Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
porker paul

Fr 111349

11 posts in this topic

In FR 111349 corkie202 mentions that during a 2 girl with Sue and Aimee there "wasn't a condom in sight". Should the forum not screen out what I assume to be a BB punt? I thought that it did but maybe I am wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In FR 111349 corkie202 mentions that during a 2 girl with Sue and Aimee there "wasn't a condom in sight". Should the forum not screen out what I assume to be a BB punt? I thought that it did but maybe I am wrong.

No idea how Galahad runs the FR system but in my view the FR does breach the rules that are very clear regarding BB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea how Galahad runs the FR system but in my view the FR does breach the rules that are very clear regarding BB.

Offending FR now deleted! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea how Galahad runs the FR system but in my view the FR does breach the rules that are very clear regarding BB.

Punters that look for BB will find girls that do this anyway, irrespective of this FR being deleted. Leaving this FR online will highlight the fact they do BB and therefore careful punters that look after their health will take heed of this and not book them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Punters that look for BB will find girls that do this anyway, irrespective of this FR being deleted. Leaving this FR online will highlight the fact they do BB and therefore careful punters that look after their health will take heed of this and not book them.

Of course they will but that doesnt mean this site has to allow punters to report on such WGs, as its been deleted i assume it did break Galahads rules so i can only advise steering your point in his direction seeing he is the man who makes the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its an intresting report, as the guy Corkie 202 does not have any other reports, and when you search for the ladies on adultwork, there are no profiles for them.

And no field report number 111349 on them either as its been taken down.... :lol: .

Edited by spklors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its an intresting report, as the guy Corkie 202 does not have any other reports, and when you search for the ladies on adultwork, there are no profiles for them.

And no field report number 111349 on them either as its been taken down.... :lol: .

It was a first timer from Corkie, and also the 2 ladies had not been reported before on here either. That may be suspicious in its own right.

I haven't checked anywhere else to see where he might have found them.

The FR was taken down less than an hour after I had raised this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a first timer from Corkie, and also the 2 ladies had not been reported before on here either. That may be suspicious in its own right.

I haven't checked anywhere else to see where he might have found them.

The FR was taken down less than an hour after I had raised this.

so we dont know if the FR was dodgy in some other way or the BB was the cause of the deletion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so we dont know if the FR was dodgy in some other way or the BB was the cause of the deletion.

I suspect the latter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Punters that look for BB will find girls that do this anyway, irrespective of this FR being deleted. Leaving this FR online will highlight the fact they do BB and therefore careful punters that look after their health will take heed of this and not book them.

The PN FR system has certain rules. Exceptions should not be made. Nor do I believe those rules should be changed. Let us remember that claiming a WG offers BB is a very easy way for a malicious person to damage a lady's reputation. That is mud that sticks however much she may repeat that it is not true. I have previously on this forum defended AW's having BB as an option in their Enjoys lists (which some feel encourages BB) precisely because I believe it allows us more discriminating punters to avoid the girls who tick that box. But there is a significant difference between a WG stating on her website or AW profile that she offers BB and a client stating that she does in a review or FR for the reasons I have outlined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the 2 ladies in question from when I used to go to The Private Club in Birmingham.

I very much doubt that either participated in bareback, in fact I would be certain they wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0