Sugar Babies
Shemales

Author Topic: Lenient sentence ?  (Read 11763 times)

Offline Addicted65

Looks like a very lenient sentence to me z. Also pretty shocking that a local agency is employing escorts without proof of age ! Looks like all involved have got away with it
External Link/Members Only
Banned reason: False accusations of corruption
Banned by: daviemac

Offline MagpieToon


Offline Fragilehand

I did voice my concerns about agency just chatting shit about ages. I have seen a few escorts who are a lot older than stated. I know the opposite happened in this case but proves the checks they do are not good enough

Offline dexpunt

I'm sure she has been reviewed on here before!!


Offline scutty brown

I'm surprised the agency management weren't also on trial. I wonder if there's a second case pending.

Offline daviemac

  • Forum Moderator
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,463
  • Likes: 391
  • Reviews: 24
I'm surprised the agency management weren't also on trial. I wonder if there's a second case pending.
Who is the agency though? it says 'Premier Escorts' in the article but we don't have one of that name up here, I think the nearest of that name is Leeds. The photo's from her AW profile so wouldn't be on any agency site.   

Edit

She has her own website as well plus £160 ph so can't imagine her with any agency.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2022, 08:19:30 pm by daviemac »

Offline johnny34

I'm surprised the agency management weren't also on trial. I wonder if there's a second case pending.
Reading the article I'm not sure if the agency had any involvement. Looks like it was Tyler-Jo Walker on her own?

Offline Fragilehand

I'm sure she has been reviewed on here before!!
Yes iv seen her! Georgie not the 16 year old

Offline Fragilehand

Who is the agency though? it says 'Premier Escorts' in the article but we don't have one of that name up here, I think the nearest of that name is Leeds. The photo's from her AW profile so wouldn't be on any agency site.   

Edit

She has her own website as well plus £160 ph so can't imagine her with any agency.
Was she not georgie with premium?

Offline daviemac

  • Forum Moderator
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,463
  • Likes: 391
  • Reviews: 24
Was she not georgie with premium?
Must've been a few years ago couldn't find her on wayback and been back into 2020.   :unknown:

Offline johnny34

Was she not georgie with premium?
Yes she was till about December 2019


Offline datwabbit

Who is the agency though? it says 'Premier Escorts' in the article but we don't have one of that name up here, I think the nearest of that name is Leeds. The photo's from her AW profile so wouldn't be on any agency site.   

Edit

She has her own website as well plus £160 ph so can't imagine her with any agency.

Possibly but the information was probably written down by a hack at the back of the court. He could have misheard.


Offline datwabbit

"The court heard Walker made the teen pose in her underwear so she could take photographs and put her forward as a potential worker at the escort agency, saying she was 18."

Sounds like the girl was recommended to an agency by her and she vouched for the girls age.

The Sunderland Echo covers this and says the men were assigned to Georgie by the agency but she was to unwell to see them so got the girl to.

The agency has been mentioned quite a bit so it must be part of the story.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2022, 01:24:13 am by datwabbit »

Offline scutty brown

She was working for Premium in at least four of her reviews so seems likely that "Premier" is a typo

Offline FLYING BLUE

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=265554.0

Embarassed to say, I saw her a while back  :thumbsdown:

Edited to add - 'Georgie', not the younger lass
« Last Edit: April 02, 2022, 09:53:38 am by FLYING BLUE »

Offline FLYING BLUE

Reading the article I'm not sure if the agency had any involvement. Looks like it was Tyler-Jo Walker on her own?

This makes sense.
The agency would have been a fee of £60 - not the £80 as was charged - £80 is what 'Georgie' was charging on AW

This case is not only a massive concern for the young girl involved, it makes my hair stand on end at the thought of being duped into a liason with an underage girl on the understanding that she was at least 18 years old - makes me feel quite sick  :thumbsdown:
« Last Edit: April 02, 2022, 10:10:42 am by FLYING BLUE »

Offline dgh7622

How would that affect a punter if the girl ID him to the police .
I know the legal age of consent is 16 but wonder how one would stand in a case like this where the girl is being forced ?

Offline johnr1


I also saw Georgie ages ago,and not a good experiance, she left premium not long after and turned up on AW as an indi
and has been for a few years charging £80 /30 mins this is when she must have involved the young girl so I dont think
this has anything to do with Premium

Offline johnny34

How would that affect a punter if the girl ID him to the police .
I know the legal age of consent is 16 but wonder how one would stand in a case like this where the girl is being forced ?
With regard to prostitution the age of consent is 18 & if the girl is forced/coerced the punter would find himself in trouble.

Offline scutty brown

How would that affect a punter if the girl ID him to the police .
I know the legal age of consent is 16 but wonder how one would stand in a case like this where the girl is being forced ?

Minimum legal age for sex work is 18, but a punter might have a defence if he reasonably believed she was of age.
However the tale as reported brings her into the category of trafficked / forced and  that's strict liability with no possible defence

Offline myothernameis

She should be strung up

What is the law, when it comes to the client, and anyone who has seen this 16 year old, as an escort.  Im guess if they have seen this in the news, there quivering in the boots, waiting for the police to knock on there door

Wife: To husband, police came looking for you today, what have you done
Husband: Im fucked  :P :P

Offline dgh7622

Minimum legal age for sex work is 18, but a punter might have a defence if he reasonably believed she was of age.
However the tale as reported brings her into the category of trafficked / forced and  that's strict liability with no possible defence

Thats what I was thinking.Bad news for the punters if they get contacted.Guess they should have taken more care

Offline datwabbit

Newspapers are selective with their words at times to push a good angle.

This is the Echo which is slightly different. This suggests the girl was working for the agency either directly or indirectly when Georgies "assigned" agency clients were given to the girl by Georgie.

External Link/Members Only

In terms of the punter, he's had sex with a coerced under age girl because it's 18 for prostitution. However, why wasn't the agency pulled up and why was the sentence lenient. So I think there's things that were said in court that haven't been reported.

The article mentions this was a while ago so it could be while she was at Premium. This is a better article than the Mail.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2022, 12:48:21 pm by datwabbit »

Offline johnny34

I also saw Georgie ages ago,and not a good experiance, she left premium not long after and turned up on AW as an indi
and has been for a few years charging £80 /30 mins this is when she must have involved the young girl so I dont think
this has anything to do with Premium
The offences happened 'some time ago' so may involve the agency in some way (ie the ones earmarked for Georgie) :unknown:
« Last Edit: April 02, 2022, 12:51:17 pm by johnny34 »

Offline Part Timer

This was 💯 when Georgie was on Premiums books, my mate went to see the so called 18 year old after booking via Premium. When he arrived Georgie was in the same apartment, she left for an appointment thou, leaving the younger girl in there, she was in a distressed state. He left immediately after checking she was in no immediate danger, as he didn’t feel comfortable and sensed something was off. Can’t remember her working name on Premiums site but was only on there for 2 days maximum, but defo on there with Premium
Banned reason: Posting untrue details in a review due to EAS rejection.
Banned by: daviemac

Offline scutty brown

................ Can’t remember her working name on Premiums site but was only on there for 2 days maximum, but defo on there with Premium

Please don't post her working name or anything which could ID her. Doing so would bust the laws over anonymity of sex crime victims, and put the poster and site at legal risk

Offline Lewwy

This story is just beyond shocking! In answer to the question the OP posited - yes, it's faaaaar too lenient. Anything short of an actual custodial sentence - and a significant one at that - is a total fucking joke. Sexual exploitation, especially that of a child ffs, is one of the worst things you can to do to a person. Moreover, this seems to have involved a significant amount of pre-planning. Appears to me that she was out looking for vulnerable children from the outset - I mean who the TF has a chance meeting with a 16 year old and ends up getting them into sex slavery "by accident"? If she were a man doing this does anyone seriously think the same sentence would be handed out? I'd guess the only reason the sentence was suspended was that she admitted it.

I'm sure that there is more to this than we're being told in the articles though. It says that most of the punters were ones "assigned" to Georgie but ended up with the young girl instead. That doesn't ring entirely true to me. If they've come via the agency that doesn't make a lot of sense, surely? At least I fail to understand how the agency didn't know that she wasn't seeing the clients herself. Out of seemingly dozens of clients no one left feedback with the agency or anywhere else that it wasn't the girl they'd booked that they'd eventually seen? Or of they did the agency ignored it. No one seems to have left a review on here to that effect either. In addition, not a single one of these guys seems to have had any call to suspect that the lass they were being palmed off with might have been under age? Now, I know that young women are pretty good at looking older then their actual years but, 16 ffs! Out of 30+ punters not a single one appears to have raised the slightest concern that she might have been under age? If I turned up expecting to see Jorgie and she put me with a clearly very young looking lass then alarm bells would be immediately going off in my head  - very noisily indeed! Bait and switch is a very common topic here and a B&S like this would have me heading for the door.

I'm suspecting that the majority of these guys actually knew a lot more about the girl Jorgie was pimping to them than is being said here.

These types of stories seem to be becoming more and more frequent and I think I'm seeing a definite shift towards punting becoming a whole lot more dangerous - for those on either side of the transaction; whether it's Romanians being trafficked (or simply scamming); the seeming explosion of nationalities on AW suddenly appearing as if from nowhere - I mean what's with all the girls who are apparently "Brazilian" these days? Is Brazil just the latest country that'll sell you a passport for a few hundred quid so you can make a fake persona?; prossies blackmailing and outing punters; prossies and their pimps following punters in order to rob them, etc, etc. We now get the impression from this debacle that it involved an apparently "respectable" local agency as well. I'd always preferred agencies as I'd always got the impression that they were the safer alternative to AW and suchlike but is that true anymore? Was it ever?

The article mentions that The judge said ...help and intervention will help Walker "get away" from the sex industry. Tyler-Jo though, still has her AW account has been online today and has apparently increased her prices FFS! She's utterly toxic, as far as I can see. Any guy who sees her knowing what she's been convicted of is either a) totally insane or and gives no fucks that she's a convicted child sex trafficker or, b) is probably some seedy fucker who thinks she'll be able to get him children to fuck. I'm guessing that AW probably haven't seen the stories of her conviction but if they have I cannot believe how they can continue to host the profile of a convicted child sex trafficker! If they haven't then they will be soon.

I haven't seen any escort for some time now - Covid, family stuff, etc, etc have prevented it - but I'm seriously reassessing whether I will do in the future. I'm not sure the risk of meeting someone under age or trafficked, or the risk to myself if I get tangled up in such shit, is worth it. Granted, that's easy for me to say as I've had some amazing success on SA and am currently seeing the most stunning lass I've ever met in my life from there. It's hard work finding the right ones on there but I think it carries way less risk than escorts seem to at present.

These are worrying times for all of us, I think.
Banned reason: Offered free booking because he wouldn't post details.
Banned by: daviemac

Offline Lewwy

This makes sense.
The agency would have been a fee of £60 - not the £80 as was charged - £80 is what 'Georgie' was charging on AW

This case is not only a massive concern for the young girl involved, it makes my hair stand on end at the thought of being duped into a liason with an underage girl on the understanding that she was at least 18 years old - makes me feel quite sick  :thumbsdown:

I entirely agree. This is just absolutely horrific, to be honest. Not to mention very, very worrying indeed for both sides. 

I'm not sure what role the agency played in any of this, to be honest. The articles mentioned that the exploited girl kept about £3K of the money and Tyler-Jo the pimp kept about £700. That's pretty much the correct total if it were indeed around 30 guys she'd seen. Where is the agency's cut of this, one wonders? If they were booking clients to her then surely they'd be expecting to see their fee from each booking? So, was it many more guys than has been stated or, more worryingly, has "Jorgie" been upping the fees because she's pimping out a child to "her clients" as the article describes and keeping the difference?

What is also curious is whether we are now going to see a string of guys up at court for having sex with an under-age, trafficked girl which, as has been mentioned by others, is a strict liability offence to which there is no defence. If these guys were indeed booked through the agency then the police will be able to find at least some of them.

As my previous post, I'm starting to think that this hobby might just be becoming a little too dangerous right now.
Banned reason: Offered free booking because he wouldn't post details.
Banned by: daviemac

Offline datwabbit

As my previous post, I'm starting to think that this hobby might just be becoming a little too dangerous right now.

You've mentioned SA. There's stories of 16/17yo on there - or claiming to be. There's stories of rape accusations. Stories of robberies and rinsing too. I'd suggest the risk in both forms is the same. You'd have to give up all forms of punting to be safe.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2022, 08:46:54 pm by datwabbit »

Offline northface

There has been no response yet from the agency which must be of concern for those who use them.

Offline Lewwy

There has been no response yet from the agency which must be of concern for those who use them.

Yell, yes!
Banned reason: Offered free booking because he wouldn't post details.
Banned by: daviemac

Offline Lewwy

You've mentioned SA. There's stories of 16/17yo on there - or claiming to be. There's stories of rape accusations. Stories of robberies and rinsing too. I'd suggest the risk in both forms is the same. You'd have to give up all forms of punting to be safe.

Yes, I think so; links, please?
Banned reason: Offered free booking because he wouldn't post details.
Banned by: daviemac

Offline datwabbit

Yes, I think so; links, please?
Private SA thread. But if you read the public one's there's posts of incidents. Not going to search them for links myself.

Offline datwabbit

There has been no response yet from the agency which must be of concern for those who use them.
I don't think we will either. They'll stay quiet and won't say anything that might prolong the discussion. Punters will still see their girls which is fair enough as the girls aren't the issue if it's legal and the agency will still take their commission.

Offline Tiger63

There has been no response yet from the agency which must be of concern for those who use them.

Cant see them coming on and admitting they knew they had a 16 year old on their books or that they didnt carry out proper checks....but we`ll see

Offline scutty brown

Profile now gone

At face value this makes the supposed close relationship between the NE parlours and the local specialist police team look to be a nonsense.
But there may be another explanation: maybe the agency realised the problem and reported it themselves? If so it would explain their public silence as it's not something they'd want to advertise

Offline maxxblue

Profile now gone

At face value this makes the supposed close relationship between the NE parlours and the local specialist police team look to be a nonsense.
But there may be another explanation: maybe the agency realised the problem and reported it themselves? If so it would explain their public silence as it's not something they'd want to advertise

It was the girl's mother who reported the matter to the police.  :hi:

External Link/Members Only

Offline datwabbit

It was the girl's mother who reported the matter to the police.  :hi:

External Link/Members Only

The extra detail just makes you hate the sp even more. Complete scum. I see the agency flat was being used for sex with the girl. Just sickening.

We've had a Teesside blackmailer return and get reviews. I wonder when this one will return. I bet she'd do the same thing again. After being represented by an agency herself, she obviously sees herself as a pimp.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2022, 11:17:01 am by datwabbit »

Offline Part Timer

Profile now gone

At face value this makes the supposed close relationship between the NE parlours and the local specialist police team look to be a nonsense.
But there may be another explanation: maybe the agency realised the problem and reported it themselves? If so it would explain their public silence as it's not something they'd want to advertise
I very much doubt that also, it will be an admission of knowing. The Teesside gazette gives more info out of all the press reports. It’s clear to me after reading that Premium did not do any proper checks on the 16 yr old girl and took jorgies word for it. This is shocking to think that they just take anyone into the books for their personal gain.This is also a crime in my eyes, it does make me wonder as Premium appear to have less girls now working, makes you wonder why that is. Jorgie has formed working partners over the last couple of years, I believe there is still 1 active AW listing with a duo partner with outrageous prices. If my memory is correct jorgie joined premium from a Teesside agency (no longer around) but I can’t remember the name at the moment thou. If abs when premium found out the info about the girls age, what did they do about it ? Nothing! But they did however allow Jorgie stay in their books for further personal gain.
Jorgie should be avoided at all costs, if this was a male they would have been locked away
« Last Edit: April 03, 2022, 11:54:35 am by Part Timer »
Banned reason: Posting untrue details in a review due to EAS rejection.
Banned by: daviemac

Offline scutty brown

In the negative review there's a reference to her previously being "removed" from Masquerade

Offline scutty brown

reported in another thread that Premium's phones appear to be disconnected

Offline northface

This does pose some questions about the involvement of clients and agency.

This stems from the report that the mother reported it to the police-

From the press reports it appears the girl would have been distressed when clients turned up for the booking ( or at least for some of them )
and surely some of them would of reported it to the agency although it appears not the police or were they all perverts.

If anyone did, what did the agency do or how long did they keep Georgie on their books knowing what she was doing.
They say on here there will be no defence for any client caught up in this and surely that applies to the agency as well.

I have never used this agency and i Know many on here do with good faith and nearly everyone will go without anything to worry about but it is a wake up call that anyone on here ( including me ) could get caught up in illegal activities with untold misery to follow.

Offline trainspotter

Over the years there has been no shortage of sordid unsavory and unpleasant incidents in the NE punting world but this one reaches a new low.

Offline Kev3773

Over the years there has been no shortage of sordid unsavory and unpleasant incidents in the NE punting world but this one reaches a new low.

I'm sure other areas have had there moments, but I agree, this is gutter level, exactly where jorgie belongs.

Offline myothernameis

Punters who go through with having sex with a sixteen year old, you have to wonder what sort of person they really are

I would think they would be the sort of person to go in to chat rooms, and with someone under 16, with the sole purpose of having sex

Now as for these groups of guys with in this news story, surprised the police haven't gone after them, unless there some legal reason like it still be investigate.   I wouldn't like to be them, especially what they might be facing, if they get brought to justice

Placed on the sex registered, and possibly be labeled as a pedophile, might be lucky enough not to go to jail.  But the stigma that will come with this, will be very harce to them, there own families wont want to know them, and there employer will fire them

Offline Kev3773

Punters who go through with having sex with a sixteen year old, you have to wonder what sort of person they really are

I would think they would be the sort of person to go in to chat rooms, and with someone under 16, with the sole purpose of having sex

Now as for these groups of guys with in this news story, surprised the police haven't gone after them, unless there some legal reason like it still be investigate.   I wouldn't like to be them, especially what they might be facing, if they get brought to justice

Placed on the sex registered, and possibly be labeled as a pedophile, might be lucky enough not to go to jail.  But the stigma that will come with this, will be very harce to them, there own families wont want to know them, and there employer will fire them
How did they know she was 16 ?

Offline datwabbit

How did they know she was 16 ?

That's the thing. If one had sex with her, there isn't much one can do in ones defence. Many people just rely on others to do the verify. We're quite a hands off society when it comes to all manner of verification. We assume so much because it's just easier.

Jorgie may have told agency and punters the girl was 18 and who knows, maybe the agency chased it up and realised she wasn't. I cannot think Jorgie told punters the girl was 16. That would be just horrible given what happened next.

However it would be hard not to see the girls reluctance to do stuff, like she wasn't making an effort.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2022, 10:01:34 pm by datwabbit »