The President's Club Annual Gala - "Men Behaving Badly"

I too find this event outdated & sleazy BUT I heard several of the girls interviewed on the radio saying they do it happily because it pays well- they get free drinks all night & they have done it many times before.
All male events are surely totally outdated but when I go to the rugby at Twickenham there are always pretty girls giving out leaflets for lap dancing clubs etc.to the crowds going in . I presume it happens at football matches too.
I did ask a girl once why on earth she would do it & she said ' come along with your husband- it's all in good fun' Needless to say I didn't & he sure wasn't going!!
I have also been to some hen events where the strippergram was groped & had to fight his way out!( DiL hen do for one!!). Women can be just as bad en masse I'm afraid.
I would suggest that of this event had not been a charity 'do' we would never have heard about it.

I notice that in 6 pages (standard Gnet rate) no-one has posted a link to the actual Financial Times story.

How many of you have actually read it?

ww.ft.com/content/075d679e-0033-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5?emailId=5a68123e57ffa00004197003&segmentId=22011ee7-896a-8c4c-22a0-7603348b7f22

There is so much that is wrong about this story. I, too, am very surprised at posters here appearing to condone it.

Surely the reporter signed too? Will she be prosecuted ?

Gillybob they couldn't 'speak up' as they'd signed non-disclosure agreements and could therefore have been prosecuted. These documents were put in front of them, last minute, unread (Not allowed) and they were not given a copy. All of that should be illegal.

I also agree with easybee. There are so many unanswered questions. The MP who left early originally just said he left early, the 'uncomfortable' only came in a day later.

Many posters don't seem to be aware that all the girls had a briefing and were told that it any of the men became 'handy' they should immediately go to the people who were supervising and tell them. I haven't heard that any of them did.

I can understand them simply signing the agreement.

Please will someone define the actual 'groping' which occurred? So far I have heard that a man held a girl's hand and another put his hand on a girls waist. My definition of groping is worse than that.

There has been a great deal of emotive language but very few facts. I know someone who throws accusations around all over the place but if you listen there are never any examples of the behaviour mentioned. It is very easy to brew up a storm against someone without actually giving examples of what they are supposed to have done.

The reported did not even give an instance of what happened to her, just said it also happened to her.

Please someone, list the things people have complained about which happened to them, not to someone else.

I too doubt if anyone in today's world is as naive as some are portraying these women, I was pretty naive at their age but would have known how to deal with such a situation. Those black high heels would have come in very useful!

I think the whole episode is distasteful, but surely just reading the 'dress code' should have rung bells with these girls.

What I want to know is, if the charities won't accept the money, where will it go?

For those who wondered how much the tickets were I read £2,000 per head.

I think what I find depressing in this day and age is the fact that this type of all male occasion still exists, particulary being dressed up as charity event as if that will somehow mitigate the bad behaviour of some of the guests. Now that those involved are trying to cut associations what does seem puzzling in the afttermath, is the denial that some of the lots put up for bidding during the evening, for example tea with Mark Carney at the Bank of England, or similar with Boris Johnson, apparently didn't exist as they had no knowledge of them.

Some have criticised the expose by the FT journalists as it has resulted in some of the charities turning down the money, nevertheless I think it's not unreasonable to expect charities not to accept money that has derived from someone else's discomfort. I agree with Day 6, a mix of male and female waiters, appropriately dressed would have made the whole evening far more acceptable, but The President's Club promoted it as something along the lines of "the most un PC event of the year" which set the tone

Overall I blame the agency for not being completely honest with the girls hired. The gig should have been presented to them thus, pointing out that they would be wearing suggestive clothing, they may be hit upon by some of the guests and be able to cope with that but perhaps they didn't because such clarity would mean they would show there was a mild element of pimping involved. However, at least the women could have made a fully informed choice as to whether they wanted to do it or not. Hence, my comment about the derisory sum of £150 for a 4pm to 2am shift. Yes it is a lot compared to say a shift in McDonalds, but not for what was expected in this instance, surely some compensation should be built in to put up with gross conduct.

Unfortunately the criticsm has been conflated with the over the top "Me Too" campaign in what does appear to be a witch hunt against men per se. I think it's just as obnoxious for women to be pawing young men in a similar situation as Grandma 2213 mentioned above. In fact anyone who thinks it's okay to grope staff is a sex pest as far as I'm concerned.

So women must now fight to make prostitution illegal Lazigirl?

I agree eazybee, and this is all part of the hysteria gripping this country and America , no different to the witch hunts women once suffered, an allegation is made, guilt is assumed, hysteria grips and a punishment must be dished out.

Pity Great Ormand Street had to return half a million , so many children, boys and girls, would have benefited

I also agree with your post Iam. This sort of event is a throw back to the past and totally out of keeping in today's society where equality and diversity is acknowledged. Many of us were subject to harassment back in the day but society has moved on and is changing for the better in my opinion. It is irrelevant to judge whether the women were innocent or complicit, the whole event was totally inappropriate for women to be used as attractions and playthings for men's entertainment. Let's hope that entertaining business clients in lap dancing clubs etc. also dies a death.

I would be very interested to know how many
representatives of the charities actually attended the event?
Normally there would be so many invitations given out to those that stood to benefit. Or are they just keeping very quiet now this has been made public?

Plenty famous people there too.

I don't think many women are condoning men behaving badly; they simply regard them with contempt. I think they are more concerned at how stupid these young women appear to be, in putting themselves in such a dubious situation. It doesn't accord with our vision of modern womanhood. I still believe many of these women knew exactly what was expected and chose to do it; much of the outrage is manufactured by the journalists involved. Of course we prepare our daughters and grand daughters to deal with lecherous male relatives; that doesn't mean we think they are fair game.

Do you have granddaughters the same age, Annie?
Have you told them that you think they are fair game for lecherous grandads?

Iam, I agree with you completely.
£9000+ to kit out two bedrooms for seriously sick children up here, Iam. One charity which will no longer be applying for a grant from them.
How much did the tickets cost?
What's the definition of pimping?

I am always surprised when women see all women as victims and all men as villains ,. Reminds me of the Diana hysteria

I'm always surprised when older women take the side of men behaving badly, against the young women on the receiving end of the behaviour.
Young women/men who make complaints of sexual harassment in the work place need courage and will usually be blamed for encouraging the behaviour they found unacceptable. That would certainly be the case here, with so many believing these young women knew exactly what they were getting into so how very dare they complain about anything they were subjected to.
There is something exceedingly unpleasant about a so called charity event like this one. The money it raises could easily be raised at an event that involves men and women. I don't like the idea of people spending hundreds of pounds to attend a black tie event where prizes are auctioned in an alcohol fuelled environment. I know that view can be seen as prissy but honestly, these people have so much spare cash why don't they be more generous in a less attention seeking manner. The money the event cost would fund a large number of goats wouldn't it.

Well they know now, and won’t be holding such events in the future. Whether they knew in the past but just turned a blind eye is debatable. The fact that most people see such events as unacceptable in the 21st century, whether or not the women were complicit, is the one good thing to take from this story.

One would think the police would have started to make enquiries , allegations of sexual abuse, indecent exposure . The company who employed the girls surely knew what would take place , the Dorchester for renting rooms to these men , their staff must have reported the sexual abuse.

There are so many viewpoints here. Yes the men who 'groped' or 'were suggestive' displayed unacceptable behaviour, but there are reports that there were many who were decent and kind. Yes there were girls who clearly were not aware of what was expected of them but there were also others who had done the same job before and were prepared to offer 'extras'. This event has gone on for years and the undercover reporters would not have been there if there was no story to be had.

I must be one of the few who cannot say 'me too'. Is this because I am unattractive? I had my fair share of boyfriends. Or do I give off a 'One of the boys' message? I had lots of male friends and socialised with them as well as their friends. I really don't know. If I had been one of those 'hostesses' I think food, drink or preferably hot coffee would have accidentally been spilt in a strategic place.

Sorry to go on, but my DS who was 17 at the time was groped and intimidated by women when he was a waiter at a banqueting hall that sometimes hosted parties for hen nights. He left that job even though he needed the money. When we were talking about this news report he said, 'Honestly mum, women can be just as bad!' Just saying!

I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when some of these men got home and had to explain to their wives and partners that Men Only had included 120 female table hostesses. What it actually meant was No wives or sweethearts. Why? Because some of the men wanted to be in a superior position over a bunch of young lassies who had signed a confidentiality agreement. There are other ways to give to charity and, in this context, men only has had its day.

Corbyn has done the decent thing and asked a Labour MP who was there to step back from his job on the front bench, and he has agreed.

Annie why so obsessed with the black underwear and high heels...if they were told they would be wearing black dresses then it would be normal to wear black underneath ..and as far as I'm aware BLACK underwear and heels aren't particularly "sexy" or abnormal...I wear them myself most days .I went to college with a girl who was convinced only prostitutes wore black underwear ...that was a long time ago...surely you dont hold with the same out of date opinion?

"Why do you think none of the women made a complaint? Do you think the atmosphere was too aggressive?,".

Perhaps MissA, but it took an under cover reporter to expose what was going on.

I suspect many of those agency girls had been used worked as 'totty' at many events. They didn't sign up to be touched but they don't object to men eyeing them up and drooling over them as sex objects. Young women 'want' to be fanciable, and girls signing up for this sort of work (no one forced them to work at this event) were there to please an all male gathering.

I am NOT excusing men who fondle women or make unwarranted advances but this was a 'sexy' promotion. The girls WERE sex symbols. It's a dodgy environment for women and imo any self-respecting woman would not demean herself by doing it. Feminists will deplore what happened to some of them, and rightly so, but I have the feeling not many of these women are feminists. They hold back progress by allowing their bodies to be used to titillate men.

Because what went on has been exposed, (by a journalist) now they scream 'poor me!' I have little sympathy. That does not mean I condone the behaviour of the men at that event.

Apologies. I should have said Young women not young girls.