Popular media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

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


Author Topic: T'other side....chicken and egg  (Read 18310 times)

Offline MidlandsMaidens

(From Glasgow Girl) No I'd say a Timewaster is

a) someone who calls not to enquire about a possible booking, but with NO INTENTION of ever making a booking


How do you know their intention? Some of us like to call to check out the girl on the phone first. Get an idea about her from her voice and manner. Might look like the most accommodating babe ever on her profile, but if there's something in the tone of her voice in a 30- to 60-second conversation I don't like, then I don't take it any further.

I don't get all this 'timewaster' schtick that gets chucked out by WGs. An hour of my time and 150 quid is as important to me as it is to them. I'm not going to spend it any less wisely than they would on a pair of shoes or something.

The initial phone call is of paramount importance.

Re GGs comment - hey I've phoned many shops with no intention of buying their washing machines unless they can convince me of their manner, service and professionalism. A good colourful and sincere sales technique rather than a boring monotone one is a prerequisite to sell your services even over those competitors that may be charging a lower price.

Re KNs comment - spot on. If you're investing a three figure sum then you need to be sure that your requirements will be met. This is not 'timewasting', its basic economics. It's also an essential first point of contact between client and WG as if the phone manner is poor in the eyes of the client, then its a fair bet that the appointment will be poor too.

Offline 1234

No I'd say a Timewaster is

a) someone who calls not to enquire about a possible booking, but with NO INTENTION of ever making a booking

b) or worse, someone who books and doesn't turn up with no cancellation

This is nonsense.

Anyone can make an enquiry, and I have many-a-time not booked after talking to a WG/agency/maid on the phone.

Ones to avoid are

1. They sound like they've smoked 10000 cigarettes in the last 10 minutes.
2. WGs who give out crappy signals like 'well I kiss, but only a little' (translation = stay the fuck away from me you punter scum)
3. We can negotiate for extras (after stating her services were all inclusive).

As for being pissed off with punters after some one doesn't show, that is not the correct attitude to have as it's part of the business you're in.

If I tuned up and the WG was in a mood because of what some other punter has done, I'd be outta there pronto.

And I would not be back.

I pay good money and I want a very special service for that, if a WG is not prepared to give that, state so and I'll stay away.

Most WGs/agencies lie anyway. They still see us if they have a bit of a cold (I've had a fuck load of escorts turn up at my door in the last month who have a cold)

The excuse then comes 'Oh I can't kiss, don't want you to catch anything'.

I sent the last lady packing, unpaid, and rang the agency (who I've used alot) not to send me ladies who cannot give me the requested service - I'm sick of it.



Offline Karin

How do you know their intention? Some of us like to call to check out the girl on the phone first. Get an idea about her from her voice and manner. Might look like the most accommodating babe ever on her profile, but if there's something in the tone of her voice in a 30- to 60-second conversation I don't like, then I don't take it any further.

I don't get all this 'timewaster' schtick that gets chucked out by WGs. An hour of my time and 150 quid is as important to me as it is to them. I'm not going to spend it any less wisely than they would on a pair of shoes or something.

Agree absolutely - you have every right to phone round and suss out where your hard earned is best spent.  BUT I figure GG is referring to those who ring again and again ad nauseum.......you recognise the number, you recognise the voice, they ask the very same questions yet they never actually book.  OK, a guy may well make a mistake and not realise he's rung you before, but in these instances it happens too often to be explained away so simply.

As for the assumption I had nothing better to do - I had loads to do.  It also takes only a moment to send a text.  I know a few other local ladies who are friends; we tip each other off about no-shows and clients who are potentially dangerous etc.  All I did was forward the number and receive a reply that he had also contacted her.  It's not rocket science.

As for bumping a client if I get a better offer - a big no no.  It's first come, first served in my book.  I can also honestly say I have once double booked - it was when I was still advertising in the local rag and the number of no-shows was sky high.  But it felt so horrible that I'd never do it again.

I suppose I was saying that whilst there are those (on both sides) that will always behave honourably, there are those that may be tempted to adopt dodgy practices due to the behaviour of the other parties involved.

Online James999

they ask the very same questions

Why not just tell them to Fuck off and hang up on them then  :dash:

Online James999

we tip each other off about no-shows and clients who are potentially dangerous

But he hadn't "No showed" and you had seen him before, and if you thought he was dangerous why accept his booking?

So why contact the others, unless it to tell them you actually had a booking?

Offline Karin

But he hadn't "No showed" and you had seen him before, and if you thought he was dangerous why accept his booking?

So why contact the others, unless it to tell them you actually had a booking?

When you can't construe the meaning of your native language, it's time to go back to school - unless you're already there James?  (Where's the 'yawn' smilie when you need it?)

Online James999

So you like to rant on the forum about imaginary no shows etc, but you don't like the details discussed, you would rather just throw insults, and I can imagine everyone appearing young to you  :sarcastic:

No wonder you were his "last resort"  :dash:

Offline softlad

NOW I know he contacted the lady I share with at 12.15 making enquiries;

First point, timewasters 'whatever side' are pathetic.

Second point, you say 'the lady you share with'.....
You do realise that is illegal Karin ?

I know of a couple of 'indies' who "shared" in Leeds, they got raided and are now getting done for running a brothel and money laundering.
They were under the misguided impression that because they weren't there together, or didn't work at the same time they were ok.....
Wrong!

Online James999

Second point, you say 'the lady you share with'.....
You do realise that is illegal Karin ?

She clearly has no regard for the law as it also sounds like she is in breach of the  DPA  :dash:

Offline Aitch1944

When you can't construe the meaning of your native language, it's time to go back to school - unless you're already there James?  (Where's the 'yawn' smilie when you need it?)

Hi Karin,
It annoys me too, when people use bad grammar,  :thumbsdown:
Hope your problems are now "sorted".   :thumbsup:
Kisses.  :cool:   :drinks:

Offline 1234

She clearly has no regard for the law as it also sounds like she is in breach of the  DPA  :dash:

So, what you are saying that a punter who goes and see Karin can actually get raided, mid punt, as she is running, technically, a brothel.  :dash:  :dash: :dash: :dash:

And a criminal record.  :mad: :mad:

Fook me! Surely punters pay the higher prices for a more secure service as part of the deal. DISCRETION IS ASSURED*.




*exclusions apply (loads of them, like EVERYTHING)
 :dash: :dash: :dash:

How many of her friends do the same?

As for forwarding a punters number to her mates....that is not on. What else do they share about us? The colour of our hair, our car reg numbers?

Fucking hell!!! This guy was only a no-show, he wasn't a fucking terrorist!!  :dash:

Fucking hell, these women are right sneaky, con-artists wanting easy fucking money, disrespecting punters privacy and then come here complaining...and I actually fell for it.

 :dash: :dash: :dash: :dash: :dash:

What a bint!

Offline smiths

So, what you are saying that a punter who goes and see Karin can actually get raided, mid punt, as she is running, technically, a brothel.  :dash:  :dash: :dash: :dash:

And a criminal record.  :mad: :mad:

Fook me! Surely punters pay the higher prices for a more secure service as part of the deal. DISCRETION IS ASSURED*.




*exclusions apply (loads of them, like EVERYTHING)
 :dash: :dash: :dash:

How many of her friends do the same?

As for forwarding a punters number to her mates....that is not on. What else do they share about us? The colour of our hair, our car reg numbers?

Fucking hell!!! This guy was only a no-show, he wasn't a fucking terrorist!!  :dash:

Fucking hell, these women are right sneaky, con-artists wanting easy fucking money, disrespecting punters privacy and then come here complaining...and I actually fell for it.

 :dash: :dash: :dash: :dash: :dash:

What a bint!

No that is not correct. Unless Karin has been trafficked or is being coerced the punter cant get done for punting with her but if the place got raided would obviously get caught up in it. This of course applies to any brothel be it a Parlour, Party or working flat which it sounds like Karin works out of. All brothels are wholly illegal but tolerated in some areas and its Karin that could get done for running one.

IMO brothels should be legal as this would help both WGs and punters, no chance of punting with trafficked or in theory coerced WGs so the punter cant get done and safer for WGs. However i very much doubt such a law will be passed, in fact if anything more harsh laws are more likely than more liberal ones in my view.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2011, 11:01:32 AM by smiths »

Online James999

So, what you are saying that a punter who goes and see Karin can actually get raided, mid punt, as she is running, technically, a brothel.  :
And a criminal record. 

No

Offline softlad

All brothels are wholly illegal but tolerated in some areas and its Karin that could get done for running one.

Even previously tolerated area's seem to have a crack down every now and then.
There's hundreds operating in Leeds, it's not like the Police are on a major crack down operation.
I think this 'tolerance' leads the women into a false sense of security.

Offline smiths

Even previously tolerated area's seem to have a crack down every now and then.
There's hundreds operating in Leeds, it's not like the Police are on a major crack down operation.
I think this 'tolerance' leads the women into a false sense of security.

Apart from with MK or SS in Manchester by the look of things who seem untouchable, i wonder why that is. ;) The police know where these brothels are of course, its not rocket science to them so its cheap to keep an eye on them using intelligence and surfing the net. Knowing they can raid at a time that suits them and with the possibility of actually making a direct profit through POCA by raiding once the brothel has made a few quid is ideal for the police. Its just weird to me that the big brothels never seem to get raided and closed down often, again i wonder why that is. If you take Sandys Superstars that must make a shedload of cash every day its open AND has a residents group with a political activist (a right knobhead :scare:) demanding in writing to the police that they shut it down but the GMP seems to be ignoring that yet its often said on here and auto-censored that if neighbours complain about a brothel the police have to act. It seems they dont in some cases, yet legally they should be upholding the law and investigate lawbreaking, in  fact by not doing so but knowing about lawbreaking they are wilfully not doing their job as i see it. I am amazed the femi-nazis/antis dont stick their snouts in this when it happens canvassing the local MP and demanding action, proves they arent that smart or organised fortunately. POCA just adds a big reason to allow brothels to operate make some money then raid and close down and bingo, money awarded to that police force. So the police actually have a financial incentive to allow brothels to operate at least till they decide to raid. You couldnt make it up Softlad. :D :D ;)
« Last Edit: November 15, 2011, 12:19:26 PM by smiths »

Online James999

Very hard to prove the landlord is living off immoral earnings

Not relevant, the "living off immoral earnings" is no longer on the statute books as a crime.

There is something in the leasehold legislation relating to a brothel that would catch them, and ignorance is no excuse in law.

Offline finn5555

Not relevant, the "living off immoral earnings" is no longer on the statute books as a crime.

There is something in the leasehold legislation relating to a brothel that would catch them, and ignorance is no excuse in law.

James are you quite sure?  :dash:

Online James999

As per auto-censored thread that covered the subject I quote silverado

Section 36 Sexual Offences Act 1956 (Tenant permitting premises to be used for prostitution).

"It is an offence for the tenant or occupier of any premises knowingly to permit the whole or part of the premises to be used for the purposes of habitual prostitution."

From what you say there would be no element of "control" so this wouldn't come within section 53 SOA 2003 (controlling prostitution for gain).

Not that it's relevant here, but the word "gain" is given a wide meaning and includes "the provision of....services (including sexual services) gratuitously or at a discount" (s.54 SOA 2003).

The old offence of a man living on the earnings of prostitution (s.30 SOA 1956) was repealed by the 2003 Act.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2011, 12:39:47 PM by James999 »

Offline softlad

You couldnt make it up Softlad. :D :D ;)

Too true mate.  ;)

Anyway where's Karin fucked off to ?  :D


Offline finn5555

As per auto-censored thread that covered the subject I quote silverado

Section 36 Sexual Offences Act 1956 (Tenant permitting premises to be used for prostitution).

"It is an offence for the tenant or occupier of any premises knowingly to permit the whole or part of the premises to be used for the purposes of habitual prostitution."

James
My post related to the landlord knowingly renting the property to a prossie, like i said hard to prove.

And law is not defunct just amended  ;)


Online James999

Too true mate.  ;)

Anyway where's Karin fucked off to ?  :D


Perhaps she got a booking  :dance:

Offline GlasgowGirl

  • Banned
  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 624
How do you know their intention? Some of us like to call to check out the girl on the phone first. Get an idea about her from her voice and manner. Might look like the most accommodating babe ever on her profile, but if there's something in the tone of her voice in a 30- to 60-second conversation I don't like, then I don't take it any further.

I don't get all this 'timewaster' schtick that gets chucked out by WGs. An hour of my time and 150 quid is as important to me as it is to them. I'm not going to spend it any less wisely than they would on a pair of shoes or something.


I will refer you to Smith's example - I think its when a guy is going on about what the WG is wearing now, what colour knickers if any and continuing in this vein for a while that alarm bells should kick in to say he is getting his rocks off. These guys are taking the cheap option over ringing a sex chat line - this is what I'd term a TRUE TIMEWASTER. I actually agree with you that just calling for a short chat to confirm services etc as you are thinking of making a booking in future is NOT a timewaster. This is what I said - "With no intention of EVER booking" - that's a timewaster. I'd also include guys who have phoned before asking about (for example) prices. they are told the prices and they then go "too much" and end the call. Then phone back every day for a week hoping to get quoted a lower price! I'd say that is also TW behaviour when I've already answered their query.

But no, just calling to confirm things thinking about booking is not timewaster territory. It's like if I phone a local hair place to enquire about a cut and highlights. I don't have the deliberate intention of just wasting their time and never making an appointment. I may call to find out certain things, like how long an offer will be running for or hair-related questions. That's the difference - the intention to waste someone's time like a prank caller / free sex chat or "date" seeker or such.


Offline 1234

No that is not correct. Unless Karin has been trafficked or is being coerced the punter cant get done for punting with her but if the place got raided would obviously get caught up in it.

Fucking genius!

 :dash: :dash: :dash: :dash: :dash: :dash: :dash: :dash: :dash:

Offline 1234

But no, just calling to confirm things thinking about booking is not timewaster territory. It's like if I phone a local hair place to enquire about a cut and highlights. I don't have the deliberate intention of just wasting their time and never making an appointment. I may call to find out certain things, like how long an offer will be running for or hair-related questions. That's the difference - the intention to waste someone's time like a prank caller / free sex chat or "date" seeker or such.

Erm, you mean, like, erm, having a wank, then calling a known WG just before cummin  :D

If we all did that, who'd need to pay for anything?

Tony Montana

She clearly has no regard for the law as it also sounds like she is in breach of the  DPA  :dash:

DPA is totally irrelevant to a number held on a mobile phone.


Latest videos on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

Latest images on UKEscorting.com (free site!)