Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

UK Presidents Club closes amid reports of sexual harassment

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Roger_007 wrote:
    We all have to make ends meet but most of us do not do it at the expense of our basic principles.

    We all have to make ends meet and some people are more desperate than others. As I said, the normal reasons.

    Do you think 'they were asking for it'? Or 'they new what they were doing dressing like a hussy'?
    What are you actually saying. Spit it out.
    Well duh. They put the clothing on as adults.


  • Options
    #93
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,020 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Roger_007 wrote:
    They should NOT have gone along with it.

    So is it their own fault ultimately?


  • Options
    #94
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,020 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    A Little Pony wrote:
    Well duh. They put the clothing on as adults.

    Just to clarify, are you saying that if they dress like a hussy', they should expect to be groped, have men whack their d1ck out etc? Cos that's what I was asking, not whether or not they dressed themselves.


  • Options
    #95
    Boom_Bap
    Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,730 Mod ✭✭✭✭Boom_Bap


    They were paid to be a hostess, not a plaything.

    Word has it that the prostitutes were all dressed in red so the clever men there could distinguish between black and red.


  • Options
    #96
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    dotsman wrote: »
    They were not waiting staff. They were "hostesses" which, by it's definition is a bit blurred. Not exactly a waitress, not exactly a hooker, a hostess's job is to appear as a sexually attractive person who flirts/parties with clients.
    It is not blurred if you know what actual definition is.
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hostess

    What you are imagining hostess to be says more about you then about the job they are hired to do.

    Edit: I will just add the ignorance some are displaying here is amazing. You would come across hostesses at cultural, educational, business events. But then if the only experienve of them is as a bit seedy then it's fairly clear what type of establishments some attend.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,144 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    What I am saying is that the women involved should NOT have agreed to be 'hostesses' on the terms and conditions they were asked to sign up to.
    They were NOT employees of the Dorchester.
    They were NOT waiting staff.
    They were hired by the event organisers on a once-off basis specifically 'entertain' the attendees. They were asked to dress provocatively.

    They should NOT have gone along with it.

    IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH?

    I was wondering about this myself: "some of the men can be annoying" was a quote I read. What I'd like to know is: was this information given to the girls before or after they agreed to do the gig? Did any of them ask what "annoying" meant (there's a difference between "annoying" and being pulled onto someone's lap while having a hand thrust onto your crotch). That kinda ****'s gonna land people in court and no one signs a legal contract to indulge in illegal behaviour.

    That said, if members don't want their lecherous activities discussed in public, there is an easy way to avoid this...

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #98
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,127 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    What I find hard to understand is why any women agreed to participate as 'hostesses' in this event given the 'terms and conditions ' they were asked to accept in advance.
    Are they really that stupid that they did not know what might ensue.
    If, as has been reported, many of them felt uncomfortable about what was going on, how come none of them just upped and left. Were they locked in?
    Most comment on this event is about the bad behaviour of the men involved but very little adverse comment about the women who went along with it.


    Didnt the journalist who went undercover say that they weren't given time to read the contract they had to sign? They were just told they had to sign it.

    They were timed in the bathroom and anyone taking too long was removed by a bouncer and escorted back to the room. I don't think it would have been that easy to leave.


  • Options
    #99
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    A Little Pony wrote:
    Well duh. They put the clothing on as adults.

    Just to clarify, are you saying that if they dress like a hussy', they should expect to be groped, have men whack their d1ck out etc? Cos that's what I was asking, not whether or not they dressed themselves.
    If I was told the job description such as it is and what type of outfit I would be wearing I would be more than aware than some dirtbag is going to chance his luck. It's called reality.


  • Options
    #100
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,020 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    A Little Pony wrote:
    If I was told the job description such as it is and what type of outfit I would be wearing I would be more than aware than some dirtbag is going to chance his luck. It's called reality.

    So do you think it was Ultimately their own fault for going along with it and taking the job?


  • Options
    #101
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,330 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    What I am saying is that the women involved should NOT have agreed to be 'hostesses' on the terms and conditions they were asked to sign up to.
    They were NOT employees of the Dorchester.
    They were NOT waiting staff.
    They were hired by the event organisers on a once-off basis specifically 'entertain' the attendees. They were asked to dress provocatively.

    They should NOT have gone along with it.

    IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH?

    It's funny how you put a different emphasis on the word 'entertain'.

    The role of a hostess as opposed to a waitress is not just to bring over food and drink but also to engage in conversation and stay in their vicinity to ensure they're catered for.

    They were not hired to 'entertain' the attendees. They were hired as hostesses, and the role of the hostess does not involve being groped and grabbed, no more than it does for any other form of service (waitressing, bartending) unless specifically mentioned as part of the job description. From the written article, many of the women didn't know that they were going to be treated like that, and they only got to sign the contracts just before the event and weren't given time to read it.

    Many of them didn't know the terms and conditions they were signing up to. We can argue back and forth about whether it makes them naive that they did sign, or if it was likely planned that they wouldn't be given a chance to read the contract so as to ensure they either signed it or were told to go home. Either way, it's irrelevant.

    If you go with the position that those women should have known they were going to be groped, you have to also go along with the position that the men attending the event were doing so knowing they could grope the women because it was expected and that's what the women were hired for.

    And if the men were going thinking they were allowed to treat the women like that, it says far more about them than it does about anyone else. They're scumbag arseholes masquerading as pillars of society and the economy, and are rightfully being disgraced for being involved in such an event.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    A Little Pony wrote:
    If I was told the job description such as it is and what type of outfit I would be wearing I would be more than aware than some dirtbag is going to chance his luck. It's called reality.

    So do you think it was Ultimately their own fault for going along with it and taking the job?
    Don't drink before you get into a car, you might just crash.


  • Options
    #103
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,020 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    A Little Pony wrote:
    Don't drink before you get into a car, you might just crash.

    In that analogy it's the drink drivers fault for drinking and driving. So are you saying it was ultimately the hostesses fault for going along with it? Have the courage of your conviction and say what you think.


  • Options
    #104
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,144 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Penn wrote: »

    And if the men were going thinking they were allowed to treat the women like that, it says far more about them than it does about anyone else. They're scumbag arseholes masquerading as pillars of society and the economy, and are rightfully being disgraced for being involved in such an event.

    This.

    Kind of ironic that it's called a "Gentlemens" club.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #105
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    I am reading more up on this story and it turns out hookers were hired at this event. The outfits of the hostesses seems to be what I thought. 

    I'd be wanting more than £150 quid to do that!
    In what world are "budding actresses or students" hookers?
    dotsman wrote: »
    They were not waiting staff. They were "hostesses" which, by it's definition is a bit blurred. Not exactly a waitress, not exactly a hooker, a hostess's job is to appear as a sexually attractive person who flirts/parties with clients.

    When flirting and partying with very drunk people of the opposite gender, one should not be shocked/upset/horrified if said drunk people hit on the hostesses.

    Well, maybe if one can't help but grope and fondle women when inebriated then one should not drink to that excess.


  • Options
    #106
    Rory28
    Registered Users Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Rory28


    kylith wrote: »
    Well, maybe if one can't help but grope and fondle women when inebriated then one should not drink to that excess.

    Couldn't agree more. But the world doesn't work like that. In a perfect world I could walk down any street at any time and not expect to be robbed. In the real world you know thats not true.

    The job these women took was always going be what it was. A bunch of creepy old rich dudes looking to get into pretty girls pants. It shouldn't be the case but it would be naive to think it would be anything else.


  • Options
    #107
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,849 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    kylith wrote: »
    In what world are "budding actresses or students" hookers?
    One where trilbies and fedoras are cool?


  • Options
    #108
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Rory28 wrote: »
    Couldn't agree more. But the world doesn't work like that. In a perfect world I could walk down any street at any time and not expect to be robbed. In the real world you know thats not true.

    The job these women took was always going be what it was. A bunch of creepy old rich dudes looking to get into pretty girls pants. It shouldn't be the case but it would be naive to think it would be anything else.
    Creepy old rich dudes trying to get into pretty girls pants =/= getting groped, fondled, manhandled, and flashed.

    And I don't buy the 'they knew what they were getting into' nonsense either. They probably knew that they would be expected flirt with the clientele, not get sexually assaulted.


  • Options
    #109
    Boom_Bap
    Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,730 Mod ✭✭✭✭Boom_Bap


    kylith wrote: »
    In what world are "budding actresses or students" hookers?


    Well, maybe if one can't help but grope and fondle women when inebriated then one should not drink to that excess.

    If rumours are to believed, it wasn't just booze. There apparently was plenty of Bolivian marching powder available. Nothing like some nose clams mixed with booze to give power trippers that bit more 'confidence' to whip their mickeys out and get handsy.


  • Options
    #110
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    One where trilbies and fedoras are cool?

    Fedoras are cool.

    d33b18d465bb6e7097b31a9ded0d293b.jpg


  • Options
    #111
    Rory28
    Registered Users Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Rory28


    kylith wrote: »
    Creepy old rich dudes trying to get into pretty girls pants =/= getting groped, fondled, manhandled, and flashed.

    And I don't buy the 'they knew what they were getting into' nonsense either. They probably knew that they would be expected flirt with the clientele, not get sexually assaulted.

    They accepted a job that was offered to them purely on how good looking they are. It was for a men only function. They were told to dress in skimpy clothes with matching underwear.

    Which part of that is in any way acceptable? Who takes that job?
    The job description alone should raise red flags all over the place.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    anewme
    Registered Users Posts: 11,901 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    Rory28 wrote: »
    They accepted a job that was offered to them purely on how good looking they are. It was for a men only function. They were told to dress in skimpy clothes with matching underwear.

    Which part of that is in any way acceptable? Who takes that job?
    The job description alone should raise red flags all over the place.

    Are you allow specify that in your advertising?

    Surely the job itself is discriminatory and illegal.

    Are you allowed advertise a job as only for goodlooking people?


  • Options
    #113
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    Rory28 wrote: »
    They accepted a job that was offered to them purely on how good looking they are. It was for a men only function. They were told to dress in skimpy clothes with matching underwear.

    Which part of that is in any way acceptable? Who takes that job?
    The job description alone should raise red flags all over the place.

    Do tell us who?

    Who takes a job at charity event in one of the most prestigious hotels attended by respected people from business and politics?

    Who implies the girls intended to prostitute themselves just because they were wearing black underwear and black mini dresses?

    I can answer the last one. The type of a person who deeply dislikes women and wants to smear them at every opportunity.


  • Options
    #114
    Rory28
    Registered Users Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Rory28


    anewme wrote: »
    Are you allow specify that in your advertising?

    Surely the job itself is discriminatory and illegal.

    Are you allowed advertise a job as only for goodlooking people?

    I'd always assumed so but go into any hollister store and tell me if you see any guy thats not a hunk or girl thats not a babe.


  • Options
    #115
    FTA69
    Registered Users Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    meeeeh wrote: »
    Do tell us who?

    Who takes a job at charity event in one of the most prestigious hotels attended by respected people from business and politics?

    Who implies the girls intended to prostitute themselves just because they were wearing black underwear and black mini dresses?

    I can answer the last one. The type of a person who deeply dislikes women and wants to smear them at every opportunity.

    A uniform they were handed when they showed up by the way.


  • Options
    #116
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,020 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Rory28 wrote: »
    Couldn't agree more. But the world doesn't work like that. In a perfect world I could walk down any street at any time and not expect to be robbed. In the real world you know thats not true.

    The job these women took was always going be what it was. A bunch of creepy old rich dudes looking to get into pretty girls pants. It shouldn't be the case but it would be naive to think it would be anything else.

    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.


  • Options
    #117
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Rory28 wrote: »
    They accepted a job that was offered to them purely on how good looking they are. It was for a men only function. They were told to dress in skimpy clothes with matching underwear.

    Which part of that is in any way acceptable? Who takes that job?
    The job description alone should raise red flags all over the place.
    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.


  • Options
    #118
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,020 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    meeeeh wrote: »

    Do tell us who?


    Who implies the girls intended to prostitute themselves just because they were wearing black underwear and black mini dresses?

    I can answer the last one. The type of a person who deeply dislikes women and wants to smear them at every opportunity.

    I always think Muslims are being ridiculous when they argue that women need to be covered up to protect them from predatory men. I always assume that men can see attractive women without assuming that they’re fair game to sexually abuse.

    This kind of thing makes me think the Muslims are right and some men think hat is a woman is dressed sexy, then she’s asking for it- the big slut.


    He argument seems to be going thusly:
    A. This behaviour is terrible.
    B. Yeah but what were the women
    Expecting? Dress code, picked for being attractive, red flags etc.
    A. I expect people not to be sexually assaulted in work, and if they are assaulted I expect the law to deal with it.
    B. The girls knew exactly what they were getting into. Boys will be boys. What do you expect?

    Imagine if they were Syrian refugees instead of wealthy and powerful people!!!


  • Options
    #119
    anewme
    Registered Users Posts: 11,901 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    Rory28 wrote: »
    I'd always assumed so but go into any hollister store and tell me if you see any guy thats not a hunk or girl thats not a babe.

    How is that policed though.

    As people are here saying that the job specification was that you were tall, thin and goodlooking, surely that is not allowed under discrimination.

    Would it be legal to tell people they had to wear black underwear.

    People with disabilities could not apply for example.

    The more you hear about this "event" the more questions you ask.

    Complete sleaze.


  • Options
    #120
    DEFTLEFTHAND
    Registered Users Posts: 16,500 ✭✭✭✭DEFTLEFTHAND


    kylith wrote: »
    Fedoras are cool.

    d33b18d465bb6e7097b31a9ded0d293b.jpg

    Why is that yob wearing his hat indoors?

    How common.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    anewme wrote: »
    How is that policed though.

    As people are here saying that the job specification was that you were tall, thin and goodlooking, surely that is not allowed under discrimination.

    Would it be legal to tell people they had to wear black underwear.

    People with disabilities could not apply for example.

    The more you hear about this "event" the more questions you ask.

    Complete sleaze.

    It's not illegal to discriminate on the basis of attractiveness, however it is discrimination that only attractive women were allowed to do the job. That's how holister and a&f can get away with it, they employ hotties of both genders, and the normal looking people are still hired to do night pack!


Advertisement