I don't want to condone the type of behaviour apparently witnessed at this event, though I do feel that it was clear what type of event it was before it happened. It was a charity event levering the fact that many, maybe even most, men enjoy being served fine food and drink by attractive and approachable attractive women and are willing to pay a lot of money for it.
After all it's not as if the women involved did not know the score, they were not being paid the minimum wage, they were apparently paid £170 plus travel for the evenings work, that's not waitress pay.
So what more worrying, that a gentlemen's event got a little out of hand, or that all and sundry are distancing themselves from it as quick as they can in case they are associated with something that might be seen to be sexist in this new puritanical age that we are in?
Even the charities involved, who have benefited substantially for many years, are even proposing to return donations received.
|
>>I don't want to condone the type of behaviour apparently witnessed at this event
Good
|
>>I don't want to condone the type of behaviour apparently witnessed at this event
But I'll type several paragraphs justifying it anyway :-P
|
>> >>I don't want to condone the type of behaviour apparently witnessed at this event
>>
>> But I'll type several paragraphs justifying it anyway :-P
>>
Specially as its also covered elsewhere on this forum.
|
>> Specially as its also covered elsewhere on this forum.
Is it?
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 25 Jan 18 at 13:40
|
>> Yes.
>>
Ok found it, didn't know what direction that thread had drifted. Either way it's an interesting subject that perhaps deserves it's own thread.
|
>> >>I don't want to condone the type of behaviour apparently witnessed at this event
>>
>> But I'll type several paragraphs justifying it anyway :-P
>>
You miss the point Bromp. Whether it's the smutty gents attending or the women being paid much more than waitress money everyone knew the score, both this year and in years gone by, so why are they all being sanctimonious suddenly?
|
>>
>>
>> After all it's not as if the women involved did not know the score,
>>
There was a young lady of Kent,
Who said that she knew what it meant
When men asked her to dine,
Gave her cocktails and wine,
She knew what it meant
But she went.
|
|
£150 for working 10 hours, plus £25 for a taxi home sounds like fairly normal rates for late night waiter/ressing jobs...no uniform provided...? £15 a hour. They certainly should have expected to be able to carry out that work without being groped
|
>> £150 for working 10 hours, plus £25 for a taxi home sounds like fairly normal
>> rates for late night waiter/ressing jobs...no uniform provided...? £15 a hour. They certainly should have expected to be able to carry out that work without being groped
>>
Agreed on the latter point totally.
Though ten hours? I'd be surprised if it were more than five or six, it started at around 8pm as I understand.
|
A couple of thoughts.
No matter what has previously happened or was expected to happen or could be expected to happen, the treatment of the women was unacceptable. If any of these incidents were reported to police with witnesses I would not expect the judge to throw it our of court with the excuse of "you should have expected it".
From the charity side, I think this has been very poorly managed by the charities concerned. To quickly rush out statements saying they will refund the money maybe suggests to me that the charities concerned are either very flush with money or have very weak Trustees / CEOs.
They could have simply put a holding statement saying they would look at the issue at an emergency meeting or whatever. That would then buy them time to see the reaction in many circles today saying they should keep the money as the sick kids should not be the ones to suffer.
It could be argued that for these businessmen to be so rich, at some point in their career they have probably screwed someone over whether it be their staff, the tax man or whatever.
Another angle, and I am not meaning to lessen the treatment of the women here, but where do charities draw the line? What level of detail should they go to before they accept a donation from an event that they weren't involved in? Before accepting a corporate donation should they check all that company's HR policies to ensure they are all suitable? Do they ask for disclosures from donors that no one was hurt or distressed in the raising of that money?
|
It's become apparent a lot of these 'hostesses' had done the event before, along with the dress code it would seem they knew exactly what was involved. I wonder what tips or extras some were expecting?
I haven't seen reports of any of them complaining except the journalist, who I suspect only went along to jump on the bandwagon and get the sensationalist 'me too' story.
How many of our female partners have been titivated by a 'buff butler' or male stripper at a female only event? I've not heard of any of those men complain about being sexually exploited.
|
|
I agree BT.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 26 Jan 18 at 02:13
|
Big event by our so called captains of industry and banking.And a minister.
I wonder how many wifes are asking you know that charity event you never came home due to commitments.
|
They were told to wear black matching underwear and were supplied with a dress to wear.
They were told told to wear black high heels and if they were prepared to offer 'further services' they were supplied with red high heels.
Apparently not many bothered to check out the colour of the shoes despite having the same dress code last year but it was red belts then.
How many of these women needed the money badly and the only asset they had was their good looks and shapely body?
They were made to sign a non disclosure document that they wasn't even given time to read through.
Women didn't fight for a vote years ago to be treated like this, and surely even the most unfaithful and sexually active COE's can think of a better excuse to do what he wants discreetly than 'I'm off to a Charity event, darling'?
>> I've not heard of any of those men complain about being sexually exploited.<<
Of course you haven't because they would be ridiculed just as you are ridiculing the women.
Sexual harasment happens to both men and women, they both face the same judgements if they complain.
The fact we don't hear about it is NO indication that it doesn't happen.
Very good post from Bobby and one I totally agree with.
Charities giving back the money makes me think they certainly don't need the odd tenner I can afford to give them........and I won't be the only one thinking that way.
Pat
|
Missed the edit:
The question I asked on the other thread is regardless of what the women did or did not expect, do we think this is acceptable behaviour from the men involved?
There seems to be a reluctance to answer my question.
Pat
|
>> Missed the edit:
>>
>> The question I asked on the other thread is regardless of what the women did
>> or did not expect, do we think this is acceptable behaviour from the men involved?
>>
>> There seems to be a reluctance to answer my question.
There is no reluctance to answer you question, if the women expected it, then NO its not deemed unacceptable.
you are trying to be like Mary Whitehouse, entering the Raymond Review bar, and then moaning that the women have their tits out, despite that being on offer up front. Or the stripper in the seedy east end pub moaning that the blokes are staring at her fanny.
|
So it's all the women's fault is it?
Pat
|
|
No but they knew the score. No-one forced them work there, no-one in the least claimed it was an equal opportunity workplace. Even the reporter was there because she knew what was going on.
|
>>no-one in the least claimed it was an equal opportunity workplace.<<
Actually, everywhere should be an equal opportunity workplace.
Pat
|
do we think this is acceptable behaviour from the men involved?
>>
>> There seems to be a reluctance to answer my question.
>>
>> Pat
>>
What behaviour?
Getting todgers out and groping - no!
Enjoying being served food and drink by attractive women while having a bit of harmless banter - yes.
|
>>What behaviour?
Getting todgers out and groping - no!
Enjoying being served food and drink by attractive women while having a bit of harmless banter - yes.<<
But it was getting todgers out and groping, so the answer is an unqualified no then?
Pat
|
>> But it was getting todgers out and groping, so the answer is an unqualified no
>> then?
Pat, someone could get their todger out and have a grope in a Church, it doesn't mean it acceptable behaviour and it also doesn't mean it's wrong to go to church.
Seems to me that this event was generally pretty harmless, all involved knew the score, including the journalist otherwise there would not have been a story, OK a few blokes drunk to much and made back sides of themselves though that happens in most pubs on a Saturday night.
So why is everyone involved getting so sanctimonious? Is it a bandwagon we're all supposed to be jumping on?
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 26 Jan 18 at 02:15
|
>>So why is everyone involved getting so sanctimonious? Is it a bandwagon we're all supposed to be jumping on?<<
No, it isn't and certainly not me.
It's the kind of behaviour I would expect at *some* pubs on a Saturday night, but not at what is deemed to be, a prestigious event for the type of people the likes of me are supposed to hold in high regard.
I encountered a little of this many years ago when I used to have to attend sales conferences and it was one of the reasons I sought a different career as a lorry driver.
I've never encountered it since.......that says a lot.
>>Seems to me that this event was generally pretty harmless<<
I do wonder if the wives of those blokes attending the event feel like that, now they know what it involves?
What is fundamentally wrong with this is the fact that raising money for charity was used as an excuse to have a dirty night out and a smokescreen to make it OK......if you can't find a better excuse then don't bother, you don't deserve it
Pat
|
Ok so now because the charities think the same way you do, you are not going to give them any money.
You really do take the biscuit at times Pat, you really do.
|
I said they didn't need my tenner Z, read my lips!!!
Pat
|
If your lips were talking sense I would be able to. At the moment they are pouting like a slapped badger
You are moaning they gave the money back for moral reasons. Despite you spouting the same morals
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 25 Jan 18 at 16:01
|
I'm moaning that they took the line of least resistance and didn't stop to think of the benefit that money could do.
They were too busy, and too rushed, trying to distance themselves from anything that the've shot themselves in the foot.
Pat
|
|
Not the only ones, are they.
|
>> I'm moaning that they took the line of least resistance and didn't stop to think
>> of the benefit that money could do.
>>
>> They were too busy, and too rushed, trying to distance themselves from anything that the've
>> shot themselves in the foot.
I think that's a fair point. They should have done as Bobby said and made a statement deploring the circumstances in which the money was raised and saying that the trustees would consider the position in due course.
Ideally they'd then have made a proportion available to a suitable charity dealing with abuse at work etc. It may be though that charity law prevent such nuanced reaction and they'd no choice but to either take the reputational rap of 'dirty money' or the nuclear option of returning the entire donation.
|
"I haven't seen reports of any of them complaining except the journalist, who I suspect only went along to jump on the bandwagon and get the sensationalist 'me too' story."
No, I haven't heard of any complaining either - and it would be easy enough to go along to the press and make even more money by telling your story. I think we have identified another aspect of being a member of the 'permanently offended' brigade - being offended on behalf of others i.e. 'by proxy' - a bit like Munchausen by proxy.
I have never been to one of these willy-waving events in my entire life, though if other people want to engage in such activities, they are adults and it's their choice.
|
|
I’d been lead to believe that the staff were expected to be there from 4pm until 2am. Though I wasn’t there so cant say for sure! But it’s not unusual for catering staff to have to set up a venue in advance, so I see no reason to doubt it.
Last edited by: PeterS on Thu 25 Jan 18 at 15:28
|
|
I wonder how many of those condoning and excusing this behaviour would do so if one of their own daughters (or girlfriends / wives) were among the hostesses, and had been propositioned or inappropriately touched...
|
|
One would wonder why your daughter or wife was there doing such work.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 25 Jan 18 at 15:56
|
|
In the companies I worked at, such behaviour - if it was company function - was instant dismissal stuff. Totally unacceptable.
|
>> if it was company function -
>>
It wasnt. And thats the problem, its being dragged out of context.
|
Some of the reported behaviour wasn't simply in bad taste, it was illegal.
Even in strip-club (which this certainly was not) there is a strongly enforced no-touch policy.
Whatever goes on elsewhere, such as in hotel rooms, is irrelevant insofar as the event in the dining room itself.
|
>> One would wonder why your daughter or wife was there doing such work.
>>
Why shouldn't they be?
|
>> Why shouldn't they be?
No reason, though if they were there they would know why they were there and what to expect, a few lewd comments and perhaps a proposition or two.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 26 Jan 18 at 02:16
|
>> Why shouldn't they be?
No reason at all, but it would be no good you getting all shirty about it afterwards,
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 26 Jan 18 at 02:17
|
I'm agog at all this.
And frankly angry with e.g. Gt Ormond Street reportedly "returning" half a million quid. Idiots. Whatever else, the people who gave it did so freely.
I don't condone the groping etc., don't do it, never did it but some men have always done it and they are the ones who will certainly be likely to do it when 300 women are hired to dress provocatively and amuse them.
If there was prostitution going on, so what? Has anybody ever supposed that it doesn't?
Another load of virtue signalling on show.
It was a genuine charity event aimed at very well off people, some of whom are obnoxious, designed to pander to their egos and get them to part with money which they presumably did, in large quantities. Giving it back is idiotic.
Years ago I worked for a company that entertained its suppliers at an annual event. There were always hot-pant-wearing girls hired in to greet the guests who were mainly, though not exclusively, male. I found it a bit embarrassing. I don't think that would happen now.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 25 Jan 18 at 18:55
|
>>Years ago<<
>>I don't think that would happen now.<<
There's the clue, I think most of us thought, at least hoped, we'd moved on a bit but it appears not.
Pat
|
The "they should have known what to expect" attitude from some on here is the nub of the problem.
They were employed to serve and entertain guests, NOT be groped, touched, propositioned or whatever.
These aren't prostitutes we are talking about here.
|
>> The "they should have known what to expect" attitude from some on here is the
>> nub of the problem.
Not "should have known", but "did know". The reporter certainly did, that's why she went.
>>
>> These aren't prostitutes we are talking about here.
No, except for any who wanted to be.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-42827799/presidents-club-hostess-girls-offered-nannying-jobs
Interesting video from someone who was working that night.
I've never heard of this club, I'm surprised at how quickly they shut up. They'll probably not stop a different club different place and more careful about who they employ.
|
>> These aren't prostitutes we are talking about here.
Some of them were.
|
>>
>> There's the clue, I think most of us thought, at least hoped, we'd moved on
>> a bit but it appears not.
Some have, some haven't, especially when drink is involved.
|
I've been thinking about this - many men would like the idea of a meal, a few drinks and a bit of banter served by sexy looking waitresses, and it seems that many women are quite happy to work in that environment. Therefore I really don't think that there is any problem with a charity event where men pay to eat and drink and to be served by attractive women - IF - and only IF the women understand that they are there to look sexy and be a little flirtacious and are totally happy with that role. Apparently the vast majority of the women are happy with that role, they have done it before and will do it again, they understand that it involves a little more than the average waitress though they also understand that they shouldn't have to tolerate, touching, groping and lewd acts, the law is there to protect them in that respect.
"Tolerate" is a key word here.
For some while now there has been a drive to a more tolerant society, however this puritanical movement that seems to be gaining traction is if anything making society less tolerant and more judgmental.
We need to live in freedom with laws to protect us from extremes and our own morality providing us with guidance. We don't need to live within rigid guidelines from which if we stray we are castigated long before any laws are broken.
|
"however this puritanical movement that seems to be gaining traction is if anything making society less tolerant and more judgmental."
I used to think that Mary Whitehouse was 40 years behind the times when, in fact, she was 40 years ahead.
|
>> "however this puritanical movement that seems to be gaining traction is if anything making society
>> less tolerant and more judgmental."
>>
>> I used to think that Mary Whitehouse was 40 years behind the times when, in
>> fact, she was 40 years ahead.
>>
Yes, it seems that hard won freedoms are being undermined by these neo puritanicals.
|
>> If any of these incidents were reported to police with witnesses
And have they been? Even without witnesses?
So far as I can see it is only the journalist, who went along to make a story whatever happened, who has complained, and even she hasn’t gone to the police.
Brompton>>They should have done as Bobby said and made a statement deploring the circumstances in which the money was raised
>>and saying that the trustees would consider the position in due course.
So far as I am aware, the only person who has described these circumstances is the journalist. Who is being paid to create a story. Nothing really to deplore other than the notional circumstances.
It's not that surprising to me that one bloke exposed more than he should have; I remember the College rugger club was in the habit of stripping off after a 'few' beers, and I'm sure that it's the same boys who go to this sort of event. That one person may have done this doesn't make the entire event a criminal offence, nor does it make all attendees criminals.
Whole event doesn't sound much fun to me, but then nor would attending a football match be my thing, and I don't propose making that illegal.
|
|
And £15 per hour is a shed load to be paid for waitressing in central London. I know people who do this for a living. £15 is the going rate for paying an agency. The staff receive the minimum wage. Of course if you want to hire the self-same waitresses directly, as I have on occasion, they expect £15. These will all have been hired through an agency.
|
>>And £15 per hour is a shed load to be paid for waitressing in central London
So? (cross thread)
|
>> >>And £15 per hour is a shed load to be paid for waitressing in central
>> London
>>
>> So? (cross thread)
It corrects the opinion expressed above that waiting staff would have a cat's chance in hell of earning that sort of money normally.
What do you mean by 'cross thread' by the way? Some people seem to have got quite ill-tempered here.
|
>>What do you mean by 'cross thread' by the way?
I used "so" at the start of a sentence - Pat's thread complained about its prevalence in interviews (it also bugs me especially on Radio 4)
As far as the £150 for a(long) night's work, I think if you specifically wanted to employ 130 attractive women in London for a single night, have them sign non-disclosure agreements, and wear skimpy outfits, you're not going to manage that brief on minimum wage.
G4S found that out with their Olympic security contract ;-)
|
>> G4S found that out with their Olympic security contract ;-)
And the fact they couldn't organise an orgy in a brothel.
|
>>
>> G4S found that out with their Olympic security contract ;-)
>>
G4S interviewed me and took me on for the 2012 London Olympics.
I am still waiting to hear where I am going to be working.
|
>> So far as I am aware, the only person who has described these circumstances is
>> the journalist. Who is being paid to create a story. Nothing really to deplore other
>> than the notional circumstances.
I've heard several other descriptions from women who were there either this year or on previous occasions. They describe same thing; a minority of the punters being too tactile. The reporter had heard the story form those offended in previous years.
She's going undercover to expose abusive working conditions just the same as people have done at Amazon warehouses or Sports Direct's place. Are they 'paid to create a story' or does that just apply when there's a salacious angle and the reporter is a nice looking young woman?
|
Totally agree with you Bromp....that must be a first:)
Pat
|
Grow up Z, it is entirely possible to disagree with anyone 90% of the time but occasionally their views align with your own. At least I'm not afraid to admit it.
Let's face it you and I disagree most of the time but just now and again....:)
...and I know who I'd want stood behind me if push came to shove!!!
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Fri 26 Jan 18 at 18:23
|
Interesting article from the Law Society's Gazette:
tinyurl.com/ydxe74kt
|
|
Lawyers are hypocrites : well wot a surprise.
|
>> Grow up Z, it is entirely possible to disagree with anyone 90% of the time
>> but occasionally their views align with your own. At least I'm not afraid to admit
>> it.
Show a little gratitude girl, I taught you a new word today.
|
>> She's going undercover to expose abusive working conditions just the same as people have done
>> at Amazon warehouses or Sports Direct's place.
>>
It's totally different bromp, the Presidents Club situation is empowered women being paid well for a few hours work. The Sports Direct situation is vulnerable people on the breadline being exploited (allegedly).
Totally different.
|
It's totally different bromp, the Presidents Club situation is empowered women being paid well for> a few hours work. The Sports Direct situation is vulnerable people on the breadline being exploited (allegedly).
>>
>> Totally different.
>>
Not really, who's to say how many of the hostesses were hard up?
|
>> It's totally different bromp, the Presidents Club situation is empowered women being paid well for
>> a few hours work. The Sports Direct situation is vulnerable people on the breadline being
>> exploited (allegedly).
>>
>> Totally different.
Are you serious or is that a poor attempt at irony?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 27 Jan 18 at 08:26
|
>> >> It's totally different bromp, the Presidents Club situation is empowered women being paid well
>> for
>> >> a few hours work. The Sports Direct situation is vulnerable people on the breadline
>> being
>> >> exploited (allegedly).
>> >>
>> >> Totally different.
>>
>> Are you serious or is that a poor attempt at irony?
No worse than your attempt to claim they were all poor people being exploited.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 27 Jan 18 at 08:43
|
>> No worse than your attempt to claim they were all poor people being exploited.
Exploited or empowered isn't binary is it? Some may have known what to expect and relished it, others may have been desperate for the rent money and/or ignorant of what might happen. And of course they could be well off and still exploited in manner of their treatment.
To me there are two issues:
1. Is it ever legitimate (in the moral sense) for society to permit events run along these lines? Bear in mind that strip or pole dancing joints generally have a no touching rule.
2. If it is OK are the women involved fully informed, properly remunerated etc.
The reputation of The Dorchester will have taken a pasting too. Be a cold day in hell before a top London venue is prepared to host an event of this nature.
|
> 2. If it is OK are the women involved fully informed, properly remunerated etc.
That would be my only question to ask. As long as they know what's expected and the wage is good, then let consenting adults crack on.
|
>> 1. Is it ever legitimate (in the moral sense) for society to permit events run
>> along these lines? Bear in mind that strip or pole dancing joints generally have a
>> no touching rule.
>>
You seem to suggest that this event didn't have a no touching rule? Of course touching and groping and getting todgers out was the exception not the rule, though it also happens in pubs on a Saturday night, in both cases it's a reflection on the individuals rather the event, that's what the law is for.
To ban such an event because of the behaviour of one or two punters is like banning pubs because one or two people get drunk.
>> 2. If it is OK are the women involved fully informed, properly remunerated etc.
>>
Yes totally.
|
>> Are you serious or is that a poor attempt at irony?
Serious Bromp.
How about you?
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 27 Jan 18 at 20:27
|
I mentioned this to my missus.
If the lady's where asked about what underwear to put on and sign a disclaimer regarding any shenanigans going on I would have smelled a rat.
A lot of men and attractive women in a club with alcohol available they won't be playing domino's late in the night.
|
Here's another one, I'm not into darts though I can see how a couple of attractive women add to the glamour and spectacle. All this does is ruin it for all involved including the women who are apparently quite happy to dress in a sexy way, enjoy the attention and get fairly well paid. Likewise F1 and MotoGP grid girls who are also under threat.
If it's allowed women can choose, if it's banned they have no choice even if they want to be employed in this way, how is that progress?
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/darts/42841620
Last edited by: Hard Cheese on Sat 27 Jan 18 at 22:10
|
I guess that if a Publicly owned Broadcaster feel that a significant proportion of viewers believe that parading women in swimwear at a darts match is a bit tacky and not really appropriate if the game is to be taken seriously then its time for a change.
It is bit 1970s. Belongs to the era of Miss World which was swept away years ago really don't you think?
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Sat 27 Jan 18 at 22:31
|
>> It is bit 1970s. Belongs to the era of Miss World which was swept away
>> years ago
i thought that they were still going on?
|
|
Yes in China or somewhere but not on Prime time BBC
|
>> Yes in China or somewhere but not on Prime time BBC
Ah right I thought you meant it had stopped completely. The darts with walk on girls etc is on itv not BBC.
|
I don't think it involves swimwear at darts matches.
Miss World still exists though swimwear is no longer a factor I understand.
|
|
As I said above we really are becoming a less tolerant society, this is not progress.
|
>> As I said above we really are becoming a less tolerant society, this is not
>> progress.
>>
Possibly but I guess a lot of people do find it all a bit tacky and demeaning to women and we surely have to be tolerant of their views too. Certainly a public broadcaster has a duty to listen to their viewers
|
>> Possibly but I guess a lot of people do find it all a bit tacky
>> and demeaning to women and we surely have to be tolerant of their views too.
I find the showmanship in darts a little tacky though I don't have to watch it. Neither does anyone whio migjt be offended by an inch of cleavage.
>> Certainly a public broadcaster has a duty to listen to their viewers
>>
Yes, they should listen to darts viewers regarding darts, not joe and jo public who have been stirred up by a scoop seeking journalist.
|
> Yes, they should listen to darts viewers regarding darts, not joe and jo public who
>> have been stirred up by a scoop seeking journalist.
>>
The PDC say the broadcasters are doing just that. They've been told times are changing and although they didn't agree they have to listen to their customers, in this case the BBC. I watched the masters last night, did look a little odd without them but it'll be one of those things that you won't notice any more once it's gone. Although one of the two main walk on girls isn't happy, she said she'd be taking a 60% wage cut.
|
>>As I said above we really are becoming a less tolerant society
Yes.
Less tolerant of bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc
Your point is?
|
>> Your point is?
I reckon you understand my point quite clearly, it's a matter of being more tolerant of others, more tolerant and accepting of our differences whatever they maybe - within the law. So if a few blokes want to eat drink and get merry while being served by some sexy ladies who are well paid for what they do and mostly join in the banter, all in the name of charity, then who are we to decide that we are not going to tolerate that, it restricts civil liberties, it's a form of censorship. And how does it advance women's rights? If it's allowed women can choose to be involved, if it's banned they have no choice even if they want to be employed in this way, how is that progress?
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 28 Jan 18 at 20:04
|
>>So if a few blokes want to eat drink and get merry while being served by some sexy ladies who are well paid for what they do...
Nothing wrong with that
>>sexy ladies who are well paid for what they do and mostly join in the banter
Oh ho - there's a qualifying 'mostly' - either they do or they don't and if they don't then why not?
Maybe because the organisers were:
1. Totally disingenuous in their advertising for the position of 'hostess'
2. Entirely disregarded their responsibility to protect employees and members of the public against breaches of the law
>> in the name of charity
irrelevant
>> If it's allowed women can choose to be involved
Only if they are choosing with informed consent, and we both know in this case what the organisers wrote in their documentations did not tally with the reality of the event, or its (small 'p') policing.
>> if it's banned
Who is banning what?
Stay within the law and it's all good.
The President's Club did not, and it's gone.
And just to take you to task with your repeated "We're becoming a more intolerant society" mantra, how about you give me solid examples of personal freedoms you've had removed in the past 30 years (ones which do not encroach upon the lives of others).
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sun 28 Jan 18 at 18:05
|
>> >>sexy ladies who are well paid for what they do and mostly join in the
>> banter>>
>> Oh ho - there's a qualifying 'mostly' - either they do or they don't and
>> if they don't then why not?
>>
I said mostly join in the banter, of the ladies in the post office one does not join in the banter in the same way as the others, is she being exploited maybe?
I am not defending the Presidents Club, though they have run the event for some years, many of the women have worked at it for a number of years. There have been few issues over that time, they have raised millions for charity, it is only the FT journo who has stirred this up.
Groping and getting todgers out is wrong, is illegal of course, though that's the exception not the rule, it happens in pubs in most town centres most weekends, it's not a Presidents Club problem, the offence needs reporting so the weight of the law etc etc.
>>
>> >> in the name of charity
>>
>> irrelevant
Of course it's relevant, it is not debauchery, there is a well meaning background to it.
>> And just to take you to task with your repeated "We're becoming a more intolerant
>> society" mantra, how about you give me solid examples of personal freedoms you've had removed in the past 30 years (ones which do not encroach upon the lives of others).
>>
I won't take you to task for your patronising tone, I'll simply repeat what I said above - for some while now there has been a drive to a more tolerant society, however this puritanical movement that seems to be gaining traction is if anything making society less tolerant and more judgmental.
We need to live in freedom with laws to protect us from extremes and our own morality providing us with guidance. We don't need to live within rigid guidelines from which if we stray we are castigated long before any laws are broken.
To put this into context, what laws did 99.9% of the men and 100% of the women who attended the Presidents Club break? Yet because of a meddling journalist and a judgmental, puritanical society they have had there enjoyment and employment curtailed and numerous excellent charities* have lost out.
*I don't think the charities have handled it that well, though that another matter.
|
>> Of course it's relevant, it is not debauchery, there is a well meaning background to it.
It's not relevant - debauchery is alive and well, and far from illegal - go-go bars and strip clubs are a thriving business and punters and workers alike know the rules (except for sex-trafficking of course, but that's...umm.. illegal)
>> [guys pulling their cocks out, etc] happens in pubs in most town centres most weekends
What pubs do you go to? Never happened in ones I frequented, and infractions of the rules/law were generally immediately dealt with by the staff.
Nightclubs are much more salacious - toilets are almost as bad as the House of Commons for drugs and fornication.
>> I'll simply repeat what I said above
ie you can't come up with any examples to back up your rather glib, Daily Mail-esque critique of modern Britain.
>>I don't think the charities have handled it that well
I agree, but I don't know what rules guide the charity trustees and where they can receive donations from.
|
|
'S funny how things go round in circles, isn't it? I recall that Mary Whitehouse’s particular views on censorship and freedom were strongly opposed by the liberal elite of the day. Forty years on, and we find that our current liberal elite are the neo-puritans; I guess that in another 40 years, the liberals of the future will crying out for more freedom.
|
>>neo-puritans
Not sure who you're tarring with that nomenclature but as far as I am concerned consenting adults can do whatever they want by themselves or with other consenting adults within the law.
And sometimes the law needs to be changed when it infringes on this liberty (about time for the personal use of drugs to be decriminalised, and supply regulated but no government wants to handle that one yet).
The important bit is the informed consent (as opposed to obtaining through deception/omission) rather than the acts themselves.
|
|
Skimpy mini skirts and low cut tops then . The point is the same.
|
>> Skimpy mini skirts and low cut tops then . The point is the same.
>>
As I say I'm not a follower of darts. Though if the majority of fans like it, the majority of players like it and the women involved are happy with what they are doing and are adequately paid the what is the problem?
|
I rather think that the BBC who pay large s amounts of money to the game feel that a lot of their viewers are no longer happy with women being portrayed in that manner and they would like to change the TV image of the game
If Darts as a game want to go ahead without sponsorship then of course they can but otherwise he who pays the piper calls the tune
|
>> I rather think that the BBC who pay large s amounts of money to the
>> game feel that a lot of their viewers are no longer happy with women being
>> portrayed in that manner
As most of the viewers to darts are perfectly happy to see women being portrayed in that manner, and the types that don't would never watch darts anyway (unless of course they now tune in to be deliberately outraged) I would call it an over reaction.
I wonder of this times reporter knows how many women she has now put out of work. Doesn't care probably as it doesn't affect her.
|
a bit tacky and
>> not really appropriate if the game is to be taken seriously then its time for
>> a change.
its Darts, it is Tacky and not to be taken seriously.
|
"its Darts, it is Tacky and not to be taken seriously."
Of course it should be taken seriously ..........
youtu.be/vqxXNZcIdwM
|
|
Just found indoor bowls on BBC2. There might have been a few matronly ladies looking on. Up with this we should not have to put.
|
Back in the seventies a pub in Stratford had topless barmaids for a while, and another in Canning Town had topless Go Go dancers on a Friday lunchtime. Both pubs were always packed.
Or so I was told....
|
>> Back in the seventies a pub in Stratford had topless barmaids for a while, and
>> another in Canning Town had topless Go Go dancers on a Friday lunchtime. Both pubs
>> were always packed.
I remember going with colleagues to an establishment on City/Islington fringes in 1979, no idea where, my colleague Arthur just told the taxi driver an address. Recall last building standing in an area scheduled for redevelopment. Whether by the Luftwaffe or Local Government I couldn't say. Pub with a stage where 'ladies' removed their clothes and, amongst other tricks, swirled customers pint pots over their pubic region with customer then challenged to down the remains.
A year or two later we met colleagues at Department HQ in a place called (IIRC) The Paviours Arms in Westminster. There we were entertained by strippers who then mingled with the crowd pressing themselves against us in an attempt to solicit donations of coins into the pint pots they carried.
Place was subsequently turned over by the Vice Squad!!
In both cases though the women had full bushes. I doubt you'd see that today.....
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 28 Jan 18 at 19:31
|
"I remember going ..........."
Are you admitting, Brompt, that you are a bit of a hypocrite? Or have you seen the light?
|
>> Are you admitting, Brompt, that you are a bit of a hypocrite? Or have you
>> seen the light?
You mean like a seventies socialist who now tacks to the right :-)
|
"You mean like a seventies socialist who now tacks to the right :-)"
Sixties socialist who has seen the light and lists gently to the right :-)
|
>> "I remember going ..........."
>>
>> Are you admitting, Brompt, that you are a bit of a hypocrite? Or have you
>> seen the light?
>>
According to his post the light was hidden under a bush(el) ;-)
|
>> Back in the seventies a pub in Stratford had topless barmaids for a while, and
>> another in Canning Town had topless Go Go dancers on a Friday lunchtime.
Every pub in Stratford and Canning town had them in the 70s. Dont tell me the, the canning town pub was the Bridge House.
Funnily enough the last pub stripper I saw was in the Greenford Hotel, which was confusingly universally known as the Bridge Hotel in Southall (and nowhere near greenford)
|
"Every pub in Stratford and Canning town had them in the 70s......."
Ah, it seems that ribaldry may have been dying out naturally before the permanently offended were invented?
|
I used to play for an Edinburgh darts team.
One of the pubs in our league was the Burke and Hare, which on Tuesdays and Thursdays had go-go nights.
Apparently the 'dance floor' at the time was a plywood cover on top of the pool table - Classy!
This area of Edinburgh at the top of Lothian Road is colloquially referred to as the "Pubic Triangle"
|
>> Every pub in Stratford and Canning town had them in the 70s. Dont tell me
>> the, the canning town pub was the Bridge House.
IIRC the Bridge House was on the main road city side of the flyover, the pub I was referring to was beside the viaduct on Silvertown way. The Stratford pub with the topless barmaids was the Swan on the Broadway.
The Bridge House used to come under different licencing laws to those west of the flyover, closing at 11pm Monday to Thursday when 10:30 was chucking out time outside the city boundary.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 29 Jan 18 at 02:02
|
"There might have been a few matronly ladies looking on."
Are you suggesting that ladies should be covered up ..... head to toe?
|
>> "There might have been a few matronly ladies looking on."
>>
>> Are you suggesting that ladies should be covered up ..... head to toe?
>>
Now that's oppression!
|
|
I'm still waiting to hear about criminal prosecutions arising from the evening.
|
Perhaps not lunacy, but obviously someone has decided to try and make F1 more attractive to wimmin?
I would have thought keeping the grid girls and adding some Chippendale-esque grid boys would have covered that angle.
|
|
I don't see the point of grid girls, or podium girls in cycling for that matter. You've got to be a complete saddo to tune in just for that in this day and age. I think it just adds a rather tacky veneer of "Glamour" to something that doesn't need it.
|
|
No the girls add nothing to the event.
|
Yeah, but no, but it's like eroding my freedom, innit.
Like.
|
Well, don't blame us women for that!
It's corporate madness gone beserk.
First darts then Motor racing and next it will be MotoGP, but it's the sponsors they're worried about, nothing else.
Pat
|
I'm truly not fussed about grid girls from a viewer's perspective, however it erodes the girls' freedoms, if the fans like it, it's considered part of the sport, the organisers pay the girls good money to do the job then let is be and stop this ridiculous process of restricting one person's freedoms to pander to another's sensibilities.
It's not a matter for women collectively, it's a matter for a woman individually.
Just as if a bloke wants to be a butler in the buff or a Chippendale ... like me ;-)
|
>> it erodes the girls' freedoms
No - as it is obviously no longer considered "part of the sport" - has nowt to do with them.
It's no more of an erosion of freedom than a worker being made redundant.
>>It's not a matter for women collectively, it's a matter for a woman individually
No, in this case it is a matter for F1 hierarchy.
|
>> >> it erodes the girls' freedoms
>>
>> No - as it is obviously no longer considered "part of the sport" - has
>> nowt to do with them.
>>
It's the reason for the change though, pandering to the sensitivities of a few to the detriment of many.
|
>> It's the reason for the change though, pandering to the sensitivities of a few to the detriment
>> of many.
>>
Are you honestly really bothered.
To me, whether they are there or not is totally irrelevant if I am watching F1 on TV, they are just part of the general melee around the grid before the start.
|
>> >>
>> Are you honestly really bothered.
>>
No, no, no, I am not all bothered about F1 grid girls, F1 is great for insomnia these days, a shadow of it's former self, and I don't watch darts, and I haven't been to the Presidents Club.
It's the principal.
|
>> It's the principal.
>>
Or even the principle :-)
|
>> >> It's the principal.
>> >>
>> Or even the principle :-)
>>
Egsactly ;-)
|
>> I'm truly not fussed about grid girls from a viewer's perspective, however it erodes the
>> girls' freedoms, if the fans like it, it's considered part of the sport,
The viewers pay for the sport, if they are not fussed its an expense that can be trimmed init.
|
Does anyone seriously watch F1 to see the grid girls, or cycling to ogle the podium girls? They are about as sexy as looking at a 1950's glamour mag.
Out of date by at least thirty years.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Wed 31 Jan 18 at 20:00
|
Several years ago we were told to take down the "glamour" calendar that was hung up in the workshop at work in case it offended anyone.
Did the girls in the upstairs offices also get told to take down their pin up male calendars, semi naked rugby player posters, etc? Were they heck.
So much for equal rights.
|
ISTR the "glamour" calendars in workshops generally had full frontal nudes on them.
Maybe that was just the mechanic's copy of Razzle up on the wall....
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 31 Jan 18 at 21:04
|
>> ISTR the "glamour" calendars in workshops generally had full frontal nudes on them.
Ours were the topless versions. The same girls that were on page 3 of the Sun, NOTW. & Daily Star.
|
>>Ours were the topless versions
The ones I remember looked like somewhere you could park your bike.
|
"Does anyone seriously watch F1 to see the grid girls, or cycling to ogle the podium girls?"
Daft comment.
Do you really think people were incentivised to go to F1 because they were there, or the converse, that they were put off going by their presence? It's all part of the show.
|
While we are in the area of political correctness and Formula 1, I have noticed that female drivers are hopelessly under-represented on the grid.I would like to suggest that, in order to redress the balance, the grid is made up of 45% men, 45% women and 10% not sure.
It might make it more interesting.
|
Many moons ago my father in law Irish/Scottish decended used to go to a workings man club.
Some of the lady's where topless serving beer.One of the lady's dipped her breast in his pint of bitter.
The old man liked his beer but that went to far he told me.I miss him great man.
|
>> Many moons ago my father in law Irish/Scottish decended used to go to a workings
>> man club.
>>
>> Some of the lady's where topless serving beer.One of the lady's dipped her breast in
>> his pint of bitter.
"Would you like milk with that?"
|
Honestly. F1 is pretty distasteful at the best of times. That I now learn it has glamour girls does nothing to make it more sophisticated. But ban them and you do the girls out of some nice pocket money. I read a fairly impassioned plea on Facebook from a girl who wrote 'please don't sack me'.
|
There's an article in the 'i' today by Simon Kelner that supports the abolition of grid girls, and the pith of the argument is that it is on the same spectrum as FGM in making women subservient to or for the amusement of men so should not be tolerated.
I disagree. For me, the bit he is missing is the genuinely voluntary behaviour of the grid girls. It's hard to see how their 'objectification' could be in any way a result of societal pressure.
|
>> There's an article in the 'i' today by Simon Kelner that supports the abolition of
>> grid girls, and the pith of the argument is that it is on the same
>> spectrum as FGM in making women subservient to or for the amusement of men so
>> should not be tolerated.
HTF can you equate girls employed to provide glamour, with FGM? Specially in an article written by a bloke. What a knob.
|
|
Exactly. Double knob with knobs on.
|
Except of course he doesn’t “equate†grid girls with FGM. He says that they are on the same spectrum but a long long way apart. Always a good idea to read an article before criticising it.
inews.co.uk/opinion/banning-grid-girls-positive-step-fight-equality/
|
|
No he doesn't equate them. But he's still wrong IMO, after reading the whole article this morning.
|
So you agree then that Zero’ s statement misrepresents the argument put forward in the article but are happy to endorse his view anyway.
My own view is that things like page three girls, grid girls et do, perhaps in a trivial way objectify women as sex objects. Not the biggest problem in the world but Kelner is probably right. It reinforces the way some men look upon women and perhaps it is time for a change.
|
>> So you agree then that Zero’ s statement misrepresents the argument put forward in the
>> article but are happy to endorse his view anyway.
In my defence I was guided by the misleading summary provided by the herbivorous marine mammal,
>>
>> My own view is that things like page three girls, grid girls et do, perhaps
>> in a trivial way objectify women as sex objects. Not the biggest problem in the
>> world but Kelner is probably right. It reinforces the way some men look upon women
>> and perhaps it is time for a change.
But on the other to hand to even include the practise of FGM in the argument denigrates it to the level of "written by a knob"
|
"But on the other to hand to even include the practise of FGM in the argument denigrates it to the level of "written by a knob""
In the same way that the words 'racism' and 'racist' have been denigrated by people who use them as as all-purpose insult with actually knowing what they mean.
|
>> "But on the other to hand to even include the practise of FGM in the
>> argument denigrates it to the level of "written by a knob""
>>
>> In the same way that the words 'racism' and 'racist' have been denigrated by people
>> who use them as as all-purpose insult with actually knowing what they mean.
Not even remotely in the same way. Completely spurious and inaccurate comparison.
|
"n the same way that the words 'racism' and 'racist' have been denigrated by people who use them as as all-purpose insult with actually knowing what they mean"
Missed the edit .... that should have read 'without' not 'with'!
|
>> So you agree then that Zero’ s statement misrepresents the argument put forward in the
>> article but are happy to endorse his view anyway.
I can do no less since I had stated that I thought Kelner was wrong already.
Why don't you just say you agree with Kelner?
|
Damn I've read some s*** in my time...
I don't like this sort of thing. Unfortunately I've been to the odd Gentleman's event. Not much of an event IMO and hardly full of gentlemen, and most certainly the sort of thing I avoid. I love the company of women, but preferably those that have chosen to be near me, not those paid to be so.
But the world needs to do some serious getting over itself.
Proved the woman concerned is making an informed choice - with the emphasis on both informed and choice - then WTF does her choice have to do with anybody else? Why should she be prevented, forced, or blackmailed into a different choice?
If a charity can make money from such an informed event, then why the hellshouldn't they? If they decide that their normal contributors are sanctimonious and judgemental hypocrites, then perhaps they should avoid it. But that's as much a comment on their normal contributors as anything else.
As for the men who like that sort of thing, I think they're a bit sad. And if they cop a bit of ridicule, then they need to live with it. But they're not really harming anyone, are they? If anything it is them that is being taken advantage of.
But the call for laws? Dear God, the UK has laws for every damn thing and wants more every day, always aimed at something they don't want to do themselves. But should the law actually impinge on something they want to do, then all hell breaks loose.
I've never been a big fan of people in general or as a race, but I really think they're getting worse.
And as for returning donations, then I am sure those who need help will thank those charities for their hypocritical grandstanding at a time of need.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 2 Feb 18 at 17:13
|
That's about where I am on this.
This lot have reportedly knocked in about £20m over the years and no doubt the people who paid it thought they were doing some good.
I doubt that any of the people who went to these things felt the need to do so for a bit of female company. I think I've been to one event where there were hired female hostesses, up the road at the Grosvenor IIRC but it was so long ago I can't remember much at all. It was predominantly, though not exclusively male and the speaker, or one of them, was something to do with sport - a well known fitbal referee I think. I thought the hostesses unnecessary (about one per table) but there was no hint of anything unpleasant or illicit going on that I saw.
There was a charity auction but it wasn't a gathering of the super rich, mainly corporate 'hospitality.'
|
I do hope the Old Spice girls cover up a bit more than the did in the pic in this Beeb article when they re-form.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42926337
|
>> I do hope the Old Spice girls cover up a bit more than the did
>> in the pic in this Beeb article>>
Really,? I reckon they are quite young and fit enough.
|
|
Well yes, but I was thinking more from a PC pov than aesthetics!!
Last edited by: smokie on Tue 6 Feb 18 at 08:14
|
The Presidents Club - Lygonos
