UK Presidents Club closes amid reports of sexual harassment

Rory28

kylith wrote: »

Who takes that job? Girls that need money maybe?

The real question is what kind of man thinks that just because a pretty girl wears a short dress it's licence to get his knob out and stick his hands up her skirt?

Honestly, I find your fixation that somehow it's the women who were in the wrong here totally disgusting.

christ. fixation? the women were not in the wrong clearly the harassers were and with any luck they will face charges. i do find it hard to believe that some of the women hired didnt know what they signed up for. look at sugardaddies[dot]com. gold digging is a thing that happens.

I have no sympathy for the creeps that were at this party and I find all the tweets from those who attended laughable. like nobody knew what was happening? my hole.

people need to take responsibility for themselves. that includes the women who took a job that required flirting with drunk middle aged men.

as for the what if they were desperate for money line of thought you have why not get a normal job like the rest of us?

One eyed Jack

Penn wrote: »

To clarify, I would consider "male dancer at hen party" and "female dancer at stag party" to both be strippers and what I posted was based on same, and I think there's a reasonable expectation that, given the scenario and the attendees, they would likely be grabbed or groped as part of the job, unless it was made clear before they started their performances that touching was off limits. I'm sure it would be part of the job description to check to make sure whether they're okay with either the possibility or expectation of same as part of the job. Its not a male or female thing, just that that job comes with certain connotations. And make no mistake, if the stripper (whether male or female) is grabbed when they're not supposed to be or don't signal that it's okay, that's wrong. I wasn't saying it's okay, just that there is a higher possibility that it would happen.

Hostessing at an expensive charity dinner doesn't come with those connotations. It's not a reasonable comparison no matter how much people try to claim it is.

I'm not sure whether it's because you haven't been to that many strip clubs, or hired stripers, or attended parties where strippers were present.. Or is it the type of expensive charity events you go to that you assume they would have different expectations and connotations.

It's a perfectly reasonable comparison given that the behaviour we're talking about at an expensive charity dinner event wouldn't be out of place in a strip joint or a party with the same kind of money floating around.

Rory28

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

In work you expect your employer to make sure you’re safe though. They employer was an agency who also supplied floor staff to keep an eye on the hostesses. They were watching them to prod the ones who weren’t interacting enough with the guests.

So that means they saw what was happening and didn’t try to help.

If they wanted escorts, and strippers, why didn’t they hire escorts and strippers? Instead they hired young students and struggling actors to work for £15 an hour and hoped that when they were sexually assaulted, they would just take the money and stick to the non Disclosure agreement.

It’s wrong by any definition so it’s good that it’s being highlighted as unacceptable in 2018. Even if it’s overdue. This will cause things to change. Lots of old people who have difficulty with the changing world will say ‘this is PC gone mad... can’t even flirt with a girl or grope her arse or whip your dick out without being accused of doing something wrong... world’s gone mad’. But most people will just adapt.

If men are mistreated in a similar way, I think they should make a big song and dance about it and cause a similar change. Hen parties can be gross and I’d equally support stamping out harassment of men.

Why didnt a room full of powerful people hire strippers and hookers?
probably because they are hookers and strippers.

The employer of these ladies was trying to impress the rich sleazebags. The welfare of the women involved was never a priority. They should have just up and left reported those that committed sexual assault to the police and gone home. In my opinion no amount of money is worth dealing with that.

I'm glad that times are changing and all the good work #metoo has done. You're completely right that its overdue and those that dont adapt will be vilified like racists are today.

Penn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not sure whether it's because you haven't been to that many strip clubs, or hired stripers, or attended parties where strippers were present.. Or is it the type of expensive charity events you go to that you assume they would have different expectations and connotations.

It's a perfectly reasonable comparison given that the behaviour we're talking about at an expensive charity dinner event wouldn't be out of place in a strip joint or a party with the same kind of money floating around.

It's perfectly reasonable that rich men should be expected to treat waitresses at a charity event the same way drunken dickheads on a stag party would treat a stripper? That's a perfectly reasonable comparison to you?

One eyed Jack

Penn wrote: »

It's perfectly reasonable that rich men should be expected to treat waitresses at a charity event the same way drunken dickheads on a stag party would treat a stripper? That's a perfectly reasonable comparison to you?

Yes, isn't that what happened, and that's why we're making the comparison, no?

weldoninhio

Maude Flanders may have fallen to her death at the speedway, but her spirit lives on. Jesus. Do that many people live in bubbles??

El_Duderino 09

RDM_83 again wrote:

It really doesn't sound like its talking about strippers taking somebodies hands and placing on themselves

Ask them if you're not sure.

RDM_83 again wrote:

This isn't a random whatabout the menz post, its literally a popular non controversial opinion in that post that grabbing and groping of guys (you don't use the word grab/grope to imply touching with consent) is ok if there is a reasonable expectation that its going to happen on the job. Is anybody actually shocked (not disgusted actually surprised) that harassment occurred to people hired to be dressed scantily at this event, doesn't it make it exactly the same thing?

I hold the same pinion about uninvited touching for men and women. So uninvited touching is exactly the same thing for both men and women as far as I'm concerned.

dotsman

kylith wrote: »

An arm, maybe. Their genitals or breasts? Are you serious?

Um, have you ever actually experienced a sexual encounter on a drunken night out? Because that's generally what happens. You start off talking. If that is reciprocated, and you are interested, then flirting. If that is reciprocated and you are interested, then touching (an arm/hand). If that is reciprocated and you are interested, then a bit more and it keeps going as long as both parties are displaying signs of interest.

kylith wrote: »

If they tried to avoid the men the bouncers would make them interact. If they spent 'too long' in the bathroom the bouncers would come get them.

Where is there any evidence of that? Please point out one time a girl approached a bouncer and told them she was being sexually assaulted and the bouncer said "tough $hit" and forced the girl to go back to the assaulter and make the assault continue.

kylith wrote: »

If they spent 'too long' in the bathroom the bouncers would come get them.

Sounds like a $hitty job to me. One I would certainly quit on the spot. But there are lots of cases (many previously discussed here on boards) of companies allotting maximum toilet break time etc. It's the sign of a terribly run company. But is that what we are debating here? If so, I would happily encourage the employees to look for other employment. but I don't think micro-management of time-keeping in relation to toilet breaks is the "shocking scandal" here!

kylith wrote: »

I hope this NDA is deemed null and these women can sue the arse off the company that hired them.

I certainly hope not. If actual crimes are committed then, yes, as part of a police investigation, any NDA should be ignored. But if people think they can just ignore contractual obligations and fcuk other people over just so they can have their 15 seconds of fame on twitter, then those people are fcuked for life.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It's common to grab and grope someone who has been 'flirting' with you? To pull them forcefully onto your lap? To whip out your penis? Really? I don't think so.

Not sure how common it is. Personally, I've never grabbed or groped anyone myself. I've had it done to me quite a few times over the years, but I happily brush it off as drunken play. The same for my friends, both male and female.

But let's look at your language:

• If someone you like (be it friend or sexual partner) gives you a hug, are they grabbing you?
• If someone you like (be it friend or sexual partner) pulls you on to the dancefloor, are they grabbing you?
• If someone you like in a sexual way touches you, are they groping you?
• If someone you like in a sexual way shares an intimate part of their body, are they somehow harming you?

Making the assumption you are a girl and are into guys (possibly have that wrong, if so - sorry!)- but has every time a boy been naked with you in the past, do you consider that he has committed some terrible crime?

Terms like "grabbing" and "groping" are extremely loaded and very much depend on context. In this case, the context was that these girls knowingly and happily signed up to receive money and flirt with a bunch of drunk wealthy men, some of whom are likely to be sleazy and make the men think that they were interested in them in a sexual way. The vast majority of these girls were happy with the arrangement. Some happily went all the way and had sex, some as far as kissing, some at touching etc. But a deceitful, sensationalist "reporter" is claiming that she, some of the girls were "shocked" that drunken people react to flirting in an expected manner. And, as a result, the majority of twitterati* and some posters here are happy to agree and add to the sensationalism.

*surprise, surprise.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The girls that tried to get away by hiding in the bathroom were frog marched back into the room by bouncers.

What girls tried to get away? Where is there any evidence that anybody tried to "get away" was "frogmarched" back?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

lol. I said it’s the attitude in common. ‘Nothing to see here, mountain out of a molehill, the sluts were asking for it so it’s not the abusers fault, move on ‘.

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the connection in attitude, in any way, shape or form.

As an aside, who said they were sluts? And why imply there is anything "wrong" with people who are referred to as sluts? As a term, it is often used by jealous people (men and women alike) to put down women who display signs of sexual desire and independence that fall outside extremely narrow traditional social convention.

eviltwin wrote: »

I think it's because men who defend this kind of thing are probably the ones who do it themselves.

You are absolutely correct. In fact, my typical night out is grabbing any ass that passes and whipping out my lad "for the laugh".*

*Or, maybe, it's because you cannot debate against a logical argument so you have to throw out ridiculous, insulting, sexist accusations without any basis against posters who don't agree with your opinion?

citytillidie

A Little Pony wrote: »

Because people have bills to pay and need to put food on the table. That is part and parcel of such a job, it naturally comes with the territory. It's like being a coal man and complaining about getting dirt on you. 

[font=Arial, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, "Liberation Sans", FreeSans, sans-serif][*]
[/font]
https://www.list.co.uk/event/717796-ladies-night-the-grove/

Shh this is men so it is ok

A Little Pony

Just seen a leaflet for this event and it said they must behave with dignity and outlawed such actions, so I got this one wrong then as that puts it in a different light. Arrests must be made.

anewme

Assetbacked wrote: »

The agenda with the reporting seems to be to make a point that it was a men only event but the stories are dressed up as the entire event was a sexual harassment lawsuit. So many weak, pathetic people getting outraged for the sake of being outraged; but what makes this great is that nothing will come from their crying due to the collective power of the individuals who were attending this event.

what makes this great is that nothing will come from their crying...care to take this back?

A Peer has been sacked from the Front Bench for attending this.

So much for your "collective power"

anewme

A Little Pony wrote: »

Just seen a leaflet for this event and it said they must behave with dignity and outlawed such actions, so I got this one wrong then as that puts it in a different light. Arrests must be made.

If you need a leaflet to tell you that you must behave with dignity, then you've bigger problems than this.

Treating others with dignity and respect should be a given, not something you need to rely on a "leaflet" for.

A Little Pony

anewme wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Just seen a leaflet for this event and it said they must behave with dignity and outlawed such actions, so I got this one wrong then as that puts it in a different light. Arrests must be made.

If you need a leaflet to tell you that you must behave with dignity, then you've bigger problems than this.

They broke the rules and did get told.

anewme

A Little Pony wrote: »

They broke the rules and did get told.

Is the "leaflet" the law then?

El_Duderino 09

A Little Pony wrote:

Just seen a leaflet for this event and it said they must behave with dignity and outlawed such actions, so I got this one wrong then as that puts it in a different light. Arrests must be made.

Delighted you changed your mind,but why did that trivial detail cause the change? Groping people without consent is illegal anwyay so putting it in writing is redundant.
Does putting it in writing really change your opinion from it being the women's own fault, to arrests must be made'?

Assetbacked

Bambi985 wrote: »

Ah yes, long live the right of fat rich men to grope, assault and get their dicks out in front of young women making 15 quid an hour who’ve been silenced by an NDA and have been lined up like lambs to the slaughter for them. Rejoice! What a treat you are.

Well I would hope to never have the misfortune of hearing about your hardships in real life.

I don’t think one waitress getting groped and a dick flash is terribly bad considering the gout ravaged clientele, the sleazy tarts working at the event and the fact there were obscene amounts of money thrown around.

The news stories are being sensational and my clickbait initial post on this thread lured the bottom feeders who look to get outraged by this sort of ****ty new story to the top of the water when they see someone apparently condoning the event.

El_Duderino 09

dotsman wrote:

Where is there any evidence of that? Please point out one time a girl approached a bouncer and told them she was being sexually assaulted and the bouncer said "tough $hit" and forced the girl to go back to the assaulter and make the assault continue.

There were floor staff keeping an eye on the hosts and prodding them to interact with the guests if they weren't interacting continuously. So if they were watching the women, they say what was happening to them.

I don't know if the dialogue you're describing happened but we can be fairly sure the floor staff knew what was happening. The 'bouncers' were on the toilet door. They timed the women to make sure they weren't using the loo to avoid the guests. They brought them back to the guests if they took too long.

anewme

Assetbacked wrote: »

Well I would hope to never have the misfortune of hearing about your hardships in real life.

I don’t think one waitress getting groped and a dick flash is terribly bad considering the gout ravaged clientele, the sleazy tarts working at the event and the fact there were obscene amounts of money thrown around.

The news stories are being sensational and my clickbait initial post on this thread lured the bottom feeders who look to get outraged by this sort of ****ty new story to the top of the water when they see someone apparently condoning the event.

You are the one out of touch with reality and hardships.

Maybe flashing your dick is not ok(even just the once)

Care to comment on your “ nothing will happen from this ” post when the whole thing gets closed down and front bench people have been sacked for attending.

You called this one drastically wrong then?

Goes without saying.

Junkyard Tom

Assetbacked wrote: »

my clickbait initial post on this thread lured the bottom feeders who look to get outraged by this sort of ****ty.

So you were pretending to be outraged at 'people being outraged for the sake of outrage' to create more outrage?

You're an outrage junkie you are, sweetpea.

Carry on.

dotsman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So if they were watching the women, they say what was happening to them.

So they saw girls who were paid to flirt with rich men flirting with men.

Does the fact that they saw nothing worthy of them interceding not suggest that there was nothing obviously malicious going on?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't know if the dialogue you're describing happened but we can be fairly sure the floor staff knew what was happening.

Why can they dialogue on twitter to the entire world, but not to a bouncer who's job is to make sure they are safe?

I can't imagine a single bouncer who wouldn't intervene if a girl came up to him/her complaining that there were been sexually assaulted. Can you?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The 'bouncers' were on the toilet door. They timed the women to make sure they weren't using the loo to avoid the guests. They brought them back to the guests if they took too long.

As previously discussed, lots of small-minded companies micro-manage toilet breaks. But, again, it's the language being used here. Is there any evidence that any girl was "brought back" to an abusive client? Or was it more of a "come on now girls - back to work"?

kylith

dotsman wrote: »

So they saw girls who were paid to flirt with rich men flirting with men.

Does the fact that they saw nothing worthy of them interceding not suggest that there was nothing obviously malicious going on?

Is there any evidence that they saw nothing malicious going on? Or did they choose not to see it? Or did they just not care?

animaal

anewme wrote: »

Anyone asked about it including the speaker David Walliams and The Childrens Minster(who has attended for years now) seem to say they went but did not stay for any length of time so did not know what it was.

dotsman

kylith wrote: »

Is there any evidence that they saw nothing malicious going on? Or did they choose not to see it? Or did they just not care?

Until there is any evidence that someone has done something wrong, I think it is horrible to accuse people.

There is no evidence (nor even an actual accusation, just conjecture if I understand correctly) of any wrongdoing on the part the bouncers.

El_Duderino 09

dotsman wrote:

So they saw girls who were paid to flirt with rich men flirting with men. Does the fact that they saw nothing worthy of them interceding not suggest that there was nothing obviously malicious going on?

If they were watching the women, Im sure they saw them flirting with them along with anything else that happened to them.. There was no suggestion that it was their job to protect the hosts. It was their job to make sure they interacted with the guests. The article referred to them as an enforcement team not security for the women.

It could suggest they saw nothing obviously malicious, it equally suggests they weren't interested in sexual harassment against the women. It is known their job was to ensure the hosts interacted with the guests continually. What makes you think it was their job to look out for obviously malicious behaviour?

Apart from anything else, this event and the last few months of Weinstein and #metoo is in the process of changing what is considered malicious and what's considered 'sure what do you expect men to do?'

dotsman wrote:

Why can they dialogue on twitter to the entire world, but not to a bouncer who's job is to make sure they are safe?

Who said the bouncer's job was to protect the hosts? The article says it was their job to time the hosts in the toilet, not protect them.

dotsman wrote:

I can't imagine a single bouncer who wouldn't intervene if a girl came up to him/her complaining that there were been sexually assaulted. Can you?

It would depend on the bouncer's job. The article suggests it was their job to monitor the women's toilet breaks. It didn't say it was their job to police the guests behaviour.

dotsman wrote:

As previously discussed, lots of small-minded companies micro-manage toilet breaks. But, again, it's the language being used here. Is there any evidence that any girl was "brought back" to an abusive client? Or was it more of a "come on now girls - back to work"?

The article didn't say either. It said they times their toilet breaks and brought them back to the guests of they took too long. Again , no suggestion they were supposed to protect the hosts. They were they're to ensure the hosts didn't avoid the guests - for whatever reason.