Skip to Content Facebook Feature Image

Edinburgh entrepreneur launches a naked cleaning firm, charging £75 an hour to blitz in the buff

News

Edinburgh entrepreneur launches a naked cleaning firm, charging £75 an hour to blitz in the buff
News

News

Edinburgh entrepreneur launches a naked cleaning firm, charging £75 an hour to blitz in the buff

2019-04-13 21:05 Last Updated At:21:05

Victoria’s 15-strong army of staff are bringing Spring cleaning with a saucy difference to Scotland.

When an Edinburgh entrepreneur launched a cleaning firm, she gave a whole new meaning to stripped back style.

Soon the Scottish capital’s movers and shakers were calling up Victoria Murphy’s firm, Glimmer, to help with buffing-up the silverware … in the buff.

For Victoria, 25, employs a 15-strong army of naked cleaners – including three men – who charge between £55 and £75 an hour for their service, depending on the level of nudity.

And before she started recruiting, Victoria first tested the water – giving Edinburgh’s front rooms a thorough going over, wearing nothing but her birthday suit.

The singleton, who lives in the city with her pet Daschund, Louis, said: “I didn’t want to put my staff into any situation I had not experienced myself.”

With a degree in events management and a strong work ethic, Victoria was keen to start a business with a quirky unique selling point and began considering the adult service sector.

Then working as a beautician, she first toyed with the idea  of starting a webcam work business – though she wouldn’t be getting in front of the camera herself – but then stumbled across an American company offering a naked cleaning service and the idea for Glimmer was born.

“I knew I wanted something in that adult niche which would be fun and risqué but not extreme,” she said.  “We are not an escort service. What we offer is fun and flirty. When I did it for a while, I had a laugh and nothing untoward happened.”

Glimmer offers three tiers of adult cleaning – with a service in lingerie or underwear starting at £55 per hour,  topless cleaning costing £65 an hour and totally naked cleaning at £75 for the hour.

“None of my staff ever have to do anything they don’t feel comfortable with,” Victoria added. “The client will choose the option they prefer and I will match the cleaner to that choice.”

The naked dress code has certainly done nothing to deter prospective employees, with Victoria receiving over 100 applications last time she advertised for staff.

“The most important thing is that someone has professional cleaning experience,” she said. “Then they need to have a good personality, because engaging with the client, chatting to them and feeling comfortable being naked is all part of what makes someone right for this role.”

But Victoria admits that their 20 regular clients and 15 who book an occasional clean, have completely shattered her preconceptions about the type of person she imagined would use the service.

“I thought we’d get mostly professional working men in their forties but actually, the clients are much more diverse,” she said. “We’ve had some as young as 30 and others in their 80s. Many of them live alone and a lot of the older gentleman are quite lonely, so it’s important the experience is fun and that the cleaners like chatting.

“We have male cleaners available but women asking for men isn’t something that comes up a lot. We’re definitely trying to work on that side of things and build it up.”

She continued: “When I’m recruiting, I’m not worried about what people look like –  as everyone has a different idea of what’s attractive – but they do need to be presentable and body confident.”

Despite its saucy theme, Victoria said her friends and family have been very supportive about her business.

“They understand this is my baby” she said. “I do spend a lot of time explaining to people that this is a serious cleaning business, too. We clean to a very high standard. Most people ask what the client does while the cleaner is working.”

“They imagine they just sit there while the cleaner puts on a show, but that’s not what we do,” Victoria added: “A lot of clients have never done anything like this before and are often quite shy. So the cleaner will chat and engage with them, but, most importantly, they’ll get on with the job of cleaning the house.”

Social media – especially Instagram – has played a key role in advertising Glimmer.

“We can’t just put leaflets through people’s doors, as there may be families living there and we don’t want to offend anyone, so we use social media and also advertise in free listings where we can,” said Victoria.

Running her business single-handedly, Victoria has high ambitions for Glimmer and is now recruiting naked cleaners in Glasgow and Aberdeen, saying that once she has conquered Scotland, she will clean up across the rest of the UK.

“I do want to expand across the whole country but for now, we’re expanding by offering Naked Party Hosting,” she said.

Glimmer is also exploring the idea of offering Naked Handymen, which Victoria believes will appeal to more women, while her current client list is mostly male.

“I am still working part-time as a beautician doing nails mostly, but I am determined to make a success of this business, so I do work really hard,” she said.

“I do socialise with my friends and go out and I love taking Louis for a long walk, but I run every aspect of the business and so, truthfully, I have very little free time outside work.”

For information, visit www.getglimmer.co.uk or follow @getglimmer_ on Instagram

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday permanently blocked a White House executive order targeting an elite law firm, dealing a setback to President Donald Trump’s campaign of retribution against the legal profession.

U.S. District Beryl Howell said the executive order against the firm of Perkins Coie amounted to “unconstitutional retaliation” as she ordered that it be nullified and that the Trump administration halt any enforcement of it.

“No American President," Howell wrote in her 102-page order, "has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit targeting a prominent law firm with adverse actions to be executed by all Executive branch agencies but, in purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.’”

The ruling was most definitive rejection to date of Trump's spate of similarly worded executive orders against some of the country's most elite law firms, part of a broader effort by the president to reshape American civil society by targeting perceived adversaries in hopes of extracting concessions from them and bending them to his will. Several of the firms singled out for sanction have either done legal work that Trump has opposed, or currently have or previously had associations with prosecutors who at one point investigated the president.

The edicts have ordered that the security clearances of attorneys at the targeted firms be suspended, that federal contracts be terminated and that their employees be barred from federal buildings. The punished law firms have called the executive orders an affront to the legal system and at odds with the foundational principle that lawyers should be free to represent whomever they'd like without fear of government reprisal.

In the case of Perkins Coie, the White House cited its representation of Democrat Hillary Clinton’s campaign during the 2016 presidential race. Trump has also railed against one of the firm's former lawyers, Marc Elias, who engaged the services of an opposition research firm that in turn hired a former British spy who produced files of research examining potential ties between Trump and Russia. Elias left the firm 2021.

In her opinion, Howell wrote that Perkins Coie was targeted because the firm “expressed support for employment policies the President does not like, represented clients the President does not like, represented clients seeking litigation results the President does not like, and represented clients challenging some of the President’s actions, which he also does not like.”

“That,” she wrote, “is unconstitutional retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple.”

The decision was not surprising given that Howell had earlier temporarily blocked multiple provisions of the order and had expressed deep misgivings about the edict at a more recent hearing, when she grilled a Justice Department lawyer who was tasked with justifying it. Her ruling Friday permanently bars enforcement of the executive order. She also directed Attorney General Pam Bondi and Russell Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, to provide copies of her opinion to all government departments and agencies that had previously received the executive order.

The other law firms that have challenged orders against them —WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey — have succeeded in at least temporarily blocking the orders. '

But other major firms have sought to avert orders by preemptively reaching settlements that require them, among other things, to collectively dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal services in support of causes the Trump administration says it supports.

President Donald Trump arrives at Palm Beach International Airport in West Palm Beach, Fla., Thursday, May 1, 2025. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

President Donald Trump arrives at Palm Beach International Airport in West Palm Beach, Fla., Thursday, May 1, 2025. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Recommended Articles
Hot · Posts