Jesus, what a clusterfuck! A whole load of nonsense over ehat should have been a simple neg review.
Pippa stuffed up on her comms & timekeeping. I think everyone agrees on that. As a result, the originally agreed start time was not adhered to, and hence a tough (since the OP didn't travel in vain and waste both time and money) but justified Neg would have been the end of the matter.
But then we have all the “back to backer” stuff. The main problem with back to backing as far as I can see is one of hygiene since it leaves the WG with no time to clean herself properly betore her next booking. If we take the OP’s conclusion as fact and this is what caused Pippa to try to put the booking back then surely it shows that she was trying to factor in some time to ensure she was clean and refreshed before commencing the 2nd booking? If so, then does it matter if this was the reason for the postponement or not? The end result is the same, and she would still have bern as clean as she woukd have been had she originally booked in consecutive appointments with a 30 min break in between.
The OP’s original response is a little strange as well. If someone asks to postpone a 60 min meeting for 30 mins then my first reaction, if that isn't convenient, would not be to propose a start time which is only 30 mins earlier instead. Surely it was obvious that Pippa, for whatever reason, was not going to be available from 16.30 to 17.00, which is why she wanted to put the start time back to 17.00. If so, then suggesting a new start time of 16.00 for a 60 min booking would be pointless as it would then cover the period she has already indicated she would be unavailable for? All of this is then complicated by the breakdown in comms (which is on Pippa’s side), followed by the OP’s annoyed tone (I can understand him being miffed at this point) but then we have him dropping in UKP from nowhere which, despite OP’s protestations, does read like a threat. Why not take it to AW email to discuss rather than txt? Why offer to discuss on a public forum which is, by its very nature, orientated more towards punter than WG if it was not designed to intimidate?
So all in all a justified Neg review which could have benefitted all (warning potential punters of the posdibility of being let down by Pippa’s timekeeping and comms and also being a wakeup call for Pippa to improve these areas to avoid this happening in future) has been derailed by the OP becoming a bit obsessed about his “back to backer” hypothesis and has also introduced doubts as to his reliability as a reviewer by using UKP as a threat and also potentially being a multiple AW profile-creator.
