster AND it was deleted, yet that wasnt good enough for this WG. She acted in a disgusting way here, thats clear to me. :hi:

Offline Jimmyredcab

An interesting post on the auto-censored thread from ----  Uglybugball.

Had a quick read of that thread.

Although in the past I haven't seen eye to eye with the owner of U-KPunting, he has quite rightly dug his heels in and not let her dictate. We are all capable of making our own minds up and as already mentioned, being discreet between both parties is a must.

Break that "trust" in any form, then you open yourself to what/who you really are.

I for one would not consider booking her and would tell others not to do the same.

Offline smiths

I was served with legal notices / threats from a London solicitor a few months ago.

Apparently it is defamation to say a prossie did OWO because she only offers 'time and companionship'.

This is the alleged libellous post:
https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=10911.msg165700#msg165700

She has now vanished. The legal papers I was served by her solicitor contained her full name, which was enough to find out more about her. As far as I know she was a Chinese student, possibly here on Student Visa.

A while later I caught her positing a review for herself, unsurprisingly the reviewer 'wouldnt go into detail' in "his" review  :rolleyes:

Interesting. :hi:
« Last Edit: September 02, 2013, 11:10:33 PM by smiths »

Offline skittish

I don't like to say told you so, because there's no possible way that I could have known it would turn out this way.

But told you so https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=16534.msg257257#msg257257

Hope the two members involved ride out the storm and come out the other end unscathed. This is one of the many occasions that I don't envy Adam's position.

Offline punk

I was served with legal notices / threats from a London solicitor a few months ago.

Apparently it is defamation to say a prossie did OWO because she only offers 'time and companionship'.

This is the alleged libellous post:
https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=10911.msg165700#msg165700

She has now vanished. The legal papers I was served by her solicitor contained her full name, which was enough to find out more about her. As far as I know she was a Chinese student, possibly here on Student Visa.

A while later I caught her positing a review for herself, unsurprisingly the reviewer 'wouldnt go into detail' in "his" review  :rolleyes:
             student can only work 16 hours a week, she was no doubt breaking the law.

Offline Strawberry

  • Banned
  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 1,251
             student can only work 16 hours a week, she was no doubt breaking the law.

Where did you get that from?
« Last Edit: September 02, 2013, 11:37:43 PM by Strawberry »

Offline punk

Where did you get that from?

government by law student can only work max 16 hours.  :hi:


Offline skittish

government by law student can only work max 16 hours.  :hi:

I tried hiring a foreign student it's not quite as straightforward as max 16 hours but there are restrictions and in the end it wasn't worth the trouble.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/visas-immigration/studying/adult-students/conditions/

Offline Jimmyredcab

government by law student can only work max 16 hours.  :hi:

Not as simple as that ---------------------- depends on the nationality and the type of visa granted.   

Offline punk

I tried hiring a foreign student it's not quite as straightforward as max 16 hours but there are restrictions and in the end it wasn't worth the trouble.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/visas-immigration/studying/adult-students/conditions/

thinking of one born over here

Offline punk

Not as simple as that ---------------------- depends on the nationality and the type of visa granted.

thinking of a british student

Offline Admin

  • Site Owner
1) I understand she has agreed to leave panel alone and not contact him again, which is what I wanted. As long he does not come to me with any problems then trublu1979 does not to worry about her details being published.

2) Panel is leaving the punting world for now but may return in the future.

Offline punk

1) I understand she has agreed to leave panel alone and not contact him again, which is what I wanted. As long he does not come to me with any problems then trublu1979 does not to worry about her details being published.

2) Panel is leaving the punting world for now but may return in the future.

thats a shame he has gone. :thumbsdown:

1) I understand she has agreed to leave panel alone and not contact him again, which is what I wanted. As long he does not come to me with any problems then trublu1979 does not to worry about her details being published.

2) Panel is leaving the punting world for now but may return in the future.

Thats a huge shame, I loved Panel's reviews on here.

Did she know Panel's identity?

Reading this thread its clear she has mental issues, shes on AW for gods sake

Offline Olivia

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 66
If she is an openly advertising WG its fuck all to do with her where the punter decides to post about his punt with her as i see it, there is no no reports list on here as on auto-censored where a WG can opt out of getting any reviews. Its a very good feature of this forum in my view that a punter can do a review on any WG, i really never want to see that change. She adverises as a WG in the public arena and a consequence of that is a punter might do a review on her on here, if she doesnt like it, bad luck is  my clear view. Some punters do reviews for their fellow punters not for the WG of course. :hi:

There is an intrinsic link between the (potential) benefits of electing to advertise any commercial service in a public platform and the (potentially negative) consequences such a degree of public exposure quite probably, will bring.  The unavoidable reality of choosing to publically broadcast oneself/one service on the WORLDWIDEweb, is that the rewards come at a cost.  That 'cost' equates to sacrificing some level of anonyminity and more specifically relinquishing some amount of 'control' over that which may have previously been considered 'private'.  Those utilizing modern advertizing platforms with the explicit goal of drawing attention to themselves, by definition, lose the 'right' (or logical expectation!) to be precious about their anonyminity.

This; childish, petulant, churlish, irrational behaviour is a 'text book' example of the absurdly ubiquitous contempt those choosing to sell sexual service manifest towards those who chose to buy sexual services.




Latest videos on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

Latest images on UKEscorting.com (free site!)