Popular media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

UKPunting is a free, independent and not-for-profit paid sex buyer site.




Author Topic: Fun with Blonde English Lucy  (Read 4089 times)


9 review(s) for blonde.english.lucy (9 positive, 0 neutral, 0 negative) [Indexed by Admin]


+1 - Seen Lucy a couple of times with 3some with Dee and agree that Lucy is a very good looking girl and decent VFM.

 :hi:

Hi Mr PW

Shot up the road to see Lucy tonight after see Ameera for another good session

HD  :thumbsup:

Offline mrhappypants

Password. You know I have followed your recommendations in the past and thanked you for them.  We may simply have a different view of this girls attractiveness.  I do not have problem with that.  What I have a problem with is what I believe to be organised gangs of "members" who, it seems to me, write blandly positive reviews about the same group of girls and then chip in on each others reviews to make them look legitimate. These girls often live together, work together or are known to each other.  They are typically older, established and charge above average fees.  My point is that these "punters" look like  they are being incentivised to write adverts rather than provide a review of a punt they paid the same rate for that I would.  I am not saying all the girls reviewed are bad.  I have seen a few myself and will see some again.  But the starting point for the review, where I believe the punter is not independent, is a concern.

Now this might be some elaborate paranoid fantasy.  I might be entirely wrong.  All the reviews on Lucy both after and BEFORE she changed her profile, may be completely objective and written by humble punters like me. But I don't think it looks like that.  I think if you look at Lucy's reviews, and those of Luxury Scarlet, it is the same board members pushing the same girls.  I have been wrong before, and admitted it.  But I have seen her.  She was £140 per hour.  And she is the only girl I have ever declined on looks alone.

Dave
« Last Edit: December 20, 2014, 06:53:22 AM by mrhappypants »

password02

Password. You know I have followed your recommendations in the past and thanked you for them.  We may simply have a different view of this girls attractiveness.  I do not have problem with that.  What I have a problem with is what I believe to be organised gangs of "members" who, it seems to me, write blandly positive reviews about the same group of girls and then chip in on each others reviews to make them look legitimate. These girls often live together, work together or are known to each other.  They are typically older, established and charge above average fees.  My point is that these "punters" look like  they are being incentivised to write adverts rather than provide a review of a punt they paid the same rate for that I would.  I am not saying all the girls reviewed are bad.  I have seen a few myself and will see some again.  But the starting point for the review, where I believe the punter is not independent, is a concern.

Now this might be some elaborate paranoid fantasy.  I might be entirely wrong.  All the reviews on Lucy both after and BEFORE she changed her profile, may be completely objective and written by humble punters like me. But I don't think it looks like that.  I think if you look at Lucy's reviews, and those of Luxury Scarlet, it is the same board members pushing the same girls.  I have been wrong before, and admitted it.  But I have seen her.  She was £140 per hour.  And she is the only girl I have ever declined on looks alone.

Dave


Hi HP - I did find Lucy attractive but as you say beauty is sometime subjective and while some punters see her as good looking others may find her perhaps not - I always say each to his own - You have some guys that will  punt with the larger girl -16+ and they love their sessions - what ever rocks your boat - In reply to the other points you have raised I only wish i did get incentives from some of these girls - Free Fcks, an extra 1-2 hours and maybe an over night session or 2 paid for by the girls themselves However in the real world it does not happen.

Most of these girls are booked solid on a regular basis and really do not need any sort of extra advertising by myself or other UKP members.

I really do  not have any problems or issues with  members here who think my reviews are not independent - members will read and judge for themselves - some they will like and some they will not. They could cross reference several reviews from +10 different members and then decide of they want to visit these girls or not - In my case I am not worried and always welcome questions on both the forum and also on PM.

I also see UKP as an open forum where members can challenge reviews and also question and validate the reviewer - This makes the forum run itself and does crate a self regulatory environment that has made this forum site such a great place for UK Punters.

 :hi:
 

Offline fredpunter

I would like to add that when a punter questions the accuracy of a negative review he is accused of being a fluffy white night. Is there a phrase for someone who questions the accuracy of several positive reviews by several different reviewers?

Password. You know I have followed your recommendations in the past and thanked you for them.  We may simply have a different view of this girls attractiveness.  I do not have problem with that.  What I have a problem with is what I believe to be organised gangs of "members" who, it seems to me, write blandly positive reviews about the same group of girls and then chip in on each others reviews to make them look legitimate. These girls often live together, work together or are known to each other.  They are typically older, established and charge above average fees.  My point is that these "punters" look like  they are being incentivised to write adverts rather than provide a review of a punt they paid the same rate for that I would.  I am not saying all the girls reviewed are bad.  I have seen a few myself and will see some again.  But the starting point for the review, where I believe the punter is not independent, is a concern.

Now this might be some elaborate paranoid fantasy.  I might be entirely wrong.  All the reviews on Lucy both after and BEFORE she changed her profile, may be completely objective and written by humble punters like me. But I don't think it looks like that.  I think if you look at Lucy's reviews, and those of Luxury Scarlet, it is the same board members pushing the same girls.  I have been wrong before, and admitted it.  But I have seen her.  She was £140 per hour.  And she is the only girl I have ever declined on looks alone.

Dave

The attached link shows (as far as I'm aware) ALL reviews for "Luxury Scarlett" to date on UKP. Not one of those reviews
are written by anyone on this thread EXCEPT for you. Could you please justify your insinuation that either Herbie or HornyDevil
are the SAME board members pushing the same service providers ie BOTH Lucy & Luxury Scarlett simultaneously?

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?action=serviceprovider;id=759

Offline smiths

Password. You know I have followed your recommendations in the past and thanked you for them.  We may simply have a different view of this girls attractiveness.  I do not have problem with that.  What I have a problem with is what I believe to be organised gangs of "members" who, it seems to me, write blandly positive reviews about the same group of girls and then chip in on each others reviews to make them look legitimate. These girls often live together, work together or are known to each other.  They are typically older, established and charge above average fees.  My point is that these "punters" look like  they are being incentivised to write adverts rather than provide a review of a punt they paid the same rate for that I would.  I am not saying all the girls reviewed are bad.  I have seen a few myself and will see some again.  But the starting point for the review, where I believe the punter is not independent, is a concern.

Now this might be some elaborate paranoid fantasy.  I might be entirely wrong.  All the reviews on Lucy both after and BEFORE she changed her profile, may be completely objective and written by humble punters like me. But I don't think it looks like that.  I think if you look at Lucy's reviews, and those of Luxury Scarlet, it is the same board members pushing the same girls.  I have been wrong before, and admitted it.  But I have seen her.  She was £140 per hour.  And she is the only girl I have ever declined on looks alone.

Dave

So its clear i am NOT part of any organised gang of members, i punted with Lucy and gave her a positive review for a good service though i didnt get a wow factor from her so wouldnt punt with her again i doubt. And i wouldnt lower myself to take a bribe off a WG or pimp, what i post is what i think.

IMO there are a group of punters that punt with the same WGs quite a bit but thats because someone recommends a WG and they trust thats punter rec so punt with herself. A good way to increase the chance of a good punt in my view, and the advantage this site can give to punters.

If you think its more than that then only admin can investigate.

I clarify my comments earlier regarding that I have seen Adele4u, Ameera and LilyHart based on the reviews of Mr PW.  :drinks:

I saw Melanie London and Rubywoo1 based on a recommendation of Herbie007. :drinks:

There is no punting group going here and I have never received a free punt or free services for any reviews

It is the members choice whether they choose to read any reviews on here. No one is being forced to read these reviews anymore then going to see the girls that have been reviewed.

The posting on a these reviews is banter, nothing more and not a conspiracy.

The money belongs to the punter and it is their choice who they punt with.

I have also never seen Scarlett or Charlotte and whatever her name is therefore I cannot on that issue.

Between the lines. It is the punters money. Their choice who they see. If a punter has decent punt because of a review on here then the site has accomplished the purpose it is there for.

HD








Now this might be some elaborate paranoid fantasy.  I might be entirely wrong.  All the reviews on Lucy both after and BEFORE she changed her profile, may be completely objective and written by humble punters like me. But I don't think it looks like that.  I think if you look at Lucy's reviews, and those of Luxury Scarlet, it is the same board members pushing the same girls.  I have been wrong before, and admitted it.  But I have seen her.  She was £140 per hour.  And she is the only girl I have ever declined on looks alone.
Dave

For completeness following on from my previous posting I'm now including the link for ALL of Lucy's reviews BEFORE
she changed her profile

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?action=serviceprovider;id=692

In addition, here are the reviews for "Luxury Scarlett" as a comparison to the one above for Lucy's old profile.

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?action=serviceprovider;id=759

It's abundantly clear that neither Herbie nor HornyDevil appear on BOTH sets of reviews as you insinuated, and further more
sufficient evidence to substantiate that BOTH Herbie, and HornyDevil were accurate and honest in their reviews/comments of Lucy
based upon other established UKP members visiting her and reporting positive experiences.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2014, 02:45:00 PM by laidbackasiandude »

Offline mrhappypants

For completeness following on from my previous posting I'm now including the link for ALL of Lucy's reviews BEFORE
she changed her profile

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?action=serviceprovider;id=692

In addition, here are the reviews for "Luxury Scarlett" as a comparison to the one above for Lucy's old profile.

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?action=serviceprovider;id=759

It's abundantly clear that neither Herbie nor HornyDevil appear on BOTH sets of reviews as you insinuated, and further more
sufficient evidence to substantiate that BOTH Herbie, and HornyDevil were accurate and honest in their reviews/comments of Lucy
based upon other established UKP members visiting her and reporting positive experiences.

First for a bit of context, the last time you and I were in a discussion I was challenging your positive review of a girl who threatened me with a knife and accused me of raping and robbing her.  Smiths spoke for your authenticity and I believe him.  I apologised for questioning your authenticity which I stand by, but you will understand given my experience why I consider your positiohn carefully.

Secondly, you misunderstand me and your post misrepresents my point.  I think that a similar *pattern* is evident in both sets of reviews - not that the reviewers were the same.  It is the same bland reviews deflecting from important negative details (Scarlett's misreprested weigth: Lucy's facial appearance).  It is the same pattern of the reviewers having built a large post count relatively quickly, with a regularity and expenditure on punting that is very high, focused primarily on a small group of linked girls. It is the same pattern of respondents who continually reply to each others posts.  But most crucially it is the same feeling of *persuasiveness* about the reviews that looks really suspect to me.   

By contrast read my review of Sensual Brigit.  She is a fantastic girl.  Yesterday she gave me the best bj I ever had.  But I dont give fuck about whether you or anyone else goes to see her which is why I am comfortable to give my honest impression of her looks in my review.   Thats why I write balanced reviews.  Same with Stunning Julie.  I cannot wait until she gets back but yeah she is lazy. It does me no harm to admit it.  I suppose she could refuse to see me, but then there are plenty more fish in the sea.

I did not mentioned any punter by name and I don't need really need to persuade you or anyone else I am right.   If I raise a doubt, and board members do their research and form a view that is enough. And if I am full of shit and completely mistaken I will just be ignored.  But people seem to get very sensitive around this issue, just like they did when I wrote a (slightly) critical review of a popular girl not to long ago.  The emotion that this arouses is another thing that feels a bit odd, and is another reason that I think there is a bit more to this than meets the eye.

Dave

First for a bit of context, the last time you and I were in a discussion I was challenging your positive review of a girl who threatened me with a knife and accused me of raping and robbing her.  Smiths spoke for your authenticity and I believe him.  I apologised for questioning your authenticity which I stand by, but you will understand given my experience why I consider your positiohn carefully.

Secondly, you misunderstand me and your post misrepresents my point.  I think that a similar *pattern* is evident in both sets of reviews - not that the reviewers were the same.  It is the same bland reviews deflecting from important negative details (Scarlett's misreprested weigth: Lucy's facial appearance).  It is the same pattern of the reviewers having built a large post count relatively quickly, with a regularity and expenditure on punting that is very high, focused primarily on a small group of linked girls. It is the same pattern of respondents who continually reply to each others posts.  But most crucially it is the same feeling of *persuasiveness* about the reviews that looks really suspect to me.   

By contrast read my review of Sensual Brigit.  She is a fantastic girl.  Yesterday she gave me the best bj I ever had.  But I dont give fuck about whether you or anyone else goes to see her which is why I am comfortable to give my honest impression of her looks in my review.   Thats why I write balanced reviews.  Same with Stunning Julie.  I cannot wait until she gets back but yeah she is lazy. It does me no harm to admit it.  I suppose she could refuse to see me, but then there are plenty more fish in the sea.

I did not mentioned any punter by name and I don't need really need to persuade you or anyone else I am right.   If I raise a doubt, and board members do their research and form a view that is enough. And if I am full of shit and completely mistaken I will just be ignored.  But people seem to get very sensitive around this issue, just like they did when I wrote a (slightly) critical review of a popular girl not to long ago.  The emotion that this arouses is another thing that feels a bit odd, and is another reason that I think there is a bit more to this than meets the eye.

Dave

I have neither misunderstood nor misrepresented your posts on this thread, merely pointed out (with evidence in the form
of attached reviews links for both Scarlett and Lucy) that shows no pattern you are alluding to with respect to the OP for this
review that's a commonality for both aforementioned service providers.

There is considerable evidence to suggest (at least for Lucy) that by and large she's a good service provider, and facially wise, most reviewers have found her to be attractive if not a complete stunner. Now I accept that you did not find Lucy attractive or to your tastes, as beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder. With respect to Scarlett, if I'm not mistaken, the NEGATIVE reviews EXCEED all her POSITIVE ones. It's not as if your negative of Scarlett is somehow overshadowed by a deluge of "persuasive" positive reviews for her.

As Smiths wrote earlier in this thread, if any evidence is in your possession about a group existing here on UKP that's acting
"persuasive" as you believe, and if you have substantive evidence to back your claims, then do report it to the site owner.

And just to make it absolutely clear to you, I've neither met Lucy nor Scarlett.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2014, 06:04:31 PM by laidbackasiandude »

Offline mrhappypants

Laidbackasiandude, in that case all that remains is for me to thank Horneydevil247, yourself and all the others who have contributed to this thread.  I have found it an extremely informative discussion.

Dave




Latest videos on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

Latest images on UKEscorting.com (free site!)