Escorting

(09-11-2017 08:42 )hairbald Wrote:  

(09-11-2017 00:49 )davidoff7713 Wrote:  Someone contacted me through this site saying they'd put me in touch with an UTR girl but they were trying to con me using a similar and believable email to girl in question. When I realised and backed off it was remarkable how quickly the rate and level of deposit dropped. I'm pretty confident the girl had no knowledge of this. Whilst they're maybe some girls out to con us I think you have to be quite naive to pay out big deposits purely based on an email back and forth when that is not necessary with agencies or reputable sites representing similar models.

One of the girls is doing this and she's actually offering to set you up for a deposit. The only problem is she is doing it for girls that don't escort too, one of which, if yu check her twitter was absolutely furious (well you would be wouldn't you).

You should really name the person who scammed you on here. or at least tell admin that they are doing this sort of thing

Terence - Please tell us what the latest is?
There are a lot of fuming punters here. It's getting ridiculous...

Please can one of the moderators get back otherwise it will be a case of naming and shaming with tonnes of evidence in twitter, emails, Whatsapp, etc.

(08-11-2017 23:36 )terence Wrote:  ^bear with me before anyone posts any info, i'll run it up the flag pole.

If Terence is uncomfortable with us airing this here (and there is no doubt a danger that it moves quickly from fact to fiction/make believe/random rumours/score settling) then we could always decant to a certain punting forum where there is little or no sensitivity to upsetting people

we're actually still discussing this. it's hard to get us all on at the same time so there's inevitably a delay.

we have discussed this at great length and this is where we are. it's difficult to see what could constitute proof, as evidence of money paid for example would not prove that the girl had failed to show up. It would still come down to one person's word against another.
another issue is that any accusations here are anonymous and the persons accused obviously don't have anonymity, so there's an imbalance there which makes serious accusations a little unfair without actual proof.
Which brings us back to the question of what constitutes proof. we wouldn't mind people being named where absolute proof exists, but we're struggling to see how someone can prove that the girl didn't go through with the deal.
so discuss away but don't name anyone, this includes inferences. if we can make people aware that scams do happen without naming anyone, maybe this practise can be minimised

i think some people wrongly believe that utr provides some kind of legitimacy and guarantee of honest practise, which it obviously doesn't.

So please clarify - we can name or no?

When you say 'we wouldn't mind people being named where absolute proof exists, but we're struggling to see how someone can prove that the girl didn't go through with the deal.' says name them

But then you say
'so discuss away but don't name anyone, this includes inferences. if we can make people aware that scams do happen without naming anyone, maybe this practise can be minimised'

So which is it?

I know the moderators have protected UTRs in the past - the best way to resolve this is probably this forum telling all TV babes to thrash it out on this very forum. Open invite. The TV girls can explain their reasons and the punters theirs.

(09-11-2017 19:20 )terence Wrote:  we have discussed this at great length and this is where we are. it's difficult to see what could constitute proof, as evidence of money paid for example would not prove that the girl had failed to show up. It would still come down to one person's word against another.
another issue is that any accusations here are anonymous and the persons accused obviously don't have anonymity, so there's an imbalance there which makes serious accusations a little unfair without actual proof.
Which brings us back to the question of what constitutes proof. we wouldn't mind people being named where absolute proof exists, but we're struggling to see how someone can prove that the girl didn't go through with the deal.
so discuss away but don't name anyone, this includes inferences. if we can make people aware that scams do happen without naming anyone, maybe this practise can be minimised

(09-11-2017 19:47 )gemma123 Wrote:  So please clarify - we can name or no?

When you say 'we wouldn't mind people being named where absolute proof exists, but we're struggling to see how someone can prove that the girl didn't go through with the deal.' says name them

But then you say
'so discuss away but don't name anyone, this includes inferences. if we can make people aware that scams do happen without naming anyone, maybe this practise can be minimised'

So which is it?

I know the moderators have protected UTRs in the past - the best way to resolve this is probably this forum telling all TV babes to thrash it out on this very forum. Open invite. The TV girls can explain their reasons and the punters theirs.

(09-11-2017 19:20 )terence Wrote:  we have discussed this at great length and this is where we are. it's difficult to see what could constitute proof, as evidence of money paid for example would not prove that the girl had failed to show up. It would still come down to one person's word against another.
another issue is that any accusations here are anonymous and the persons accused obviously don't have anonymity, so there's an imbalance there which makes serious accusations a little unfair without actual proof.
Which brings us back to the question of what constitutes proof. we wouldn't mind people being named where absolute proof exists, but we're struggling to see how someone can prove that the girl didn't go through with the deal.
so discuss away but don't name anyone, this includes inferences. if we can make people aware that scams do happen without naming anyone, maybe this practise can be minimised

UK Punting would be the place to explain what happened and it wont take long for the word to spread. It's time some of these prima dona cheats were outed. It is only a small % of the girls that take the piss, most girls are genuine, just want to keep it private.

(09-11-2017 08:42 )hairbald Wrote:  One of the girls is doing this and she's actually offering to set you up for a deposit. The only problem is she is doing it for girls that don't escort too, one of which, if yu check her twitter was absolutely furious (well you would be wouldn't you).

The girls in question - same channel, same hair colour and same name?