[Football] Touching-up v Snowflakes

[Neville's Breakfast]

I can live with that.

Unfortunately I am unsurprised. Using the sexual exploitation of women to advance a political agenda is the kind of politics all too prevalent in th 21st century. You and the people you condemn are two sides of the same coin.

 

[Grombleton]

Unfortunately I am unsurprised. Using the sexual exploitation of women to advance a political agenda is the kind of politics all too prevalent in th 21st century. You and the people you condemn are two sides of the same coin.

Even if he is doing that, it doesn't take away from the fact that there is some horrible stuff going on and those trying to defend it are quite simply gutter trash.

 

[Diablo]

Even if he is doing that, it doesn't take away from the fact that there is some horrible stuff going on and those trying to defend it are quite simply gutter trash.

Defending what ? Girls being paid over the top money taking advantage of older men?

 

[dingodan]

Even if he is doing that, it doesn't take away from the fact that there is some horrible stuff going on and those trying to defend it are quite simply gutter trash.

Why doesn't someone ask the women who worked that night whether they feel that the charities should be giving back the money which was donated? I bet none of them would want that to happen, but I'd also bet that nobody cares what these women (who they are supposedly standing up for) think about that, because their sense of moral outrage is more important.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

Unfortunately I am unsurprised. Using the sexual exploitation of women to advance a political agenda is the kind of politics all too prevalent in th 21st century. You and the people you condemn are two sides of the same coin.

At last a sensible post. Here's my view FWIW

- Big business owners and those with money generally have massive egos, huge libidos, get thier own way and like to be seen to be generous even if they aren't. A Black tie do in the Dorchester with scantily clad women for Charity ticks all the boxes and guarentees attendence.
- If you are asked to hostess in that situation you were probably expecting being propositioned at a minimum. This doesn't excuse the knob out hands up skirt crew but a strong character and familiarisation of the word no is required. Most, if not all, knew this, even the FT report aluded to this. This isn't "right' of course 'annoying' means leachy old perv in this context or sugar daddy for those that way inclined. If you want to earn £150 plus substantial tips knowing this, Go in with your eyes open
-Most importantly and completely unmentioned in this thread is the charities handing money back. GOSH is 500k lighter. There is one charity that might have to lay people off as a result. Can't we find a more socially acceptable way for rich people to part with thier money or at least not railroad them to giving it back? Still, Better to win the Internet isn't it, rathet than address such thorny points? (And I haven't got the answer either)

 

[melias shoes]

I bet Roger Mellie was there
View attachment 93482

Maybe, but Mandelson definitely was.
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-p...ver-presidents-club-event-attendance-11222620
Been sacked. Great opportunity for corbyn seeing he was one of the more outspoken against corbyn.

 

[The Clamp]

Unfortunately I am unsurprised. Using the sexual exploitation of women to advance a political agenda is the kind of politics all too prevalent in th 21st century. You and the people you condemn are two sides of the same coin.

You're probably right. I apologise, it wasn't particularly relevant.

 

[melias shoes]

Always 2 sides to a story. Well usually it's allowed.
https://news.sky.com/

 

[The Clamp]

Always 2 sides to a story. Well usually it's allowed.
https://news.sky.com/

I genuinely welcome both sides of the story. I would like to hear more of the other side. Whether I agree or not I think it's more productive than one side just slinking off. Also I doubt everybody attending went with the intention of feeling women up and I'm certain not everyone did, those that didn't partake of the sleaze have every right to have their say.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Even if he is doing that, it doesn't take away from the fact that there is some horrible stuff going on and those trying to defend it are quite simply gutter trash.

You are right. Defence of sexual exploitation is disgusting.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

You're probably right. I apologise, it wasn't particularly relevant.

No worries old chap.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

At last a sensible post. Here's my view FWIW

- Big business owners and those with money generally have massive egos, huge libidos, get thier own way and like to be seen to be generous even if they aren't. A Black tie do in the Dorchester with scantily clad women for Charity ticks all the boxes and guarentees attendence.
- If you are asked to hostess in that situation you were probably expecting being propositioned at a minimum. This doesn't excuse the knob out hands up skirt crew but a strong character and familiarisation of the word no is required. Most, if not all, knew this, even the FT report aluded to this. This isn't "right' of course 'annoying' means leachy old perv in this context or sugar daddy for those that way inclined. If you want to earn £150 plus substantial tips knowing this, Go in with your eyes open
-Most importantly and completely unmentioned in this thread is the charities handing money back. GOSH is 500k lighter. There is one charity that might have to lay people off as a result. Can't we find a more socially acceptable way for rich people to part with thier money or at least not railroad them to giving it back? Still, Better to win the Internet isn't it, rathet than address such thorny points? (And I haven't got the answer either)

The charities handing money back isn't completely unmentioned in this thread, because I mentioned it.

 

[Grombleton]

Defending what ? Girls being paid over the top money taking advantage of older men?

Defending the actions of the people involved in the clearly inappropriate behaviour?

 

[BadFish]

I've not said it was Ok, I've said, many times, I don't condone or approve of their behavior. I just also don't agree with you and others that these men were being anything more than drunk and flirtatious or that these women were "abused" or "assaulted" because they were touched on the hip, or even the bum. Perhaps you can point to one or two examples where it was more than that, but this article isn't about those one or two incidents, it's been made just as much about a hand on the hip, or "lower back", and I think that's stupid, and I think a lot of this story is patronizing to women.

If the story had been about the women who had a hand put up her skirt, or the guy who got is c*ck out, I would have had no objections, but conflating hand holding and hands on hip and hands on lower backs with those things is wrong.

I also believe that most women are not traumatized by a hand being placed on their lower back, and that most women are also perfectly capable of dealing with a man who steps out of line.

I can't for the life of me work out why you are focussed on the hand on the back stuff rather than the reports of hands up skirts, groping and blokes getting their cocks out? Those are the parts that i find most disgusting and as you point out you would agree with that if you hadn't dismissed those claims for what ever reason you have dismissed them. For what it is worth I agree that a hand in the back is no reason to get upset and if that was where it ended then there really would be no story. However the FT article talks about much more than this. I am not going to go and take quotes out of that article because you can read it yourself and the quotes have been peppered across this thread.

 

[GT49er]

The charities handing money back isn't completely unmentioned in this thread, because I mentioned it.

Yes, you're right, it has been mentioned - charities feeling impelled to hand back thousands of much needed pounds they could have used for life saving or life changing purposes has been heralded as one of the triumphs of the journalists campaign.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Of course, your upset but how much of it is because people are refusing to fall in line and rubber stamp your agenda, the issue of the treatment of women to many is the secondry issue. This is what you are not getting.

Again darling, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Perhaps it made some kind of sense in your head when you thought about it. I'm sure it did and you felt really clever.

But when you tried to express whatever it was that was in your head and transfer it by the medium of typing, as words, on an internet forum, it didn't work. And now you look really stupid.

I know you can do better. Probably by trolling people who don't get the joke. XXX

 

[LlcoolJ]

Yes, you're right, it has been mentioned - charities feeling impelled to hand back thousands of much needed pounds they could have used for life saving or life changing purposes has been heralded as one of the triumphs of the journalists campaign.

What's wrong with just giving money to the same charity without perving over birds younger than your daughter?

I'm sickened by idiots defending the indefensible.

These girls were paid £150 for a ten hour shift. That's not big money the way some are making out and it's definitely not what "escorts" are paid. £15 an hour? Sake.

I know people who've been paid that for silver service jobs. No groping involved.

Funny how "charity" seems to equal "doing what the **** you like because you have tons of spare cash". I thought it was supposed to mean doing something to help others less fortunate than you.

 

[LlcoolJ]

I can't for the life of me work out why you are focussed on the hand on the back stuff rather than the reports of hands up skirts, groping and blokes getting their cocks out? Those are the parts that i find most disgusting and as you point out you would agree with that if you hadn't dismissed those claims for what ever reason you have dismissed them. For what it is worth I agree that a hand in the back is no reason to get upset and if that was where it ended then there really would be no story. However the FT article talks about much more than this. I am not going to go and take quotes out of that article because you can read it yourself and the quotes have been peppered across this thread.

I asked him to read the article about five posts into the thread and he even posted quotes from it later.

You can't educate pork, as they say oop north.

 

[dingodan]

I can't for the life of me work out why you are focussed on the hand on the back stuff rather than the reports of hands up skirts, groping and blokes getting their cocks out? Those are the parts that i find most disgusting and as you point out you would agree with that if you hadn't dismissed those claims for what ever reason you have dismissed them. For what it is worth I agree that a hand in the back is no reason to get upset and if that was where it ended then there really would be no story. However the FT article talks about much more than this. I am not going to go and take quotes out of that article because you can read it yourself and the quotes have been peppered across this thread.

I haven't dismissed those things at all, I've said they are being made out to be the "nature of the night", when they clearly were not. Like I said before the only "pervasive" behaviors (i.e. described as being more than one occasion) were the hands on hips and backs parts, but the details seem to be being deliberately muddled up, like for example you saying "guys getting their c*cks out" plural. It happened once from what I can tell. That's one drunk pervert, and it's unacceptable, but you and others are taking those incidents, which I abhor too, and replacing the pervasive behaviors, which I think were largely harmless (the hand holding etc) with these incidents.

Those incidents on their own are disguising, and if reported on and responded to honestly, nobody would disagree with that. But the reporting, and the responses, haven't been honest, they have deliberately muddled the facts to make them fit an agenda, and it's that which I have been objecting too, all the while being described as someone who is "defending sexual assault and harassment", when I have done nothing of the sort.

 

[Ernest]

-
Can't we find a more socially acceptable way for rich people to part with thier money or at least not railroad them to giving it back? Still, Better to win the Internet isn't it, rathet than address such thorny points? (And I haven't got the answer either)

Perhaps they could pay their taxes