Savannah of Cheshire Incalls

[sheffsteve]

This was my third appointment with 'Savannah' (a size-6 beauty: External Link/Members Only), after two that were good enough to post very positive reviews on her page on the Cheshire Incalls website -- now removed at my insistence after the agency persistently refused to add a third but negative report.
This time was completely different: there was a strange distance and refusal re intimacy, notably kissing (anywhere), when 'Savannah' and the agency know this is the key part of the service for me.
Worse, there appeared to be goading to end the appointment prematurely, and time-wasting -- not least taking a shower in the middle of the time I was paying for.
After my very positive reviews, this seemed gratuitously contemptuous, but I decided not to cause a scene and instead rang the agency to complain after I got back home. They contacted her and then got back to say that she was thrown by our “conversation”. But we had none until after the appointment. [We'd then discussed the situation of girl/client, and I had pointed out that the girl is in control, and had the 'power' in terms of attractiveness; which is why I was paying her £80 rather than the other way round. She seemed to take exception to this – probably mainly because of where the conversation could then have led re her terrible 'service'.] She then disingenuously tried to retrospectively apply this to when I first arrived, to claim that she was somehow thrown from the outset by something I had said; but neither what this was nor the context could be got out of her. Clearly, she was trying to cover for her simply not being able to face being intimate.
The Cheshire Incalls owner, alias Jane Jennings, then refused to deal with my complaint because of my objection to her refusal to carry my negative review -- I had tried several times to post one. So I sent a formal letter of complaint to Cheshire incalls' (& Companions) parent company, BDS Enterprises of Stockport, and what were, according to easily available companies records, the individuals running the company: Carol Stafford and Wesley Stafford. At this I was threatened with the police (I kid you not).
The formal letter seemed to change minds, however; as later, Savannah actually rang me to apologise that she should not have gone through with the appointment, and that I was owed a full refund; which she insisted on, despite my pointing out that I had requested a partial refund only.
Blow me down with a feather or what? One of the staff then asked me if I thought it was right to accept a full refund [er ...?!], and I replied that I would be happy to accept just a partial one; or a full one if I could pay back half of it at my next appointment (they had barred me from using the agency). I then got lots of silly, contemptuous emails with the repeated phrase: 'enjoy your £80'.
Well, I waited, but nothing ever appeared in my account, and when I enquired I was told that the refund had been withdrawn completely.
So I then sent a formal notice of intention to take legal action in the 'small claims' court against BDS Enterprises / the Staffords, to which local media would be invited; unless at least half of the fee I'd paid was not refunded (noting that this is less than what I had actually been offered and had been agreed to). This worked. A begrudging £40 appeared in my back account.

What can be made of all this? Well, that complaining can work; that there may actually be some reasonableness and even consideration for the client, albeit well buried beneath the usual contemptuous attitude, and difficult to dig up without showing you mean business; but that to actually get a refund you have to put in some work. To put it mildly.

[kundalini]

Well done. I bet you had Carol/Jane worried there. I've always thought she was a complete cunt based on her contributions to another forum. She sends out a lynch mob to attack anyone who reports a disappointing Cheshire experience on there.

[sheffsteve]

Yes, there is a history of that, as attested in a previous thread on this forum -- Nik himself experienced it.
However, she is not at all 'all bad'. I bet I would have received less consideration from some other agencies -- and certainly not a few parlours.
She finds it very hard to see the perspective of the client, and readily sides with the girl, no matter the evidence is presented to her. And yet she does things others wouldn't trouble themselves with: here from the outset saying that she'd get the girl to ring me.
As this 'industry' becomes seen as more a 'normal'; part of the commercial world, then the provider side will have to drop the contempt and accept that clients legitimately will seek redress for poor service. The more enlightened already do this with good grace, because they recognise it's good for business,

[OldAdmin]

The scumbag pimp has signed up to threaten me:

hello Nik

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=38978.0


i realise you do not like me, but I need to ask you to remove this review.  I will now have to go to the police re this man and his stalking.  we have been suffering for some time so has Savannah.  There is two side to every tale.  I am not prepared to discuss this on the public domain.

My privacy as yours is entitle to to be private, discoursing what this man think is may real name and address is totally out of order and very dangerous.

i would expect a repeatable owner to remove immediately.  I have taken a screen shot of this email and his.  For further action with the police.

Regards Jane

[sheffsteve]

Well, in the minds of this agency owner, legitimate complaint is now 'stalking'.
It is perfectly proper to approach a commercial company such as hers, and its named proprietor and administrator or consultant or whatever, with a complaint.
This is in no way whatsoever 'invasion of privacy' but standard procedure.
It would be a very different matter if I had in any way tried to 'out' the girl, but I have neither done nor attempted any such thing; nor will I. She remains 'Savannah'.
I await a call from the police with trepidation ... not!

I hope this teaches our Carol alias Jane a lesson in how to field complaints.

[KayHerts]

"Repeatable"!

[sheffsteve]

She drops any spell/typo checking when she's angry, which seems to be most of the time.
And she 'projects' her anger on to others -- notably me, currently.

[NIK]

Yes. I've heard it said that on the odd occasion Cheshire Companions or whatever they're called now receive a negative review a rebuttal campaign always swings into action worthy of the Labour party under those master spin doctors Mandelson and Campbell. I was once on the receiving end.

NO agency provides great service 100% of the time, even the good ones will occasionally have poor girls, it stands to reason. It's time some of these pimps realised all punters know that and rather than filling their sites with ridiculous, improbable ott reviews, held their hands up and apologised when they receive a bad review, dismissing the girl in question.
However they would sooner rant and rave and lie than do that.

As for going to the police whatever for?     Presumably the conversation might go something like this.
'Excuse me officer, one of my girls has received a bad review.'
'Not living on immoral earning by any chance are you, Madam?'
'I think I will withdraw my complaint officer.'   

[sheffsteve]

Yes, they -- well, most -- haven't twigged that this would actually boost their business.

As for 'immoral earnings': the model of one girl in an apartment is fully legal; and taking a cut to cover the costs of providing a reception service and the apartment would be above-board, I would imagine. IOW, the agency makes it's money not by taking a cut of the girl's fee as such, but represents the costs sustained by the girl to be able to provide her service. Yes, she has to pay this out of what she earns, of course, but it's akin to the local council taking a rent from a girl who happens to use the flat for prostitution.
I suppose there might be an issue with the agency, unlike the council, being fully aware; but then there being just the one girl in the apartment means that nom prostitution law has been broken.
So that leaves the question of web-based advertising: does this constitute soliciting?
So far as I'm aware, this has never been argued.

The issue here is that Carol Stafford, as the proprietor of the agency, is claiming that she's been 'outed', and that this is similar to 'outing' one of her prostitutes; when clearly it is nothing of the sort. It is necessary to accurately identify the proprietor in order to file a claim in court; and without this backstop, then the agency is free to abuse clients in the knowledge that there is no redress that the clients can aspire to.
She is quite hysterical about it: I had a long rambling email from her last night.

[NIK]

The legal situation is a very fine line. However back in the Nineties an agency in my town was successfully prosecuted, exposed in the local papers and closed down with the result that there have never been any more agencies here since.
I can't see what they were doing was any different to what Cheshire Incalls or any of the other pimps who call themselves agencies are doing.
The police weren't bothered about investigating and prosecuting, however it was the council who'd made the complain so they had to act on it.

I am sure even today many successful prosecutions could be made against these agency pimps if the will was there.

I think agencies ought to think very carefully about involving the police as what they are doing is at least on the borders of illegality and it could backfire on them

[Taggart]

Dont know why the hell Mrs Pimp is complaining.

She is running a business, it's registered, the fact she is a director is a matter of public record. I've just checked he out too.
It's not stalking, it's using the free information on the net. Simples.

You could always use the electorial roll to find out her home address - that would piss her off. 

If she doesnt like it, then dont do something shady where your detail are in the public domain.  Aint she a twat?

[sheffsteve]

True, though actually I'd argue it isn't "shady". An agency such as Cheshire Incalls is not akin to 'pimping', in my view; rather, it provides a reception and accommodation service to prostitutes to enable then to work in a safe and efficient way, and they pay the agency for this as a cost of their business activity. So this should not be seen as taking a cut from their earnings and thereby interpretable as 'living on immoral earnings'. In fact, I would hope that Cheshire Incalls would firmly argue this if ever there was a challenge to the legality of their business -- in fact, I would be happy publicly to argue this on their behalf if ever there was a need to.

[OldAdmin]

True, though actually I'd argue it isn't "shady". An agency such as Cheshire Incalls is not akin to 'pimping', in my view; rather, it provides a reception and accommodation service to prostitutes to enable then to work in a safe and efficient way, and they pay the agency for this as a cost of their business activity. So this should not be seen as taking a cut from their earnings and thereby interpretable as 'living on immoral earnings'. In fact, I would hope that Cheshire Incalls would firmly argue this if ever there was a challenge to the legality of their business -- in fact, I would be happy publicly to argue this on their behalf if ever there was a need to.

Running escort agencies / parlours / brothels is ILLEGAL under UK law, no matter what they try to dress it up as.
The BathBabes pimp also claimed the same, how he was legal and boasted how his local police force knew and were regularly visiting to "check everything was fine".
Yet when I went public with the fact he had threatened to get his mates in police against me for not deleting a post, he was within weeks raided and arrested and shutdown.
Avon and Somerset Constabulary were reading UKP and contacted me wanting a statement regarding that threat to me. I was more than happy to help with ALL their inquiries to prosecute the PIMP.

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=459.msg230335#msg230335

[sheffsteve]

It may be the loose interpretation re "gain": this being more open to wide interpretation than the former 'living on immoral earnings'.

As for police intervening: I can cite a quite magnificent example ... though I was not believed when I posted about it on here three years back.
I had gone to the Bliss parlour in Sale, Manchester, to see a newbie there; but after I'd paid up-front she refused all service, and was backed up by the owner/manageress, who refused to refund me and was threatening and abusive in front of her own CCTV in reception, telling me never to come back.
I thought better of kicking-off and simply left, but went straight to Sale Police station and then to one of the local councillors. I didn't seem to get much of a response on the police front desk, but then I sent an email to the police pointing out that to my knowledge I was not doing anything illegal in visiting the parlour, and that my experience was likely the tip of an iceberg, with the owner's behaviour obviously liable to cause serious violence. The response was amazing. I got an email reply from the policewoman in command at Sale, suggesting that I send a demand for a full refund within seven days on pain of court action, and that this was with the knowledge of the police. Further emails revealed that she was intending to investigate the business re tax. Another pwc went to interview the girl and the owner, and she rang me with feedback, pointing out that she took a very dim view of a sex establishment on her patch that was there only through toleration but which was now causing her problems. I got the full refund in the post (within the seven days), and then a week or two later the parlour was raided -- see local news for back in 2011. The owner was done for tax fraud, girls were investigated re benefit fraud, and the parlour closed down permanently.

[OldAdmin]

It may be the loose interpretation re "gain": this being more open to wide interpretation than the former 'living on immoral earnings'.

No such thing as 'living on immoral earnings' anymore:
https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=39021.msg525045#msg525045

There's no current offence of "living off immoral earnings". There was an old offence of "man living on earnings of prostitution" - section 30 SOA 1956. However. that offence was repealed by the SOA 2003 and effectively replaced by "controlling prostitution for gain" - section 53 SOA 2003. That has the 6 months (Mags) or 7 years (Crown Court) maximum terms.

[sheffsteve]

Yes indeed. 'Controlling prostitution for gain' could be all sorts of arrangements: a wider, catch-all category of activity, even without the sort of loose interpretation likely with current neo-Victorian attitudes. [Not that such attitudes would be a big problem if there were corresponding levels of availability of girls as back then!]
So it comes down to the toleration by Manc plod, so that they save on the expense and bother of patrolling rife street prostitution.
If they were going to go for establishments, then presumably they'd target parlours, given that there is more than one girl present, unlike with the agency model. If I recall, there have indeed been some Manchester parlour raids and (again, if I recall) the odd closure; though this may well be through under-age girls / drugs / illegal immigrant working.

[londonmaxxy]

Steve -if I'm reading the Sale experience right, the police probably added your complaint / info to anything they already had & then raided it ?  Several places have been shut in Manchester on the last few years ( one more last week)  & the plod don't need many reasons to step in. The Cheshire 'negative' punt didn't sound as  bad though - what was the main issue,  the lack of kissing / intimacy?  As you said you'd had some good sessions with her before I think.

[sheffsteve]

Yes, it may be that Bliss suffered from 'previous' and my complaint added to it; but the police seemed taken aback by the behaviour of both the owner and the girl, and appeared very much to pick up on my point of it surely being the tip of an iceberg. Of course, it may be they had an agenda, and I was more a useful trigger. It's interesting that the police who took such strong interest were wpcs, and that they were so very supportive of me. It struck me that they were acting on female-savvy about how women exploit men, and were in female-female competition mode ... if you get what I mean.
The Cheshire Incalls experience was not even remotely as bad, but it was more than just the complete withdrawal of kissing -- a real sense of distance, nil intimacy, some forms of pushing away, OWO > OW, and some time-wasting -- and the stark contrast with the previous two appointments, which were nirvana on earth: full intimacy with a size-6, perfect-bodied pretty-faced 22-year-old. [A not dissimilar about-turn happened to another of her regulars -- as he was allowed to post on her CI webpage.]

[OldAdmin]

Dont know why the hell Mrs Pimp is complaining.

She is running a business, it's registered, the fact she is a director is a matter of public record. I've just checked he out too.
It's not stalking, it's using the free information on the net. Simples.

You could always use the electorial roll to find out her home address - that would piss her off. 

If she doesnt like it, then dont do something shady where your detail are in the public domain.  Aint she a twat?

Exactly.
What kind of moron incorporates a UK Limited company IN THE SAME NAME as their escort agency and is surprised when others easily find the company and the director details?
It's in fact on the second page on Google. What are they going to do, call the police on Google?

[sheffsteve]

I OWE CHESHIRE INCALLS -- JANE JENNINGS -- AN APOLOGY, because I had not realised the potential serious implications of revealing the actual identity of an agency proprietor given the nature of the sex-industry in Manchester (criminal turf wars).
This has caused considerable distress to the family and also to the girl -- Savannah -- in that she feels responsible.
* To add to my embarrassment, I'm being refunded the rest of the fee I paid, despite never having requested a full refund.
* It should also be pointed out that both portions of the refund I've received were paid by Jane herself and not obtained from the girl, Savannah -- on the grounds that in some respects a satisfactory service was provided: the sex itself actually was good.
* Further, it should be made clear that Nik was himself offered, though -- because he was this site owner and would have felt compromised -- didn't take up a full refund in respect of his poor experience with a two-girl through Cheshire Incalls; and this offer is still open to him.

I do not feel good about all this; not least in that the escalation is really down to communication issues, re which I have to take part responsibility; ditto I have at times been briefly hot-headed as much as has Jane.
These are nice people here, and I fear they have been somewhat mis-portrayed.

I have asked admin to kindly delete actual identities, though I realise there are issues here re the function of the site to fully assert client interests and not to give any impression of 'backing down'.

[Taggart]

WTF?

This is bllx as the name and proprietor are a matter of public record.
Are those invovled in the turf wars too thick to use the internet to check on rivals?
Maybe I've missed something in translation?
And thank's to Sheffsteve, who has highlighted the underhand nature of CI with their rebuttal unit for negative FRs, it's an organisation I shall never ever use.

[OldAdmin]

I have asked admin to kindly delete actual identities, though I realise there are issues here re the function of the site to fully assert client interests and not to give any impression of 'backing down'.

I will delete NOTHING.
No one threatens me, certainly not some lowlife criminal pimp.

And you can go back to being banned, this time for good.

[whiterussian]

funny as fuck

[Iblisuk]

I didn't see that coming.

[Bangers and Gash]

I read most of it, but I'm still not sure what happened....I need a lie down, my head hurts! 

[infoseeker]

I read most of it, but I'm still not sure what happened....I need a lie down, my head hurts!

I read it one time and got it.

Someone put pressure on sheffsteve and he buckled and/or he wasn't reviewing for the good of the forum/punters but for his own interests and once they were met he wanted out.

Well done. I bet you had Carol/Jane worried there. I've always thought she was a complete cunt based on her contributions to another forum. She sends out a lynch mob to attack anyone who reports a disappointing Cheshire experience on there.

I think I should book with start booking with this cunts girls.
I like a good challenge/war like that, it is mostly because I won the war against that shit hole forum that I have had to move onto other things.

Victory has defeated me. 

I need another War.... I see perfect oppourtunity