[Football] Touching-up v Snowflakes

[narly101]

I genuinely don't know where to start with some of the comments defending the event. It is the perpetuity of acceptance of this kind of female objectivity that continues to keep us in the dark ages. We have made so much progress over the past few years in bridging the immense gender gap that exists in modern society, that being accepting of a "men-only" event where women were hired to be "hostesses" is simply astonishing. If the President's club had decided to hold the event behind closed doors at a strip club, then I wouldn't be mentioning it. This event hired women to be "hostesses" with specific skills, and the interviews made plain that sexual harassment would not be tolerated. The fact that it occurred on so many occasions, without any rebuke, makes this event wholly unacceptable, and downright deplorable in the case of the organisers. Women should be able to entertain as hostesses without the worry that some seedy **** is going to expose his penis to her because he wants to.

The more events like this that are exposed by journalism the better, or even better by the women themselves who have been subject to the demeaning treatment accepting of so many male (and female) neanderthals alive today.

 

[Triggaaar]

Sexual harrassment is not acceptable and its also subjective. HAS ANYONE OTHER THAN THE JOURNALIST MADE A COMPLAINT OF THIS NATURE AT THIS CHARITY EVENT?

Having read the news about this event, do you seriously think that only one person experienced sexual harassment on the evening? Do you really think that those who did will make a complaint to the police? They're not in full time employment for the organisation so they can't make a claim for having to leave the job etc; they're not realistically going to get anyone sent to prison for groping them; they've signed non-disclosure agreements that they haven't been given the chance to read and don't have a copy of - there would be little point in them going to the police, but that doesn't make it all ok.

I've seen some comments on here that they knew what they were letting themselves in for. Reminds me of when Jodie Foster was 'asking for it' in The Accused.

 

[maffew]

I genuinely don't know where to start with some of the comments defending the event. It is the perpetuity of acceptance of this kind of female objectivity that continues to keep us in the dark ages. We have made so much progress over the past few years in bridging the immense gender gap that exists in modern society, that being accepting of a "men-only" event where women were hired to be "hostesses" is simply astonishing. If the President's club had decided to hold the event behind closed doors at a strip club, then I wouldn't be mentioning it. This event hired women to be "hostesses" with specific skills, and the interviews made plain that sexual harassment would not be tolerated. The fact that it occurred on so many occasions, without any rebuke, makes this event wholly unacceptable, and downright deplorable in the case of the organisers. Women should be able to entertain as hostesses without the worry that some seedy **** is going to expose his penis to her because he wants to.

The more events like this that are exposed by journalism the better, or even better by the women themselves who have been subject to the demeaning treatment accepting of so many male (and female) neanderthals alive today.

Then dont ask them to wear skimpy dresses and specify what underwear they must wear when they apply

Get real

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Firstly, I absolutely DO NOT condone men groping women when it is unwanted ( or indeed the other way round which DOES happen but people seem to forget this ).

BUT, if my employer asked me to wear certain underwear then I would immediately know what the gig was all about. Someone in the office has a copy of the Sun ( yes, I know ! ), and if the 'uniform' requests to the hostesses is correct then not a single one of the women couldn't have known what this was all about. Any one of them that didn't wish to be involved in that kind of 'thing' could easily have walked before the event. I suspect the reporter would have been equally shocked if she'd gone undercover in a strip club and would have been OUTRAGED at men paying her to take her clothes off.

Maybe I've missed it but other than the reporter I've not seen any account from any of the other hostesses suggesting they didn't know what they were doing or getting into ? I'm with [MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION] on this, this mock outrage waters down the real issues which is sexual assault in the work place and public places on men and women that haven't consented.

 

[Klaas]

Some charming attitudes on here, par for the course these days though. Imagine if this event had been an association of Muslim businessmen doing the leching, bet this thread would have taken a different tack then!

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Thunderbolt you talk sense most of the time, but let's not dress this up with feminist clap trap hey and opinions
This doesnt make it right but
It's a men only only event, rich men at that
You are possibly a model as stated and asked to wear skimpy clothing with matching underwear - would that not set alarm bells ringing when applying for what appears to be a very well paid shift? Sorry but sex sells (not talking prostitution which is one of the oldest trades that exists). Like that or not, It aint right but these girls would have known what to expect, and no, I wouldn't let my daughters even apply, because they wouldn't be so stupid. No point in trying to be on a high horse here and say this shouldn't happen in 2018. Its supply and demand, simples. To say the room was full of testosterone, what a stupid statement. There were 133 fit girls dressed in skimpy clothes and black underwear, in a room full of men pissed on champagne and probably a fair few coked up.

Its not ideal but men will be men and women arent all that innocent neither

I am no feminist and I have no doubt there were some women there who were quite happy to give out. That isn't the issue here. The journalist said that some women complained to her. Maybe they did protest, but told 'you knew what you were getting in to.'
The charities receiving the money are not happy about the way the money was raised.
Charitites probably knew about Jimmy Savile, or maybe they didn't? Either way, no charity is wanting to involved with sleaze any more.

She didn't make a complaint. She made a report. She doesn't need anyone to substantiate her claims because she's not looking to prosecute anyone. The Presidents Club could have disputed the report and sued. The Presidents Club didn't. The Presidents Club apologised and disbanded. Seems fairly clear to me.

Exactly. It was a newspaper article. The Presidents Club could have refuted it, found some of the women who said it was all a bit of fun, and no harm done, but have disbanded immediately.

Why do some Nsc'ers think that is?

 

[The Clamp]

Some very threatened males on this board.
Honestly, with a subject like this if you can't think of anything intelligent to say, best not say anything.

 

[Brighton Mod]

She didn't make a complaint. She made a report. She doesn't need anyone to substantiate her claims because she's not looking to prosecute anyone. The Presidents Club could have disputed the report and sued. The Presidents Club didn't. The Presidents Club apologised and disbanded. Seems fairly clear to me.

Ah, so a journalist doesn't need to substantiate her claims, christ we are on the Road to Wigan Pier now. So she can print what she likes without validating any source, that just about sums up the journalistic lack of talent we have and the failure of editors today. Why would the Presidents Club have disputed the facts, who are they answereable to you, me a woman journalist with a feminist agenda looking to make some money on a non story. The charity has disbanded, wealthy men spending disposable income, in their own time on what they want to has disbanded, hardly a moon landing is it. You won't miss them, I won't miss them, these guys won't miss it, but the children at GOSH will.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

He's not ever actually been elected to Parliament in this country has he?

He's an MEP and so is an ELECTED politician.

 

[A1X]

How many have categorically said that the food was cold and how many have categorically said that it was hot......

Your clutching at straws now, ffs,

I'm pointing out that you have no evidence to back up your argument, whereas I do. You don't like that evidence but it remains more than you have provided.

So I go back to the question I originally asked you when you said you wanted a counter-argument and balance. What is the counter-argument? You want one, tell us what it consists of. It's not that difficult to do surely?

 

[The Clamp]

Ah, so a journalist doesn't need to substantiate her claims, christ we are on the Road to Wigan Pier now. So she can print what she likes without validating any source, that just about sums up the journalistic lack of talent we have and the failure of editors today. Why would the Presidents Club have disputed the facts, who are they answereable to you, me a woman journalist with a feminist agenda looking to make some money on a non story. The charity has disbanded, wealthy men spending disposable income, in their own time on what they want to has disbanded, hardly a moon landing is it. You won't miss them, I won't miss them, these guys won't miss it, but the children at GOSH will.

No she doesn't need to substantiate a self penned, undercover report written in the first person unless her claims are being disputed. She is the source. Her claims are not being disputed. Anyone is free to write a report contradicting her findings.
GOSH doesn't want money raised by these lecherous old ball sacks anymore than they want money raised by Savile.
You're right, I won't miss TPC but I am certainly glad it doesn't exist anymore.

 

[narly101]

Then dont ask them to wear skimpy dresses and specify what underwear they must wear when they apply

Get real

So for "please wear skimpy dresses and matching underwear" maybe the requirements should have been listed as "you will have some seedy **** show his penis to you" instead?

Would that have been more appropriate?

 

[Pavilionaire]

I find the whole thing distasteful, mainly because I wasn't invited.

 

[maffew]

I am no feminist and I have no doubt there were some women there who were quite happy to give out. That isn't the issue here. The journalist said that some women complained to her. Maybe they did protest, but told 'you knew what you were getting in to.'
The charities receiving the money are not happy about the way the money was raised.
Charitites probably knew about Jimmy Savile, or maybe they didn't?

Too much speculation, sorry Thunder. You think Hooters girls dont expect to get their tits looked at and someone touching their hand? I dont believe any of these girls didnt know what they were up for on that shift. Getting a hand up your skirt or a cock waved at you is of course wrong, but let's be real, they werent hired to be a fat munter wearing dungarees. If you sign up knowing that underwear is part of the agreement you are selling yourself, right or wrong, you arent being exploited

 

[BadFish]

Yet most of the men attending the President's Club event seem to be claiming they didn't know it was that type of affair.......

How many people who were there have come out and said there was categorically no sexual harassment going on?

The club has been disbanded because of this do, and if reports are correct most of the men who were there who expressed an opinion have done their best to distance themselves from the whole affair including an MP given a dressing down for being involved and one quitting his role in the Department of Education. Then of course there is the evidence presented by the undercover journalist. At present this is the evidence presented to suggest that their was inappropriate and disrespectful behaviour and best and sexual harassment at worst. All coming from people who were at the event.

On the other hand the evidence to suggest that it was, what are we saying here? A bit of harmless fun, boys will be boys? So far in terms of evidence from what i have seen we have, the news report leaving out some of the more lewd acts from the original article and that fact that the journalist went there looking for a story (don't they always?). Oh and I have just done a quick google and noted that David Walliams has said that he didn't witness any of the behaviour. So we have one, although he also says that he left after doing his bit and was presumably in some kind fo dressing room before hand.

I suppose that we will never really know unless their is some kind of inquest into the evening and as no laws have been broken this seems unlikely. However based on the evidence we do have I find it hard to understand how some people claim that what went down that night was okay.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

He's an MEP and so is an ELECTED politician.

I know that. But that wasn't what I asked now, was it.

 

[maffew]

So for "please wear skimpy dresses and matching underwear" maybe the requirements should have been listed as "you will have some seedy **** show his penis to you" instead?

Would that have been more appropriate?

No that's not ok, and not what I said so dont paraphrase me

 

[GT49er]

That's irrelevant to the question I asked.

The points you are trying to make are different. You are implying that every woman who accepted employment at this event knew that she would be groped by the men attending.

It is amazing the difficulty some people mistakenly believe that pretending 'some' means the same as 'all' or 'every' strengthens their argument. It doesn't; it does show lack of understanding though. Please point out the post that said every woman went there expecting to be groped. No - you can't, because it was never said or implied.

You may not have said it in your posts (I've not read them all).

No, clearly you haven't.

Am I now to assume that they are all happy for [MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION] to put his hand up their skirt..

You can assume what you like - but it would be one of the more stupid and unfounded assumptions that you could think of.

This was an event for a bunch of businessmen to behave boorishly. It was sexist and disgraceful.

Yes, it was. As almost every poster - including [MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION] - has stated. Sadly, disapproval without sufficient outrage is obviously not enough for some.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

IThis event hired women to be "hostesses" with specific skills, and the interviews made plain that sexual harassment would not be tolerated. .

Hardly. From the FT article below. Is it right in this day and age? No. Did everyone know what they were getting into? I'd be very surprised if they didn't. This isn't what they tell you what a waitressing job is like in your local spoons.

At their initial interviews, women were warned by Ms Dandridge that the men in attendance might be “annoying” or try to get the hostesses “pissed”. One hostess was advised to lie to her boyfriend about the fact it was a male-only event. “Tell him it’s a charity dinner,” she was told.“It’s a Marmite job. Some girls love it, and for other girls it’s the worst job of their life and they will never do it again . . . You just have to put up with the annoying men and if you can do that it’s fine,” Ms Dandridge told the hostess. Two days before the event, Ms Dandridge told prospective hostesses by email that their phones would be “safely locked away” for the evening and that boyfriends and girlfriends were not welcome at the venue. The uniform requirements also became more detailed: all hostesses should bring “BLACK sexy shoes”, black underwear, and do their hair and make-up as they would to go to a “smart sexy place”. Dresses and belts would be supplied on the day. For those who met the three specific selection criteria (“tall, thin and pretty”) a job paying £150, plus £25 for a taxi home, began at 4pm.

 

[mothy]

Women have to be fit to be waitresses?.

Only if they want to get touched up by me

(that is a joke btw)

But if i owned a bar..