Article: Escort fears creep's extortion bid would ruin her dreams of being doctor

[badbadboy]

What's your difficulty with the concept of a non-refundable deposit?

It sounds to me like they entered into a business transaction and then the guy got cold feet and wanted to renege. If you're trying to weigh honour here, it seems to be that the guy was the dishonourable one that broke his word first, after apparently phoning and texting her excessively, and then digging around and trying to extort her by threatening to out her... really she's the one that didn't do the honorable thing? Interesting...

She didn't actually go out to meet him though, from the article it appears that her only time invested was answering a few e-mails. So, under those circumstances the right thing to have done was return the money. But she chose instead to be greedy and everything escalated from there. If she had just done the honorable thing in the first place everything probably would have been cool, so playing the victim card now is not right.

It would be different if she had booked a non refundable flight, or had actually gone out there and then had it fall flat, but that does not appear to have happened.

It appears that it was more than just answering a few emails. Her rate is $7k for the trip. She agreed to take a deposit which indicates there was some negotiation going on the whole time. They agreed upon $1500 down payment. Then he reneged or his mom told him no you can not bring an escort over to stay the night etc.

In my view he was a time waster and she kept the money because of the time it took to nail down an agreeable deposit to move forward with the deal. In the end she kept $700 which was probably the time it took her to do all the back and forth emails i.e. made him pay for wasting her time. Good on her. Wish I could hit up some of the companies who contact me and try to milk free information from me without having to pay for it. I have no problem with how she conducted herself and also for contacting the Calgary Police when the pooner threatened to out her real name etc. The guy sounds like a total douche bag.

 

[emilka]

Sure he’s a douche bag and sure it was her right to keep the money. But now she has a target on her back. How long do you think it’ll take for some other disgruntled Pooner to dig up her identity and then publish it. I said it before and I’ll say it again. With her rates/income, the easiest thing would have been to just refund his money. As she chose to pursue and send the cops to his house, the problem was then solved, but she didn’t drop it. She went to the Sun and attacked him whilst calling herself a Victim.

Seriously, unless she’s trying to drum up some extra business with the free publicity then she’s made an error in judgement by not dropping it and going to the Sun. I’d bet that someone else will out her and unless this is her version of releasing your own sex-tape to get on a reality show, then she’s made a mistake by not leaving him alone after she had already won.

Maybe he’s a wacko and booking his flight to Toronto right now.
She didn’t need to push him.

i think she's right

______________________

SEE MY THREADS: :thumb:

==> Kinky Fetish Video Scenes<==

==> Amazing Crazy Amateur Clip Collection!<==

==> Split Porn Scenes Latest Realeased HD Clips<==​

 

[jesuschrist]

Sure he’s a douche bag and sure it was her right to keep the money. But now she has a target on her back. How long do you think it’ll take for some other disgruntled Pooner to dig up her identity and then publish it. I said it before and I’ll say it again. With her rates/income, the easiest thing would have been to just refund his money. As she chose to pursue and send the cops to his house, the problem was then solved, but she didn’t drop it. She went to the Sun and attacked him whilst calling herself a Victim.

Seriously, unless she’s trying to drum up some extra business with the free publicity then she’s made an error in judgement by not dropping it and going to the Sun. I’d bet that someone else will out her and unless this is her version of releasing your own sex-tape to get on a reality show, then she’s made a mistake by not leaving him alone after she had already won.

Maybe he’s a wacko and booking his flight to Toronto right now.
She didn’t need to push him.

You're totally right, and that's the key issue people are missing. Why they miss this is beyond me. If she cares so much about her identity being blown, she sure as hell is doing the worst thing possible to ensure it is going to happen.

i think she's right

And this is yet another example where the assertion to be "right" is so extreme one would even risk severe harm done to their personal life, to the point of violence, just to be "right". And right in this case means a measly $700, made even more measly by the contrast of how much she earns - CEO level earnings, I might add.

 

[jesuschrist]

In my field of expertise, I was requested to travel out of province to train a new client's personnel on every aspect of the product they were purchasing and installing. Since they were a small company and the risk to me of not getting my full rate paid in a timely manner was risky, I asked for 25% up front, 25% when my training manuals were printed and ready to ship to them and 25% when they had the hotel rooms booked and a conference room was booked. Final payment was due immediately after the course which was three days in length.

Preparing for this course took me two weeks to prepare and it had 95% of my attention for the entire time.

Imagine for a moment that they reneged on their end of the deal? Basically it would have hit my bottom line big time for that month. When I make a contract with a company and go forward with implementing a custom training session for $X I expect to receive every penny. Due diligence means you need to get deposits during milestones "just in case" someone decides that they can get a better deal for less money.

I do not see a traveling SP's time as something that people should think of as a trivial thing. If a pooner books a high end SP to arrive at his house in Calgary and fulfill her end of the deal for the agreed upon $7K. IF the pooner decides he does not want to go through with it, tough shit, he loses his deposit. It takes time to organize travel, book a hotel, book a rental car PLUS if the pooner reneges on the deal you need to figure out how to recoup the income you thought you were going to make while on tour to Calgary.

JC, you have shown yourself to be a misogynistic who does not value the SP's time, what services they perform and you also minimize their ability to earn a living and even infer they are dodging paying taxes. Where do you get these ideas? Is this actual pillow talk where they say "shhhh, I am screwing the Government by not paying any taxes" BS!

I have met some ladies who keep very detailed files of their expenses of rental In Call, laundry, personal grooming, lube, condoms the whole ball of wax. They also state on their returns they are either "escorts" or "personal entertainer" or some other creative description.

In your field of expertise, which I have familiarity with - assuming it is some form of technical sales by which your description fits, not only do you book the meeting/flight/hotel/car etc., you go through a process of vetting the client, vetting their needs, preparing your documents for their requirements, assembling marketing information, incur and produce analysis and integration, preparing training seminars, preparing training materials, insuring version and integrity of your materials, etc. You also forego anything else you might have to do to service this meeting. By contrast, the said escort books a flight and at worst, foregoes anything else she might have to do to earn the money servicing this client. To compare her to you is to completely diminish and ridicule your own job. What she needs to do is so minimal it is laughable that she would see it as any huge inconvenience to her beyond what any normal business person would say is an inconvenience and part and parcel to the normal operations of business.

She has every right to decide what the rules are - a non-refundable deposit - sure. He owes her the non-refundable part of that deposit, the entire $1500. He is a douche bag because he cancels on her and threatens a form of violence. But looking at her, I would say that though she has every right, and she complied partly to his demands, she then:
1) asserts her right to the point where she is at risk of him following through on his threat
2) voices her side in a public forum to assail him, a forum where he is not allowed to present his side

As for 1), I am saying she is an utter stupid fool because it is only $700 vs her life.
As for 2), she is showing herself to be just as much of douche bag because she publicly outs him.

As for your assertion that I am a mysoginist, I would say you're best to hold off ad-hominem attacks if you wish to be taken seriously by anyone. It's a bitchy thing to do to attack your opponent in a debate rather than stick to the topic. I am sure you don't like behaving like a bitch.

And as for your questioning the legitimacy of my opinion on whether or not most escorts pay their taxes, I stick to my opinion because it comes from years of experience having known many personally - and not as a client. You go ahead and claim your knowledge as legitimate, but I will not tell you that you're wrong, but that I'm right.

 

[susi]

Hi Susi,

I’m not mad, just not on the same page as you it seems.
I’ll not comment line-per-line, but here’s a couple of things.

Unless being outed directly results in concussions, black eyes, broken bones that don’t heal, scar tissue or a Victims (non-warzone) version of shell shock, then no, I can never consider telling a secret to be and act of Violence. It is a betrayal of trust, sneaky, underhanded, shitty thing to do, but not Violent. Events triggered by the secret being told may or may not be Violent, but not the secret telling. When a cop tells a parent that his/her kid was street racing and the kid gets a good beating for it (an Act of Violence) the cop is not considered to have acted Violently against the kid he told on. At the end of the day, it is a truth being told, not a lie.

I don’t take your definition personal or anything, but if that attitude becomes the norm in society, then it’s just one more term that I will roll my eyes at when it becomes over used and overly inclusive in meaning, like:
Abuse, Ageism, Disadvantaged, Dysfunctional, Misogyny, Racism, Sexism and Terrorism.
And even the word “Rape” when used in Sweden, holds no meaning for me anymore.


Again, I do wish you the best and respect the work you do on behalf of SP’s.

ok, so my point is that being "outed" as a sex worker does have an effect and as such i define it as violence. as an example;

a woman outed to the ministry of child and family development as a sex worker, her entire life is destroyed, her children, her children's school and teachers informed of her sex worker status, her children seized, her family osterisizing her...she is left with no social capitol of any kind, her children are gone...seperation from children for a parent is terrible, she has to go through humilitaing and degrading interrogations by government employees....

how is that not violence?

or being "outed" to just your family and friends...people view you differently after, the stigma is huge. families turn their back on sex workers, friends turn their backs....telling your land lord can leave you homeless....

so, your family disown you, you are homeless and no longer have any where to work(homeless) and no friends you can turn to....

what happens then? you attempt to find emergency housing, which are over flowing and you are not guaranteed to get, if they discover you are a sex worker, bias once again plays its role and you are treated as second class, different ...and are placed somehwere after every non sex working woman has been placed....if you do get placed you are faced with a "repent" scenario where in some situations you have to "pray" for your diner or in other places you must renounce sex work and play the victim....

people judge you all along the way....

if you are not placed, well you are on the street, desperate for money, desperate to get inside somewhere out of the cold....people take advantage of you at every turn on the street. its brutal.....

and of course there's the potential of rape, assault, hate crimes and murder, which happens far to often to our fellow workers on the street....

ok, so no....its not like being punched in the face as opposed to some one telling a secret. its not as simple as that. i don't know if you've ever faced potentially being homeless but i can tell you a threat to out a sex worker carries alot of weight including the possibility of becoming homeless, loosing your family and being murdered....

when you face these moments you see what's down the road...and as every door is slammed in your face you understnad real fear...

its violence dude, trust me....

love susie

 

[jesuschrist]

its violence dude, trust me....

I happen to agree that being outed as a sex worker is violence, and your explanation of it is a good one (which I was aware of anyway, by the way). I think however due to the degree of expounding the "violence" of being outed, and other forms of violence to sex workers, that people who have been dealt with physical violence (who are not themselves sex workers) may find use of the same word diminishing to their experience. That is perhaps why you may get a reaction that you did.

There are degrees of violence, we all know and agree with this fact. It's not really that useful to say that one form of violence is degrees worse than another form because it risks delegitimizing one form over another when everyone knows how terrible violence is of any form. Focussing only on one form of violence and oblivious to others is typically the attitude of people who are victimized and remain victims long after the incident, and long after the healing process would have been successful in a mentally healthy individual. What I think would be useful is to not speak of one form of violence as though it was the only one anybody should have any concern about.

 

[jesuschrist]

He called a spade a spade, more props to him. As for being taken seriously, why don't you do one of your polls and ask people who takes you seriously.

You're trolling. In real life, a girl who constantly brings up past fights and can't let go is called bitchy. Stick to the issues and I'll be happy to discuss the issue at hand with you, but stop acting like a bitch.

 

[Unpossible]

In real life, a girl who constantly brings up past fights and can't let go is called bitchy.

In real life referring to a woman as "bitchy" is misogyny.

 

[jesuschrist]

In real life referring to a woman as "bitchy" is misogyny.

A minor form, well accepted in normal walks of life male and female.

 

[badbadboy]

You're trolling. In real life, a girl who constantly brings up past fights and can't let go is called bitchy. Stick to the issues and I'll be happy to discuss the issue at hand with you, but stop acting like a bitch.

Just keep diggin JC.

Sooner or later you will find yourself with yet another holiday from Perb.

 

[jesuschrist]

Just keep diggin JC.

Sooner or later you will find yourself with yet another holiday from Perb.

And fortunately for you, you will be left with the pleasant sounds of your own voice where nobody will have to disagree with your view. I never called you names, but you did that to me, and you were the first to do this offensive act.

I'm done with this discussion because all salient points have been made by me and others who agree with my points.

 

[wilde]

Jesus Christ (the poster and the expression), enough already... I don't think anyone is going to change their minds but IMHO the people who find the SP to be at fault or equally at fault are just grasping at straws. Their arguments are so flawed that they have turned this into an exercise in character assassination.

 

[badbadboy]

Jesus Christ (the poster and the expression), enough already... I don't think anyone is going to change their minds but IMHO the people who find the SP to be at fault or equally at fault are just grasping at straws. Their arguments are so flawed that they have turned this into an exercise in character assassination.

Finally, a voice of reason.

:clap2:

 

[badbadboy]

Perhaps either of you could tell me which post is misogynistic?

Here, just to help you along the way, his posts are:
#’s 6, 9, 11, 14, 22, 24, 26, 29, 32, 33, 38, 39, 48, 49, 50, 52, 57, 61, 75, 76, 79 and 80.

I've just spent the last half hour re-reading everything he's posted and can't find it?
Unless you think that simply disagreeing with a woman in Canada makes you a Misogynist?

I’d say he’s done a fairly good job here of talking about business and the law, and of course personal safety and privacy. In fact, based on what he’s posted here about “telling on somebody” being a form of Violence, if not for his overall tone, I’d have to call him a Metro-Sexual, possibly even a Misandrist, but certainly not a Misogynist.

Since you are JC's new cheerleader I will provide you with a link to wiki and from that you can derive the meaning of Misogyny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny

I am not going to go through each post which would indicate why I inferred JC shows misogynistic tendencies but just looking at the first post of his in this thread is a good indicator.

Now bear in mind that the pooner approached the SP in the first place. After several emails back and forth they come to an agreement to have a non refundable $1500 down payment. Correct?

Now review JC's post where I have highlighted his text.

I doubt it. Most escorts don't, simply because it's cash business and many reason that they are paid low enough such that if they had to pay taxes too, it wouldn't be worth it. I would have to concur, if I did that job, I certainly would not want to part with any of my money and not even to the tax man. And though I concur, I would have to admit that it would be wrong doing so - which is why if I were a female, this would be a reason I would never do this job.

And frankly I have a problem with this story - so this client is not one of the usual high-flootin' clients she would rather have, but some regular joe who would have to scrape up the money to afford even a $1500 deposit (I think most middle class income earners would not find that sum insignificant).

Throughout the article, all we hear is that she returns $800 of that deposit, so she stiffs him for $700. Frankly if her identity is that important to her, she made two serious errors:
1) she was lax in her identity and somehow he found out
2) she rips him off $700, and not knowing the nature of any new client, should be guarding against that so maybe it would be really wise to return that money that is owed to him. It seems a small trade off - lose the $700 she is pocketing from having thieved him in return for some security for her identity. Should be a no-brainer.

This story is so skewed in fact, that it would seem like he's some dishonest person but in fact she's the one stealing from him. Not only that, they make him out to be a loser by contrasting him to the clients who can afford her self-admittedly high rates, and that is quite unfair. As for his home life living with his mother - that's his business and nobody should be judging one's own domestic arrangements in a public newspaper.

To me, she's the craven dishonest entitled bitch here. Her client, if he's a bad guy, not half as bad as she is.

Now if the roles were reversed and it were a male who made a deal that included a non refundable down payment. After the deal went south but he still refunded $800 you guys would be saying "for fuck sakes, grow some balls", a deal is a deal, tough shit for that loser; why did you give one dollar back to her?

Instead what we hear is a guy calling her a thief, saying her identity was not that important to her (as in she deserved to be outed by the pooner?) and finally calling her a "craven dishonest entitled bitch". Basically saying she was getting what she deserved. That is misogynistic because by definition you and JC are stating the playing fields are not even and she was getting outed because she deserved it because she understood what non refundable meant while Jr living in mom's basement didn't get it.

A deal is a deal. Non refundable $1500 means non refundable no matter which of the two sexes you happen to be. If you are going to approach a high end SP whose rate to fly to Calgary to fuck you for $7000; you either pay it or you look for someone more within your budget.

 

[susi]

I happen to agree that being outed as a sex worker is violence, and your explanation of it is a good one (which I was aware of anyway, by the way). I think however due to the degree of expounding the "violence" of being outed, and other forms of violence to sex workers, that people who have been dealt with physical violence (who are not themselves sex workers) may find use of the same word diminishing to their experience. That is perhaps why you may get a reaction that you did.

There are degrees of violence, we all know and agree with this fact. It's not really that useful to say that one form of violence is degrees worse than another form because it risks delegitimizing one form over another when everyone knows how terrible violence is of any form. Focussing only on one form of violence and oblivious to others is typically the attitude of people who are victimized and remain victims long after the incident, and long after the healing process would have been successful in a mentally healthy individual. What I think would be useful is to not speak of one form of violence as though it was the only one anybody should have any concern about.

murder is physical violence, rape is physical violence.....and as i described the end result of being outed......i don't think i am focusing on one type of violence....violence is violence, simple....

i am a survivor of violence, i live with it every day so i understnad all to well the after effects. i don't see where i was focused on one type of violence or where i tried to make people only focus on one "type"....

again, i do not distinguish between levels of violence, its violence...if you slap me around its violence, if you threaten me with death its violence, if you threaten me with homelessness its violence, if you threaten my children its violence....

or, should we only care about violence when we can see the injuries? in which case, rape with no outside injury is not violence....we can't see the torn anus and ruptured uterus....so its not the same as having a black eye....

just to be clear, i am not tyring to upset you, i just want to challenge your perception of violence against sex workers/people in general.....

there are no levels of violence, and even if there were, who defines them? outsiders or victims?

love susie

 

[Tugela]

What's your difficulty with the concept of a non-refundable deposit?

It sounds to me like they entered into a business transaction and then the guy got cold feet and wanted to renege. If you're trying to weigh honour here, it seems to be that the guy was the dishonourable one that broke his word first, after apparently phoning and texting her excessively, and then digging around and trying to extort her by threatening to out her... really she's the one that didn't do the honorable thing? Interesting...

I have no difficulty with a non refundable deposit, but it should be associated with something tangible, such as a service rendered or an expense incurred. and it should be an appropriate amount to cover said costs, not as a matter of generating income without providing any service. It should also come with a proper contract and terms of service.

The cancellation appeared to happen as a result of their initial email exchanges - there was nothing to indicate that he was backing out of the deal or being flakey. More likely he got nervous as a result of those emails about sending more money as she demanded, for fear of being ripped off. We just have her word that he cancelled for no reason btw, without his side of the story or the full e-mail exchange, we have no way of knowing if that is accurate or not.

Then he wanted his money back, which she didn't want to do. She wanted the $1500 essentially for doing nothing. He got upset because he gave her $1500 for nothing. No where does she explain what sort of expense she incurred as a result of this, her attitude basically was "well, I have the money now and I'm keeping it".

So, she sends him $800 eventually when he complains (this is the "harrasment").

He wants the rest as well. This is his "extortion" for "more money", according to her (read the article). It was actually for the rest of the $700 she still had.

Then he threatens legal action to recover the remainder.

Then she calls the cops accusing him of "extortion" (notice the sequence of events escalating).

So, the cops visit him and do nothing. Obviously no extortion was involved. But it was sufficient to intimidate him into shutting up.

But, not satisfied with that, she finds a reporter to write a piece about it and insinuates that he is some loser who was trying to trick her somehow. When all she needed to do was do the honorable thing and return the deposit if she incurred no expense as a result of sending emails. Plus, she gets free advertising out it.

 

[Tugela]

You, sir, are assuming a lot of things about what I said. I did not talk about her deducting stuff or her taxes etc. I was just merely pointing out that the numbers they presented were very inaccurate.
Also, when you say rent doesn't cost that much in Van, you're talking about East Van right? Either that or you haven't been a renter since the early 80's. I've been renting here for quite a while now and I'll tell you that to rent an incall that is on par with her fees she'll pay at LEAST $1,500. I currently rent a studio or small 1 bedroom town house in Yaletown and it's $1,700 furnished. It would be $1,500 unfurnished. It's less than 500 sq ft.

I'm basing it on what my friends were paying in Kits a few years back, which was in the 750-900 range for one bedroom appartments of various sizes.

This is an estimate of what a rental should cost: http://www.adventvancouver.com/rental/rates.php

Here is another guide: http://www.bcaomarentals.com/rental_rates.php

 

[Tugela]

Okay, it's pretty clear you're missing something then, the guy and the escort entered into a contract for a large block of her time, he secured her services for a non-refundable deposit, which he freely agreed to and paid. The purpose of a deposit here would have been to secure that block of time that was booked so she would turn away every other inquiry that she received for that block of time for the scheduled date, there is an opportunity cost to the escort for that. In any case, the guy still agreed it was a non-refundable deposit, if anyone broke their promises here, it's the guy. If he had any claim at all, he could have sued her for the deposit in small claims court. He didn't, he chose to find the personal information about her and threaten to out her if he didn't pay, can you please point out the part where he actually threatens legal action? I don't see it... Here's the part of the article that covers what happened after the falling out:

But she let him to pay $1,500 to secure the date and he promised to pay another $2,000 before she flew out west and the remaining $3,500 once she arrived.

The man began calling and texting her daily. After numerous creepy exchanges, he cancelled his date and that’s when the real trouble began.

“He started threatening and berating me, demanding his money back,” Kate said, explaining the man was well aware the deposit was non-refundable.

After two weeks of threats, she agreed to return $800 “to make him to go away.”

But a week ago he threatened to “out” her by posting a Facebook photo he found of her online, as well her real name and address.

“If you don’t pay me the extra money, your photo and personal information are going public on Friday,” he texted on Feb. 18.

I don't see anything there that says he went to a lawyer and had him issue her a demand letter demanding she return the deposit or else he would sue her...

It is clear what he did is extortion, go look up the definition in the criminal code. You're assuming a lot here in terms of why he backed out that really have no basis on what the article says.

Also people here seem to take the argument that if no charges were pressed then there was no crime... That's pretty much the same as saying if you murder somebody and the police don't have sufficient evidence to charge you then it's not a crime, that's fairly preposterous. People have explained repeatedly in this thread why what the guy did was a crime and why the police may not have elected to press charges (for example a victim that just wants it to go away and expresses that they may be unwilling to go further by dragging things out and pressing charges).

But if you are certain that no charges = no crime, think about it from the flip side if that helps, if there was nothing wrong with what the guy did, the police would have told the prostitute to give the money back.

And here is the part of the article you missed:

"She was nervous about going to the police but more afraid of the obviously troubled man, who also threatened to sue."

I bet he was troubled, she had $1500 of his money and was refusing to give it back. Wouldn't you be pissed off under those circumstances? So, she went to the police to head that off. The threat to sue was what precipitated going to the police, otherwise why else mention it in the same sentence.

As for the deposit, you only have her word that it was negotiated as non-refundable. A deposit is usually there to cover damages, if incurred. For example, when you rent an apartment, you pay a deposit. You are supposed to get it back. A non refundable deposit is supposed to secure you an irrevocable option, and I doubt she would have been cool with that. It goes both ways you know. The fact that she paid part of it back initially indicated that she was well aware that it was not non-refundable.

Both of them are behaving badly. Firstly, he should not have been stupid enough to hand over that amount of cash before she even left home. And having been that stupid, he should have kicked himself when it went sour and called it a loss, because once she had the money he had no recourse. Secondly, if she incurred no expense then why would she feel the need to keep the cash anyway? She makes no mention of that.

 

[susi]

lost in japan,

yes, you are right about men facing unbelievable discrimination in this country. i have gone to court for/with, advocated for men in situations like you are describing, false rape accusations, family court gong show....

i have even been out for diner with a particularly large and dangerous looking man, he is a former professional fighter and rugby player so cauliflower ears etc....and they refused to serve us, based solely on the way he looked.....

i totally understand your point and no we don't really know the circumstances here and it could be a case of male discrimination in that women are more likely to be believed when its a case like this.....

that doesn't change my arguement that being outed is violence, but i do grant you that men are more and more the whipping post for everything that's wrong with society....

its like feminism gone too far, pushing back and punishing men now for being men....

i totally get it...

love susie

 

[Pillowtalk]

And here is the part of the article you missed:

"She was nervous about going to the police but more afraid of the obviously troubled man, who also threatened to sue."

I bet he was troubled, she had $1500 of his money and was refusing to give it back. Wouldn't you be pissed off under those circumstances? So, she went to the police to head that off. The threat to sue was what precipitated going to the police, otherwise why else mention it in the same sentence.

As for the deposit, you only have her word that it was negotiated as non-refundable. A deposit is usually there to cover damages, if incurred. For example, when you rent an apartment, you pay a deposit. You are supposed to get it back. A non refundable deposit is supposed to secure you an irrevocable option, and I doubt she would have been cool with that. It goes both ways you know. The fact that she paid part of it back initially indicated that she was well aware that it was not non-refundable.

Both of them are behaving badly. Firstly, he should not have been stupid enough to hand over that amount of cash before she even left home. And having been that stupid, he should have kicked himself when it went sour and called it a loss, because once she had the money he had no recourse. Secondly, if she incurred no expense then why would she feel the need to keep the cash anyway? She makes no mention of that.

I have never heard of any sp who does these kinds of trips or arrangements that have a 100% fully refundable deposit policy. If they did they wouldn't ask for a deposit in the first place, probably, only payment on arrival, and covering all the costs themselves, whether the guy backs out and fails to pay or not. The purpose and point of the deposit is to secure her time, which a student I assume has limited available time, and all during the booking and deposit process she will be turning down other appts. The purpose of the NON refundable deposit is to make up for the fact that she has committed her time to you, and lost income by turning down other bookings. I think we can assume that not all of her enquiries for appointments are coming from new clients, but that she will most likely be turning down or rescheduling regular clients that she knows would have shown up. So, lost income.

Sps without any kind of reputation of reliability, good reviews, etc, are not able to ask for deposits, or half in advance. That's just the way it is. They can try, but no one will pay it. This client would not have agreed and paid the deposit without knowing that she was 100% going to show up, based on her history and reputation. And within all of these agreements is a refund policy if it is the sp herself who has to cancel or back out. I don't know why you assume an sp who charges 400/hr and 7000 for a weekender, and who has a deposit policy for these bookings, is not laying out all of the terms and conditions and processes of doing this appointment, paying for it, and the reasons and conditions of getting a deposit returned.

The fact that he threatened her and forced the issue to me means he fully understood what the term nonrefundable deposit was all about. He knew the only way he was going to get it back was through force and threats. He just didn't take into account that she wouldn't put up with that. And to me, that is the point of this story, to let clients know that many sps won't put up with these threats, and extortions, and harrassment, and that they are fully prepared to go to LE when and if they have to. There are a ton of examples of this every week. The problem susi points out now and then is that there is such a stigma and worry in sps in the past, and now, that what they do is illegal, that LE won't take their reports seriously, that even things like this they should just let it go, and allow themselves to be threatened and intimidated. Even you, who I only have ever seen being very supportive of sps rights and safety, think she ripped the guy off because she had a non refundable deposit policy. There is a lot of shaming and blaming and, to me anyway within this thread, a message being sent to the sps to shut up and put up with it. The lesson that they shouldn't treat this business like a business and they have no right to put on conditions and terms in their business, nor should they stand up and speak up for themselves. They should shut up and give up, because no one is going to support them.

\And what is really interesting is that I've seen this story discussed on 3 different sites so far, and perb is the only one that has people that blamed the sp and thinks she is a greedy scamming bitch. The rest put the blame right where it belongs, on the guy who tried to extort her and got the visit from LE. And that she should never have given back even half of the deposit, that she was right and he was wrong, etc. Interesting.