Mia_Escort1

[MasterChief]

External Link/Members Only

Anyone else had unsolicited text from this bareback skank looking for business?

Arrived yesterday, but I use a punting phone and did not notice it till now. Could be a bit embarassing (or worse) for punters who don't use a punting phone!

[waynekerr600]

How did she get your number MC?

Notice she is in North Shields she isn't that Lottie bonds is she?

[maxxblue]

I wonder how she got your number, MC?

EDIT: Sorry Waynekerr - same question.

[waynekerr600]

I wonder how she got your number, MC?

EDIT: Sorry Waynekerr - same question.

No problem great minds think alike.

We never know who saves our number after a punt and they could then share it with anyone. Anyone who thinks they don't need a punting phone needs to think again.

[thekidah01]

External Link/Members Only

Anyone else had unsolicited text from this bareback skank looking for business?

Arrived yesterday, but I use a punting phone and did not notice it till now. Could be a bit embarassing (or worse) for punters who don't use a punting phone!

May I ask how you know she offers bareback?
No mention of bareback on her profile.

[Sar-Major]

No problem great minds think alike.

We never know who saves our number after a punt and they could then share it with anyone. Anyone who thinks they don't need a punting phone needs to think again.

EXACTLY!!! 

 

[Sar-Major]

May I ask how you know she offers bareback?
No mention of bareback on her profile.

May just be "Phraseology" that MC uses. 

 

[johnny34]

May I ask how you know she offers bareback?
No mention of bareback on her profile.

Not on profile but thread on uke recently showed/suggested she does or has offered bareback in the past.

[thekidah01]

 

Not on profile but thread on uke recently showed/suggested she does or has offered bareback in the past.

Thanks for the warning

[Sar-Major]

Not on profile but thread on uke recently showed/suggested she does or has offered bareback in the past.

Mmm Missed that one, cheers for the "Heads Up" 

 

[MasterChief]

No she does not advertise it, but a month or so ago I text her for an appointment her reply included “bareback 30 quid extra”

[Sir Punt]

A quick cross reference of her feedback shows punters seeing her and some of the "more reputable" girls..... Worrying indeed!!!

[datwabbit]

A quick cross reference of her feedback shows punters seeing her and some of the "more reputable" girls..... Worrying indeed!!!

I said this on uke. A while ago I did a cross check on a BB girl and a punter's name came up who saw lots of girls. So called reputable girls. Now I cannot tell you if every booking was protected and whether he saw people without a booking.

So talking about reputable girls means nothing. They're probably not thinking you're a reputable punter.

What is a reputable girl anyway?

[Sir Punt]

I said this on uke. A while ago I did a cross check on a BB girl and a punter's name came up who saw lots of girls. So called reputable girls. Now I cannot tell you if every booking was protected and whether he saw people without a booking.

So talking about reputable girls means nothing. They're probably not thinking you're a reputable punter.

What is a reputable girl anyway?

Reputable is probably the wrong description. Well reviewed is probably more apt. Anyway my point is I'd think twice about booking those girls who've seen those punters and I'd like to think the girls would do a similar check and avoid the potential barebackers

[datwabbit]

Reputable is probably the wrong description. Well reviewed is probably more apt. Anyway my point is I'd think twice about booking those girls who've seen those punters and I'd like to think the girls would do a similar check and avoid the potential barebackers

Like "well reviewed".

There's a lot of them though, connected via a punter to escort to punter.

[Mansell]

Like "well reviewed".

There's a lot of them though, connected via a punter to escort to punter.

With this lass only starting 10 March this year it does eliminate a lot of possible links in this case.
Just going on memory the thread on UKE pretty much ended up suggested it's up to each of us to look after our own health. That's certainly what I took out of it. We can never be 100% certain  what any WG is doing. So don't take any obvious stupid risks and always get yourself checked regularly.

[Winker121]

With this lass only starting 10 March this year it does eliminate a lot of possible links in this case.
Just going on memory the thread on UKE pretty much ended up suggested it's up to each of us to look after our own health. That's certainly what I took out of it. We can never be 100% certain  what any WG is doing. So don't take any obvious stupid risks and always get yourself checked regularly.

How do you know that she only started 10/03/18?

[daviemac]

How do you know that she only started 10/03/18?

It says this on her AW profile. -  Member Since:   10/03/2018

[LydiaAmour]

Mia was Lola from amour, she was on and off the books the whole 3 years I've been on the books.

Just a heads up guys, my brush with oral chlamydia at the back end of last year myself and her had a mutual client that tested positive. I don't know her test results but if she is a barebacker then it's a possibility it's come from her.

[daviemac]

Mia was Lola from amour, she was on and off the books the whole 3 years I've been on the books.

Just a heads up guys, my brush with oral chlamydia at the back end of last year myself and her had a mutual client that tested positive. I don't know her test results but if she is a barebacker then it's a possibility it's come from her.

Cheers for that Lydia.

[Shearer1955]

Cheers for that Lydia.

Good of Lydia to provide that info 

[The Outsider]

I had the misfortune to see her though the agency a few months ago.  In fact it was on my review that that the bb issue was first mentioned.  For the record, there was no hint of bb in my booking with her although I commented at the time about her casual approach to sexual health in regard to mixing condoms and baby oil. 

This is one problem with doing reviews that I've considered before now - my name is now linked to someone who was subsequently shown to be "undesirable".  If anyone refused to see me because I had seen Mia/Lola, I'd be disappointed but entirely understand. 

Also, for the record I last went to the GUM for a checkup a fortnight ago and was fine! Just thought I'd mention that!

[Mansell]

I had the misfortune to see her though the agency a few months ago.  In fact it was on my review that that the bb issue was first mentioned.  For the record, there was no hint of bb in my booking with her although I commented at the time about her casual approach to sexual health in regard to mixing condoms and baby oil. 

This is one problem with doing reviews that I've considered before now - my name is now linked to someone who was subsequently shown to be "undesirable".  If anyone refused to see me because I had seen Mia/Lola, I'd be disappointed but entirely understand. 

Also, for the record I last went to the GUM for a checkup a fortnight ago and was fine! Just thought I'd mention that!

And that's the Big problem. Just a Hypothectical for you all.  So I did a bit of research and she look reasonably clear as she starts AW on 10/3/2018. I don't know that she has worked for an Agency before and THINK it's OK to punt with her. Have a punt  (No I haven't) but along come Lydia and the Ousider with Fresh info and she suddenly appears pretty high risk.

Hence the 2nd part of my comment :-
Just going on memory the thread on UKE pretty much ended up suggested it's up to each of us to look after our own health. That's certainly what I took out of it. We can never be 100% certain  what any WG is doing. So don't take any obvious stupid risks and always get yourself checked regularly.

In my opinion it's almost pointless to try and do this checking backwards/ forwards on AW feedback as we really just don't genuinely know what's going on. I bet if you did a link like this you could possibly decide that every WG in the NE has seen someone who has seen someone that has seen a BB. And don't forget there are loads of WG's on there that don't bother with feedback so it's a pretty inaccurate picture. Just look after your own health and take whatever risk YOU are happy with.

[Kev3773]

In my opinion it's almost pointless to try and do this checking backwards/ forwards on AW feedback as we really just don't genuinely know what's going on. I bet if you did a link like this you could possibly decide that every WG in the NE has seen someone who has seen someone that has seen a BB. And don't forget there are loads of WG's on there that don't bother with feedback so it's a pretty inaccurate picture. Just look after your own health and take whatever risk YOU are happy with.

Agree, it's impossible to know what everyone else gets up to behind closed doors. You pay your money you take your chances.