Ripped off: a cautionary tale

[Type_O_Negative]

Indeed beautiful girl. With her price tag £100/hour i would spend a lot of money. But it will not happen.

[fuddle]

Well today Scarlette xxx reported a Nov2014 PM to me claiming it is 'abusive', after a trap question which she fell into I can announce she is the one responsible for this ripped off warning.

External Link/Members Only or External Link/Members Only

Interestingly, you can't see her ears in any of her gallery photos, so maybe the OP was right and she's had both of them removed in an attempt to halt the spread of the deadly ear cancer.*

* Or, alternatively, she's lied in order to scam a punter who seems to have EAS issues.

[arthur]

Well today Scarlette xxx reported a Nov2014 PM to me claiming it is 'abusive', after a trap question which she fell into I can announce she is the one responsible for this ripped off warning.

External Link/Members Only or External Link/Members Only

Wow I remember this thread, it was so frustrating thinking she got away with it with the OP wrapped around her finger, and now manages to reveal herself!
If you don't mind me asking what was the PM and trap question that confirms its her?
I'll get my popcorn ready for tomorrow!

[Marmalade]

What a fuck of a lot of writing.

Not that an uncommon trap.

Always have an excuse/hard-luck-story ready if asked/pressured to indicate that, however well off you look you are, "actually pretty hard up."

For any genuine punter that has been conned: unless you have mafia connections, write it off to experience.

Quickly:
If you lend someone money on a personal basis you should write out a Promissory Note detailing how it will be repaid. You can then try to take them to a Small Claims Court if it goes wrong.
(Of course you didn't think to write a Promissory Note, but...)
And what will you do if the Small Claims Court finds that she has done a convincing job of persuading them that she is skint? They cannot order her to go back to work as a prostitute to repay you.
Now look what happens if you had specified she should repay you in kind.
A prossie, same as any other woman, can refuse sex at any time with anyone, in spite of any previous promise. Otherwise it is rape or attempted rape through coercion.
What is worse, an expectation of sex in return for cash is no more than a polite arrangement anyway. Imagine you said to a civvy, "I'll lend you £1000 to be my girlfriend." or "I'll lend you £1000 to be paid back but I'll waive it if you are my girlfriend and we are having sex together for 12 months." But you don't immediately ask her for cash repayment: you attempt to coerce her into having sex by the threat of calling in the loan. If she genuinely can't pay back the loan (or can convincingly suggest the same), perhaps it would also be suggested that it was akin to External Link/Members Only merely because you had invested money in her with the expectation of sexual favours (even if you later changed it to "allow" her to pay the money back).
There is no statute that would specifically cover the hypothetical case as far as I know but hopefully that gives an indication of the sort of mess the punter could land himself in.

[Cornish sub]

Hmmm, this revealing (at last) of the subject of this thread piques my curiosity. How come she only now complains about a PM she received 3 months ago? The OP said she's a member of this site; is she still? If so, Scarlette, why not come on here and give your side of the story? Although the thread had naturally fizzled out 3 months ago, this revelation resurrects it and makes it interesting (to me at least). Wonder what the OP's reaction to this is? Youonlyliveonce, care to comment?

[mf_1101]

5 C's of credit come into play here:

Character - She's a prossie?
Capacity - Her income depends on her having men want to fuck her since the big reveal is out fat chance of this 
Capital - Did she have a boob job?
Collateral - Her pussy.
Conditions - Well you did lend £900 to a potentially terminally ill person (least in your head). In the money lending business we call this "retarded".

What a fluff.

Also, terminally ill is what I'd call a "convenient excuse". I'd have a hard time believing this in any case, but even if it was true why the fuck would anyone lend money out when they might die soon? If they're living they can still pay...unless she changed her will to leave you the money back.

OP is a nutcase. Well done admin for naming and shaming.

[Dave2014]

Some interesting issues raised. Allow me to present my thoughts:

Documenting a Loan and the terms of Repayment/Security

If you lend someone money on a personal basis you should write out a Promissory Note detailing how it will be repaid . . .

Agreed. Entering into an appropriate either promissory note or debenture is always an essential pre-condition to lending anybody anything but the smallest amounts (that you would be prepared to never see again).

What is worse, an expectation of sex in return for cash is no more than a polite arrangement anyway. Imagine you said to a civvy, "I'll lend you £1000 to be my girlfriend." or "I'll lend you £1000 to be paid back but I'll waive it if you are my girlfriend and we are having sex together for 12 months." But you don't immediately ask her for cash repayment: you attempt to coerce her into having sex by the threat of calling in the loan. If she genuinely can't pay back the loan (or can convincingly suggest the same), perhaps it would also be suggested that it was akin to External Link/Members Only merely because you had invested money in her with the expectation of sexual favours (even if you later changed it to "allow" her to pay the money back).
There is no statute that would specifically cover the hypothetical case as far as I know but hopefully that gives an indication of the sort of mess the punter could land himself in.

'Sex as Payment'

All contracts for sexual services are unenforceable in English law. Even if you drew up a promissory note or debenture for the repayment of a principal sum by way of sexual favours, it would be unenforceable in the event the borrower refused to perform those services. I have seen a number of such (albeit verbal) 'arrangements' anecdotally relayed on these boards (usually when they have gone wrong). Quite simply: do not do it.

'Coercion into Sex in Substitution for Payment in (presumably) Cash"

They hypothetical case you have described is certainly covered by both statute and case law. Any form of coercion which negates the element of full and informed consent to sex means it is quite simply 'rape'. The concept of a 'date rape' is merely a contextualisation of a specific rape. Any coerced sex is 'rape'.

Let's take your specific example:

But you don't immediately ask her for cash repayment: you attempt to coerce her into having sex by the threat of calling in the loan.

If the girl in question were to be 'coerced' into having sex with you (e.g by your threats of calling in a loan, or any other reason), implicit in such coercion is a lack of true consent. In such circumstances you have committed a rape. It is that simple.

To make it easier to understand, picture the following imaginary scenario: You have a home mortgage with your local bank in the joint names of you and your wife. One day, your local bank manager knocked at the door of your home while you were at work and say to your dutiful wife: "if you do not have sex with me I am going to call in the full amount of your mortgage which, if you are unable to pay it immediately, will mean we will repossess your home". Feeling frightened at the prospect at the consequences of not having sex with the local bank manager, your wife feelt 'coerced' into having sex with him to avoid the consequences. In such a scenario, there is no true consent. Your wife has actually suffered a rape. This imaginary scenario is conceptually no different to the one you have proposed above.

In short NEVER EVER introduce the concept of sex as a form of repayment for a debt. There are huge inherent risks in doing so, even if the borrower has initially agreed to the proposition.

[Sir Lance-a-lot]

I'm the one who sent the "abusive" PM back in November, yes I was somewhat pissed off, but basically I was just letting her know that I knew what she had done.  I never got any reply, and I have no idea what she expected Admin to do about it.

Scarlette is banned and blacklisted.  YouOnlyLiveOnce hasn't logged on since November, and it wouldn't be in his interests to comment further, given that she threatened to wreck his family over this.

Given that he said "since April I have paid you £1300", and that her illness was "diagnosed in May", I think it's reasonable to assume that he had no idea what he was getting into initially, only the extra £300 was paid after he knew that she was ill.

He's never implied that he knew of any legal right to claim the money back, I think he just assumed that he could trust her.  I gather that she did once have a very good reputation.  The moal here is that you can't really trust anyone in this business.

[punk]

The only safe punter is a punter who is not in a relationship.

[Marmalade]

It's not unknown for unscrupulous civvy women to ask for a 'loan' with a sexy smile. The implication being that you will not bother asking for the money back cos you think they are so cute and you are such a 'nice' guy. (It's a variation of "have cunt will con" when a pretty woman simpers helplessly in a short dress while you change the tyre on her car: cheaper than calling the AA and means she doesn't have to get dirty.) On another thread I mentioned a prossie who reputedly conned a guy into paying for her boob job. Scum find ways to take advantage of willing marks. A cunt is merely an added weapon.

The guys complaining about the wives who no longer give them sex (but expect them to pay the mortgage and everything else)... it's not quite so different psychologically. Merely that the prossie seems more calculating, less sanctioned by law, and is more likely to be seen as an obvious lowlife on account of her profession!!

[hockogrockle]

My understanding is that you cannot sue a WG. Although paying a WG for sex is not illegal, it is not an activity that has legal protection. I'd be interested to hear from fellow punters from the legal profession on their views.

That is correct, as a matter of contract law. Contracts promoting immorality, contracts prejudicial to marriage (e.g. "I shall pay you £100 per month on condition that you remain unwed"), and wagering contracts will not be enforced by the courts. However, that does not mean that a moneylending agreement with somebody who happens to be a prostitute is unenforceable. The loan is only unenforceable if it is directly ralated to the prostitution. The leading case is Philips v Brooks, in which a prostitute purchased a carriage on credit from a coachbuilder. He knew, and she knew, that the purpose of the carriage was to use it for soliciting (and possibly also as a mobile bedroom). She took delivery of the carriage, and didn't pay. The builder's claim for the money failed, as he knew perfectly what the carriage was for. Had he reasonably beileved it was for her to go shopping, he would have been able to recover his money. Of course, this does not stop the prostitute being prosecuted for fraud, if her reason for not paying was dishonesty rather than her financial situation ( in other words, she fully intended to pay at the time she placed the contract). Hope this helps. My law's a bit out-of-date these days, by the way. The issue may now be covered by statute. I don't know.

[hockogrockle]

Sorry. The case is Pearce v Brooks. Philips v Brooks covered a contract for the sale of jewellery induced by fraud.

[Marmalade]

Thanks for looking it up.  Fascinating (though less so for any poor bugger down that much). But what about Appleton v Campbell?

The action was for the recovery of board and lodging in relation to a room rented from the claimant. The court held that the plaintiff could not recover if he knew that the defendant was a prostitute, and that she was using the room to entertain her clients. But: …if the defendant had her lodgings there, and received her visitors elsewhere, the claimant may recover, although she be a woman of the town, because persons of that description must have a place to lay their heads. So two factors which are necessary for the contract to be unenforceable. First, there must be knowledge that the other party is a prostitute and, second, knowledge that what was supplied under the contract is to be used for the purposes of prostitution. So if he supplied the money to her for medical bills then it might be theoretically enforceable. It seems it would be the suggestion of "payment in kind" that would possibly make an otherwise legal contract unenforceable, is that your opinion too?

[Marmalade]

It might possibly be easier to argue if one imagines it were for a vast sum to be reclaimed from a high class prostitute. Following Armhouse Lee Ltd v Chappell (payment for ads relating to sex lines) it might even hinge on whether the court felt that it could extend the definition of immorality past that which was merely illegal.

[PompeyChap]

Terribly sorry for bumping this thread, but I was bored and reading through the blacklist threads. I actually punted this girl a few times 2/3 years ago when she was living in Portsmouth. I'm sure I wrote a review of her but I can't seem to find it anywhere.

She used to work with an agency called Candy Shop before moving to Ophelia's Dream and was charging £150 an hour. Her head was in the clouds as she was the typical "student" who found a "job" that was easy and got her money quickly enough and my first punt with her was quit boring and lacklustre. However I can tell you that the reason she was in "hospital" and wasn't willing to see the OP was because she was pregnant. She was still punting as I saw the new pictures on her profile with her belly, but after she gave birth she packed up and moved to Bristol where she's punting now.

I've seen her twice when I've been up there and the punts have been quite fun, not amazing of course but fun nonetheless. I wouldn't really call her a thief as much because the OP was the idiot who gave her the money up front and he did get a few punts out of it. If she'd taken the "loan" and not offered him any services I'd agree with the blacklist, however she gave him a few punts and it looks like he turned into a fluffy stalker.

[306]

I lent a prossie £500 once but the background to that was that I lent her the money to get rid of her. It was the perfect solution for me, I'd been seeing her for a number of months so it could be argued that I'd had quite a number of free punts. Anyway, I'd gotten well bored and was just thinking about an out when the email arrived asking if I could lend her his money to help her over a difficult patch. I had all the proof including emails and the bank transfer so I could quite easily put through a £35 money claim online to get the money back but I lent it knowing she was unreliable, knowing I would never get it back and knowing that I would never hear from her again. I didn't and I considered it money well spent. My situation was quite unique, never ever lend a prossie money.

this is the reverse of this tale but i am sure its true
i paid for a clean break from my wife when i got divorced so if i or she wins £1,000,000 later neither of us can claim from the other,
wise after the event as star stuck ,love struck . or pussy blinded
all easy to see if not you involved but hard from the inside .
Move on and Forget that is the way forward.

[Sir Lance-a-lot]

PompeyChap: I think you may be getting a little confused there.

She was active in Bristol for some time before she got her apartment (with help from the guy she ripped off) in the spring of 2013, and was already a single mother by then.  So unless she then got pregnant again, her hospital appointments were not pregnancy-related, and she definitely did have another health issue.

And given the fact that HE tried to "end it properly" and she refused to let him, there doesn't seem to be any basis for calling him a "fluffy stalker".  She clearly owed him a refund for undelivered bookings, and if he had then refused to leave her alone. that accusation would fit.

[PompeyChap]

I thought this happened a few years back so sorry for the confusion.

He's a fluffy because he's fallen in love with her and gave her over a grand in advance without any sort of contract or backup plan in case she went AWOL. If she'd taken the money, blocked him and run off then I'd completely agree with this thread. However, he got 3/4 punts out of it before he told her he loved her and then kept stalking her. He's at fault here as he readily gave her money. He didn't turn up to a punt and have her steal it. He didn't pay her and then have her run off with it.

He should have kept it as a loan or kept it as a pre-payment, not both. If it was a loan he should have protected it better and made sure he could have got it back. If it was a pre-payment for punts then he should have had some evidence of her agreeing to give him 30 punts, for all we know she agreed to 4 punts for £1300. If a punter is willing to give a pro££ie over a grand as a "loan" then I'm hazarding a guess that he might see her as more than just a woman who's selling her body.

[StPunt]

he's a fluffy and she's a thief

[Sir Lance-a-lot]

PompeyChap:  As our resident lawyers have already pointed out, no contract involving sexual services would have been legally binding anyhow.  He just had to trust her, and she turned out to be untrustworthy.  OK, perhaps he shouldn't have offered her the option to pay with bookings, a purely financial arrangement with a contract might have been honoured.  Or maybe not, he was a married man in no position to go to court - so there was still nothing he could realistically have done anyhow.  And she knew that - which is why she threatened to wreck his family if he didn't keep quiet about what she had done.

And where is the evidence that he "kept stalking her"?  What are you referring to?  She apparently just cut him off.  So what was he supposed to do at that point?  He obviously needed to know what had happened to his investment, and she was refusing to tell him anything.  So he shouldn't have even bothered to try contacting her?

There are several other cases of WG's ending up on the blacklist as "Thieves" for reneging on loans or payment-in-advance arrangements.  Why should Scarlette be treated any differently?

Clearly she is at fault.  She created this mess by cutting him off, then refused to put it right.  She had two options - refund his money, or agree to see him again - and she chose neither.  Whereas he had no options left, other than to report her as a thief: which she sought to prevent him from doing, both by threatening his family and by using her "cancer" as emotional blackmail.

[Sir Lance-a-lot]

he's a fluffy and she's a thief

A succinct summary!   But his "fluffiness" does not justify her theft.  And I think we can assume that this experience has probably knocked the fluffiness out of him, whereas she is still a thief - until she gives him that refund.

Until then, she should stay on the blacklist.

[Sir Lance-a-lot]

Actually, there is more background information that most readers of this thread might not be aware of, but which has become quite well-known to punters in the Bristol area.

Since this incident, Scarlette has gained a reputation for unreliablility and poor comunications.  Quite a few UKP members have now been stood up, let down, and generally inconvenienced by her.  Most baffling is her tendency to suddenly break off communications for no apparent reason.

Which is exactly what happened to YouOnlyLiveOnce.  He seems to have been the main victim of a peculiar condition - possibly a mental illness - affecting Scarlette.

[306]

its called BIPOLAR 

[PompeyChap]

PompeyChap:  As our resident lawyers have already pointed out, no contract involving sexual services would have been legally binding anyhow.  He just had to trust her, and she turned out to be untrustworthy.

No, what he had to do was...not give her any money in advance; as a loan or as a gift. If she asked him for a loan he should have just said "sorry no" or if he liked fucking her he should have just upped the amount of times he went to see her. If he had giver her £100 and then she'd slammed the door in his face and the punt hadn't happened I'd be completely on his side.

OK, perhaps he shouldn't have offered her the option to pay with bookings, a purely financial arrangement with a contract might have been honoured.  Or maybe not, he was a married man in no position to go to court - so there was still nothing he could realistically have done anyhow.  And she knew that - which is why she threatened to wreck his family if he didn't keep quiet about what she had done.

If he was so infatuated with her that he had to give her money then he should have just done it as a gift or given her an actual loan and made sure that the loan was well documented. The fact is, he liked this girl and that's why he gave her money. If he's a married man that can't go to court over these things maybe he shouldn't have given a pro££ie money and should have just paid her for each punt like the rest of us.

And where is the evidence that he "kept stalking her"?  What are you referring to?  She apparently just cut him off.  So what was he supposed to do at that point?  He obviously needed to know what had happened to his investment, and she was refusing to tell him anything.  So he shouldn't have even bothered to try contacting her?

You call her a few times, send some texts and some AW e-mails. If she doesn't reply to any of them then it's quite obvious she no longer wants to be in contact with you. That's when you either drop the matter and accept your losses or you go down a legal path. What you don't do is go to her apartment and leave notes, you don't stalk her AW profile to see who she's booking and what she's doing. A normal mature adult would realise they've been had and either move on or call the police. Of course a normal mature adult doesn't lend a pro££ie money.

There are several other cases of WG's ending up on the blacklist as "Thieves" for reneging on loans or payment-in-advance arrangements.  Why should Scarlette be treated any differently?

We don't know the full story. However seeing as it's been a year and he's "celebrating the one year anniversary", stalked her and lent her money I'm guessing he was infatuated with him. She noticed this and that's probably why she cut off contact with him. I went to see an escort once and handed over the money before she asked whether I wanted BB. I wanted to leave and she refused to give me the money back. Did she rob me? Yes. Do I make a post about it a year after? No.

She gave him 4 punts out of his supposed 30, then HE started doing something that made her no longer want to be around him. If she wanted to steal from him she would have just taken the money and not offered any punts at all.

Clearly she is at fault.  She created this mess by cutting him off, then refused to put it right.  She had two options - refund his money, or agree to see him again - and she chose neither.  Whereas he had no options left, other than to report her as a thief: which she sought to prevent him from doing, both by threatening his family and by using her "cancer" as emotional blackmail.

I've seen her multiple times and she was a mess at first but I've had some quite enjoyable punts with her. Reading through the OPs post doesn't show someone who got conned and posted a negative report. It shows the delusional ravings of a jilted lover. He shouldn't have lent her money and he shouldn't have been infatuated with her.

[temudjin]

i think its pretty clear who has the infatuation pompey 
she took advantage of his good nature and the fact that he has a family! granted it was an extremely stupid thing to do! why anyone would lend a WG money is beyond me.....but nonetheless if you borrow money you should pay it back...being a WG doesnt excuse you from this! if i borrowed money from you then avoided you so i wouldnt have to pay it back.....you would quite rightly label me a cunt....which is what she is.....no excuses

[Sir Lance-a-lot]

PompeyChap, I think you're still missing several of the key facts here.  Why do you assume that she must have cut him off because of something HE did, when it seems rather obvious that the reason he was so utterly baffled was because he had NOT apparently done anything significant at all?  Yes, he uttered one inappropriate word.  But she didn't cut him off for that, she was still communicating with him in mid-October.  When the end came, it came without any apparent provocation.  And then it took her months to come up with a rather pathetic excuse.

And why do you say that he should have given her more money by just booking her more often, or whatever?  Did you miss the fact that she was just about to fail to get her apartment?  He had thousands in the bank, and was in a position to help.  Yes, that turned out to be unwise, but I don't think he could reasonably have foreseen that.  He has admitted a fuck-up there, but the alternative would be to just stand by and do nothing.  And actually, if she hadn't later stabbed him in the back, it would have turned out to be a very good deal for him.

And what part of his account strikes you as "delusional"?  He seems to have given a very frank account in which he has readily admitted to his own mistakes.  And Scarlette had plenty of opportunity to post her own version before she got banned (BTW, he mentioned having AW email correspondence as evidence).   And given that Scarlette's treatment of him is so consistent with the way she has since treated others, why do you keep trying to imply that something different must have happened?

Considering how quick you are to condemn him as a "fluffy", I find it rather ironic that you are the only person here who seems to be arguing that Scarlette shouldn't be on the blacklist, for what is a very blatant rip-off of a UKP member.  Why is that?  And do you feel the same way about every other similar case on there - or is she "special"?

And yet you've admitted that she was "a mess at first".  Well, now she's apparently a mess again.  Doesn't that seem plausible to you?

[Sir Lance-a-lot]

temudjin: we cross-posted there, but obviously we had the same thought!

PompeyChap: I have a suggestion.  Rather than get involved with "white-knighting" for Scarlette on here, why not just go and see her for a couple of overnights, but offer to pay the fee directly to YouOnlyLiveOnce by PayPal? (DON'T trust her to forward it on!)

You get to spend some time with a girl you're obviously still fond of, she gets to spend some time with a former regular she's known for years, YouOnlyLiveOnce finally gets his money back, and everyone is happy.

[PompeyChap]

PompeyChap, I think you're still missing several of the key facts here.  Why do you assume that she must have cut him off because of something HE did

Because if she wanted to take the money and run, she'd have done just that and claimed it was a gift. Instead, he got 4 punts out of it before something occurred and she no longer wanted to see him. He didn't give her the money out of the blue, he's one of her regulars and you'll only give money to a pro££ie if you're fucking her straight after or if you like her.

when it seems rather obvious that the reason he was so utterly baffled was because he had NOT apparently done anything significant at all?  Yes, he uttered one inappropriate word.  But she didn't cut him off for that, she was still communicating with him in mid-October.  When the end came, it came without any apparent provocation.  And then it took her months to come up with a rather pathetic excuse.

Or, he started to develop feelings for her (hence why he gave her money) and it started to weird her out and his going to her home and stalking to her didn't help the situation. He wasn't even willing to name and shame her, a woman who "stole" a grand from him. Tad odd that he wouldn't want to "ruin the career" of a woman that ignored him and stole from him. Hell, just read through his posts on this thread, he was still trying to protect her.

And why do you say that he should have given her more money by just booking her more often, or whatever?  Did you miss the fact that she was just about to fail to get her apartment?  He had thousands in the bank, and was in a position to help.  Yes, that turned out to be unwise, but I don't think he could reasonably have foreseen that.  He has admitted a fuck-up there, but the alternative would be to just stand by and do nothing.  And actually, if she hadn't later stabbed him in the back, it would have turned out to be a very good deal for him.

Last I checked, everyone here that punts does it so that they can get off. Not so that they could support pro££ies. She wasn't going to be homeless, or have to stop selling her body or ANYTHING that would mean she could no longer see him. She was BUYING A FLAT, you only do this when you're financially stable. In fact, if he hadn't given her the money she probably would have been seeing him more and he would have got his money's worth.

If that's not being a fluffy then I don't know what the fuck is. It's gone from paying women to fuck them to suddenly helping them put a deposit on a flat. When you turn up for meets do you bring them jewellery or offer to buy them a car?

And what part of his account strikes you as "delusional"?  He seems to have given a very frank account in which he has readily admitted to his own mistakes.  And Scarlette had plenty of opportunity to post her own version before she got banned (BTW, he mentioned having AW email correspondence as evidence).   And given that Scarlette's treatment of him is so consistent with the way she has since treated others, why do you keep trying to imply that something different must have happened?

Oh I dunno, maybe the part where it took him an ENTIRE YEAR to post what happened and the fact that he refused to even say who it was. The fact that he gave her a large sum of money willingly. The fact that he didn't report her to the police or drop it. The fact that he stalked her AW profile daily. The fact he went to her house to confront her. The fact that even though she "stole" from him he still wanted to see her. The fact he defends her in his posts and doesn't want to ruin her career.

Nah...no way he's delusional.

Considering how quick you are to condemn him as a "fluffy", I find it rather ironic that you are the only person here who seems to be arguing that Scarlette shouldn't be on the blacklist, for what is a very blatant rip-off of a UKP member.  Why is that?  And do you feel the same way about every other similar case on there - or is she "special"?

And yet you've admitted that she was "a mess at first".  Well, now she's apparently a mess again.  Doesn't that seem plausible to you?

If someone's stupid enough to give a pro££ie a grand up front and expect to get 30 punts out of it whenever they want, they deserve what they get. The same way people who punt without a punting phone and use there real names then complain about getting outed. She may have been a mess at first, but my subsequent punts have been very good. Funnily enough people have the tendency to change when they move locations or over time. I've had a great regular who's turned into a massive cunt now and upped her prices and started charging extras for everything, should I still keep rating her positively and wasting money on her? No?

I haven't had a bad punt with her in the past year. All the "complaints" that I've seen on UKP apart from this thread are to do with her not answering the phone or not being able to make a booking. Seeing as she's an attractive pro££ie who's young and charges £100 an hour I'm not surprised.

PompeyChap: I have a suggestion.  Rather than get involved with "white-knighting" for Scarlette on here, why not just go and see her for a couple of overnights, but offer to pay the fee directly to YouOnlyLiveOnce by PayPal? (DON'T trust her to forward it on!)

You get to spend some time with a girl you're obviously still fond of, she gets to spend some time with a former regular she's known for years, YouOnlyLiveOnce finally gets his money back, and everyone is happy.

I'm happy to do that. Would you be willing to try and find her medical records and defend us all as the holy keyboard warrior?

[temudjin]

This whole thing is fucked up yes.....and it involves punting so you seem to be implying the same general rules of morality don't apply....but whatever the situation if you borrow money and then fall out with someone YOU STILL OWE THEM!! She wasn't shy about taking the money she shouldn't be shy about giving it back! And as far as stalking her goes.....you go and borrow from the bank nd avoid them....see if they don't stalk you, send you nasty letters or send people round to force you to fulfil your agreement!! And if she doesn't want to fuck him again that is her choice....but she should pay back the balance!

[Sir Lance-a-lot]

PompeyChap:

"...before something occurred..."

Nope, you still don't get it.  If you're so convinced that "something occurred", then why don't you just put it up here so that maybe one day HE will finally find out what it was.  Because it's very obvious that HE never had a fucking clue what it actually was!  At least it's becoming obvious that even you don't believe Scarlette's bullshit excuse.  That's why you're hoping there was something else.

Not that it really matters, of course.  She still owes him that money.

And while you're at it, maybe you could tell all the other people that Scarlette has let down.  I'm sure each one of them would be fascinated to discover why Scarlette cut him off.  A whole series of "somethings" going on, apparently.  And, nope, it's not just people being unable to contact her in the first place.

And you're suggesting that she dumped him in October 2013 because she was freaked out about her visit to his apartment in December 2013.  Maybe you should stop and think about that one a little?  And since when has an accusation of theft been a sign of infatuation?

As for why he kept quiet: not only had she threatened his family, she had also led him to believe that there was a good chance that she was dying of cancer.  But in your fanatical zeal to blame all of this on his "infatuation", you just keep on ignoring those points.  Can you honestly not see why some people might have a problem there - even if you personally wouldn't give a shit?

"If anyone's stupid enough to give a pro££ie a grand up front and expect to get 30 punts out of it whenever they want, they deserve what they get".  So the fact that Scarlette is a liar and a thief doesn't personally bother you.  OK.

"I haven't had a bad punt with her in the past year".  Aha!  Quite a lot of people have failed to get a punt with her in the past year, but you're implying that you've had several.  That makes you a very special customer indeed!

As for my suggestion: "I'm happy to do that".  Good.  Now suggest it to Scarlette, and see how she reacts.

And BTW, if you're such a good regular of hers, and you don't have any qualms about her state of health, as YouOnlyLiveOnce obviously did: I think you'd be doing all of us a big favour if YOU told us all what her mystery illness actually was.

[Siadwel]

Anyone know what time the next episode's on?

And where do I get the popcorn-munching smiley from?

[306]

BIPOLAR ?

[StPunt]

another succinct observation.....pompey is another fluffy/white night who's coming up with all the excuses under the son to still carry on booking sessions with the thieving wg.

[CurvyKinkyVixen]

It's now the first anniversary of the biggest setback I've had as a punter: the time that my former "regular" stole £900 from me.  I know I've mentioned this in passing a few times since, but never in detail, and I probably should, as a warning to others who might get themselves into a similar situation.  And even though I'll probably get some stick for getting myself into this mess, perhaps I'll feel better after I've finally got it off my chest!  So here goes.

Not much consolation to your bank balance , but Im sorry to hear you have been ripped off like this.

I hate bitches like this , I really do .......Give's honest prossies a bad name.

I found myself on hard times a few years ago , a regular did lend me some money to make up my bond to move house , said I could work it off in bookings as your girl was supposed to do. Well I did  work it off and we still have a very good friendship  now . I suppose we are a rare case. I know that more guys get ripped off than will get payed back.

 He probably  felt some sort of security in the fact that he knew all my "real life" information , where i work ( normal job) , real name , where my mother lives etc , or he probably would'nt of done it.....Id of paid him back regardless  as thats just my way  me  , but theres a lot of total dodgy people of both genders out there...

All I will say is lend NOTHING unless you know the person very very well , and know where to find them should they screw you over.

[CurvyKinkyVixen]

And before anyone asks , No ,  I did'nt ask him for money he offered. Nowhere near a grand either.

( That is me and my client , NOT the OP I speak of ...Just to be clear )

If this woman was buying a flat then she could'nt of been that hard up , as we all know , you must have "status" and money in the bank to get a mortgage. If she did'nt want to see you as a client any more then Ok , but she should of paid you back regardless. Just the decent thing to do .

[PompeyChap]

PompeyChap:

"...before something occurred..."

Nope, you still don't get it.  If you're so convinced that "something occurred", then why don't you just put it up here so that maybe one day HE will finally find out what it was.  Because it's very obvious that HE never had a fucking clue what it actually was!  At least it's becoming obvious that even you don't believe Scarlette's bullshit excuse.  That's why you're hoping there was something else.

Whether her excuse is true or not has no weight in this matter. The fact is, he shouldn't have given her the money in the first place. HOWEVER, seeing as she gave him 4 punts rather than take the money and leave it suggests that HE did something to change the situation. Seeing as he WILLINGLY gave her a grand out of the kindness of his own heart (so that she could buy a flat, not so that she could pay rent/bills) it implies that his feelings for her go further than just a punter and pro££ie. Ergo, he must have been getting creepier and creepier in his infatuation with her which caused her to cut all contact. Should she have returned the remaining balance? Yes (if that is what they had actually agreed on before i.e. 30 punts for £1300). Should he have ever given the money to her in the first place? No.

Not that it really matters, of course.  She still owes him that money.

And while you're at it, maybe you could tell all the other people that Scarlette has let down.  I'm sure each one of them would be fascinated to discover why Scarlette cut him off.  A whole series of "somethings" going on, apparently.  And, nope, it's not just people being unable to contact her in the first place.

If I'm in the mood for a pizza and phone Dominos up and they don't answer, do I blame Dominos for letting me down or do I just go order off another company. If she's not answering the calls or texts, take a hint and find someone else. Either she's busy, doesn't want to see you or can't get to the phone. That's sort of why people have plan B's and C's. Why is it the rest of the forum can understand that they can't always see their first choice but you and your "cronies" can't seem to let go.

If people were making a booking with her, confirming it and then being ignored I'd completely understand. However if the booking can't be made in the first place surely you're at fault for not being able to move onto another pro££ie. There are thousands upon thousands of pro££ie's in the UK and a couple of hundred in and around Bristol, I'm sure you can find someone else in the mean time.

And you're suggesting that she dumped him in October 2013 because she was freaked out about her visit to his apartment in December 2013.  Maybe you should stop and think about that one a little?  And since when has an accusation of theft been a sign of infatuation?

Something lead her to no longer want to see him any more. Seeing as he was willing to give her money and seeing as she gave him 4 punts in return rather than jumping ship, I'm hazarding a guess that he did something to freak out. The fact he went to her flat to confront rather than involving the police or dropping the matter merely adds weight to this.

As for why he kept quiet: not only had she threatened his family, she had also led him to believe that there was a good chance that she was dying of cancer.  But in your fanatical zeal to blame all of this on his "infatuation", you just keep on ignoring those points.  Can you honestly not see why some people might have a problem there - even if you personally wouldn't give a shit?

I'm so terribly sorry, I was under the impression that people punt for the sex and once they've come and left the pro££ie's premises then their interaction is over until the next time the needs arises. I'm surprised I'm called a fluffy here when you're all just so worried about her health. There's no evidence that she even had cancer, or had ANY health issues for the matter.

So no, I can't see why people care whether a pro££ie has a health issue unless it's one that can be transmitted and could affect you. If you want to get an emotional attachment to a woman you're paying for sex then you may have a rather worrying problem.

"If anyone's stupid enough to give a pro££ie a grand up front and expect to get 30 punts out of it whenever they want, they deserve what they get".  So the fact that Scarlette is a liar and a thief doesn't personally bother you.  OK.

If she'd held him up a knife point and taken money from him I'd be completely on his side. If he'd given her the money and she'd dissapeared I'd think he's an idiot but still be on his side. This however isn't the case here and seeing as we don't know the full story and seeing as he is quite clearly infatuated with her I'm holding my judgement on condemning here.

"I haven't had a bad punt with her in the past year".  Aha!  Quite a lot of people have failed to get a punt with her in the past year, but you're implying that you've had several.  That makes you a very special customer indeed!

It doesn't make me a special customer, it makes me a normal person who doesn't turn into a sappy old cunt who'll come to UKP to grumble because a pro££ie wasn't picking her phone up. I've had 5 punts with her in 2014 and they've been quite good. I've had times when she hasn't picked up her phone and you know what I did...I MOVED THE FUCK ON. I didn't keep ringing, I didn't bombard her with texts and I didn't rush home to UKP so that I could condemn her.

As for my suggestion: "I'm happy to do that".  Good.  Now suggest it to Scarlette, and see how she reacts.

Hidden Image/Members Only

And BTW, if you're such a good regular of hers, and you don't have any qualms about her state of health, as YouOnlyLiveOnce obviously did: I think you'd be doing all of us a big favour if YOU told us all what her mystery illness actually was.

I couldn't care less whether she had an illness or not. We all joke about the batty old crones on SAAFE who can do nothing but bitch but Jesus Christ UKP starting to looking like SAAFE now. What happened to just wanting to punt when you feel the need? What happened to wanting to fuck a young and beautiful girl for an hour and having her do what you want rather than trawling the bars/clubs for something. What happened to wanting to satisfy that urge to save your marriage? What happened to just wanting to fuck?

I don't know what you do, but after I've zipped up my trousers and fucked off out of the door I couldn't care less what the pro££ie does until the next time I drop her a text/call and want to satisfy my urges. Maybe you should try this out rather than spending all day being a keyboard warrior on-line and thinking women are the epitome of evil.

[akauya]

Anyone know what time the next episode's on?

And where do I get the popcorn-munching smiley from?

Come sit next to me, this thread is getting interesting

Hidden Image/Members Only

[tantric talents]

Come sit next to me, this thread is getting interesting

Hidden Image/Members Only

Move over I've got the drinks in..

I have just come across this thread and it was like reading a crime novel. Glad the thread was not locked as I couldn't wait to find out the identity of the perpetrator!

I have to say I do somewhat sympathise with the plight of the OP, fluffy or otherwise. He tried to show some kindness whilst under EAS and was shafted for it.
Are we all perfect and have never been scammed?

Will Series 2 show he was pushed or fell? And can he be hoisted back up - by his own petard?  Must remember to set the series link button...

[Sir Lance-a-lot]

Well, maybe there's a glimmer of light at the end of this tunnel.  PompeyChap, you have finally agreed that she should have given him that money back.

The fact that she did NOT is why she's on the blacklist.  Duh.

You also seem to agree that you would have been on his side if she had just taken the money and scarpered.  But you still seem to be arguing that the fact that she didn't rip him off immediately somehow makes a difference.  And nobody else agrees with you on that one, especially as HE tried to end it when she cut him off - by that time, the poor bastard wanted OUT.  But you're not seeing that.

There are still a few things you're missing, such as the fact that he specifically mentioned seeing about half a dozen other escorts (and who knows how many more that he didn't mention) while he was also seeing Scarlette.  So he was already "moving on to the next one" on a regular basis, partly because Scarlette kept letting him down - and he also mentioned that Scarlette messed him about on 5 consecutive booking attempts once she had his money (4 delayed bookings plus one in which he gave up).  If she hadn't then cut him off completely, then presumably he'd have just carried on trying, and moving on every time she let him down again.

I've spent quite some time reading through all this, you have some catching up to do.  Leaping in and assuming all this happened in Portsmouth while Scarlette was pregnant didn't exactly get you off to a good start, and you've been struggling to keep up ever since.

As for what happened to trigger this: you're still missing the elephant in the room here.  At around this time, Scarlette was seriously ILL.  Cancer, depression, bipolar disorder - nobody here knows, but something was going on.  You still seem to be fixated on the notion that only HE could have done something to trigger the change.

What she did seems insane.  You're not accepting that it might have been literally insane.  Even though you actually hinted that she had a past history of being "a mess" some time ago.


BTW, while we're on the subject of fact-checking, this is from yesterday:

...but after she gave birth she packed up and moved to Bristol where she's punting now.

I've seen her twice when I've been up there...

And from your latest post:

I've had 5 punts with her in 2014 and they've been quite good.

Oops.

[Melfort212]

"Scarlette was seriously ILL.  Cancer, depression, bipolar disorder - nobody here knows, but something was going on."

Make your mind up man. Was she seriously ILL or not? It could be an act/lie ffs.  She told me once when I was going to punt with her that her old man was in hospital so had to cancel.

If she is ill then that is sad, but it has nothing to do with punting.

The guy gave her £1000. How many people would you trust with a £1000 loan? I wouldn't trust somebody who I don't know the real name of.

[Sir Lance-a-lot]

Well, if it was an act/lie, it was a pretty thoroughly prepared one - so thorough that I was able to identify her because word of her "illness" had gotten out.  It also included periods in which she was only taking 15 and 30 minute bookings - despite not actually having a 15-minute rate - because she couldn't manage an hour.

As for her possible mental illness: that would fit the evidence we have.  And if that causes a WG to suddenly "turn evil" and backstab a client for no particularly good reason, that would explain YouOnlyLiveOnce's bewilderment at what happened.

So, yes, it's relevant.  But it doesn't excuse Scarlette's ongoing refusal to sort this out - however, that is sadly common in these cases.

[Zook Mihof]

Wow what a thread. Took some reading! Op is a mug - already proven and see his fluffy remarks in the 'neutral' review.

But she does look a bit like Paige off the wrestling... and at £100 if I'm ever down Bristol I'd still happily poke it. Wouldn't lend her a fiver if she asked though!!   

[Siadwel]

Wouldn't piss on her to put her out if she was on fire, personally. OP's a bit of a dick, too.

Looking forward to the next series though.

[Sir Lance-a-lot]

In the next thrilling instalment, PompeyChap - who has followed Scarlette up from Plymouth and seen her a strangely-increasing number of times - turns out to be the father of her child.

Well, hey, anything's possible.   

[Siadwel]

Confused?

You will be.

[SirFrank]

I don't know the girl or the punter and I'm not entirely sure what did / didn't happen and in what order. However, if true I'm surprised to see the punter being blamed for 'lending' this bird some money. Granted he was naive but then that's probably whey he was tapped up. We constantly talk about this issue on here but this guy won't be the first or last to be tucked up.

The blame lies with her. If for whatever reason she decided she couldn't see him anymore, and there may well have been sound reasons for this, she should have paid him back. The fact that she blew him out, didn't pay him back and then also apparently threatened him tells you all you need to know. It's like a Nigerian bank scam or an African lothario tucking up an older white British woman. Gullible? Yes. Naive? Yes. Does that mean they had it coming? No. The scammers saw them coming and took advantage of them. It's much like saying a woman in a short dress deserves to get raped. 

[Sir Lance-a-lot]

Indeed.  And apparently YouOnlyLiveOnce joined UKP in June of 2013 - which was several months before Scarlette ripped him off, but after he gave her that loan.  He didn't have a chance to read about any similar cases before making his decision.   He then did what he could - despite the danger to his family, he ensured that any newbies coming here had the advice that he never got in time.

And what about CurvyKinkyVixen's contribution, and the guy who helped her out?  He made the same decision and got lucky - because he'd found an honest WG.  Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.

[Sedlmayer]

Wow what a thread. Took some reading! Op is a mug - already proven and see his fluffy remarks in the 'neutral' review.

But she does look a bit like Paige off the wrestling... and at £100 if I'm ever down Bristol I'd still happily poke it. Wouldn't lend her a fiver if she asked though!!   

Hats off to you if you've actually read all that crap! 

[punk]

its all a load of bollocks.

After 6 pages, its like a soap.

[306]

Bipolar