Popular media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

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




Author Topic: WG asked not to be reviewed on UKP...  (Read 3370 times)

Offline bensonhedges20

Think the guys are talking about a certain French  girl, oh la la


Nah, if it was magalie then no one would care

Yikes, the fluffies will come out for miss alexxxxxxxxx

I can probably guess who it is. Less than a handful.

What i dont get is... Why make a new thread and not name


Your friend will be fine she has probably said it to a few folk.

Average prossie sees 6-8 clients a day x number of days. She will have forgotten whos who by now
Banning reason: Troll

Offline johnjo72

aye, c`mon foxxie who the f..k is it? She will have seen 50 to 100 since then and would probably not recognise your mate at the bus stop and will have said the same shit to all of them. She will be a poster on this site monitoring her own status so  the mere fact that she said this means she should be outed, she can then reply as "whoever" and we can all have  a  laugh at the white knight/her
« Last Edit: April 29, 2016, 11:29:10 PM by johnjo72 »

Offline Shagger69

Banning reason: Bombarding Admin with reports, complaining about Admin sleeping and not responding

Offline chico1000


Nah, if it was magalie then no one would care

Yikes, the fluffies will come out for miss alexxxxxxxxx

I can probably guess who it is. Less than a handful.

What i dont get is... Why make a new thread and not name


Your friend will be fine she has probably said it to a few folk.

Average prossie sees 6-8 clients a day x number of days. She will have forgotten whos who by now

Well one thing for sure it won't be you.  Your too busy back on here to be the average prossie.  Useful insight though.
Banning reason: Troll

Offline RandyF

How happy would us guys be if the little darlings had a site where they came on all the time and rated our performances, and how many of us would never be off it?
We pay the girls for a service and that is all! If they want it we should respect their privacy.

As if it was already apparent from your mindless rants Aldi - You  clearly don't understand prostitution

Punters are the customers, the temporary employer, the 'boss'.  Prostitutes are the employee, the service providers.  Punters don't get reviewed.

Hoor's are selling their looks, body, sexual skills - there's no reason why they shouldn't be reviewed and compared and critiqued on websites or wherever.
Banning reason: Troll

Offline RandyF

Think the guys are talking about a certain French  girl, oh la la

Shut the front door.  French Magalie doesn't like getting mentioned on UKP?  :D :lol:  I think that might come as big news to the moderators, as they've probably had to delete about 200 posts, ban 30 touts/her herself 20x - all chomping at the bit to mention, discuss, review her.  She's the most notorious tout in Scotland.  I notice slightly odd 'newbie' Burnside, knows of her....there's always at least of them active on here...  :scare:
Banning reason: Troll

Offline RandyF

Tall or short? Fat or thin?


Well yeah, this is a bit of a drama lama thread.  There's probably about 10 hoors in Scotland that openly loathe UKP and don't want featured on it  :lol:

Take the most obvious one - Glasgow Kendra. It's ok to mention her, she rants and posts on her aw blog every time she has a meltdown, and she fairly typical of the 'don't mention me on ukp' gang.

She's never been comfortable being a prostitute, has no self confidence in herself, her looks (and she probably looks better than most..), or the services she provides , and she can't cope with people reviewing her or comparing her.  So like 98% of all females she's totally un-suited to being a prostitute.  These sorts can't cope with the realities of being a hoor - they need never have there looks, or cock sucking skills compared and judged publicly, behind the checkout at Tesco's, they must know this.

It's solely the punters prerogative whether he reviews or not.
Banning reason: Troll

Offline bensonhedges20

Its definately Miss K or one of her crew.

What i dont get is, negative or positive feedback still gets one bookings. Its stupid to even mention ukp then be on the backfoot about it
« Last Edit: April 30, 2016, 02:16:59 PM by bensonhedges20 »
Banning reason: Troll

Offline chico1000

As if it was already apparent from your mindless rants Aldi - You  clearly don't understand prostitution

Punters are the customers, the temporary employer, the 'boss'.  Prostitutes are the employee, the service providers.  Punters don't get reviewed.

Hoor's are selling their looks, body, sexual skills - there's no reason why they shouldn't be reviewed and compared and critiqued on websites or wherever.
+1
Banning reason: Troll

Offline chico1000

Well yeah, this is a bit of a drama lama thread.  There's probably about 10 hoors in Scotland that openly loathe UKP and don't want featured on it  :lol:

Take the most obvious one - Glasgow Kendra. It's ok to mention her, she rants and posts on her aw blog every time she has a meltdown, and she fairly typical of the 'don't mention me on ukp' gang.

She's never been comfortable being a prostitute, has no self confidence in herself, her looks (and she probably looks better than most..), or the services she provides , and she can't cope with people reviewing her or comparing her.  So like 98% of all females she's totally un-suited to being a prostitute.  These sorts can't cope with the realities of being a hoor - they need never have there looks, or cock sucking skills compared and judged publicly, behind the checkout at Tesco's, they must know this.

It's solely the punters prerogative whether he reviews or not.
Totally agree hope Kendra gets a job in Tesco soon along with all the other good looking prostitues that feature on this site.
Banning reason: Troll

Offline chico1000

Shut the front door.  French Magalie doesn't like getting mentioned on UKP?  :D :lol:  I think that might come as big news to the moderators, as they've probably had to delete about 200 posts, ban 30 touts/her herself 20x - all chomping at the bit to mention, discuss, review her.  She's the most notorious tout in Scotland.  I notice slightly odd 'newbie' Burnside, knows of her....there's always at least of them active on here...  :scare:
Not met the French one but she must love any kind of reference to her good or bad.  No not her was meaning someone else.
Banning reason: Troll


Offline Dime

It may be Emma from G-E escorts. When I saw her, she told me she would prefer a review on AW rather than on here.

Offline bensonhedges20

It may be Emma from G-E escorts. When I saw her, she told me she would prefer a review on AW rather than on here.

She wouldnt mention ukp out the blue. Plus she isnt banned here so no reason not to hate.

Most likely MissK the new owo queen or one of her associates
Banning reason: Troll

She said; please do not write a review regardless if it was positive review, she has asked most of her punters the same. Unfortunately he didn't ask why not

Right, even though we wont get told who she was, I would say it's kind of back firing on her, as she is getting talked about, and eventually her name is going to get out, by someone seeing her, and they go against her word

Offline Inspector Gadget

She wouldnt mention ukp out the blue. Plus she isnt banned here so no reason not to hate.

Most likely MissK the new owo queen or one of her associates

Why would you say that? Very random!  I find that very curious.  Could be any hoor. 
Banning reason: Troll

Offline Inspector Gadget

I don't doubt my mate but as it wasn't my punt it wouldn't be fair on the WG to post her name when I wasn't there.

Being a popular WG I'm sure she will have said to others and they are free to say.

If it's unfair on the lassie, why bring it up at all?  It's as though you want folk to ask who it is. If yer dying to spill the beans, just say who she is. If she's very well reviewed as you say, she probably has a very good reason fur asking not to be brought under a spotlight. Which makes me curious as to your motive fur mentioning it at all. You're very Niave if ye think she's the first hoor to ask no to be reviewed. Probably happens every day.
Banning reason: Troll

Offline MrFox

If it's unfair on the lassie, why bring it up at all?  It's as though you want folk to ask who it is. If yer dying to spill the beans, just say who she is. If she's very well reviewed as you say, she probably has a very good reason fur asking not to be brought under a spotlight. Which makes me curious as to your motive fur mentioning it at all. You're very Niave if ye think she's the first hoor to ask no to be reviewed. Probably happens every day.

I brought it up as I found it strange a WG asked not to be reviewed on a forum I used, and wondered what her (or any WG's) reason could be.

I'm not 'dying' to tell you who she is, my post was not about who she is, but more why and would you review if asked not to.

Motive...I have no agenda with the WG i have never met or named. There is no possible gain for me.

I didn't think this was the first case of a WG asking not to be reviewed but clearly from the lack of replies stating a WG asked not to be reviewed it probably is not every day as you suspect.




Offline auldie63

Seriously, who is so desperate to know the girl's name but nosey bastards with nothing better to do in their lives. I don't give a fuck who she is and fail to see why anyone should not have their wishes respected as regards privacy, simply because they are in a certain job.
I asume the girl advertises somewhere as otherwise the poster would not have met her. If she is happy with this as her only means of advertising her wares, who on here has the right to alter that?
She is entitled to do her business as she wishes and all the auld sweetie wives on here who are gagging for her secret identity should fuck off and get a life!

Offline RandyF

I brought it up as I found it strange a WG asked not to be reviewed on a forum I used, and wondered what her (or any WG's) reason could be.

99/100 it's for purely selfish reasons MrFoxx.  Bookings & money.  This isn't AW, so blatant lies about pic accuracy, size, age etc., etc. get discussed routinely on here...and nowhere else really?

There's loads of them.  Another Glasgow example springs to mind - Lucy Sanfranciso.  Ok to mention her again, as she has ranted about UKP before on her AW profile.

Has a perfect AW feedback of 500+ probably the highest in the area, but hates UKP and its members with a passion does not want featured on here ever, why? Because punters consistently report on her appalling time wasting tactics, because we all remember and talk about her threesomes she used to offer with her mum...and so on, and so on.
Banning reason: Troll

Seriously, who is so desperate to know the girl's name but nosey bastards with nothing better to do in their lives. I don't give a fuck who she is and fail to see why anyone should not have their wishes respected as regards privacy, simply because they are in a certain job.
I asume the girl advertises somewhere as otherwise the poster would not have met her. If she is happy with this as her only means of advertising her wares, who on here has the right to alter that?
She is entitled to do her business as she wishes and all the auld sweetie wives on here who are gagging for her secret identity should fuck off and get a life!

I hear what you are saying Auldie and like you I give not one fuck to know who it is.

She definitely has the right to conduct her business how she wishes. And equally punters definitely have the right to review how they wish. She can ask them not to review, they can take that into consideration and make their own decision on whether to or not.

Offline Inspector Gadget

I brought it up as I found it strange a WG asked not to be reviewed on a forum I used, and wondered what her (or any WG's) reason could be.

I'm not 'dying' to tell you who she is, my post was not about who she is, but more why and would you review if asked not to.

Motive...I have no agenda with the WG i have never met or named. There is no possible gain for me.

I didn't think this was the first case of a WG asking not to be reviewed but clearly from the lack of replies stating a WG asked not to be reviewed it probably is not every day as you suspect.

Regardless if your intentions are pure my friend, I stand by my a comment that it is indeed normal for a prozzie not to want to be reviewed, and for a variety of reasons. My proof?  Well, of the 40 plus I've encountered in 5 years, a significant number of those have asked for no feedback. Often not giving a reason. Given the amount of punts that happen a day, I'd say it's a daily occurrence. You will come across it again. That you can be sure of.
Banning reason: Troll

Do they ALL ask you not to review them Gadgie??

C'mon man, time for you to get off the review bench.

Offline Fasting

Regardless if your intentions are pure my friend, I stand by my a comment that it is indeed normal for a prozzie not to want to be reviewed, and for a variety of reasons. My proof?  Well, of the 40 plus I've encountered in 5 years, a significant number of those have asked for no feedback. Often not giving a reason. Given the amount of punts that happen a day, I'd say it's a daily occurrence. You will come across it again. That you can be sure of.

I always wonder how some guys find the time to talk about this stuff with WGs. I shag and I leave. Reviews haven't come up in conversation once.

Prossies who wouldn't want honest reviews are either bad-prossies, insecure, or both. It's also to do with power/control. Good prossies should count their lucky stars (or their piles of cash) that UKP exists.

Also, nothing would convince me to review a WG like being told not to.

Offline Admin

  • Site Owner
Some prossies prefer AdultWork system knowing if you leave them bad feedback they will respond with malicious lies against you to damage your own feedback history which could put other prossies off seeing you (e.g. false violent allegations). They don't have the same retaliation for negative reviews on UKP.

Another reason is that reviews on this site are not deleted if they claim to have "retired", which they are allowed to do so with other review sites or AdultWork where they simply delete their own profile to get rid of bad feedback, create a new one and claim being victim of "hacking", just to rally up the fluffies to feel sympathy for her :rolleyes:

Another reason is that reviews on UKP are open to discussion, for positive reviews others may chip in about downsides about her not mentioned in the review to help those reading become more informed before spending their hard earned money. Again not possible on AdultWork.

That's three reasons, many more.




Latest media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)