Popular media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

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




Author Topic: Little Katie  (Read 8632 times)


34 review(s) for x Little Katie x (31 positive, 0 neutral, 3 negative) [Indexed by Admin]


Wher's the booking, you just said sounds fine and sent her your number, a month later you contacted her and she said she didn't have you down, fucking hell talk about storm in a tea cup  :music:

As long as it's loose leaf I don't care :hi:

Online James999

She says we never had a confirmed booking?

Well if you had a confirmed booking you can neg her on her AW profile, if you can't then you obviously didn't have a confirmed booking, so over to you, neg her on her AW profile  :music:

Offline Quesadilla

Lying no, you say? She says we never had a confirmed booking? Read my previous post or do you think I'm making it up?
She clearly says she 'never received confirmation' I replied within 5mins of receiving her email, again see my previous post or again do you think I'm making it up?

Just explain in plain English how 'you read it differently' see my previous post she clearly sent back a date and time or again do you think I'm making it up?

I think your 3hr punt with her has gone straight to your head and you're going fluffy.

Ok, let's take this step by step coz maybe I'm missing something here in my fluffy haze. ;)

Email in from her on 31/12/2014 06:09:59
Hi XXXXX! What about the 29th Jan at 2pm? Please send me your phone number and I'll be in contact nearer the date to give you my address if this is ok with you? Look forward to meeting you! K xxx

So she suggested a date. Note the "what about" and the ? at the end, and the "if this is ok with you?"  That's all just suggestion not a confirmation.

My reply  to her on 31/12/2014 18:54:58    
Hi Katie that sounds fine my number is 07********, looking forward to it!!
Read on 11/01/2015 06:06:10
You then replied - now this is the evening of New Year's Eve - so you can expect that Katie would not be reading her e-mails at least for a few days.  In the end she didn't read until 11th Jan, nearly two weeks later, by which point your message, without any context (ie, had you said something like "Just confirming 29th Jan 2pm here's my number as requested for example) could easily be misinterpreted.  Not saying for one minute it would be right to do so, but Katie has said she gets literally a hundred emails per day, the fact that she's reading yours on the 11th means that she's probably been playing catch-up on maybe more than a week's worth of messages - so maybe 700 - 1000 emails!  So she opened it and didn't register it and confirm it. Her mistake.
 
My email to her on 26/01/2015 18:33:11 Hi Kate, Are we still ok for Thursday?
Read on 27/01/2015 00:41:59

Her reply to me on 27/01/2015 00:46:14 Hi! I don't have you in my diary for Thursday babe? I have your name and number at the top of my "need to see" list but no scheduled date as yet. I could see you on the 13th Feb as that is when I am next available? xxx

My reply to her on 27/01/2015 14:15:54  Hi Katie you sent me a message on the 31/12 asking if the date and time were ok, not a problem, can you make the 13th as early as possible please.
Read on 27/01/2015 15:31:36

To which I've not had a reply and I don't want really want one now.
So she says she hasn't scheduled you, and offers to re-schedule you asap.

What did I miss?
« Last Edit: January 31, 2015, 03:06:53 PM by Quesadilla »
Banning reason: Obnoxious and arrogant + Veiled threat of outing punter on UKE

Offline StPunt

you missed the punter eagerly looking forward to a january 29th meeting and then the wg totally forgetting about it and letting him down.

....thats what you missed  :hi:

no lying went on though i agree there.

Offline Quesadilla

you missed the punter eagerly looking forward to a january 29th meeting and then the wg totally forgetting about it and letting him down.

....thats what you missed  :hi:

no lying went on though i agree there.
Ah, ok - that I can totally relate to.  Can't have been that eagerly looking forward to it though as he then seems to reject the proffered alternative date.  :unknown:
Banning reason: Obnoxious and arrogant + Veiled threat of outing punter on UKE

Offline Little Katie

  • Banned
  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 74
I think it's safe to say neither BRISTOLBCFC or myself are remotely interested in any further communications. Juliet has apologised for the mix up and moved on and would reccommend Romeo do the same. Next chapter..  :rose:
Banning reason: Misuse of pm facility

Offline StPunt


I think it's safe to say neither BRISTOLBCFC or myself are remotely interested in any further communications. Juliet has apologised for the mix up and moved on and would reccommend Romeo do the same. Next chapter..  :rose:

Hang on.... who are these other two characters?  The plot thickens...a real tragedy if you ask me.. :hi:

I think it's safe to say neither BRISTOLBCFC or myself are remotely interested in any further communications. Juliet has apologised for the mix up and moved on and would reccommend Romeo do the same. Next chapter..  :rose:

I agree  :thumbsdown:
Lads, I think this subject has been done to death.
I think I was accused of being old, fluffy or both, actually I am now just BORED. Please can we MOVE ON?!

Offline sam55

I think it's safe to say neither BRISTOLBCFC or myself are remotely interested in any further communications. Juliet has apologised for the mix up and moved on and would reccommend Romeo do the same. Next chapter..  :rose:

Like it.

So Katie, when would it be convenient for me to come and see you to chat about this?  :P


Offline Roth

Back from pub. Sitting comfy. Just opened a can of lager and a bag of crisps again and settling in for the action. :D

Have I missed anything?  :unknown:

Offline Ben4454

Bristol contacted Katie for booking

Katie responds on 31/12/2014 suggesting 29th Jan at 2pm.

Bristol responds 12 hours later with the confirmation of the date and time and his phone number and that he was looking forward to it. At this point the booking is confirmed. Bristol was not asked to put an Adultwork booking request and to put it bluntly the ball was in her court.

Katie reads this confirmation E-mail on the 11/01/15 two weeks later and does not reply – she said here she asks people to send her an adult work request upon confirming but this time did not? To be honest there is no ‘out of context or misinterpretation’ because Katie had him on her to see list.

Having read this E-mail one can assume she has already slotted it into her diary and all is well..the fact she is trying to say she didn't read it or didn't acknowledge it is dishonest to me. We went from did not receive to might have received to reading between the lines: probably forgot. The fact it was 6AM or half-asleep doesn’t matter (and these are just assumptions from fluffies)

I know if I was running a business and saw this confirmation E-mail I would personally respond and slot it in my diary right there and then as common courtesy so I did not forget - Unless I did not take the booking seriously enough. She told us she slots it into her diary once confirmed but on this occasion did not... and instead put him on her ‘need to see’ list instead of her booking list – yet here in front of all of us said she received no confirmation from him whatsoever despite reading it.

On 26/01/2014 Bristol E-mails her asking her if they are still on for Thursday as she did not phone him despite reading his E-mail. Katie responds one day later saying she had him shortlisted but no scheduled booking?  Tell me – she read his confirmation E-mail yet is telling him they had no scheduled booking.  The fact she is offering him a date nearly a month later is irrelevant as I am sure Bristol re-arranged his schedule and yes Katie - sometimes time and money comes into arranging a punt.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2015, 12:26:47 AM by Ben4454 »
Banning reason: Ignored admin warning after temporary banning and signed up to malicious troll anti-UKP site

Offline Ben4454

Personally I would have been annoyed that Katie put me on her ‘need to see list’ instead of her confirmed booking list despite her reading his confirmation but Bristol responded to her E-mail on the 27/01/15 – saying he could see her on the 14th FEB but did not receive a reply from her. Would she have replied if he did not submit a review?

The fact of the matter is there was more than a communication error which took place. The booking was confirmed and Katie read the E-mail. Bristol E-mailed again to see if they were still on and Katie denied any booking took place. She then denied he was in her diary yet he was placed in her ‘need to see’ list.

The responses to a popular working girls negative is astounding, punters sticking up for the working girl who clearly did read the confirmation yet denied it on here. No communication error took place – only Katie disregarding the booking completely. Whether intentional or unintentional – the booking was confirmed and a well deserved negative was left.

Just to add - I thought working girls were not allowed to respond to their feedback?


« Last Edit: February 01, 2015, 12:23:03 AM by Ben4454 »
Banning reason: Ignored admin warning after temporary banning and signed up to malicious troll anti-UKP site

Offline Salt

Ben I remember Katie advertising a cancellation list; punters were asked to email with a phone number if they would like to be on this list (I'm sure there are other members who can confirm this).


My reply  to her on 31/12/2014 18:54:58    
Hi Katie that sounds fine my number is 07********, looking forward to it!!
Read on 11/01/2015 06:06:10


So having not looked at her AW emails for 11 days it's possible Katie thought the above email, without any context, was for said list hence his number being on her 'need to see list'


The fact of the matter is there was more than a communication error which took place. The booking was confirmed and Katie read the E-mail. Bristol E-mailed again to see if they were still on and Katie denied any booking took place. She then denied he was in her diary yet he was placed in her ‘need to see’ list.


What doesn't make sense is your assertion that the booking was confirmed from Katie's end.

If it was then he would have been in her diary to see and I guess he would have seen her...

It doesn't make sense that she would deny the existence of the booking.

Having seen Katie on numerous occasions I have had some appointments rescheduled (with reasonable notice)

If there was a problem it makes sense that she would just rescheduled his booking.

I doubt you will find any other members have missed an appointment with Katie because she denied the existence of the booking!

Therefore its clear to me that it was a genuine mistake on her part!

Which she has apologised for....

Katie has always struck me as being extremely down to earth, honest and conscientious so I find it hard to believe she would knowingly or maliciously mess someone around.

I'm sure there are other members who would agree with my assessment of her character.

 :hi:






Banning reason: Prossie fanboy

Offline Salt

Just to add - I thought working girls were not allowed to respond to their feedback?



UKPunting Site Rules - Service Providers

This site allows service providers to be members, but there is zero tolerance for touting, flirting, attention-seeking and negative attitude towards punters. Service providers must respect the ethos of the site. This site is not a chat platform between clients and service providers. All service providers / non-punters must reveal their working identities - no 'anonymous WGs'.



Guess you thought wrong...  :hi:



Banning reason: Prossie fanboy

Offline Roth



UKPunting Site Rules - Service Providers

This site allows service providers to be members, but there is zero tolerance for touting, flirting, attention-seeking and negative attitude towards punters. Service providers must respect the ethos of the site. This site is not a chat platform between clients and service providers. All service providers / non-punters must reveal their working identities - no 'anonymous WGs'.



Guess you thought wrong...  :hi:

Those that she has seen stick up for her.  :rose:

Those she has let down don't.   :wackogirl:

Not a surprise is it and that's why she's got different reviews. Fair enough.  :thumbsup:

Also looks like she IS attention seeking which is against the rules.  :thumbsdown:

Online James999

Those that she has seen stick up for her.  :rose:

Those she has let down don't.   :wackogirl:

Not a surprise is it and that's why she's got different reviews. Fair enough.  :thumbsup:

Also looks like she IS attention seeking which is against the rules.  :thumbsdown:

When did you become a moderator?

Offline Roth

When did you become a moderator?

I'm not a moderator.  I said LOOKS LIKE not IS which is only my opinion.  Sorry if you don't like it.

Online James999

I'm not a moderator.  I said LOOKS LIKE not IS which is only my opinion.  Sorry if you don't like it.

Don't like it?

You give yoru self far to much importance, just sounded like a whinge about the rules to me if you're not a moderator, but thanks for trying  :dash:

Offline Roth

Don't like it?

You give yoru self far to much importance, just sounded like a whinge about the rules to me if you're not a moderator, but thanks for trying  :dash:

Not Im not as important as you. Just commenting on Salts statement of the rules and offering my opinion.  Thought that was what part of UKP was about? Or am I wrong?

Ben I remember Katie advertising a cancellation list; punters were asked to email with a phone number if they would like to be on this list (I'm sure there are other members who can confirm this).

 

So having not looked at her AW emails for 11 days it's possible Katie thought the above email, without any context, was for said list hence his number being on her 'need to see list'



What doesn't make sense is your assertion that the booking was confirmed from Katie's end.

If it was then he would have been in her diary to see and I guess he would have seen her...

It doesn't make sense that she would deny the existence of the booking.

Having seen Katie on numerous occasions I have had some appointments rescheduled (with reasonable notice)

If there was a problem it makes sense that she would just rescheduled his booking.

I doubt you will find any other members have missed an appointment with Katie because she denied the existence of the booking!

Therefore its clear to me that it was a genuine mistake on her part!

Which she has apologised for....

Katie has always struck me as being extremely down to earth, honest and conscientious so I find it hard to believe she would knowingly or maliciously mess someone around.

I'm sure there are other members who would agree with my assessment of her character.

 :hi:

I'd agree with that.

The forum is a useful medium for discussing some of the frustrating stuff that happens in this hobby, but I for one, as others, can often tell if someone is genuine or not. 

Ben4454 Has said all that needs to be said, the girl was 100% in the wrong and did indeed fuck a punter about!

Offline Quesadilla

This thread is just flogging a dead horse. 

....at the end of the day it's just a negative review about a comms malfunction - most punters who wish to see Katie already know she's bogged down with messages and has had comms issues due to SirFrank's negative review about her comms.  Those punters for whom good comms are a must will know to look elsewhere and will be doing her a favour as it will give her inbox a rest.

Those who are still sold on her 7 glowing positive reviews - or who have already seen her and are keen to see her again - will persevere regardless and probably have a slightly easier time booking her as a result.  All reviews help paint a picture and help punters make their own minds up.  It's a win-win. :hi:

No value whatsoever in a head-to-head between those who did not get to see Katie because they couldn't tolerate her bad comms, and the "fluffy brigade" ie those who have actually seen her and probably found - like me - that her comms were not just adequate but excellent. We will just have to agree to differ and other punters as always can make their own minds up whether they are prepared to stand for inconsistent comms.

As always - YMMV! It's a punt, not a guarantee.   If you don't like the way she operates you know what to do - plenty of fish in the sea.

I think we're all pretty sure the horse is dead, but by all means flog it some more if it makes you feel better.
Banning reason: Obnoxious and arrogant + Veiled threat of outing punter on UKE

Offline Salt

Ben4454 Has said all that needs to be said, the girl was 100% in the wrong and did indeed fuck a punter about!

Her mistake is not in question starman; its ben's assertion that it was done maliciously that I am questioning! :hi:
Banning reason: Prossie fanboy

Online James999

Her mistake is not in question starman;

Her mistake was wasting time on this guy, she should have just blocked him on AW  :music:




Latest videos on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

Latest images on UKEscorting.com (free site!)