www.ukporn-name-and-shame.com

[adultwebmaster]

Hi Sam

I actually got banned from that forum 'UKAP' (my first ban ever) for having a go back about that remark made about me.

If you look at the original BGAFD thread http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=5&i=40176&t=40176 you'll see many comments like "The guy is taking the piss/ Sounds like you are being taken for a fool/ start legal proceedings/ Threaten legal action, you can file small claims online for free/ etc, etc"

If you look at the thread, the two main comments I made in my post were;

I believe Michele has been more than patient in this matter and didn?t have any choice but to ask for help.

Hopefully it is just a case of bad communication on the webmasters part and that everything can be resolved.

Yet the webmaster at 'UKAP' took it upon himself, out of THIRTY THREE posts to single me out and post this "Even today somebody over on BGAFD called "New Blue Productions" is blaming the "Webmaster", even though I have stated the Webmaster was hired by the company, not Michelle B and has nothing to do with Michelle B. You would think "New Blue Productions" could figure that out from my post and not mis-use the word "Webmaster", but oh no that's not possible. This is the problem with what Michelle B has done."

Because I pulled the 'UKAP' admin up over this, he first altered my post, then banned me.

I tried to re-join there recently, only to be told by a certain producer who's also an admin/mod (who also actually even tried to hide his identity) that I wouldn't be allowed as I would cause more trouble there (Oh well, so much for sticking up for yourself).

That's why I also don't like the idea of their closed forums.
Firstly, models shouldn't be left out of the loop and secondly, who polices the forum admin when only a small amount of the industry can see what's being written.

All the best

Blue

[Cenobitez]

Some of the industries concern are.

What proof of said act / sti / whatever is required to post ? No a link to adult work that lists bareback aint enough because half the girls who say they offer it, usually only list it to snag the guys into paying for their images, but don't actually provide it, so what proof will there be ?

Will this written down, signed and witnessed ?

What checks will be made into the validity of the posts ?

What checks will be made into the identity of its members ?

Will there be liability insurance for slanderous, defamatory and libelious posts, that result in loss of careers and revenue ?

Who polices the police? As in who does this site answer too ?

Provide accurate and concise answers and people may listen.

Yes such a service may be useful but hot potato it certainly isnt, its more like a molten ball of lava erupting law suits, with the potential for such a huge abuse its beyond belief.

[PKAY]

Hi Mark,

Why not do the opposite? Have a recommendations website. People can only post positive stuff about others. That way people can make their own minds up. Make sure everyone has a profile that makes them recognisable so you can see who is posting about who. It would be a startand it would stop petty shitstirring.

[Sam Slater]

It sounds like the guy at UKAP is best buddies with the people Michelle B was talking about. From what I've read she said nothing wrong, and just asked for advice without name calling and bitching. Very restrained if you ask me!

The normal person would offer advice rather than attacking her, so it's obvious that JayK and the people running Michelle's site 'shit in the same pot'.

So is this how a name & shame site would be? Bias admin who ban anyone they disagree with?

[porngirlsxrated]

Sam Slater wrote:

> It sounds like the guy at UKAP is best buddies with the people
> Michelle B was talking about. From what I've read she said
> nothing wrong, and just asked for advice without name calling
> and bitching. Very restrained if you ask me!
>
> The normal person would offer advice rather than attacking her,
> so it's obvious that JayK and the people running Michelle's
> site 'shit in the same pot'.

>

Hi Sam

You are correct there is a business relationship between JayK and the Webmaster that has been HIRED to run Michelle B?s site

But the point JayK made was that the Webmaster has no legal authority over Michelle B?s site, he has just been HIRED to run it

The Webmaster is not to blame and JayK stepped in to end the false allegations (based on no facts) that were being levelled at the Webmaster

The Webmaster concerned is a very well respected figure within the industry who does not deserve to have his hard earned long standing reputation (and business) damaged by gossip/rumour

I?m definitely not blaming Michelle B, but by blaming the Webmaster you?re barking up the wrong tree

[randyandy]

As I said I give up so won't ramble one with a long reply I am off to look at some tits.

Just two very quick things if it was me setting it up which it isn't are

Cenobitez wrote:

> Some of the industries concern are.
>
> What proof of said act / sti / whatever is required to post ?
> No a link to adult work that lists bareback aint enough because
> half the girls who say they offer it, usually only list it to
> snag the guys into paying for their images, but don't actually
> provide it, so what proof will there be ?

False advertising (snagging the guy's) is damaging to the industry so it shouldn't be permitted

> Who polices the police? As in who does this site answer too ?
>

As I said in the last post you made about this it would be the industry policing it IF the site was churning bollocks then it wouldn't be used.

I'd reply to the others but must dash Anjali has usually put some fresh tits up by now and as far as I am concerned that area of the boards will be the main focus of my attention from now on.

[adultwebmaster]

porngirlsxrated wrote:

> Hi Sam
>
> You are correct there is a business relationship between JayK
> and the Webmaster that has been HIRED to run Michelle B?s site
>
> But the point JayK made was that the Webmaster has no legal
> authority over Michelle B?s site, he has just been HIRED to run
> it
>
> The Webmaster is not to blame and JayK stepped in to end the
> false allegations (based on no facts) that were being levelled
> at the Webmaster
>
> The Webmaster concerned is a very well respected figure within
> the industry who does not deserve to have his hard earned long
> standing reputation (and business) damaged by gossip/rumour
>
> I?m definitely not blaming Michelle B, but by blaming the
> Webmaster you?re barking up the wrong tree

I agree with you Sam.

The fact of the matter is Jay K shouldn't have made a post about it in the first place.
Being the forum Admin, he should have be impartial unless it was a direct affront to his forum.

The attack on me was an example of this. Why out of 33 posts was I singled out? Have you read some of the other comments made in that thread?

At the end of the day, it makes you wonder what's being said on the private forum.

Blue

[Sam Slater]

Thanks for the reply porngirlxrated.

I don't think anyone would have blamed JayK for saying the webmaster wasn't involved, but he criticised a young girl that just asked for advice. She never named anyone, and stated she'd got nowhere in over six months, and yet JayK felt the need to condemn the girl, firstly on here, and then ran to his little forum, carrying the argument on, and banning anyone who had an alternative view.

The only reason I brought this up is that OEJ mentioned they were trying to get the UKAP into some sort of central recourse for the industry. I say with the bad attitudes, lack of understanding, and bias like has already been shown, that any such 'resource' would be a joke.

My point wasn't to bring up an old argument anyway, only to show that a future 'name & shame' forum may not be to the advantage of the performers it's supposed to protect, when the mods are 'chums'.

Birds of a feather & all that..........

[porngirlsxrated]

Hi Sam

No problem and just to make sure you know I was in no way having a go at you !happy!, I just wanted to provide some balance to this issue

Other than to say the Webmaster is a good guy, I don?t know enough about the rest to be able to make a comment

JayK has obviously anoyed newblue, but equally I think you will find that newblue has annoyed JayK ? from what I know JayK is a well respected guy in this industry

Michelle B?s is also a well known, well loved and well respected performer

Maybe its now time to move on

[adultwebmaster]

porngirlsxrated wrote:


> JayK has obviously anoyed newblue, but equally I think you will
> find that newblue has annoyed JayK ? from what I know JayK is a
> well respected guy in this industry

Hi porngirlsxrated

I annoyed JayK for speaking up for myself against an unfair post.

At least I believe that was the reason, unless of course someone else at 'UKAP' was already upset with me.

If that were the case, that may explain the reason why I was singled out of thirty three posts.

Anyway, ........old news.

Catch you all in a few weeks.

Blue