Author Topic: Why you should ALWAYS use a punting phone and punting name!!!  (Read 31364 times)

Online Strawberry

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 1,719
Interesting to hear that Dani. Perhaps I was a bit hasty in being forgiving as I didn't expect the warning system to be so stringent, or that the post would have been taken down so quickly. Will wait and see any response from SAAFE, so far they haven't allowed me to join which would let me send a message myself.

Dani isn't the only one who's sent a concerned pm, I sent one this morning pointing to this thread and in fact first one I sent was when I initially read the warning some weeks ago, however it was thought at the time to be a genuine report by a genuine person. I'm told the situation is currently being looked into.

Over the years I've seen reports from punters and service providers that have contradicted each other, I truly hope the truth emerges. Fake reports on either side do no-one any good.

KingCharming

  • Guest
Dani isn't the only one who's sent a concerned pm, I sent one this morning pointing to this thread and in fact first one I sent was when I initially read the warning some weeks ago, however it was thought at the time to be a genuine report by a genuine person. I'm told the situation is currently being looked into.

Over the years I've seen reports from punters and service providers that have contradicted each other, I truly hope the truth emerges. Fake reports on either side do no-one any good.
Off the back of what Dani said; how easy would it be for Sasha or Cindy to have signed up, gone onto the SAAFE thread, and posted a note saying it wasn't true etc?

Since it was mentioned that SAAFE don't allow discussions of their warnings, I had assumed it wasn't possible, and was perhaps too quick to forgive both girls; if it is the case that they could and can just go on and leave a note on that thread verifying it as false, then it does beg the question of why they haven't done so.

Online Strawberry

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 1,719
Off the back of what Dani said; how easy would it be for Sasha or Cindy to have signed up, gone onto the SAAFE thread, and posted a note saying it wasn't true etc?

Since it was mentioned that SAAFE don't allow discussions of their warnings, I had assumed it wasn't possible, and was perhaps too quick to forgive both girls; if it is the case that they could and can just go on and leave a note on that thread verifying it as false, then it does beg the question of why they haven't done so.

Members can post on warning threads, if not directly relevant ie just discussing the information then it'll be removed. If however it's to add more such as additional contact or identifying details, then it usually stays.


wilderbeast

  • Guest
Having ages ago subscribed to the private gallery of one of Glasgow Girl's previous guises on A/W (although I have never met her) I can confirm that the photo posted by King Charming is definitely of her. 

Also a bit of amateur detective work has established that her username on SAAFE is LouLou37.  So she doesn't even have to register to post an explanation.  Come to think of it she may even have set the wheels in motion for this sorry mess via the above profile?

KingCharming

  • Guest
Members can post on warning threads, if not directly relevant ie just discussing the information then it'll be removed. If however it's to add more such as additional contact or identifying details, then it usually stays.
I see. I'm guessing it boils down to whether you're already a member or not in that case then? I registered in order to PM the admin myself and discuss it rather than keep dragging everyone else in, but have not been accepted yet, which was some time ago, so I had initially assumed this would be the case with them and they would be unable to clear it up on SAAFE either.

Will wait and see if the SAAFE mod gets in touch I suppose. Only she knows who originally sent in the warning too. While I can't imagine that's something she's going to give out, nor do I even care for it, she is the only person who can say absolutely that:
a. Sasha/Cindy didn't post the original warning, and
b. Sasha/Cindy were not SAAFE members, though had made an effort to clear the post up with SAAFE

KingCharming

  • Guest
Having ages ago subscribed to the private gallery of one of Glasgow Girl's previous guises on A/W (although I have never met her) I can confirm that the photo posted by King Charming is definitely of her. 

Also a bit of amateur detective work has established that her username on SAAFE is LouLou37.  So she doesn't even have to register to post an explanation.  Come to think of it she may even have set the wheels in motion for this sorry mess via the above profile?
Jesus! How'd you find that out! If true that would basically render everything she's saying as complete bullshit, if she's been able to post on the SAAFE warning all along...

Online Strawberry

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 1,719
I see. I'm guessing it boils down to whether you're already a member or not in that case then? I registered in order to PM the admin myself and discuss it rather than keep dragging everyone else in, but have not been accepted yet, which was some time ago, so I had initially assumed this would be the case with them and they would be unable to clear it up on SAAFE either.

Will wait and see if the SAAFE mod gets in touch I suppose. Only she knows who originally sent in the warning too. While I can't imagine that's something she's going to give out, nor do I even care for it, she is the only person who can say absolutely that:
a. Sasha/Cindy didn't post the original warning, and
b. Sasha/Cindy were not SAAFE members, though had made an effort to clear the post up with SAAFE

Only SPs can join, if they know you are not then you'll be declined.

If someone opens a new account saying they are xyz service provide from whereever then that alone is not absolute proof it is them by a long chalk.

« Last Edit: November 26, 2013, 09:24:26 pm by Strawberry »

Toshiba

  • Guest
Well my number is out there so im goosed, been ok for now but i will be extra careful now, scary shit

wilderbeast

  • Guest
An unmistakeable and uncanny similarity in posting styles and references made in some of her SAAFE posts that leave you in no doubt that she is/was Glasgow Girl and now Sasha.  There aren't that many WGs in their "early to mid 20s" who have consistently offered sensual massages (and before that full service) for many years.

Too many coincidences for it not to be the same SP! 

James999

  • Guest
As for the false warning letter linked to by KC, we GENUINELY are not responsible for this. Mr KC did not abuse anyone in any way in person. I can only think this has come through the grapevine somehow, since Cindy did share with a few massage friends who work nearby in the City Centre the phone number of Mr KC, NOT for any malicious reasons at all, but because these ladies are also what would be considered "mature" masseuses, being in their 40s and 50s, and would be rather upset as Cindy was to also have their names lambasted on a public forum beside the description of "little old lady" !!!! So after Cindy told them about the incident they asked for the number etc, we did not give it to create accusations against KC, only so that the other mature ladies could not answer the number so they would not run the risk of having walk outs or someone reviewing them as a little old lady. I have no idea where this information is coming from,

[Image hidden]
 

OldAdmin

  • Guest
This post by James999 towards GlasgowGirl last year:

you spout bollocks that you can't back up, I point out you are spouting bollocks and you get upset, what next ? you going to threaten to leave again   :hi:

Looks like she's done it again, asking for her account to be disabled today after I caught her out :rolleyes:

KingCharming

  • Guest
Have updated review page.
https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=18786.msg305722#msg305722
Basically it's all down to Sasha/Cindy as to whether the warning gets removed or amended, as SAAFE won't link to UKP, and will only accept the originator/WG's word for its legitimacy.

As mentioned in review page, it now all boils down to:
- if this warning is still up, then they've not challenged its legitimacy on SAAFE, and the AW profile in question is a bait and switch who will post your punting details on the internet saying you assaulted them if you give them a negative review
- if the warning is down or amended as false, then they have told SAAFE it's false, the AW profile is legit and there's just been a big mix-up with some poor but not necessarily malicious judgements made at a few points
http://www.saafe.info/main/index.php?topic=18510.0

And to think I got into punting to avoid stress... Well, I'm off to bed. As I say it all comes down to the above now and whether the WGs in question get in touch with SAAFE to clear this up.

password02

  • Guest
Just checked the post on SAAFE and a new line has just been added - http://www.saafe.info/main/index.php?topic=18510.0

''This warning was posted on behalf of another escort and is currently under review to establish it's legitimacy. - Daisy_''

Kram

  • Guest
If they are investigating the saafe threads legitimacy surely all identifying information should be removed (or better yet the whole thread ) untill they know (I mean I think we all know that it's bullshit as sasha/glasgowgirl/bullshit artist is lying her arse off )

James999

  • Guest
It's terrible the way Saffe allow their site to be used in such a manner, it undermines any genuine warnings they have and as such the whole objective of their site  :hi:

Offline Jimmyredcab

It's terrible the way Saffe allow their site to be used in such a manner, it undermines any genuine warnings they have and as such the whole objective of their site  :hi:

Surely Punternet has gone down the same route, any member who does not sing to their hymn sheet gets put on lifetime pre-mod, my posts would have to be approved by the pro$$ie moderators ------------ which is why I will never post on there again.  :thumbsdown:

petite_nikki

  • Guest
Im on KingCharming's side here hav'nt read such bollocks in my life at end of day King contacted Sasha thinking he would be seeing her turns up instead its thus Cindy woman dos'nt like the look of her and leaves which he has every right to do and also has the right to complain to AW because he did that they post on Saafe making up all these lies his name and number :thumbsdown: then passes it onto other escorts thats soo wrong, thats what you get when theres more than one woman working on same profile she only did that cos she was pissed that she'd been caught deceiving people and that her profile was taken off for awhile. Ive read saafe like many punters on here have and all they do is moan about clients and quite happy to tell everyone when one pisses them off some of them need to grow up and smell the coffee in this line of work you take it with a pinch of salt and move on not plaster and ridicule a client over internet unless they have actually assaulted you which i doubt very much KingCharming did.They need to get out their own arses stop thinkinging they the best ever and just be normal and enjoy.

James999

  • Guest
Im on KingCharming's side here hav'nt read such bollocks in my life at end of day King contacted Sasha thinking he would be seeing her turns up instead its thus Cindy woman dos'nt like the look of her and leaves which he has every right to do and also has the right to complain to AW because he did that they post on Saafe making up all these lies his name and number :thumbsdown: then passes it onto other escorts thats soo wrong, thats what you get when theres more than one woman working on same profile she only did that cos she was pissed that she'd been caught deceiving people and that her profile was taken off for awhile. Ive read saafe like many punters on here have and all they do is moan about clients and quite happy to tell everyone when one pisses them off some of them need to grow up and smell the coffee in this line of work you take it with a pinch of salt and move on not plaster and ridicule a client over internet unless they have actually assaulted you which i doubt very much KingCharming did.They need to get out their own arses stop thinkinging they the best ever and just be normal and enjoy.

I agree, I am shocked that SAAFE have still left th earticle up, perhaps you and others should alert them to your concerns that if their warnings are incorrect then the site quickly loses credibility and purpose  :hi:

Offline Jimmyredcab

I agree, I am shocked that SAAFE have still left th earticle up, perhaps you and others should alert them to your concerns that if their warnings are incorrect then the site quickly loses credibility and purpose  :hi:

What little credibility it had in the first place.    :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

I remember a girl asking for advice because business was quiet, she was told not to reduce her rates and the phone would start to ring eventually.    :dash: :dash:

JB1969

  • Guest
This was one of the reasons for me joining UKP to get advice etc one of which was I have a separate sim which I just use when punting.  I park my car out of range and walk up to wherever I need to go especially when seeing a girl in a res, reason being that I was adviced that girls are able to take down your number plate and check it on a website.  Also if you have your mobile number on Facebook they can quite easily find you that way too.

Offline smiths

This was one of the reasons for me joining UKP to get advice etc one of which was I have a separate sim which I just use when punting.  I park my car out of range and walk up to wherever I need to go especially when seeing a girl in a res, reason being that I was adviced that girls are able to take down your number plate and check it on a website.  Also if you have your mobile number on Facebook they can quite easily find you that way too.

Very wise, the fact is the chance of having a problem is small but why take ANY risk is my logic. Paranoia can be a good thing in punting as long as it doesnt spoil my fun which it doesnt.

Just checked the post on SAAFE and a new line has just been added - http://www.saafe.info/main/index.php?topic=18510.0

''This warning was posted on behalf of another escort and is currently under review to establish it's legitimacy. - Daisy_''

If there no truth in what happened, by SAAFE accounts, isn't this slander what they have printed, and maybe a nudge like: if the post isn't removed by next week, legal proceeding will begin against SAAFE

KingCharming

  • Guest
If there no truth in what happened, by SAAFE accounts, isn't this slander what they have printed, and maybe a nudge like: if the post isn't removed by next week, legal proceeding will begin against SAAFE
Err... I wouldn't go that far! Technically I suppose, yes, but I'm not exactly in a hurry to go to court and have my real name splashed all over the papers just to defend my punting details.

Can't say I'll really know what's going on until SAAFE get in touch, which so far they've not done (my registration to PM wasn't accepted and they have an email address as well as my number and AW profile of course to speak to me on).
Playing Devil's Advocate here, but in spite of some of the other aspects the girls were posting, to their credit they did get in touch on here straight away and immediately said the SAAFE post was untrue. Not sure what's going on on SAAFE's end, but if they're investigating the story, why have they not spoken to me? What sort of proof do they use that a booking took place in order to stop people just calling up and going "uh hi, yeah this guy tried to beat me up, here's his name and number, post it up on the internet, ta". Do they ask for evidence they met like text messages, emails or AW PMs? You can't prove what happened at any meeting, but you can at least cut down on random hearsay.

James999

  • Guest
to their credit they did get in touch on here straight away and immediately said the SAAFE post was untrue.

REALITY CHECK

They said it wasn't them who did the post, but the reality is who else would have done it?

They got caught red handed and still denied it  :scare:

Either they haven't contacted Saffe to get it removed or Saffe have an agenda  :hi:

KingCharming

  • Guest
REALITY CHECK

They said it wasn't them who did the post, but the reality is who else would have done it?

They got caught red handed and still denied it  :scare:

Either they haven't contacted Saffe to get it removed or Saffe have an agenda  :hi:
True, but the warning post basically just mirrors the first half of my review which is up here publicly. Could just as easily be a WG from another negative review looking to spite me, who pretended to be someone else in order to avoid being discovered. Not saying that definitely IS the case, but I just can't understand why they would put the warning up, then come on here and deny it when they didn't have to. They have said and done a lot of bizarre and bullshit things, so it wouldn't surprise me either way to be honest.

As I said before, I think whether it stays up on SAAFE or not is the proof of whether they're genuine or not. If they really didn't do it, they'll get in touch with SAAFE so they can take it down. It's still up there just now though, so either SAAFE have an agenda as you say, or the WGs are telling porkies. The latter more likely, but given that SAAFE have refused my requests for contact and still have the warning up despite the girls supposedly involved saying it's untrue, they're not exactly completely innocent either.

Literally all it would take is for either SAAFE to say "they insist to us that it's true, it stays", or the girls to show that they're trying to get it removed from SAAFE but SAAFE won't let them take it down. Neither party is blameless as far as I can see.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2013, 06:48:10 pm by KingCharming »

KingCharming

  • Guest
Made an arse of modifying that last post. Meant to say:
"Okay Sasha is banned, but Cindy ain't, and both still have my AW details."
« Last Edit: November 28, 2013, 06:50:56 pm by KingCharming »

Festisio

  • Guest
Kingcharming - you should report their location to the police saying that you are concerned it is a brothel.

Offline CurvyKinkyVixen

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 299
My punting phone looks like something from the early 90s! Sure all WGS that see it think i'm a pauper :) Did stupidly tell one my name the other day. Doh!!!!!!

My work phone is the same , a £10 basic samsung. Does the job.

Nothing but trouble comes from  using  smartphones , with all the facebook , whatsapps and other crap linked straight to your partner/boss/mates on it.

Offline CurvyKinkyVixen

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 299

Things like this make a total mockery of the Saafe warnings system.   Its bad enough AW feedback cannot be trusted anymore due to girls being malicious against clients but to bring Saafe down to that level is terrible as it is a trusted site that we tend to believe.  Listing attacks with fake details is just going to bring down the validity of what is a great warning forum



+ 1 .

Offline Ali Katt

REALITY CHECK

They said it wasn't them who did the post, but the reality is who else would have done it?

They got caught red handed and still denied it  :scare:

Either they haven't contacted Saffe to get it removed or Saffe have an agenda  :hi:
Saafe will never favour the punter, even if he was accused of a (false) murder I doubt they would take it down.

Offline Dani

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 2,601
Saafe will never favour the punter, even if he was accused of a (false) murder I doubt they would take it down.

Not true at all.  Last year  I reported a fake report on there and it was removed immediately.  a girl had done it so her BF could not book local prossies anymore as she accused him of beating and raping her.  As soon as I reported it as fake and explained how I knew it was not genuine Amy removed it within minutes.

Believe it or not they don't want fake reports on there anymore than anyone else as it would then make the whole reports system a waste of time. 
It is there to help keep us safe in work and false reports tend to stop people believing any reports so they do remove them once they have confirmed they are fake.

There is no point blaming Saafe as a mod was asked to make a warning post and took it on good faith.  They are trying to find out the truth behind it and once it has been established they will either remove the post completely or leave it up depending on what they are told.

Blaming safe is like blaming UKP when that troll came on stating that a prossie had HIV even though it was obviously a malicious post it was left up for a short while.  Its was UKPs fault that the post was made same as it cannot be Saafes fault when they post a report from the horses mouth

James999

  • Guest
There is no point blaming Saafe as a mod was asked to make a warning post and took it on good faith.  They are trying to find out the truth behind it and once it has been established they will either remove the post completely or leave it up depending on what they are told.

Of course they are to blame if it is false and they know it, he said it's false and both women involved say it's false, what other evidence do they need ?

Offline CurvyKinkyVixen

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 299
Of course they are to blame if it is false and they know it, he said it's false and both women involved say it's false, what other evidence do they need ?

Hopefully they will remove it. We shall see.

I know the Mods on there will not want a serious warning system abused so lets see. One of the mods doesnt like the AW notes system , for the reason it can be abused by WGs with an axe to grind. Badmouthing regs in the hope the competition wont want to take a booking is just one example. Id imagine she wouldnt want SAAFE warnings devolving into a similar farce.

As before , now the women have admitted its BS , id hope it will be removed ASAP.

I wish WGs wouldnt do spitefull things like this ( just because the guy walked/reported "older than pics")  , it makes a mockery of serious warnings about REAL dangerous men  :(
« Last Edit: November 28, 2013, 09:28:32 pm by CurvyKinkyVixen »

Offline Olivia

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 74
If the apology is true then why is the warning and his username and phone number still up on Saafe.  Daisy does not write down a warning on grapevine rumours.  None of the mods would do that.  They would check it from the horses mouth so to speak.  They would not take a someone told me that another girl told them that they were told this happened.  Saafe doesn't work that way.  Mods do not post idle gossip.

You make this assertion with incredible authority.  I am astonished by your apparent willingness to make such unambiguous, assured statements regarding this matter without offering any shred of factual support or any detail substantiating your claims as to the moral sanctity of SAAFE. Personally, I could not agree less with your opinion 'NONE of the mods' would do this, 'They would ALL do that...'. Would they?  How do you know?  If 'SAAFE doesn't work that way', how does it work?  In my view/experience 'ide gossip' is just about the level appropriate to mods on that site. 


Quote
Things like this make a total mockery of the Saafe warnings system.   Its bad enough AW feedback cannot be trusted anymore due to girls being malicious against clients but to bring Saafe down to that level is terrible as it is a trusted site that we tend to believe.  Listing attacks with fake details is just going to bring down the validity of what is a great warning forum


TOTALLY DISAGREE.  'Things like this' could be the perfect opportunity for SAAFE and those who are invested in it, to prove their intrinsic value and inherent objectivty and balanced interest.  It is not the actions of one or two individuals (there will ALWAYS be individual fools) that make a mockery of the SAAFE warnings system, but the complte inability of those in charge to think independently, act with initiative and behave maturely instead of like imature children simply incapable of resisting the temptation to revel in their glee at 'holding all the cards'


I've been using my personal phone and what a big mistake and the smack on my face when one of the WGs I saw started texting me about tours, stopped seeing her after that pretty much.

Offline berksboy

Still showing 
This warning was posted on behalf of another escort and is currently under review to establish it's legitimacy. - Daisy_

So why is "Daisy" taking so long to look into this ? And should she not just pull it until she does make her mind up ?

She has had the best part of 3 days so far and does not look like she as had a chat with Kingcharming who is one of only 2 maybe 3 who know what has happed.

Offline Olivia

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 74
EXACTLY.  It is a farce and those allowing it to continue are as culpable as the original perpetrators, in my view.

wilderbeast

  • Guest
My theory is that the original warning may have been raised by LouLou37 (aka Sasha aka GlasgowGirl) and now that it has been challenged by King Charming (and verified by Sasha and Cindy) then the whole warnings procedure on SAAFE and credibility of some senior members and even mods has been blown apart.

This delay in rectifying an obvious wrong is not helping things at all with regards that site!

Online Strawberry

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 1,719
My theory is that the original warning may have been raised by LouLou37 (aka Sasha aka GlasgowGirl) and now that it has been challenged by King Charming (and verified by Sasha and Cindy) then the whole warnings procedure on SAAFE and credibility of some senior members and even mods has been blown apart.

This delay in rectifying an obvious wrong is not helping things at all with regards that site!

If a guy had been violent he's hardly going to say so.

I personally (and this is what I said from the start) think it's some sort of mix up with the booking, but without being there, and also knowing you can never be sure who is who on the internet I do not know 100%. I just wish it was sorted out one way or the other.

If a guy had been violent he's hardly going to say so.

No he probably wouldn't, but I doubt he'd bring it to everyone's attention that an anonymous punter being discussed on saafe for being violent was actually him either.

It's worth noting that on her AW feedback where KC (spankfan77) reports what happened she makes no mention of him being violent or aggressive - she accuses him of being a time waster.

Offline finn5555

This thread is fucking tedious now  :dash:

Offline Ali Katt

If a guy had been violent he's hardly going to say so.

I personally (and this is what I said from the start) think it's some sort of mix up with the booking, but without being there, and also knowing you can never be sure who is who on the internet I do not know 100%. I just wish it was sorted out one way or the other.
It's hard to say, but she has had two accounts on here, used pictures of another girl, they claimed they didn't write the report on Saafe - so, who did? In other words they're liars. I believe KC given the evidence.

Bloody hell, really sorry to hear about all of that, and am glad nothing worse came of it.

I've just noticed in her interview that she states:

Which is a bit of a sign that she's a bit of a cunt! ;)
Pmsl

Gigabyte

  • Guest
The wheels of motion clearly work extremely slowly. SAAFE are still reviewing that report. How long does it take to decide one way or the other? I think they will just leave it because god forbid they actually admit that an escort told a big porky out of spite.  :wackogirl:

Offline Jimmyredcab

Kingcharming - you should report their location to the police saying that you are concerned it is a brothel.

I would actually go much further.

If the location is a block of flats I would send a letter to every other flat in the block, if it is a house I would send a letter to every other house in the road.

If she wants to be a cunt then we can do the same.    :hi:

Offline NIK

Saafe is a pro$$ie forum, they don't give two fucks if the warning is true or not ----- they put pro$$ies first just as we put punters first.  :hi:

Exactly they couldn't give a monkey's chuff about punters, apart from what's in their wallets.

And they actively condone rip offs and scams.

Cornish sub

  • Guest
This thread is fucking tedious now  :dash:
So don't fucking read it then  :dash:


Offline blue

Moral of this whole thread, use a punting phone and don't give out your personal details. JOB DONE!  :music:

Booked a girl for a meeting last  Thursday she messages me on a/w asking me to send her a full face picture i said show you full face in your a/w profile and Il send you a pic never heard a thing back she had more chance of stepping in rocking horse shit then me sending her a pic