Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

copydude

Waitresses Groped in Men Only Club Shock Horror Oh Noes

Recommended Posts

Achy Breaking BBC News

Scandal-hit club shuts amid groping claims

Quote

 

The Presidents Club says it is to close following allegations that hostesses were groped at its men-only annual charity dinner.

There was widespread outrage following claims about the event by an undercover FT reporter, and charities said they would return past donations.

The only women at last Thursday's event at the Dorchester Hotel in central London, which was attended by senior figures in business and finance, were hired hostesses.

The Dorchester said it was "deeply concerned" and was looking into the claims. Great Ormond Street Hospital and Evelina London Children's Hospital have said they will return previous donations from the organisers following the allegations.

Madison Marriage, the Financial Times reporter who worked at the event, said she and "numerous other hostesses" were groped at the event.

She told BBC Newsnight she was groped "several times" and said: "It's a hands up skirts, hands on bums but also hands on hips, hands on stomachs, arms going round your waist unexpectedly.

 

Unexpectedly? Come on. Then why did she go there undercover deliberately for a story.

'Several Times'. She only had to say f*ck off you dirty ******* once. But then she wouldn't have got a story.'

Not condoning the behaviour, but really. Talk about precious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sort of thing is just ludicrous:

 

Jess Phillips MP, who chairs the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party, told the BBC it was "totally unacceptable that women should be hired in as a herd to entertain a group of entitled rich men".

 

Eh? Surely they can hire anyone they like? If they like pretty young women what is wrong with that? Does she honestly expect them to hire fat, ugly ones? And entertainers are entertainers. You specify what you want and you get what you pay for.

If a group of women want to hire only male waiters and have them dressed in tight trousers (or whatever), be my guest. There is no issue here. It was a private event. As far as I'm aware, women gather to watch professional male stripper groups on a regular basis. Is this also 'totally unacceptable'? After all, they have hired men to enterain them.

The fact that the people are rich is neither here nor there. Again, you can hire a prostitute in Amsterdam or any number of countries for 50 euro and have full sexual relations. Nothing wrong with that either.

These people are just talking utter nonsense and anyone with a brain can see that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I read the shock horror tale of unspeakable outrage in The Grauniad, I couldn't but help imagine their staffers as being like modern day swooning Victorian woman being told about the unspeakable sexual proclivities of despicable menfolk. If it had been pissed wimmin groping male strippers at a hen party or summat then that would have been empowerment, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't say that kind of event would be something I'd want to go anywhere near, in or out of a relationship. In many respects I'd probably prefer to attend when attached, cos it would give me an excuse to decline other's attempts to get me to "partake".

I also wonder what fun can be had from wrestling a waitress onto your lap and groping her.

And I feel exactly the same about hen parties. Who are these women who want to get handy with some greased-up stranger? What kind of a person wants to get thoroughly intimate in a public setting with their mates looking on? For whose benefit are they "partaking"? And why aren't we decrying that in parliament?

So, for me it is bass, degenerate behaviour.

But it isn't illegal. And it isn't surprising. Nor is it something only men do.

Is it "immoral"? If you wanna say yes, be sure you know the grounds. "Men only" used to be a pornographic magazine: what part of that phrase did the hostesses not understand? And if they were paid sex workers, why aren't we asking why the Dorchester isn't facing charges of running a brothel? And if they were, is it immoral to use such a facility? Sure, if you are cheating on somebody. Or maybe not. After all, being possessive is now seemingly immoral: just tell a feminist they are 'yours'. 'Free love' is the term they used in the 60s. Orgies 'n all. 'Open relationships' seem to be all the rage. Advocates of unfashionable monogamy are asked what could be wrong wit a bit of 'meaningless fun'? Nothing. Until the free-lovers suddenly realise their bodies are sacred temples.

Personally I just wish people would make their mind up about what it is they really want. I don't care either way, but for equality's sake the options are pretty clear:

No Bunny Girls + No Chipendales

or

Bunny Girls + Chipendales

Let me know when you've decided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stormymonday_2011 said:

If one is to believe the FT most of the attendees were from the property and real estate sector so I don't have to read any further to know that they are all scum bags.

 

:lol: i actually felt sorry for the girls after reading they were bankers. 

They were hired as waitresses and given clothes onsite, so i don`t think it can be compared to going to a strip tease. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is wrong is not that it happens but women are gagged/ prevented from talking about it outside......what are they trying to hide?.......;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, winkie said:

What is wrong is not that it happens but women are gagged/ prevented from talking about it outside......what are they trying to hide?.......;)

Business deals? Commercially sensitive stuff. And flirting / touchy feely attendees who are in relationships.

Don't think anything there is illegal. The first two aren't even immoral - in the context of current morality, if I understand what that might be, which I don't.

Think about this: why is Nadim Zahawi groveling for his political career when the MPs who, in the past,  literally caused Alan Turing's death remain anonymous and otherwise respected? Turing was convicted of "gross indecency" under the Labouchere Amendment, brought into force, like any other law, by an act of Parliament. Nowadays, that legal system would be convicted of discrimination by the current legal system. What certainty do we have therefore that those deemed to be  engaging in "harassment" now, will not in the future, be deemed to have suffered from over-zealous attempts to deny male heterosexuality, just as we accept Turing and countless male homosexuals suffered from over-zealous attempts to deny male homosexuality?

Remember: these girls were under no duress. Moreover, they were fully aware that this would be an all male gathering. And it wasn't the Masons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just how many of the waitresses walked out in disgust?

Or,

Were they flirting?

 

To my mind you have a bunch of well off men and a bunch of good time girls well aware that they may be able to ensnare a prize worth having.

Humbug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't stop blubbing . . . 

Today's papers are predictably full of hankie soaking stories about girls from the 'hostess industry'.

The Independent has this

 

Quote

 

Some of Clare Solomon’s worst experiences during 27 years as a hostess are so traumatic that she cannot bear to recount them. 

“Customers were disgusting” says Solomon, now 44, remembering one particular restaurant in the City of London where she worked, which served mainly male bankers and CEOs

“And I’m not blaming the strippers there. They were often in the same situation as a lot of waitresses: hard-up, cash-strapped young women who were encouraged to degrade themselves for the gratification of these rich and powerful men.”

She was reduced to tears when she heard the recent reports of senior businessmen at an all-male charity dinner groping and propositioning hostesses.

“I’m disgusted at hearing what the women of Artista Agency went through at the Presidents Club.

 

Notes: Groping - the new rape. GBH - Grievous Bodily Harassment

And by the way, about Artista Agency, which 'herds women' into these situations.

Try the website. It's a company run by a woman to supply models to functions such as charity dinners which are likely to be attended by 'rich and powerful' men.

The success has encouraged them to offer a new service called 'Artista Refined', which will rent out posh crumpet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Byron said:

 

To my mind you have a bunch of well off men and a bunch of good time girls well aware that they may be able to ensnare a prize worth having.

Humbug.

If you see the full interview with the FT girl, she says indeed that many ambitious girls go to make contacts, get job offers, so on. And plenty who have done the event before go back every year.

She also said 'it wasn't high-level groping'. So, only a couple years porridge then. Unless you're Rolf Harris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that London waitresses get between £5.12 - £8.18 an hour. This must have been a very lengthy event - between 18 and 29 hours, not counting breaks. I know this cos the girls got paid £150.

Therefore the question that needs to be asked is of Arista, the agency that employed these women. They are clearly breaking the Working Time Directive for not allowing their employees 11 hours of continuous downtime in any single 24 hour period.

I think it is disgraceful that Caroline Dandridge, ceo of Arista, has exposed its female employees to these inhumane hours. Only a man could be so cold and callous. And to that end I advise anyone seeking gender reassignment to get in touch with her medical team, cos that can't be no real woman, right?

Of course, the alternative is that the women worked much shorter hours. Let's say they worked for 6 hours. But for the life of me I can't see how a waitress would justify multiples of 3 to 5 times the going rate. It's a real mystery. You decide:

Caroline Dandridge a man OR Waitresses getting paid 3 to 5 times the going rate for no reason. Which could it be?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if you think hard-line feminists are angry about what went on at the President's Club, just wait 'til they find out Trump had nothing to do with it. #crushing_disappointment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Sledgehead said:

And if you think hard-line feminists are angry about what went on at the President's Club, just wait 'til they find out Trump had nothing to do with it. #crushing_disappointment

They are not angry they are loving this chance for a bit of vitriolic man hate. They live for these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sledgehead said:

I see that London waitresses get between £5.12 - £8.18 an hour. This must have been a very lengthy event - between 18 and 29 hours, not counting breaks. I know this cos the girls got paid £150.

I heard it was 200 smackers. I think you'll find it was the rent-girls who were 18 - 29. ;)

I know you all find this extremely distressing so you will be heartened to know there will be an inquiry.

Quote

 

MPs will open an inquiry into sexual harassment of women and girls in public places.

Maria Miller, Conservative chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, said there was “huge public concern” over sexual harassment as a torrent of allegations of abuse and inappropriate behaviour emerged.

The committee will scrutinise what is being done to root out everyday harassment on public transport, in the street, and in shops and bars, and examine how police, local authorities and other bodies can prevent unwanted attention.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This wasn't in a public place so presumably would be excluded from the inquiry?

Also, presumably the inquiry will be looking into sexual harassment of men?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't the organisers just hire sex workers if they wanted people who would consent to being touched sexually by strangers while at work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole thing is a bit fishy....why would the FT do and undercover sting like operation? It's not their usual method is it, after all they aren't the news of the world?

Further more, the guests at the party are 'their kind of people' ie rich business types, so why try  alienate them? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just following the current agenda of demonising male sexuality and maleness in general. All part of the plan to effectively destroy the cohesion of society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Dorkins said:

Why didn't the organisers just hire sex workers if they wanted people who would consent to being touched sexually by strangers while at work?

From what I know of the one sex worker that I do know they would be very expensive to hire en masse and they also have strict rules on what the punters can and cannot do.

They would say I guess that it would need sex workers controlled by a pimp or drugged or imported from another country (judging from previous conversations)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Flopsy said:

From what I know of the one sex worker that I do know they would be very expensive to hire en masse and they also have strict rules on what the punters can and cannot do.

They would say I guess that it would need sex workers controlled by a pimp or drugged or imported from another country (judging from previous conversations)

 

 

We could really do with ccc to give an opinion here as he has actual experience, but, being a forum, I'll throw in my two-penneth worth anyhow.

Surely the point is that sex workers actually get paid for satisfaction. Sure, they might tell the client they charge per x mins but the client can then "gear themselves up" to be satisfied within that time frame. In that regard I guess they'd rather do a whole bunch of quickies rather than "spend time" with a guy. So in a situation where all that is going on is a bit of grabbing and "low intensity" groping, they aren't going to be able to command much money, and if they did ask for their usual hourly or whatever rate, nobody would feel they were getting value for money unless the whole room turned into a writhing orgy (which might suit all concerned excepting the Dorchester, which could then be charged with running a brothel).

Maybe Arista really did pitch the deal unrealistically to the women, and they ended up employing types considerably more reserved than was appropriate. Maybe they gave a realistic depiction and now the women are embarrassed, having told hubby / fiancée / bf / gf / family / friends they would be working the gig and it was a swell deal?

Whatever the answer, it's pretty clear that you have to find women almost with exactly the right kind of sexual openness. Too loose and they will want too much money. Too puritanical and they will take offense. Seems like the fault lies with the recruitment agency, Arista.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Sledgehead said:

And if you think hard-line feminists are angry about what went on at the President's Club, just wait 'til they find out Trump had nothing to do with it. #crushing_disappointment

They'll just spin it as 'Se x fiend Trump snubbed by not being invited to sleazy party.  Probably can't get an hard on either.' etc.  If he walked on water their headline would be 'Trump can't swim'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sledgehead said:

Whatever the answer, it's pretty clear that you have to find women almost with exactly the right kind of sexual openness. Too loose and they will want too much money. Too puritanical and they will take offense. Seems like the fault lies with the recruitment agency, Arista.

I don't think it is to do with "openess" or "puritanical" but maybe honesty and control over the circumstances and respect. It's having a genuine choice.

You might label the sex worker I know as "sexually open" but it is under the conditions she chooses only so I don't think your labels work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 406 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.