UK Presidents Club closes amid reports of sexual harassment

Bob Harris · 25-01-2018 8:38am

Pepefrogok wrote: »

Any proof of this happening? No cctv or camera phones? No eye witnesses?

Apparently a few japs eyes caught a glimpse of what was going on.

Peregrinus · 25-01-2018 8:47am

Pepefrogok wrote: »

Any proof of this happening? No cctv or camera phones? No eye witnesses?

Numerous eye witnesses; where did you imagine the accounts were coming from?

The story was broken by two Financial Times reporters who were present at the event. They wrote about what they themselves witnessed. Other people who were present have since come forward and spoken about what they witnessed or experienced.

elefant · 25-01-2018 9:02am

Your Face wrote: »

"The worst I was told by one of the hostesses was a man taking his penis out during the course of the dinner"

So this is a crime now?

The worlds gone waaaaaay too PC.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was America.

Annasopra · 25-01-2018 9:07am

Your Face wrote: »

"The worst I was told by one of the hostesses was a man taking his penis out during the course of the dinner"

So this is a crime now?

The worlds gone waaaaaay too PC.

Of course its a crime!

Peregrinus · 25-01-2018 9:10am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Of course its a crime!

And not just now. It's been a crime since forever.

Did you know that if you make a contract with someone and then break it, he can sue you for damages now??!!! I tell ya, it's political correctness gone mad!!!!

Annasopra · 25-01-2018 9:13am

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Given the job description I don't think it was a massive leap. Doesn't make it right of course, but wouldn't be a massive shock all the same.
There's equal roles at play here don't you think?

Really? Equal roles? Wealthy men and poor women struggling to make ends meet?

CrankyHaus · 25-01-2018 9:24am

They were paid £150 and £25 for a cab home after.
They were also given drinks.

They weren't able to fully read the Non-Disclosure-Agreement they had to sign.
They were required to constantly interact with the guests. This was enforced by a team from their employer who "who would tour the ballroom, prodding less active hostesses to interact with dinner guests".
They were touched and propositioned throughout the night.

This would be fairly sordid in any context but at a charity event associated with the great and good of UK society and institutions it's indefensible.

I'd urge everyone to read the FT article in full. It's far from a hatchet job and gives balanced reporting that is still damning.

meeeeh · 25-01-2018 9:25am

A Little Pony wrote: »

What do you expect with such an event? Do people seriously not know what goes on in the real world with these people? I'd be shocked if it didn't happen.

These people? Look at behaviour of drunk tourists where alcohol is cheaper and you will see it's far from limited to rich people. Especially stags have bad reputations. It's a lot more common than just rich men, it's not limited to gender or social status.

That being said single sex events are a bit pathetic, the behaviour was dreadful and hostesses should not expect to be groped just because they were wearing short skirt. My friends did it during studies and being a hostess usually meant directing people where to go in Opera or handing out stuff at trade fairs. None signed to being groped.

Annasopra · 25-01-2018 9:28am

Yep original ft article is fairly interesting alright

https://www.ft.com/content/075d679e-0033-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5

FTA69 · 25-01-2018 9:42am

A bunch of financiers (the lads who crashed the economy), business moguls who exploit people and rob pensions (Philip Green) and a load of arsehole politicians going on the p*ss, backslapping, groping women and bidding on such classy prizes such as boob jobs to "spice up your wife." Jesus Christ like what a cesspit.

If the place was bombed from the air it would have done society a service.

Obviously there is a huge element of sexism here when your female staff are selected on the basis of looks to serve food and drink and are then subjected to all kinds of sleaze but as someone said earlier, the fact these characters are the top establishment figures shmoozing away is just as significant.

The primary disparity in society isn't men v women, it's uber rich and powerful people like these and ordinary people. And make no mistake they're p*ssing all over the rest of us.

CeilingFly · 25-01-2018 9:48am

Where's the story?

Group of loud men get group of women drunk and try their luck with them.

Women told BEFOREHAND that some odd behaviour can be expected from some of the men.

Tittle tattle reporting more suited to the daily muck than the FT.

Over 360 attendees and the article gives about three examples of poor behaviour.

Hope she never goes to Shoreditch on a Saturday night - or over here, Camden Street.

Peregrinus · 25-01-2018 9:53am

CeilingFly wrote: »

Where's the story?

You ask this question in the days of #metoo?

Have you been living under a rock?

CrankyHaus · 25-01-2018 9:59am

FTA69 wrote: »

A bunch of financiers (the lads who crashed the economy), business moguls who exploit people and rob pensions (Philip Green) and a load of arsehole politicians going on the p*ss, backslapping, groping women and bidding on such classy prizes such as boob jobs to "spice up your wife." Jesus Christ like what a cesspit.

If the place was bombed from the air it would have done society a service.

Obviously there is a huge element of sexism here when your female staff are selected on the basis of looks to serve food and drink and are then subjected to all kinds of sleaze but as someone said earlier, the fact these characters are the top establishment figures shmoozing away is just as significant.

The primary disparity in society isn't men v women, it's uber rich and powerful people like these and ordinary people. And make no mistake they're p*ssing all over the rest of us.

Yes. This is also a good insight into how much of charity is taken over by the rich, powerful and often venal.

We see it here too where plenty of establishment politicians are parachuted into lucrative charity top spots when their political careers run out of track: FF Barry Andrews heading Goal, PD Colm O'Gorman heading Amnesty International Ireland, FF Averill Power heading Irish Cancer Society, Labour Fergus Finlay heading Barnardos in Ireland.

El_Duderino 09 · 25-01-2018 12:08pm

CrankyHaus wrote:

I'd urge everyone to read the FT article in full. It's far from a hatchet job and gives balanced reporting that is still damning.

It's a good article alright.

The woman who was in charge of hiring and managing the hosts said 'im not aware of any reports of sexual harassment and with the calibre of guests, I would be astonished'.

This lineups particularly disturbing. Does anyone remember the clerical sex abuse scandal? One major problem was that priests were held in a category of people who wouldn't commit sexual abuse. This woman is putting rich men in that category. We went from revering religious figures to revering capitalist figures.

Ash.J.Williams · 25-01-2018 12:27pm

I mean like do these girls have any hospitality experience? it's a disgrace to the profession

pickarooney · 25-01-2018 12:38pm

CrankyHaus wrote: »

FF Barry Andrews heading Gaol

If only!

CeilingFly · 25-01-2018 12:50pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

You ask this question in the days of #metoo?

Have you been living under a rock?

Yep, have heard all this self righteous guff for all quarters.

Men and women will misbehave. Some women take advantage, some men take advantage. Those who go over the line need to be pulled back, but it seems the day of flirting is gone at this stage.

My own mother who in her nineties thinks its hillarious and can't understand how people can't use the word "no". Maybe she's old fashioned, but she knows women have used their sexuality to advance in many fields including the acting sphere.

The world has simply gone pc mad and the sensationalist media are loving it

anewme · 25-01-2018 1:29pm

CeilingFly wrote: »

Yep, have heard all this self righteous guff for all quarters.

Men and women will misbehave. Some women take advantage, some men take advantage. Those who go over the line need to be pulled back, but it seems the day of flirting is gone at this stage.

My own mother who in her nineties thinks its hillarious and can't understand how people can't use the word "no". Maybe she's old fashioned, but she knows women have used their sexuality to advance in many fields including the acting sphere.

The world has simply gone pc mad and the sensationalist media are loving it

There's nothing hilarious about this event. Its a horrible abuse of power. Agree with the person that it says as much about rich v. poor as it does men v. women.

Its also demeaning to the Charities, show me your tits and let me have a free grope and I'll donate (tax deductible amounts anyway) to a much needed Charity.

Theres too many people quoting MeToo if someone as much as looks at them and thats wrong.

But events like these, this culture that with Power and Money you can buy people is wrong. Harvey Weinstein would be a perfect choice for the Chairman of this group. Its that kind of sleaze. Needs to be stamped out and zero tolerance for it.

What was acceptable in a Ninety Year Old person's hayday, is clearly not acceptable any longer and thank God for that. Sure women were not allowed work outside the home in those days.

Rory28 · 25-01-2018 1:31pm

Why would anyone accept this job? The groping and propositioning is completely unacceptable but hardly shocking. There is a reason they only hired pretty ladies. They must have known what this job would be which brings me back to my question. Why would anyone accept this job?

I'm glad more of the scum are getting exposed tho.

A Little Pony · 25-01-2018 1:32pm

CrankyHaus wrote: »

They were paid £150 and £25 for a cab home after.
They were also given drinks.

They weren't able to fully read the Non-Disclosure-Agreement they had to sign.
They were required to constantly interact with the guests. This was enforced by a team from their employer who "who would tour the ballroom, prodding less active hostesses to interact with dinner guests".
They were touched and propositioned throughout the night.

This would be fairly sordid in any context but at a charity event associated with the great and good of UK society and institutions it's indefensible.

I'd urge everyone to read the FT article in full. It's far from a hatchet job and gives balanced reporting that is still damning.

You have hen nights all over the country every weekend which involves women doing very similar or men being objectified with such events such as men dressing in waiter gear. It happens all the time.

Penn · 25-01-2018 1:36pm

CeilingFly wrote: »

but it seems the day of flirting is gone at this stage.

"She reported being repeatedly fondled on her bottom, hips, stomach and legs. One guest lunged at her to kiss her. Another invited her upstairs to his room."

"It was unclear why men, seated at their tables with hostesses standing close by, felt the need to hold the hands of the women, but numerous hostesses discussed instances of it through the night. For some, this was a prelude to pulling the women into their laps."

"“You look far too sober,” he told her. Filling her glass with champagne, he grabbed her by the waist, pulled her in against his stomach and declared: “I want you to down that glass, rip off your knickers and dance on that table.”"

If the above is your idea of flirting, yeah, for you the day of flirting is gone at this stage. Stop flirting.

El_Duderino 09 · 25-01-2018 1:36pm

A Little Pony wrote:

You have hen nights all over the country every weekend which involves women doing very similar or men being objectified with such events such as men dressing in waiter gear. It happens all the time.

I'd oposed that too. Do you not oppose that treatment of men and women?

Unless you're talking about sex workers hired as sex workers. Because that's not the same as wait staff hired as wait staff.

A Little Pony · 25-01-2018 1:36pm

Rory28 wrote: »

Why would anyone accept this job? The groping and propositioning is completely unacceptable but hardly shocking. There is a reason they only hired pretty ladies. They must have known what this job would be which brings me back to my question. Why would anyone accept this job?

I'm glad more of the scum are getting exposed tho.

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]LADIES NIGHT @ THE GROVE - 7th April 2018 - Doors Open 8PM[/font]

[font=Arial, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, "Liberation Sans", FreeSans, sans-serif]Our Ladies Night is back by popular demand after our huge sell out show last year. Feast your eyes and organise that night out you've been talking about for months - Perfect for Hen Nights, Birthdays or just a great girls night out![/font]
[font=Arial, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, "Liberation Sans", FreeSans, sans-serif][*][font=Arial, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, "Liberation Sans", FreeSans, sans-serif]Male Dancers[/font]
[*][font=Arial, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, "Liberation Sans", FreeSans, sans-serif]Drag Queen Hosts & Show[/font]
[*][font=Arial, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, "Liberation Sans", FreeSans, sans-serif]Butlers in the Buff[/font]
[*][font=Arial, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, "Liberation Sans", FreeSans, sans-serif]Free Fizz on Arrival[/font]
[*][font=Arial, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, "Liberation Sans", FreeSans, sans-serif]Sexy Waiter Service[/font]
[*][font=Arial, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, "Liberation Sans", FreeSans, sans-serif]Draw to win £50 Bar Tab[/font]
[*][font=Arial, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, "Liberation Sans", FreeSans, sans-serif]Tons of Raffle Prizes (including moet!)[/font]
[*][font=Arial, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, "Liberation Sans", FreeSans, sans-serif]Naughty Photobooth[/font]
[*][font=Arial, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, "Liberation Sans", FreeSans, sans-serif]Sweets & Treats For All ?[/font]
[*][font=Arial, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, "Liberation Sans", FreeSans, sans-serif]Free Entry Into Club After Party[/font]
[/font]

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

Penn · 25-01-2018 1:38pm

Rory28 wrote: »

Why would anyone accept this job? The groping and propositioning is completely unacceptable but hardly shocking. There is a reason they only hired pretty ladies. They must have known what this job would be which brings me back to my question. Why would anyone accept this job?

I'm glad more of the scum are getting exposed tho.

Because there's a difference between being hired to be a pretty waitress, and being repeatedly groped and grabbed. Hell a lot of barmaids are hired because they look pretty and seem like they have the kind of personality to chat to the customers etc. Doesn't mean they should expect to be groped.

Penn · 25-01-2018 1:40pm

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.

Maybe because with a male dancer at a hen party there's a reasonable expectation you'll be grabbed/groped. That seems like it's part and parcel of the job.

These women were hired as waitresses/hostesses at a charity dinner. There is no reasonable expectation you'll be grabbed/groped.

El_Duderino 09 · 25-01-2018 1:45pm

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.

Lol. If the women were hired as escorts it wouldn't really be a problem. They were hired as wait staff. If you can't see a problem, then maybe you should have gone to specsavers

A Little Pony · 25-01-2018 1:49pm

Penn wrote: »

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.

Maybe because with a male dancer at a hen party there's a reasonable expectation you'll be grabbed/groped. That seems like it's part and parcel of the job.

These women were hired as waitresses/hostesses at a charity dinner. There is no reasonable expectation you'll be grabbed/groped.

In "sexy" outfits and told to wear such outfits by the event itself, managed right from the top of whoever organized such an event. These events also do charity donations too. I can even post a link if you want.

A Little Pony · 25-01-2018 1:52pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

Lol. If the women were hired as escorts it wouldn't really be a problem. They were hired as wait staff. If you can't see a problem, then maybe you should have gone to specsavers

No, they weren't just waiters like you would see at a restaurant with the family. They are hostesses. It's not the same thing.

Roger_007 · 25-01-2018 1:56pm

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.

El_Duderino 09 · 25-01-2018 1:56pm

A Little Pony wrote:

No, they weren't just waiters like you would see at a restaurant with the family. They are hostesses. It's not the same thing.

But they weren't escorts or prostitutes. So they probably didn't expect men whacking their d1ck out, or proposition them or feeling them up.

What's your understanding of a hostess?

El_Duderino 09 · 25-01-2018 1:58pm

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.

The normal reasons.
People who are desperate to make ends meet are more vulnerable than people with enough money.

meeeeh · 25-01-2018 2:00pm

A Little Pony wrote: »

In "sexy" outfits and told to wear such outfits by the event itself, managed right from the top of whoever organized such an event. These events also do charity donations too. I can even post a link if you want.

What's your obsession with a sexy outfit. I wear black underwear under black clothes because it makes it less visible. Women wear black mini dresses all the time and they don't expect to be groped. We are talking about something that might be a bit more of a going out outfit and not something you would wear to the office. Its not exactly a thong and couple of nipple tassels.

A Little Pony · 25-01-2018 2:03pm

meeeeh wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

In "sexy" outfits and told to wear such outfits by the event itself, managed right from the top of whoever organized such an event. These events also do charity donations too. I can even post a link if you want.

What's your obsession with a sexy outfit. I wear black underwear under black clothes because it makes it less visible. Women wear black mini dresses all the time and they don't expect to be groped. We are talking about something that might be a bit more of a going out outfit and not something you would wear to the office and not a thing and a couple of nipple tassels.

But you aren't being paid to dress in such outfits by an events company or a manager of such an event either on orders via the description of the job or encouragement to do so. That is what hostesses do. I would be 100% in agreement with you if you are talking about a waiter at KFC or McDonalds or a fancy restaurant.

Roger_007 · 25-01-2018 2:04pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The normal reasons.
People who are desperate to make ends meet are more vulnerable than people with enough money.

We all have to make ends meet but most of us do not do it at the expense of our basic principles.

Will I Am Not · 25-01-2018 2:07pm

Penn wrote: »

"She reported being repeatedly fondled on her bottom, hips, stomach and legs. One guest lunged at her to kiss her. Another invited her upstairs to his room."

"It was unclear why men, seated at their tables with hostesses standing close by, felt the need to hold the hands of the women, but numerous hostesses discussed instances of it through the night. For some, this was a prelude to pulling the women into their laps."

"“You look far too sober,” he told her. Filling her glass with champagne, he grabbed her by the waist, pulled her in against his stomach and declared: “I want you to down that glass, rip off your knickers and dance on that table.”"

If the above is your idea of flirting, yeah, for you the day of flirting is gone at this stage. Stop flirting.

It’s certainly not flirting but it sounds more erotic novel than real life to be honest.

Maybe people speak and behave like that in those circles, I don’t know.

A Little Pony · 25-01-2018 2:11pm

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.

[font=Roboto, sans-serif]Many of the hostesses were budding actresses or students but they were all selected because they were tall — no shorter than 5ft 6in — thin and pretty.[/font]
[font=Roboto, sans-serif]They were given black dresses that barely skimmed their bottoms. See-though mesh panels revealed their side boobs and midriff.[/font]
[font=Roboto, sans-serif]And they were ordered to take along matching black underwear and sexy, black, high-heeled shoes.[/font]

I'd be wanting more than £150 quid to do that!

El_Duderino 09 · 25-01-2018 2:20pm

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.

dotsman · 25-01-2018 2:28pm

Candie wrote: »

Even though the story was about men groping waiting staff and getting their privates out during dinner at a men-only event, I knew it was the feminists fault all along.

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.

And, yes, this story and everything about it from its very conception is feminist bull$hit all the way.

What next - an undercover reporter discovers that some men laughed at a dirty joke while on a stag? That some girls drank from will-straws while on a hen?

Where exactly is the news? the Story? What the fcuk does this have to do with anything?

Most people are saying that the charities are the victims in all this, but I don't. They clearly are well funded and/or run by incompetent/corrupt muppets if they are happy to return the donations.

The only victim I see in all this is the Financial Times (and any good journalists who happen to still work there). Their 130 year old reputation for being a sensible source of financial news has been destroyed by a single, incompetent, deceitful muppet. From this single story, as far as I'm concerned, it is no longer anything more than a rag/redtop.

The Backwards Man · 25-01-2018 2:34pm

There's a fierce 'hang the bastard that told all our wives we were at the whorehouse' bang off this thread.

Roger_007 · 25-01-2018 2:38pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

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?

A Little Pony · 25-01-2018 2:38pm

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.

El_Duderino 09 · 25-01-2018 2:50pm

Roger_007 wrote:

They should NOT have gone along with it.

So is it their own fault ultimately?

El_Duderino 09 · 25-01-2018 2:52pm

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.

Boom_Bap · 25-01-2018 2:54pm

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.

meeeeh · 25-01-2018 3:41pm

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.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 25-01-2018 3:55pm

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...

ceadaoin. · 25-01-2018 4:17pm

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.

A Little Pony · 25-01-2018 4:19pm

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.

El_Duderino 09 · 25-01-2018 4:22pm

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?

Penn · 25-01-2018 4:24pm

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.

UK Presidents Club closes amid reports of sexual harassment

Comments