Popular media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

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


Author Topic: Poor  (Read 4162 times)

Offline Jimmyredcab

I think it goes back to what I was saying earlier....................age. You like younger girls I prefer the older ones.

Youngsters will come into this job without thinking things through just as they would any job. The difference with this one is there is no structure that stears them towards stuff like paying taxes.

Yes, I agree, age is a major factor, there is simply no incentive for a young girl to want to get involved with Inland Revenue, one of my regulars gets £600 a month in housing benefit, if she goes legit she will lose that plus end up with an Income tax bill twice a year, far better to keep under the radar in my opinion, I only wish I could avoid the taxman. :(

Offline gari54

That's generally my experience. I mainly punt in residential areas and find that the vast majority are single mothers, living in subsidised council housing. I punt a couple who have regular jobs, but they tend to live in rented accommodation. I have met the odd married woman, but if I know that in advance, I'll avoid. I'm not interested in fucking married women and I don't particularly respect them as people, I'm afraid. Just being honest. I punt a couple of EEs and they tend to keep the costs down by sharing accommodation with friends and/or family. It's no surprise to me that they tend to have children too, but are looked after 'back home'. And I'm not aware of any who live off benefits, as the ones I see have secondary part time jobs. For example, one is a carer and lives with her sister and a couple of friends. And no, the other's aren't prossies!

Most girls I know have some 'man around', but not what they'd consider to be a regulr boyfriend and I always get the feeling that they don't particularly like them very much, but can't bear to be totally alone. Very rarely do I meet a genuinely single girl these days. Based on the after punt chats I've had, I'm of the opinion that most of these women just about 'break even' in terms of money, even though none of them pay tax. The massive sums of money are largely a myth in the areas I punt. As for women who post on here, they're not the norm, as far as I can see. Most of the girls I punt are much younger and haven't been around as long as some of the 20 somethings on here! And they certainly wouldn't have time for forums.

Got to say I have'nt met any in either social housing or that have kids. Both of which would be majorly off putting for me.
As I said before I think the main reason most do it is for sheer convienience. All in all they're only working about 14 hrs a week which would be considered part time and yet they earn a decent amount that allows them to wear nice clothes, drive a nice car and generally live a life of leisure.
For girls brought up seeing WAG's and Jordan as being successful women this is a good career and those girls who work in offices for £8 an hour are the losers.
And yes how can you expect a young woman who earns such fast easy cash to realise they should be being sensible with it.

Offline mattylondon

Got to say I have'nt met any in either social housing or that have kids. Both of which would be majorly off putting for me.
As I said before I think the main reason most do it is for sheer convienience. All in all they're only working about 14 hrs a week which would be considered part time and yet they earn a decent amount that allows them to wear nice clothes, drive a nice car and generally live a life of leisure.
For girls brought up seeing WAG's and Jordan as being successful women this is a good career and those girls who work in offices for £8 an hour are the losers.
And yes how can you expect a young woman who earns such fast easy cash to realise they should be being sensible with it.
Very true, but some would call it idleness. Your point about the WAG culture is also well put. It's this culture of getting something for nothing or very little effort. That is, the unwillingness to graft with a great many people, men and and women. And from their point of view, if they can earn a very high hourly rate tax free, why shouldn't they? The only thing that would ever stop that is HMRC being fully engaged. We then go into the moral arguments again about whether it should all be above board and taxed. I for one would be in favour of that, rather than the Swedish model! As for areas, depends where you choose to punt Gari and which area you're from. You'll find plenty of what I'm talking about in the suburbs of London, or Kent and Surrey. And I dare say in other cities too.


this is why its best to declare things, should she have got a jail sentence ?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/17/kirsty-summers-glamour-model-benefit-fraud-avoid-jail_n_1284507.html

Tricky. She swindled 16,000 quid. Most people would've seen the inside of a cell for that.

But she has 2 very young kids, so one has to ask what would be the outcome of jailing her?

Tricky. She swindled 16,000 quid. Most people would've seen the inside of a cell for that.

But she has 2 very young kids, so one has to ask what would be the outcome of jailing her?

some have been jailed for swinding less it would also act maybe as a deterrent

Offline mattylondon

this is why its best to declare things, should she have got a jail sentence ?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/17/kirsty-summers-glamour-model-benefit-fraud-avoid-jail_n_1284507.html
I recognise that model! Not so great looking in real life and looks way older than 23, in the normal pics. Not so bad with heavy makeup and lighting?! To answer your question, in principle one could argue yes, due to the amount being £16,000, which has effectively been stolen from the tax payer.

However, one would need to know all the facts of the case, rather than relying on the media. We all know that they can twist things. I'm sure that the status of her children would've been a major contributory factor in the judgement to award a non custodial sentence. I'd much rather see dangerous and violent people locked up as a priority and there are perhaps other ways to punish people like this. Any punishment should be proportionate to the amount defrauded, naturally.

Something that prossies should consider the next time they commit benefit fraud.  :hi:
« Last Edit: February 23, 2012, 09:19:01 PM by mattylondon »

Offline Matium

It cannot be right to lock up a young mother away from her two young children.

How does Society benefit if both the 3 year old and the 6 year old are left traumatised?

The correct punishment for the woman would be supervised voluntary work so that she can pay Society back for what she stole.

Offline mattylondon

It cannot be right to lock up a young mother away from her two young children.

How does Society benefit if both the 3 year old and the 6 year old are left traumatised?

The correct punishment for the woman would be supervised voluntary work so that she can pay Society back for what she stole.
:drinks:

Offline Mr XL

It cannot be right to lock up a young mother away from her two young children.

How does Society benefit if both the 3 year old and the 6 year old are left traumatised?

The correct punishment for the woman would be supervised voluntary work so that she can pay Society back for what she stole.

Hmmm.................so all a woman has to do to avoid jail is to have a kid or two. :rolleyes:

Offline jackdaw

It cannot be right to lock up a young mother away from her two young children.

How does Society benefit if both the 3 year old and the 6 year old are left traumatised?

The correct punishment for the woman would be supervised voluntary work so that she can pay Society back for what she stole.

Of course, it can be right for a woman with kids to be imprisoned.

But... in this particular case.... I agree with you that its not the best sentence.... as long as she us willing to do her best to repay the stolen money.

By the way, am i the only one whose emotional reaction is that the false claiming of benefits is actually worse than dodging taxes?? (I say emotional reaction.... because logically I should detest both equally.... because both benefit frauds and tax dodgers cheat society, while expecting "society" to respect them and provide them with endless support whenever they want something.)

Offline Sailormack

Of course, it can be right for a woman with kids to be imprisoned.

But... in this particular case.... I agree with you that its not the best sentence.... as long as she us willing to do her best to repay the stolen money.

By the way, am i the only one whose emotional reaction is that the false claiming of benefits is actually worse than dodging taxes?? (I say emotional reaction.... because logically I should detest both equally.... because both benefit frauds and tax dodgers cheat society, while expecting "society" to respect them and provide them with endless support whenever they want something.)

I think that you would find very few self employed people who declare every penny they earn. One of the reasons for this are the successive feckless governments who piss away your hard earned tax.

I think it is very different thing to committing benefit fraud which is essentially theft.

BTW, I'm not condoning tax evasion but merely pointing out that it might be easier to justify in the head of the tax evader because he/she has earned the money in the first place.  :timeout

Offline Sailormack

It cannot be right to lock up a young mother away from her two young children.

How does Society benefit if both the 3 year old and the 6 year old are left traumatised?

The correct punishment for the woman would be supervised voluntary work so that she can pay Society back for what she stole.

The whole point of a punishment is to prevent a recurrence of the crime by the offender or by potentially new offenders.

If it was well advertised that any benefit fraud would result in a mandatory minimum 18 month jail sentence then that would surely prevent the fraud in the first place.

I suppose it's the age old argument of do you have the stiff penalties as a deterrent or do you only lock up those who are a danger to society? :unknown:

Offline Jimmyredcab

I think that you would find very few self employed people who declare every penny they earn. One of the reasons for this are the successive feckless governments who piss away your hard earned tax.

I think it is very different thing to committing benefit fraud which is essentially theft.

BTW, I'm not condoning tax evasion but merely pointing out that it might be easier to justify in the head of the tax evader because he/she has earned the money in the first place.  :timeout

Every self employed person evades tax if they can, Lester Piggott went to jail for just that ----- for every one who gets caught 1000 will get away with it, simple law of averages, there are not enough tax inspectors to go round.

Offline Jimmyredcab

Hmmm.................so all a woman has to do to avoid jail is to have a kid or two. :rolleyes:

I get your point however the prisons are already overflowing plus it costs a fortune to put two kids into care.

Offline pabulum

I get your point however the prisons are already overflowing plus it costs a fortune to put two kids into care.

And, if Family Courts' work is an indicator, it can cost further fortunes for some time afterwards - possibly for the lifespan of some of those children.

Offline Mr XL

I get your point however the prisons are already overflowing plus it costs a fortune to put two kids into care.

I'm uneasy with the concept of hedging justice with cost.

Take that to the extreme and the person who murders a disabled person who costs the state a lot of money whilst alive wouldn't get punished in the same way as someone who murders an able bodied person.

Offline gari54

You cant have 2 different laws. 1 for people with kids and 1 for people without. Non breeders are already discriminated enough in society.
The other day a judge overuled the succesful human rights appeal of a burglar with a GBH conviction who was about to be freed on the account that he had 4 kids.
If you have kids that should be even more reason to give up a criminal lifestyle as a decent rolemodel.

after watching some of those saint & sinner programs, it was shocking some of the benefit frauds going into the 100s of 1000s & they only got 3-6mth for it, mind u some of the jails have home comforts sky tv, xbox, ps3 for them in their cells so in some respects its not a punishment

You cant have 2 different laws. 1 for people with kids and 1 for people without. Non breeders are already discriminated enough in society.
The other day a judge overuled the succesful human rights appeal of a burglar with a GBH conviction who was about to be freed on the account that he had 4 kids.
If you have kids that should be even more reason to give up a criminal lifestyle as a decent rolemodel.

In principle, I agree with you. But in practice, putting very young kids into care could be massively damaging for them, and could have a serious effect on their lives. Punishment has to take factors like that into consideration.

The whole point of a punishment is to prevent a recurrence of the crime by the offender or by potentially new offenders.

If it was well advertised that any benefit fraud would result in a mandatory minimum 18 month jail sentence then that would surely prevent the fraud in the first place.

I suppose it's the age old argument of do you have the stiff penalties as a deterrent or do you only lock up those who are a danger to society? :unknown:

You'd need to have a threshold though. You couldn't bang someone up for 18 months because they'd swindled £38. So where would you set the line? £1,000? £10,000?


Mandatory sentences are too clumsy an instrument, it should be up to the judge. There is no doubt that sentences for benefit fraud, seem amazingly low, no wonder east europeans ryanair it over here to commit it. This particular woman seems a bit thick, if you are going to steal money, best not to appear on tv.

Offline gari54

In principle, I agree with you. But in practice, putting very young kids into care could be massively damaging for them, and could have a serious effect on their lives. Punishment has to take factors like that into consideration.

Not really, there simply is no way around it. Thats like saying if the parents in a family on benefits spends all their money on drugs and alcohol they should be able to go back to the DHSS and ask for more money for the sake of the kids. There HAS to be one rule for all.
And is'nt having parents who show no regard for right and wrong going to have just as bad an impact on kids in the longterm? Thats just life there are bad parents out there always has been and always will be. Its impossible to protect every kid from negative influences. As you said it could be massivley damaging for them but it also could be benificial for them.


Latest media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)