Popular media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

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


Author Topic: How explicit should we be in FR?  (Read 8843 times)

Curious6705

So a couple of days ago I posted a negative review. I was more explicit than I would usually be. The meet was fresh in my mind, and I wanted to get over how and why I was disappointed without being unfair to the SP. Sticking to the raw unadorned facts seemed the best way to do that. And anyway the mechanics of sex are the same for everyone and very well known to UKP members.

There was a Twitter incident re the Olympics, and the point was made that posting to a publically accessible medium is a broadcast, and any obscene communication is illegal. This has got me thinking, that I should have been more careful in my FR - I could probably have got over the same information with a different use of language and readers knowledgeable about punting would have known what I was trying to say by reading between the lines.

What do you think?

Offline whatever

When i leave a FR or any feecback, i never go into too much detail, why? becuase thats for me and the lady, it was "our" time and our time only, i dont want to share the information what i experienced between closed doors

Offline AnthG

There was a Twitter incident re the Olympics, and the point was made that posting to a publically accessible medium is a broadcast, and any obscene communication is illegal.

What he was arrested was with the malicious communications act. Not obscenity. And you have misunderstood the basis of that charge.

Quote
(1)Any person who sends to another person— (a)a letter, electronic communication or article of any description] which conveys—

(i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii)a threat; or
(iii)information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or

(b)any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,
is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.

Online Jimmyredcab

When i leave a FR or any feecback, i never go into too much detail, why? becuase thats for me and the lady, it was "our" time and our time only, i dont want to share the information what i experienced between closed doors

So are you a fluffy ----------------- or a pro$$ie posing as a punter.    :rolleyes:

Offline softlad

When i leave a FR or any feecback, i never go into too much detail, why? becuase thats for me and the lady, it was "our" time and our time only, i dont want to share the information what i experienced between closed doors

What if "the lady" gave you a below expected level of service, would you keep that between the two of you ?

Offline AnthG

When i leave a FR or any feecback, i never go into too much detail, why? becuase thats for me and the lady, it was "our" time and our time only, i dont want to share the information what i experienced between closed doors
Then what is the point of the report?

Do you know what the definition is of a Report - you know in the phrase "Field Report" .

Quote
A report is a textual work (usually of writing, speech, television, or film) made with the specific intention of relaying information or recounting certain events in a widely presentable form.

Offline whatever

So are you a fluffy ----------------- or a pro$$ie posing as a punter.    :rolleyes:

eh ?

im a normal punter, and i just dont go into explicit detail , no need

Offline AnthG

eh ?

im a normal punter, and i just dont go into explicit detail , no need
A fluffy is a type of punter.

But you do need to go into explicit detail. As how is the next guy to know what to expect. That is what was the whole point of a field report. Not to say, the girl is lovely. That is the point of a Review. Which you get that one sentence to do on Adultwork.

The report is there to describe the punt. It even says as a guide on auto-censored and Adultwork words to the effect of "describe the services you received"

Curious6705

What he was arrested was with the malicious communications act. Not obscenity. And you have misunderstood the basis of that charge.

In this instance - but is not the law as written wider than that?

"Under the Communications Act it is an offence if someone "sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character"

http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2012/july/twitter-messages-within-scope-of-uk-communications-laws-high-court-rules/

So, in this case messages with a "menacing character" were sent, but what about "indecent, obscene"?

I also read Joshua Rozenberg writing for the Guardian

"Twitter has given everyone in the world instant access to a public forum. Until recently, most people were constrained by the traditional gatekeepers to this forum: journalists, broadcasters and publishers. If everyone is now to have a shout, a lot of people will have to learn rather quickly what they can and cannot say."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jul/31/tom-daley-twitter-abuse-law?newsfeed=true

Offline Ali Katt

I think an example of something written for internet being obscene would be the fictional story "girls scream aloud" - it's not worth reading to be honest.

The news story is here:
http://tinyurl.com/cc2puwx

I doubt anyone would be prosecuted for publishing a FR. I write an explicit field report, simply because I've got a dirty mouth and details such as: if the girl swallows, if she puts her knees in the way, if her tits are fake, if she can genuinely deep throat, if she goes all the way down in cowgirl are all useful details.

A punter saying "lets just say what took place was private, I had a great time, treat her with respect she deserves it, she's a gem, thanks Kimmy see you soon xxxx"
Is as much use as a marzipan dildo and I presume such reports are written by an agency or the escort herself unless proven otherwise.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2012, 12:55:04 PM by Ali Katt »

so do twitterers copy stuff from here into their twitters?

Offline philboi

A fluffy is a type of punter.

But you do need to go into explicit detail. As how is the next guy to know what to expect. That is what was the whole point of a field report. Not to say, the girl is lovely. That is the point of a Review. Which you get that one sentence to do on Adultwork.

The report is there to describe the punt. It even says as a guide on auto-censored and Adultwork words to the effect of "describe the services you received"

Some truth in what you say....

However I don't always go into detail in every field report, it depends on the girl I've seen...tbh you need to read between the lines and take an overall view about the girl and the client, how many times has the client seen her, etc etc..

A field report can still "describe the services you received" without going into graphic details lol... :sarcastic:

Offline philboi

A punter saying "lets just say what took place was private, I had a great time, treat her with respect she deserves it, she's a gem, thanks Kimmy see you soon xxxx"
Is as much use as a marzipan dildo and I presume such reports are written by an agency or the escort herself unless proven otherwise.

Hey man, you've been reading my FR's.....hahaha, and btw her name wasn't Kimmy  :lol:

Online Jimmyredcab

so do twitterers copy stuff from here into their twitters?

Possibly, I don't read Twitter, it is full of total bollocks and false ID's.

There is a Jimmyredcab on there but I strongly suspect it is a bored prostitute with mental health problems.

Offline smiths

So a couple of days ago I posted a negative review. I was more explicit than I would usually be. The meet was fresh in my mind, and I wanted to get over how and why I was disappointed without being unfair to the SP. Sticking to the raw unadorned facts seemed the best way to do that. And anyway the mechanics of sex are the same for everyone and very well known to UKP members.

There was a Twitter incident re the Olympics, and the point was made that posting to a publically accessible medium is a broadcast, and any obscene communication is illegal. This has got me thinking, that I should have been more careful in my FR - I could probably have got over the same information with a different use of language and readers knowledgeable about punting would have known what I was trying to say by reading between the lines.

What do you think?

As long as true as explicit as the punter wishes, although i dont require a FR to be explicit myself, i just want to see factual information like was the WG like her pictures, did she offer the services advertised, at the price advertised without asking for extras and what was the premises like ideally.

I have no idea of the legalities on this, but certainly if the FR is a positive the WG is likely to be happy about it. If its a negative then she wont be but i would see this as down to the punting site to check the legalities out and if told its obscene delete that facility which would be a great shame, but better than risk punters getting nicked. However, i really cant see this being the scenario, over to our legal eagles though who might know.

And does this extend to forums as well.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2012, 01:21:45 PM by smiths »

Offline Ali Katt

Whether something is obscene it is down for courts to decide. In most cases most things won't be considered obscene as it is down to opinion and the OPS dates from 1959 I think, so is archaic. To reiterate I think no body has anything to worry about when writing a FR, as long as it doesn't reference illegal activity and why would it?

It's down to the reader and punter to decide if the report is useful. I have a writing style that works for me.

Online Jimmyredcab



I have no idea of the legalities on this, but certainly if the FR is a positive the WG is likely to be happy about it. If its a negative then she wont be but i would see this as down to the punting site to check the legalities out and if told its obscene delete that facility which would be a great shame, but better than risk punters getting nicked. However, i really cant see this being the scenario, over to our legal eagles though who might know.

And does this extend to forums as well.

I can't see any legal implications in giving a negative report, if that were a problem then surely theatre and restaurant critics would forever be in court.
Could a woman who accepts cash for sex really sue for a report being "obscene".  :unknown:

Offline Ali Katt

I can't see any legal implications in giving a negative report, if that were a problem then surely theatre and restaurant critics would forever be in court.
Could a woman who accepts cash for sex really sue for a report being "obscene".  :unknown:
To jump on my soapbox, I hope I answer the question:

Obscenity is subjective. Some people may have thought the film 9 Songs is obscene, some may think the books by Belle du Jour are obscene. If something is reported to the DPP and in the case of 'girls scream aloud' the IWF (internet watch foundation), a landmark court case followed. I think in the 21st century very little has been found as obscene.

Considering the cost and time and publicity a court case generates most people will not bother.

With regards Twitter I am not an expert, but the internet has gained popularity over the last few years with broadband, if anyone has used an old dial up modem they will tell you how slow it was at downloading\uploading pictures, videos, music etc (it took around 20 minutes to download 5MB). 
Now the government realise like videotape in the 70s\80s the internet is not going away so they are looking to control it and Twitter, Facebook etc are all viable targets as they are used by billions of people and they have had some success with prosecutions (mainly for libel - the super injunctions etc). In the future copyright and pornography will be tested - there was an opt bill which so far hasn't passed to my knowledge - where the users signs up for pornography otherwise it is automatically filtered by ISPs.

So simply the government want to be seen swinging their "obscenely" small dicks around, because they are dealing with something they can't control. The DMCA is an American example where Bush Jr did some corporate lobbying (illegal in the UK if you are an MP, but Cameron did it with the Fox network), where he took a "kickback" to draw up a draft (or should that be daft) legislation - you'll see more of this in the future.

Offline smiths

I can't see any legal implications in giving a negative report, if that were a problem then surely theatre and restaurant critics would forever be in court.
Could a woman who accepts cash for sex really sue for a report being "obscene".  :unknown:

Perhaps you are right but nevertheless i would value Silverados views on this as i know he has good legal knowledge, and what he thinks the future might hold as regards to this subject.

Now Twitter is being taken on as it were in a few cases, could this be the start of a real push to legislate against what people post on such sites and perhaps all sites. After all we live in a country where the state wants more and more control over us.;)

I write an explicit field report, simply because I've got a dirty mouth and details such as: if the girl swallows, if she puts her knees in the way, if her tits are fake, if she can genuinely deep throat, if she goes all the way down in cowgirl are all useful details.

A punter saying "lets just say what took place was private, I had a great time, treat her with respect she deserves it, she's a gem, thanks Kimmy see you soon xxxx"
Is as much use as a marzipan dildo and I presume such reports are written by an agency or the escort herself unless proven otherwise.

+1 anything less really isn't worth the bother as it will be useless to anyone except those wanting to go on a "date"  :vomit: and they are in the vast minority.

Offline Ali Katt

Perhaps you are right but nevertheless i would value Silverados views on this as i know he has good legal knowledge, and what he thinks the future might hold as regards to this subject.

Now Twitter is being taken on as it were in a few cases, could this be the start of a real push to legislate against what people post on such sites and perhaps all sites. After all we live in a country where the state wants more and more control over us.;)
A woman would more likely prosecute for a report being libelous\scandalous and she would have more chance of it holding up or going to court. If the report said "she worked in a dirty shit-hole of a flat, with a kid screaming in the background and gave a poor blowie and refused sex as I was too big, despite being 5.5 inches and her pussy stunk like the hands of a Grimsby dock worker" Would she want that going to court? It would be laughed out.

A group such as AW are more likely to be prosecuted for obscenity as they are a large organization.

To reiterate it is for judge\court\government to decide what is obscene, not an individual.

dates from 1959 I think, so is  archaic..............are you looking for a knuckle sandwich? I predate that slightly and do not class myself as an antique!

Offline AnthG

dates from 1959 I think, so is  archaic..............are you looking for a knuckle sandwich? I predate that slightly and do not class myself as an antique!
Don't mean to be rude. But can someone translate that please? :)

Offline Ali Katt

dates from 1959 I think, so is  archaic..............are you looking for a knuckle sandwich? I predate that slightly and do not class myself as an antique!
:lol: What was obscene in 1959 will not be what is obscene now, in most cases. The film Cannibal Holocaust from 1979, was regularly prosecuted as being obscene, and that was 30+ years ago. So, a law which is 50+ years old should be updated to include new technologies and definitions as to what is obscene and what the word means in context to a relevant modern court case or it should be abolished as it has little relevance on modern society and opinion; it is often an excuse for a load of bigots to be offended by lapdancing or a porn film.

Offline smiths

A woman would more likely prosecute for a report being libelous\scandalous and she would have more chance of it holding up or going to court. If the report said "she worked in a dirty shit-hole of a flat, with a kid screaming in the background and gave a poor blowie and refused sex as I was too big, despite being 5.5 inches and her pussy stunk like the hands of a Grimsby dock worker" Would she want that going to court? It would be laughed out.

A group such as AW are more likely to be prosecuted for obscenity as they are a large organization.

To reiterate it is for judge\court\government to decide what is obscene, not an individual.

I think there are going to be new laws following Leveson eventually and the general feeling government has about the internet, and its abuses as they see them. Time will tell. ;)


Latest media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)