[Football] Touching-up v Snowflakes

[Brighton Mod]

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?

You're evidence being an uncorroberated story of sexual harrasment and assualt by a journalist. I'm not sure where that stands up, as for the counter arguement and balance thats for journalists to give and provide as I like you can only judge on what has been written. In terms of a journalistic content it would not even pass at A' Level due to the one sided slanted nature of the article, quoting no source, no evidence, no eye witness accounts and no witness statements. Would you bet your house on the article?

 

[LlcoolJ]

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?

Aside from being completely wrong about this issue you seem to be very angry. Calm down "snowflake". If it doesn't affect you then (Stan) why are you so mad?

It must be horrible and scary living in your world where you see the reportage of this event as some sort of affront to your way of life and a slippery slope to Orwell's vision of 1984.

I'd suggest that you grow a pair and stop getting wound up by the fact that more and more people think that treating women like shit isn't ok.

 

[maffew]

misread

 

[BadFish]

The idea that because some women went to an event and expected to be treated poorly it is then somehow okay to treat them that way is an interesting one. I would expect that this is the main defence from some of the gentlemen at the event over the last couple of days. "I behaved like that because I was expected to behave like that." I wonder how this went down with the wives, boards or governing bodies on the receiving end of this rather pitiful excuse.

Judging by the article the hostesses (really in 2018!?!) were paid a decent sum of money to be pawed over by some over entitled tosspots group thinked into telling themselves that this was an okay way to behave. And maybe most of them (some? who knows we seem to be arguing the toss over the percentage) went into the evening with their eyes open and their bank accounts replenished enough to make it worthwhile.

The question for me remains: Does any of this make the behaviour okay?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

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

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

So what are you getting at? Looking but not touching has been the requirement for a lot of male orientated pubs and clubs.


This journalist obviously knew there was sleaze going on at these charities does, and wanted to find out the inside story.
I haven't said all the women were blameless, but the consensus in the business world, is that sleaze is not acceptable, any more.

 

[BadFish]

You're evidence being an uncorroberated story of sexual harrasment and assualt by a journalist. I'm not sure where that stands up, as for the counter arguement and balance thats for journalists to give and provide as I like you can only judge on what has been written. In terms of a journalistic content it would not even pass at A' Level due to the one sided slanted nature of the article, quoting no source, no evidence, no eye witness accounts and no witness statements. Would you bet your house on the article?

Aside from the article

- The Club has been disbanded,
- many of the attendees and their businesses have distanced themselves from the evening,
- One of the organisers has quit their job
- A politician has been given a bollocking.

The evidence that everything was okay and nothing untoward happened?

- David Walliams tweeted that he didn't see anything.

 

[Brighton Mod]

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.

I'm really interested that a journalist no longer needs to justify or substantiate a written piece. Can you imagine what they can get away with, whether its truth, fact or apochryphal. Yet you deem it OK to judge everyone at the event as a lecherous old ball sack is contradictory in itself. Were you there? I'm outraged by your language!! Actually i'm not because I live in the real world and accept much of what goes on, but I do detect you have an issue with class and those who have been successful.Has this slanted your view?

 

[ManOfSussex]

Some of the comments defending this event...................FFS?!

Go to a strip club - It's licensed as such a venue from the local council. You'll be told, in no uncertain terms by the door staff:

No touching of the girls - whatsoever.
No sexual advances or sexual propositions.
No filming.
No asking of full names or personal details.

If a strip club is found to be in deviation of all the rules it's bound by, it loses it's adult/sexual entertainment license pretty ******g quickly!

Strippers have better protections than the girls at the Presidents Club for a reason! But if people think what went on at some corporate charity event is fair game and the girls knew what was going on/were asking for it and Google image search pictures of men's buttocks to post on a football forum to back up the point, fine.

 

[A1X]

You're evidence being an uncorroberated story of sexual harrasment and assualt by a journalist. I'm not sure where that stands up, as for the counter arguement and balance thats for journalists to give and provide as I like you can only judge on what has been written. In terms of a journalistic content it would not even pass at A' Level due to the one sided slanted nature of the article, quoting no source, no evidence, no eye witness accounts and no witness statements. Would you bet your house on the article?

Well nobody who was there has said it's not true. It was clearly true enough to cause an elected representative to go before the PM to beg to keep his job, to force several people to resign from posts, to close the club down and for the compere to apologise for his role in it. None of those would be things I would expect to happen if it wasn't true, would you?

I ask again, as you're dodging the question. What is the counterargument? You want one, so you must know what it is.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

You're evidence being an uncorroberated story of sexual harrasment and assualt by a journalist. I'm not sure where that stands up, as for the counter arguement and balance thats for journalists to give and provide as I like you can only judge on what has been written. In terms of a journalistic content it would not even pass at A' Level due to the one sided slanted nature of the article, quoting no source, no evidence, no eye witness accounts and no witness statements. Would you bet your house on the article?

The Presidents Club has disbanded due this uncorroberated article. Straight away. A club which has been running for 33 years, suddenly disbanded because of some tittle tattle in a paper?


https://www.ft.com/content/29ee70f6-011d-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5


AN HOUR AGO 1

Less than 24 hours after the FT exposé on a men-only fundraising dinner in London where hostesses were groped and sexually harassed, the*Presidents Club*said it would close. The 33-year-old group that organised the black-tie event at the Dorchester hotel said that any remaining funds raised would be “distributed in an efficient manner to children’s charities”.

The fallout from our reporting continued on Wednesday, with organisations that had provided items for the event’s charity auction saying they would not follow through. The Bank of England said a tea with governor Mark Carney had been revoked, and Tesla and BMW cancelled the sale of luxury cars.*

The scandal also shined an uncomfortable spotlight on the real estate sector, while*UK politicians expressed “bewilderment and revulsion” at the reports. (FT)

 

[dingodan]

The idea that because some women went to an event and expected to be treated poorly it is then somehow okay to treat them that way is an interesting one. I would expect that this is the main defence from some of the gentlemen at the event over the last couple of days. "I behaved like that because I was expected to behave like that." I wonder how this went down with the wives, boards or governing bodies on the receiving end of this rather pitiful excuse.

Judging by the article the hostesses (really in 2018!?!) were paid a decent sum of money to be pawed over by some over entitled tosspots group thinked into telling themselves that this was an okay way to behave. And maybe most of them (some? who knows we seem to be arguing the toss over the percentage) went into the evening with their eyes open and their bank accounts replenished enough to make it worthwhile.

The question for me remains: Does any of this make the behaviour okay?

This must mean you are opposed to hen nights too then, right?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

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

I'm really not sure of the point you're trying to make. The Clamp criticised a poster for having a 'provocative avatar' and I pointed out his was equally 'provocative' - at no point have I implied, suggested or stated NF was elected to our parliament.

 

[soistes]

On the contrary, I thought it was a dreadful piece of journalism, designed mainly to benefit the writer. It has no bearing on me or 99.999% of people in this country. Where is the counter arguement, the balance or even the slightest reference to history, but the writer has been seen on television and quoted on the radio. Who has this event hurt? held behind closed doors. As for your assumption that this is a thing of the past, clearly not as it took place in central London this weekend, pushing these events underground does not eradicate them. this is not an equal rights arguement this is just another way of promulgating the feminist agenda, which is about as far away from the arguement of womens rights as can be got. Weak politicians scampering away from this, frightened people rearing against it and more money lost to charity, that money will not be replaced. Are you deaf to the chanting at the Amex at every home game, are you not offended, do you complain or do you suck it up because to complain would make you stand out. Peoples values are all over the place in todays world, they are not offended, they choose to be offended.
As my father was offered an anti racist sticker at the Amex some seasons ago, he declined to accept or wear it, strange looks from the purveyor of the stickers, my father informed him that he was not a racist and did not need to tell everyone that he wasn't. We're starting to loose the ability to choose, ala George Orwell 1984.

I disagree with so much of this that it's difficult to know how to present a counter-argument that would make the slightest difference. I think that when opinions are so far apart the chances of changing someone's mind through a public debate on an internet forum are minimal, and they usually degenerate into name-calling anyway.

The only bit I don't disagree with is your last paragraph - your Dad was perfectly entitled to turn down the anti-racist sticker and the reason he gave is entirely rational, and I could imagine doing the same (for the same reasons if I put money into a charity bucket for Macmillan or whatever, I don't take the sticker that goes with it, and if I give money to the Royal British Legion collectors I don't wear the "virtue signalling' poppy). But I honestly don't see what any of that has got to do with sleazy businessmen groping waitresses. Neither do I see what any of it has to do with chants I might hear at the Amex (incidentally, if they were racist or homophobic chants, which I very rarely hear at the Amex these days, and if they were directed at an individual, I would challenge the person making them, and have done so in the past). And I don't understand your juxtaposition of "equal rights" with feminism - what is feminism about if it's not about equal rights for women? And from what evidence base do you assert that none of this is relevant to "99.999% of people in this country"?

Anyway, I'm happy to accept that your views are a million miles away from mine, and you're welcome to them, but I'd guess that mine are actually shared by rather more than the 0.001% of people that you imply. Actually, given that you say that "Peoples [sic] values are all over the place in todays world", I suspect that you concede that a lot of people do actually have the values that you clearly despise.

It's an empirical question, but I think the tide is indeed beginning to turn and that the kind of views you espouse in your post are, on balance, on the way out, and certainly from the evidence of people I know at least, they seem to be much less common amongst the younger (and better-educated) generation than among my generation (I'm in my early 60s), which for me is a cause for optimism. And despite what you say, I think the response to the FT piece supports that interpretation.

 

[dingodan]

Aside from the article

- The Club has been disbanded,
- many of the attendees and their businesses have distanced themselves from the evening,
- One of the organisers has quit their job
- A politician has been given a bollocking.

The evidence that everything was okay and nothing untoward happened?

- David Walliams tweeted that he didn't see anything.

All this proves is that this new militant bloody mindedness is prevailing over good sense and reason.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

All this proves is that this new militant bloody mindedness is prevailing over good sense and reason.

Good sense and reason? Oh come off it!

This would've been sleazy decades ago. I can remember an old school friend of mine being hired to jump out of a cake at the Metropole wearing a skimpy costume.
As pointed out, look but don't touch is/was definitely the order of the day then, as it should be now.

 

[Brighton Mod]

Well nobody who was there has said it's not true. It was clearly true enough to cause an elected representative to go before the PM to beg to keep his job, to force several people to resign from posts, to close the club down and for the compere to apologise for his role in it. None of those would be things I would expect to happen if it wasn't true, would you?

I ask again, as you're dodging the question. What is the counterargument? You want one, so you must know what it is.

Would be helpful to state that David Walliams tweeted he didn't see any of these things going on. Or is he in on a conspiracy, this would balance the article and if the journalist had bothered to gather any more evidence than that of her pre conception of events, her reason for going 'undercover', she could be believed, but nothing other than her views. Poor journalism, maybe the readership of the FT is falling.

 

[maffew]

So what are you getting at? Looking but not touching has been the requirement for a lot of male orientated pubs and clubs.


This journalist obviously knew there was sleaze going on at these charities does, and wanted to find out the inside story.
I haven't said all the women were blameless, but the consensus in the business world, is that sleaze is not acceptable, any more.

I am not getting at anything, Of course thats the ideal, but why apply for a job which specifies which underwear you must wear. It's wrong, and that should ring alarm bells. You cant change how people behave immediately, but come on, you really think that the girls may have thought oh it's for charity that alright then? No I daresay they were thinking of the tips and job offers, Pimping themselves. Sorry, thats how I see it. It's not like they were on the minimum wage which many 'hostesses'/waitrons are. As I said willy waving and hands up skirts is (I didnt say this bit harassment) not ok of course. But really a hand round the waist or a hand touch whilst you are getting paid a good chunk at a men only event, only being dumb or seriously niaive or an undercover "reporter" would be "shocked"

It's all a load of nonsense. Any job that specifys your underwear? I mean come on whats that all about Youre not stupid

 

[Hamilton]

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.

No, clearly you haven't.

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

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.

It rather looks like you are agreeing entirely with my position.

So, basically, not all hostesses attending the event expected to be groped whilst they were working. [MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION] suggests that they knew what they were getting into.

I haven't read all his posts? No. I was responding to one, which was full enough of opinion.

Assumptions. You are right. Never good to make. But as the suggestion is that if looking for pretty girls to hostess at an all male event = free for all in the groping department, then I'd imagine said poster sees that as the green light for lewd behaviour. PS, using the poster's name was a 'device'. I do appreciate that some posters on NSC are unable to interpret this subtlety.

Lastly, I'm not really getting that Dan is that bothered at what happened. There, I disagree with him.

I'd also add, that you should stop plundering around trying to pin the word 'outrage' on everyone in an attempt to devalue the word. It is the very worst in what will become known as Trumpism. The word outrage has a perfectly good place in our vernacular, so don't try and devalue it. It's a tactic employed by the same people who have crafted 'fake news'. it's blunt and gets us nowhere.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

I'm really not sure of the point you're trying to make. The Clamp criticised a poster for having a 'provocative avatar' and I pointed out his was equally 'provocative' - at no point have I implied, suggested or stated NF was elected to our parliament.

Calm down son. I was simply asking you a question because I was too lazy to look on Google for the answer. A question, I might add, which you've yet to answer.

People really are so touché on here today.

 

[BadFish]

This must mean you are opposed to hen nights too then, right?

No you are right, if women just about to get married can go out and behave outrageously and go to strip clubs etc then rich men should be able to touch up and get their knobs out for the hired help while getting tax write offs at a charity do. Exactly the same thing.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk