Gentlemen, as has been mentioned on here many times, the problem may be happening because this very site is being used for intel by LE. It's becoming more and more obvious that LCSO has very little actual crime to handle, so they have decided to go for easy headlines. So, if I may make a suggestion. One that was made to me early on by another user, and which I failed to heed, but will now. Let's keep the graphic detailed descriptions between each other (i.e. through private messaging in here). All that needs to go in the form is whether you recommend the MP/provider, and the cost for a massage. Nothing more. No yes or no's anywhere else on the form. Yes, I know, this kind of defeats the purpose of the site. However, I think that if we continue to list other services that may or may not be provided, we make LE's job easier. Obviously, even this methodology can be circumvented, by LE using their account to inquire as to another member's specific experience(s) at a particular MP. I know which members on here I can trust, the rest will need to gain my trust. I don't mean that as a put down, just the facts. So, before we lose all of the good MPs in the area, let's try to tone down the details a bit, okay?

Thanks. CJS

Captain. Lets not get it missunderstood. Spa's close NOT because of reviews. But because some girl offered a UC or informant a service they shouldn't. BOTTOM LINE EVERY TIME.

The girls need to be on their game on their LE radar and not get careless. LE will visit EVERY spa eventually. IT is what they do, review site or not. A review may get a place visited faster but if the girl is going to mess up and offer a service to UC LE (undercover LE) she is going to mess up no matter when they come.

I agree, keep the details on the spa and the girl's attitude, TS, time management etc. The drop downs and tip will tell us all we need to know...

Agreed, Rock. I just don't want to make it any easier for LE to start looking at a place. But you are absolutely right, it's still what happens when they get there that seals the deal. I just think some of us (myself included, have perhaps gotten a little overly descriptive at times). I'm still going to post reviews, but mine will definitely be lacking the kind of detail I have included in the past. And I will always be happy to message, off the main board, with you and Frogg as far as details, if you want them. Thanks.

Agreed, agreed, agreed. No AMP gets shut down solely due to reviews here. They are busted following an investigation. The point is, at least here in this neck of the woods, WE don't have to fuel the flames. There are times for full-account reviews. And, there are times (and places) for discretion. Note: some AMPs are not so much busted as they are closed down for other reasons (such as the case with Aroma Therapy -- they simply didn't have a licensed therapist and were otherwise nearly squeaky clean).

...also interesting ...in one of the articles describing some of the Loudoun County busts, an officer stated that as soon as LE shuts one down, they either soon re-open or locate elsewhere. By my account, there are now two "new" AMPs in Sterling ...and, I just noticed that Massage Therapy (one of the first of the recent busts) is reopened. So, three "new" APMs in the last two weeks. The thing that is disconcerting is that LE ALSO busted customers for frequenting a "bawdy place." I'd like to be able to follow those cases in court to see the outcome.

Well personally I would say a lawyer makes that "frequenting a bawdy place" go away before it sees the light of day. A couple of reasons.

1. Where is that county publishing a LIST of Bawdy places to alert the citizens to avoid them. Any business can have something shady or seedy going on in the back and customers may never know. You have a right to think a licensed business operating from a store front is legit and massage services are not illegal. How are you to know if your provider or spa is licensed BEOFRE you go in and check?

How can they classify something a 'bawdy place' unless they have evidence to prove it is, and if they previously have such evidence they have burden to alert the citizens it is a "bawdy place" and should be avoided. If they simply gathered evidence at that time, it was NOT a bawdy place when you entered it, it became so afterwards since you had no way to know in advance it was such a place, how can such a charge actually stick? It is a charge to publish in a paper or internet site simply to embarrass the person.

2. Frequenting implies more then once. It will be nearly impossible for them prove you were not there for the very 1st time, unless you have done something silly like talk to the police.
And 1 time does not = frequent.

I frequently fill up my gas tank. I frequently eat meals. I frequently drink water. I frequently sleep. I frequently go to work. Etc. etc. etc.

For me I frequently go to spas, but unless they can prove otherwise it was my 1st time there.