Good read......man sues 278 Cleveland St

[max_power]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8243697/278-Cleveland-Sydney-brothel-patron-wins-150k-payout.html

[poida]

'unexpectedly experienced fellatio interrupta'.

interesting read, scary stuff. note to self, dont bring anything else apart from cash, dont want my phone taken and nude pics of me sent to my mum!!!

[doubleunique]

Wow..
Not surprising that they would do this given the attitude of the management. I went to this place back when they were in apartments and the service was very good but when they started getting success with Ginza and 278 they were extremely obnoxious and rude at times as times went on. I've stopped coming to this place for a while now which has worked out for my wallet and this will give me further second thoughts to attending

[S2K]

Boycott the two shops. They are acting like gansgters. They should be thrown in Gaol. That is no way to treat a customer.

[Raybo]

looks about to be deleted

[geekstyle]

Not trying to make excuses for "the well known shop" but from personal experience, the past few years I've been going there, they have been the most consistent for service, and as a "punter" I'm not sure there's much more than that I can ask for. For me, the things to consider in the news story are:

1. The WL not wanting to testify - understandable in the circumstances - many possibilities here even in the event that she was being assaulted by the customer, fear of family finding out, fear of australian authorities wanting taxation information, fear of notoriety in general

2. Why would the shop owner break into a room in the middle of a session - maybe they didn't find out the guy was banned until after the session started (how?) or maybe the WL called for help

3. Manager of a competing shop - he was banned from the other location, but decided to go to 278, because what? that would be ok? Everyone would know they were sister shops, all the promotional info at the time indicated as much.

Just because a judgement has been made, doesn't mean that justice has been served, our justice system is probably the best we have considering circumstances, but it's by no means perfect. I'd like to think that it's possible a shop owner was trying to protect a member of staff at the time - whether true or not, and that they would do so again in future without fear of being punished for it.

Hopefully the shop involved will in future be able to look after it's employees and take care of them from abusive customers (which I'm pretty sure would happen on many occasions) Honestly with the current epidemic, and the outcall services being used, I really hope the girls that feel they have to work and see customers are being kept safe, it doesn't help anyone if abusive customers can get away with whatever they want without fear of being caught.

[nostromo]

Not trying to make excuses for "the well known shop"

LOL. Then goes on to make the same BS excuses the shop tried on in court. :rolleyes:

[woodcock]

I posted this ad the other night & yes it was deleted too.... nothing sus here

[GoldfishMan]

Read between the lines. The man was "viciously assaulted", yet the punishment is only a payment of $150k? Under normal circumstances, this would've resulted in a jail term, but the article didn't mention anything about the couple going to jail.
"Made to kowtow to all assembled sex workers", this is consistent with the allegation that the guy was a known "stealther". But this being a case about the guy getting beaten up, that point was probably not relevant enough... IE. It may be true this guy was a bastard, but he shouldn't have been beaten up. That's how the justice system works, but certainly not how WE work. A stealther deserves to have his ass whupped!
And last point... The guy was a worker from "a rival establishment". Saying he was there causing trouble at 278 ... That's not too much of a stretch of the imagination.

[gggb]

I'm surprised how many people are attacking the shop.

My takeaway was guy worked for a rival shop, was already banned from one location and got busted.
It's unlikely you can go to the cops saying a rival shop is trying to steal our girls etc so they used the methods available when you can't use the regular justice system.

If he was just some Joe-schmo who got beaten up at a shop and publicly shamed I'd have a different tune but people saying it's unacceptable, calling for boycotts and dissing the management seems unfair in my eyes.

Always open to being convinced otherwise.

[nostromo]

Read between the lines. The man was "viciously assaulted", yet the punishment is only a payment of $150k? Under normal circumstances, this would've resulted in a jail term, but the article didn't mention anything about the couple going to jail.

I see the gaslighting of the forum on behalf of the shop has begun.


In September 2018, Mr Chang and Ms Hu, who had previous convictions for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, pleaded guilty to common assault upon Mr Fung.

They were criminally convicted of common assault and plead guilty. Its the bottom rung of assault charges, spitting on someone classifies as common assault and a local court is unlikely to send someone to jail for it. So "this would've resulted in a jail term" is baloney.

[halfway]

I posted this ad the other night & yes it was deleted too.... nothing sus here


Sounds like the Corona Virus " Nothing to see, Delete :D:D

[God Member]

This sounds like a great side scene in a Hong Kong action thriller movie. It's got interrupted felatio, a mama and papasan bursting through the bedroom door shouting, and slapping and pummelling the guy, and then a line of scantilly dressed girls being bowed and scraped to by the naked guy! Where do I see this movie? :miao:

[Ceath]

I am sure there are a few members here that are affiliated or receive benefits from the shop....because they are bending backwards to defend the undefendable...I know i might get banned for saying this and a lot of guys will attack me from saying this. But that's what i see. I guess, we live in a reality world, where everyone is doing it for themself....

Not receiving any benefits from the shop but just out of curiosity, how do you propose the shop provide evidence of a stealther? your argument seems far too idealistic

[Ceath]

just for the record i have visited the shop before several times, service had always been good, if a bit cold.

[zucon]

Well I am not a fs punter and more a rnt fan. But back in days I recall once I had to cancel my appointment which was last minute with one of a shop (not with 278). I did apologised and informed them, the next time I try to book I find that my number was in their blocked list and I cannot make contact or bookings like “I was banned”. I used another phone so I still ended up seeing my favourite girl but not for them (yes there are ways we are smart too), their attitude sucks tbh and no wonder they make a note and treat people bad if they are not happy about it. Again I am not saying they are always bad but in some scenarios also depends on the manager on duty, also not referring 278 or ginza in particular

These shops need to know
1. A punter spends 150 plus for an hour, it’s not a fortune but it’s still big money (that maybe his half day wage). Maybe equate to grocery basket for a week
2. Respect the punter as most punters are going thru some emotional challenges Or stress and they want to treated with compassion
3. Punters are punters not sex predators, most of them respect girls and happy to chuck out some money for sex with a working girl legally
4. They may be liking other shops, but may have come to see someone in particular (maybe after reading a review), or to test waters
5. They do have every right to cancel appointments as far as it’s done prior so the girl is available for other walk ins, they should still be able to make booking again without any judgement
6. Do not try to force a punter to see the girl if he is not interested or does not like(most actually lock access to leave the premises)
7. You are working in a licence arrangement, so you are legally accountable and most importantly respect a punters privacy

[doubleunique]

Lol I have been through a similar situation where I have needed to cancel and I notify them well in advance and they are super rude about it.

[zucon]

Not sure but most I’ve been in general lock the main door, the one where you press a green button next to door to request unlock

[zucon]

Lol I have been through a similar situation where I have needed to cancel and I notify them well in advance and they are super rude about it.

See that’s where I come from, thanks for confirming it’s the case with them, but I am not referring to 278 or Ginza

[Yogurt]

Ginza and 278 policy not accepted customer whom are working at other brothel , i dont know why ? They should be happy we make them money and they dont like if you cancel yourbooking thats the policy

[Meng]

Well they are probably afraid of other shops scouting and scalping their talent lol.

[Climax598]

I'm surprised this tread has not been shut down.
Maybe admin sick of cleaning the shit.

[Climax598]

Well they are probably afraid of other shops scouting and scalping their talent lol.
Don't all the shops do that. Is a free market. If you are good at your job you be headhunter.

[GoldfishMan]

To all the bozos saying anyone who "defends" the shop is in cahoots with them, what are you a fuxking fortune teller? Geez... Can't a person simply really enjoy the great service they have received from a shop over the years, just being a trouble free customer, and just cannot believe that the same shop can be so unjustifiably violent towards a paying customer? It is you who is wearing coloured glasses! Just look at yourselves... some are even posting back-to-back replies on this thread, like talking to themselves. You're NOT acting normal, got it?
I've been around and done things that put me on the bad books of brothels before. One was in HK Mongkok back in the late 90's at the height of triad activity there. What this guy got was nothing compared to what you can get there. Or why don't you wise-guys try stirring up some shit in 5* or 42G and see what you get there? Are they gonna have to "kindly ask you to leave"?

[bigboymcevoy69]

70482

loving old mate contemplating having a punt in the street view photo

[wilisno]

For those who love to speculate on any tiny bits of information, exercise some restraint, there might be things both parties wouldn’t want to put out in the open, there’s no need to damage other people’s interest based on your assumptions.

Leave the topic, as continuously dwelling on the same issue will be considered malicious attack to the shop.

[mister157]

Here you go gents: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5e9d0b85e4b0f66047ed8b2a

That's the original decision of the Court, with no extra interpretation of media, and you can read the facts as determined by the Court after considering the available evidence.

In terms of my 2 cents, I love the girls (and service provided by the girls) that this business finds. They are sensationally talented at finding, importing and training these girls, but agree that they do seem a bit heavy handed in their management having read punter accounts.

Punters who report anything negative about the shop often get lambasted here by all the proponents of the shop, rather than finding some reasonable medium. The truth will often be somewhere in the middle.

I think we can accept they do what they do well, but that doesn't mean we can't also accept they may have flaws?

For me personally I've never had any noteworthy problems with management, but even despite that, I have found on the off occasion that if I do try to either amend or cancel a booking (well ahead of time, and maybe twice ever out of probably getting close to 100 sessions), they aren't the most accommodating and can be heavy handed in response.

Not to mention if you've ever been stuck waiting in the waiting room because they've double booked or have had to switch girls on arrival because of the shop's error, then the opposite expectation is that we should be amenable to them. I've always found it to be a bit of a double standard, but let's be real, once I'm there, I'm not gonna leave without my satisfaction first. And I always leave a happy customer!

[BAM]

You guys remember last year when Ginza and 278 were closed for a week and no-one knew why? This is it.

Read the case file.

Wilson was protecting his girls. I think regulars at Ginza had seen the print outs stuck on the walls last year of a CCTV screenshot of a customer who tries to remove his condom and was banned. This is the guy. He was banned from Ginza so tried his luck at 278.

From the case file the bits that day why he got the stuffing beat out of him:
===================================
In contrast, the defendants claim that they unlocked and opened the door to Room 11 because the sex worker referred to as Joy had been heard to cry out words to the effect: “No.Fuck off, get off me”, or variations thereof. The plaintiff disputes that the sex worker said anything along those lines.

....

The defendants claim that prior to their entry into the room, contrary to house rules and brothel industry standards, the plaintiff had attempted to achieve unprotected penile-vaginal sexual intercourse with Joy, that is, without the use of a condom, in circumstances where, if that allegation was true, this would have amounted to a sexual assault upon her. The plaintiff disputed the allegation.

...

In 2017, on two separate occasions, some weeks apart, the plaintiff had paid for sexual services at the defendants’ Ginza brothel at 310 Cleveland Street.

In late December 2017, the plaintiff attended at that brothel for a third time but on that occasion he was prevented from obtaining such services. This was because Mr Chang, who had become aware of the plaintiff’s presence in the waiting area, informed the plaintiff that he was blacklisted and henceforth banned from further attendance at that brothel. The plaintiff did not offer much protest at that time. He then left the premises. The defendants’ underlying reasons for that ban were disputed by the plaintiff.

....

reason for the blacklist ban on the plaintiff was that his image had been copied from earlier CCTV footage taken at the Ginza premises and kept in a file of images of persons who were prohibited from entry to the Ginza brothel. The plaintiff’s image was said to be in that file and was said to have been annotated with his identifying nom de bordel, Charles, along with a further notation to the effect that he had a reputation at the Ginza brothel for allegedly removing, or trying to remove, his condom during sexual intercourse with sex workers, an activity which was contrary to house rules.

[BuryYourDead]

Actually, nm.... dont want the heat

[Climax598]

Hmmm... how could one proof that someone's trying to stealth in a session. If that can be done, then according to my analysis, this thing shouldn't have happened. Cos management can report to the authority and not took the matter on themselves.
155k with 50:50 rate, they just lost 1,107.1428571 hours of service. That's like umpty-sextillion sperms need to be taken... and that is what's up...

Back to law
From the third person point of view, shouldn't believe any of the case facts in law. Why? Cos:
1. Plaintiffs or DPP will always to add things up to the worst possible case ever for the defendant
2. In a case where defendants are going to or might plead guilty, they will negotiate to remove some sequences or merge multiple to one sequence.
How do you know is 50:50 rate?

[mister157]

Interesting read!

“Before the events in question, since leaving school, the plaintiff had some considerable background familiarity and experience concerning brothels in Sydney. At various times he had managed two brothels owned by his mother and his stepfather at premises in Gladesville and in Marrickville. The Gladesville brothel, at 42 Buffalo Road, Gladesville, was known as the Infinity Bordello: Exhibit “B”, p 286. In addition to his work at those brothels, he had regularly frequented other brothels as a paying customer, on a random basis, on an average of about four times per month. For that activity, he used the nom de bordel of Charles.”

“ The defendants’ second stated reason for banning the plaintiff from the Ginza brothel was the assertion, also denied by the plaintiff, and not made good within the array of factual evidence called by the defendants in their case, that the plaintiff had previously falsely stated to sex workers at the Ginza brothel that their sexual interactions with customers in those premises had been the subject of CCTV recordings. The apparent implication or inference to be drawn from that suggestion was, or appeared to be that, pursuant to his association with a competing brothel, the plaintiff might have been attempting to lure away or dissuade sex workers from working at the Ginza brothel on that account. Nothing of significance turns on those allegations, which remain unsubstantiated.”

“ The plaintiff was accustomed to using his pocket money given to him by his parents in addition to his own earnings, to spend significant sums of money, of the order of two to three thousand dollars, for a night of entertainment with his friends in the manner described.

In that regard, the group attended at a brothel that was not operated by the defendants. There, all members of the group other than the plaintiff were able to engage the services of sex workers. The plaintiff paid for those sexual services to be provided to his friends. However, at that time the plaintiff found that he was unable to obtain similar sexual services for himself at that brothel.

This was because after the plaintiff’s companions had made their arrangements to choose and engage with sex workers, the remaining sex workers at that brothel were unwilling and therefore unavailable for similar engagement by the plaintiff. The reason given for this was because those sex workers had previously worked at a brothel which the plaintiff had managed for his family. He therefore left the premises and sought out other establishments, which he referred to as shops. In the course of those events, after some internet searching on his mobile device, he eventually attended at the defendants’ brothel at 278 Cleveland Street.”

“ Mr Chang and Ms Hu were charged with serious indictable offences relating to the alleged manner in which they had treated the plaintiff. They were each twice refused bail. They remained in prison on remand for two months whilst awaiting further court appearances in respect of those charges. They each had previous criminal convictions for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. In that regard, there was no tendency notice served by the plaintiff in relation to those earlier assault convictions. Consequently, I here record that the evidence concerning their prior convictions for assault forms no part of the consideration of this case.

Whilst Mr Chang and Ms Hu remained in custody on remand, their brothel businesses suffered a significant economic decline, and they said they also experienced some family difficulties. They claim that those background events, and some discussions that took place between their lawyers and the prosecution, resulted in circumstances where they each decided to plead guilty to a lesser charge in the interests of a more expedient conclusion to the process of their prosecutions.”

“ The defendants maintained that at their Ginza brothel they kept a blacklist in relation to some particular customers. This was said to be in the form of a computer file containing photographic images copied from CCTV footage taken from cameras located within the premises. The images in question were said to have included annotations comprising short descriptions that identified reasons for a particular customer being blacklisted or banned. Such annotations included allegations such as being rude to sex workers, drunkenness, taking videos or photographs of sex workers, or non-consensual removal of condoms during sexual intercourse with sex workers.”

Haha, it is an interesting read isn't it? Crazy claims and allegations going all ways, but crazy to think they've both served time in remand!

Definitely don't wanna get on their bad side.

[Raybo]

I couldn't be fucked searching for the thread, but wasn't both shops closed and there was a news story about this at the time?

[tomford]

Q. You were paid cash both a base salary and a commission and your evidence was you were paid in cash in an envelope each week by your stepfather?

A. WITNESS: Yes.

Q. You took that cash home?

A. WITNESS: Yeah.

Q. And you never banked any of that cash?

A. WITNESS: Not immediately.

Q. No, you said that you didn't bank the cash that you took home?

A. INTERPRETER: I didn't say never. Sometimes when I was with my mother, when I was lacking in cash I would ask my mum for extra cash. When I'm lacking in cash, I ask my mum for cash.

Q. Your mum gave you even more cash than your actual salary?

A. INTERPRETER: Yes, yes, that's true because I spend quite a bit of money. After this incident especially, before this incident I was quite a big spender.


Sounds like a cool guy. Not an expert but it seems like he was avoiding tax. Any implications with the ATO?

[Climax598]

This Joy WL from Thailand have anyone seen her?

[konfuzion]

This Joy WL from Thailand have anyone seen her?
I think joy is girl real name

[xboyx]

$155K !!!!!!
phew, I need to go there, get myself beaten up, get my $155K then come back to spend that $155K on punting at their shops LOL

[holi_day]

$155K !!!!!!
phew, I need to go there, get myself beaten up, get my $155K then come back to spend that $155K on punting at their shops LOL

150K goes to the lawyers.

[AHLUNGOR]

150K goes to the lawyers.


Try Carbone Lawyers, Tony has promised to keep you in the loooooop !!..................haha

[Climax598]

150K goes to the lawyers.
More like 35% go to legal fee. The shop legal fees would be big.

[naturalism]

More like 35% go to legal fee. The shop legal fees would be big.

Costs are on top of the payout that Mr Fung (the plaintiff/customer) receives.



Costs
As the plaintiff has succeeded in obtaining a judgment in his favour, he should have an order that the defendants should pay his costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis unless a party can show an entitlement to some other costs order, for which there should be liberty to apply.

[Climax598]

Costs are on top of the payout that Mr Fung (the plaintiff/customer) receives.
If this to happen then $155000 + plaintiff legal fee + defence legal fee = $$$$$$. Expensive way to teach someone a lesson.