The Beginning

On a post on April 19, and other posts, Sarah makes much out implying that the BCCEC published Conflict Resolution report was intended to be used to report Sarah to Linda Malcolm.      However, what Sarah doesn’t seem to comprehend is that Linda Malcolm was contacted  before susi was contacted about doing the investigation into Sarahs Defamatory perb/cerf thread.    In fact, the emails sent to Linda Malcolm were revised slightly by the majority of the accused (since the new recipient would know some references that Linda would not understand), were sent to susi, the coordinator of the investigation team.   The Conflict Resolution came AFTER reporting Sarah to the police.
In fact, the victims made a conscious decision to not post replies to the accusations, in order to allow the investigation by both the team and Linda Malcolm to proceed.    Sarah in fact seems to forget or ignore the background of any conflicts she may have with other sps:  her derogatory and inflammatory remarks about CS and other sps in late January/early Feb on bcadultfun site.     An unprovoked and unwarranted attack, for the sake as she herself put it, drama attracts viewers.   The topic of discussion was lack of viewers and participants on bcaf at that time.  somehow coming on for the sole purpose of drama, attacking another member, is supposed to encourage more participation.
She also makes a big deal when Anita posted the report on perb and elsewhere.  Sarah received the email with the report on the same day her victims received the report, she had ample opportunity prior to the report completion to worry about what was in the report.
Sarah also is inconsistent on other pages regarding when Linda actually came out to see her.   2012, 2013.   Two visits?
Sarah says this:  I was never consulted about what should be included in the report and had no idea it was about to be published as an official document on the BCCEC blog.


There is still no mention of the fact that they’ve asked Linda to start an investigation. They mention talking on the phone with each other about me earlier in the year, Anita’s temper is displayed, Angie continues to deny she has ever been friends with me, been bullied by the same ladies or has tried to help me defend myself against them.

​\
No one was advised it was going to be published somewhere.  ​Sarah makes it appear as tho everyone except her is in the know.   Why wouldn’t it be published as a document somewhere, and what difference does it make that it was posted some place that she would be unable to get her perb allies to remove it?    The consult with Linda Malcolm had nothing to do with susi, the report or the other investigators.     While susi may have known or been told, it wasn’t up to her to inform or tell anyone else.     It was a private issue between the victims and Sarah.  
There is zero evidence to confirm that Angie denied or denies having been friends with Sarah. In fact, she actually says as her friend, she was very conflicted with Sarah’s accusations, of which she could find not evidence, and Sarah’s attempts to blackmail her and her client.    Angie denied having bullied by anyone because, again, there was no bullying going on.    Hard to prove a negative?   Well, of course, it is if someone says X, and everyone knows there is no X, what to do?   Angie stated before, and recently, she wasn’t going to lie for Sarah.   
 
Anita has a temper, no one denies this.   Anita is one person, one victim, however Sarah attempts to create the impression that everyone else is also responsible for anything Anita may have said or done.      
 
Sarah says:  

One of the many reasons the volunteers didn’t find any evidence that I’d been bullied, was because they weren’t given all the handles used by the bullies.

 
​The investigators had whatever was given to them by Sarah, who has a history of listing handles and sp names (usually considered ‘outing’ and punished by banning),  In the Defamation thread she used to accuse the 4 sps in the first place, using their sp names.  It certainly isn’t up to the victims to provide info about themselves, however the investigators were given enough information to proceed, investigating anyone with even a remote connection.    Since they went thru that point by point, how could they be confused about who was who, especially when on the many sites they themselves provided links to their own posts and handles to support their claims of innocence.   In fact, Sarah accuses but has no evidence to support her claim that the investigators lacked all the evidence.    
 
Sarah quotes from the report:   

it should be said that this being the first time, the process had flaws. ms sarah deleted her evidence and it took an incredibly long time to review everything. still, i think it was valuable as an exercise and that it can help us move forward from this point

 
Sarah wants now to say the entire report was flawed.  That is not at all what this statement means.    ​The flaw was that Sarah’s evidence was requested, and she failed to produce it.  The result was that the investigators now had to pour thru each and every post made by her and the 4 accused, rather than be linked directly to the alleged offensive posts.     The other ‘flaw’ was that it took a long time to complete, which is again linked to Sarah’s inability to produce evidence other than saying ‘it’s there, it happened’.        The fact that they could find evidence of Sarah making derogatory and belittling comments to some of those four is evidence of just how in depth they looked.
 
Sarah copied this:    

No I didn’t know about that, but I remember you and I had talked on the phone earlier this year about possibilities of who was leaking information out of the ladies lounge, because someone WAS giving information from the lounge to their clients. Which was pretty obvious to us all.

 ​
  This was not referring to Sarah at all, but a completely different situation.    ​
 
Sarah refers to editing the report for clarity. anyone would agree that the opening of the report has little or nothing to do with the actual contents of the report.   It would have been improved without reference to trafficking and India, and simply started with the actual report.   Also, when it was posted on perb in the Public Announcements section, firstly the mods ensured there would be no replies, they closed the thread.  This also ensured that susi was unable to edit her intial post that actually ended up dealing with two separate issues.   Her attempt to discuss an issue of emails to a completely different sp clouded the issue of Sarah’s Defamation thread being investigated.   It was an unsatisfactory result, even tho the report was produced, and we were exonerated in it and thru out it, the lack of a definitive summary and introductory comment when posting on perb muddied things unnecessarily.     
 
And since then, in what can only be considered a cover up or pay off for providing information from the ers LL, the entire thread has been deleted by Sarah’s demands.   I suggest it was by her demands because she is the only person who benefits from its removal.   
 
On her blog, Sarah complains about these comments, by summing it all up by claiming the others accuse her of doing this because business is slow.  Here is the complete post:     
by CS::   I was telling susi a little while ago that even without bannings or being unbanned or whatever else I vent about (thx for letting us all vent, btw), I would be even satisfied a great deal if Sarah admitted her wrong doing, maybe explained why she thought it was good to smear people’s reputations (did she think she could get away with it because no one will check the facts, did she think she had the support of other guys who really are known bullies and liars, did she just do it because business is slow and all her targets are also mature massage providers?
 
She focused on only one of the three suggested reasons for her doing this.  Why is that?  Because the other things are actually true and she has no defense against those suggestions?  
 
 
She then sums up the topic on her blog with this:   

The gang bullying, harassment, threats and malicious defamation continued to escalate in Susie’s Lounge.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Actually, Sarah, what happened and still happens is that you are constantly and consistently reminded that your allegations were fully investigated and found to be completely untrue.  And in fact the investigators noted bully behaviour by you, and other non sps, directed at your victims.    That they were upset and enraged by your inability to retract and apology is understandable.  That you continue to deny and attack them is not.    There is no ‘malicious defamation’ when the truth is posted.  And in fact, you copy/pasted a ton of comments and statements, and not one single one of them do you highlight as being libelous.  In fact, everything posted within knowledge of your wrongdoing is verified and verifiable.     

The Current Conflict and the decision to Test

The conflict between Fortunate One and Ms. Sarah came to a head in the form of a long post in a public
on-line forum known as “PERB”. The post contained broad accusations of bullying and exclusion on the
part of Fortunate One against Ms Sarah and Ms Sarah’s assertion that she had proof of these
accusations. There were also substantial posts and attacks in the months leading up to that point from
Ms. Sarah against Fortunate One as well on going for almost 1 year.
 
As is often the case, the mob mentality took hold making any attempt to resolve the conflict reasonably
near to impossible as the line between truth and fiction were blurred more and more by other parties
joining in on the destruction of Fortunate One’s reputation and declaring support for Ms. Sarah.
 
It should also be noted that 3 other workers were also named in the conflict, Tara, Brandi and Anita.
The resulting bans and loss of social and financial capitol prompted workers to attempt to “test” our
conflict resolution policies to see if we, as a community, could sift through the “evidence” and find the
truth ensuring the accusations and subsequent banning were justified.
 
The Process
 
Susie first asked the community if they felt this would be a good time to test our conflict resolution
policies, to which the answer was a resounding yes.
 
She then called for volunteers as per the terms of reference. At first there was reluctance by community
members to volunteer and become part of the drama but with assurances of confidentiality eventually 4
members volunteered to review the evidence and determine what if any penalties should be levied.
None of the volunteers are aware of who the other volunteers are in order to further protect
confidentiality and ensure no harm to volunteers as a result of participating.
 
Susie then put out the call to both sides to submit all evidence related to the case for scrutiny by the
volunteers who individually reviewed the material and submitted questions and conclusions to Susie for
addition to the final report.
 
The Evidence
 
Ms. Sarah when contacted explained that she had deleted all material related to the bullying and so
really had no evidence at all. She did submit letters of support she received in posts to the thread she
started as well as through private message and email. Most of these were from sex consumers or other
sp’s who had been in similar circumstances where they felt they were bullied.
 
Ms. Sarah is a relatively new provider with some posting history in which she has been known to name
call, threaten and breached the confidentiality of a ladies lounge. She was banned from the VCA lounge
for this breach.
 
Fortunate one submitted substantial evidence in her own defense including links to places where she
was attacked by Ms. Sarah, occasions where Ms. Sarah had breached Private ladies lounge security and
her own understanding of how the events had unfolded.
 
Fortunate One is a long time well known provider who has contributed significant energy to the
stabilization of the safety of sex workers.
 
Conclusions, Questions and Quotes
 
The volunteers all submitted their findings to Susie.
 
Note from Susie;
 
This report was extremely difficult to write. There were so many different accusations it was difficult to
try to track them all. We did our best to try to sift through the named material to track each individual
complaint. Throughout the process we all pondered the causes of the situation and common themes
emerged as ways we can begin to level the playing field amongst us and stop inter worker violence
before it starts.
 
I will first summarize the common themes that emerged and then provide a detailed review of each and
every complaint to test its credibility.
 
Common Themes
 
For the purpose of this report, the term “sp” or “sp’s” is used to describe “sex workers”. The meaning
is the same and reflects the language commonly used in the sex industry community.
 
Volunteers agreed that upon close scrutiny, there was in fact no evidence to support the banning of the
accused sp’s and the removal of Classy Sweet as ladies lounge leader on VCA.
 
Further, that the posts naming the accused sp’s should be removed to protect their honor and
reputations in line with the International Charter of Human rights.
 
That this report be made public in order to ensure the restoration of the accused sp’s reputations
 
The volunteers agreed that Classy Sweet/ Fortunate One is a long time well known provider with a good
reputation and no violent history. Some volunteers went further stating appreciation for her support;
 
“I’ve been in the industry for (X) years now and have never had a problem with FO.
In fact, just the opposite. She’s always been very informative and supportive.”
 
That there was in fact no evidence against any of the accused Tara1, Brandi, Anita and Classy Sweet.
 
Tara1 even shared private messages from Sarah which seemed to indicate no ill will between them
whatsoever until the post about bullying emerged on perb.
 
The volunteers were overwhelmed by the number of accusations and the amount of reading involved.
 
This lead to the process taking an extremely long time with us trying to work as well as focus on this.
The volunteers agreed that in the future it would be better if any problems are reported quickly so as to
prevent escalation and this sort of mountain of reviewing material.
 
The volunteers acknowledged that no evidence had been submitted by Ms. Sarah including no copies of
messages or links to posts where the alleged bullying occurred.  
 
Ms. Sarah stated that she had deleted everything and so could not submit anything. Volunteers agreed
that while this could be the case, it should not have prevented her from providing links to where the
public threats and bullying allegedly occurred.
 
Volunteers also had some suggestions about how things could be made better and secure some basic
respect between us all such as;
• The use of multiple handles by sp’s being treated as a major offence as it is with the sex buyers
• Rising above name calling. Tearing each other down in this way is crass and classless. We need
to be better than that.
• That posts of this nature are in the future deleted if no supporting evidence is submitted in
recognition of the harm it causes those workers affected.



Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s