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

£150 plus travelling expenses for around 8 hours is not a paltry amount by any means. No wonder there are young girls willing/happy to do it. You wouldn’t get a fraction of that for a shift in McDonalds (you wouldn’t get your taxi home either for that matter).

This is not a case of women blaming women at all. It’s the harsh realisation that some young women (they are not children) are prepared to belittle themselves by dressing up in skimpy outfits and high heels at an all male event such as this for a quick buck and then act all surprised and naive when they get some lout trying to touch them up.

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

The agency should have been protecting these women

In that case they would have objected to the women being obliged to wear skimpy outfits. Their skirts barely covered their buttocks and it was a requirement that knickers - on show obviously - had to match.

Nice uniform - not.

The agency would have queried why only women were working as hostesses for a male-only event.

The agency would have asked if the women were being provided as eye candy, an adornment to an event.

The agency would have insisted uniforms were not provocative, were fit for work and that the girls had a less demeaning role than one of mingling with men and providing the eye candy.

The agency would have insisted the women wore rape alarms (Yes, I am being facetious.)

The agency would have closed because it would have been indignant at having to pimp out its female staff for glamour roles.

I could go on. The agency tells the girls what is required of them.

Being groped is not part of the job description, no way, and men who take advantage are despicable, but if today the agency closed its doors for the last time admitting that using women in such roles really was demeaning and not in the interests of sex equality then we'd have made some forward moves in addressing the issues. A women's role is not one of being paid to be pleasing to the male eye, in any circumstances.

Sadly, once again, we see some women blaming other women for the sleazy, immature and intimidating behaviour of men

The behaviour of some of the men is inexcusable, but I also find it inexcusable that in this day and there are agencies who recruit women who are prepared to dress in tantalising and skimpy clothes to parade around in a room front of men.

Women have to question why they work in the glamour industry, why they work at being eye candy for men (because of their role and the way they have been TOLD to dress) in situations such as this. There is a bigger question. Why are women used (and paid) to titillate men, and why do women think this is worthwhile work?

As long as women do it, men will gawp, drool and be turned on. That is not to say there is any excuse for touching but all the subservient people in that room were women and no one forced them into the 'sexy hostess' role. Where were the male waiters and hosts?

It is a contrived situation and the agency (raking it in) or workers didn't complain about the set up - a journalist did.

Berlusconi, jura? I was thinking of Trump.
One good thing, he won't be able to go there when he visits May later on this year.

The club will need the money to pay settlements when all these traumatised young girls sue them .

The agency should have been protecting these women.

Terribull I think the agency are at fault as much too, they must have known full well what these events are like and they had people there ensuring that the hostesses interacted with the guests.

The women were paid a paltry amount for what they had to put up with. It was a long shift starting I believe around 4pm and went on until well after midnight just £150 plus £25 taxi money for what turned out be a very fraught evening.

I think some of the criticsm should be direted at the agency who hired the young women. Clearly they were given a brief from their client, The President's Club, but it seems they were economical with what the young women might expect during the evening ,bearing in mind there would have been those who had never done an event such as this one before. As already stated the toilet visits were timed, agency staff were patrolling the room and if the women sought sanctury in the loos for too long they were turfed out and thrown back out to the wolves.

As I understand it they were told they would be wearing a black dress just above the knee, they were only presented with the garment when they turned up on the day. It was in fact a skimpy tight mini dress, with see through panels in the sides. Hence the black underwear directive, I can understand that. As far as the high heels are concerened, it's quite standard to wear a heel at a formal event, it does elongate the leg after all, when I was at work most of us wore heels , it's just what you wore in a corporate environment, so maybe they wouldn't have thought that too tall an order. They were asked to sign the very lengthy non disclosure form just prior to starting work, no one had time to read through it. I'm thinking at this stage everything was quite rushed and it was placed in front of them with a "just sign this" request. I think it sounds underhand to be asked to sign such a document, the women were working as a hostess/waitress for one evening, not signing up for a career with MI5. I think they were warned that some of the men may make a nuisance of themselves during the evening which kind of makes me agree with those posters who find this type of "men only" events grotesque where all involved in the organisation of such an event appeared complicit in facilitating a sordid evening, where partners are banned so a bunch of old reprobates can do what they like when their other halves aren't around, all justified because it's loosely described as a charity event.

So some were not the innocent victims portrayed then?

I would most certainly not and I understand some charities have refused the money raised, although I think this club should offer them all a substantial sum as an apology.

A la Berlusconi sleeze yuk.

newsthump.com/2018/01/25/presidents-club-disbanded-after-behaviour-of-members-crosses-line-into-presidential/

Prostitution isn't illegal either, and it has been suggested that some of the young ladies may have been offering "extra services" in the mens' hotel rooms - would you want your business or this charity fundraiser to be associated with that?

I think the hostesses were adults too, I didn't hear any reports of children being involved.

suzied I can assure you that I was shocked at the 'show' I went to at women behaving in that way. No way home either as we went by coach.

A Chippendales show, ghastly though they are, is not same as a black tie charity fundraiser.Women who go to that know they are going to see men who would be paid to take their clothes off on stage, its not like they were going to a restaurant and sticking their hands down the waiter's pants.

It is very different. There is a reason why Newquay's firms 'do' was secret, and male only.

If both men and females were willing why shouldn't it happen in 2018 , if the girls were over 16, then not illegal

VERY very different I'd stay - Chippendales are grown men who have decided to do this to make money, knowingly, as adults.

Now I've never seen any of them, apart from the Full Monty film- and just wouldn't want to either. But there is NO comparison.

No, it shouldn't, I agree suzied

Has anyone ever been to see these?

www.dreamboys.co.uk/male-strippers
or these?
www.chippendales.com/dancers

Years ago someone at work organised a 'night out' and lots of us went - it turned out to be the Chippendales. Work colleague and I sat and cringed but in fact a whole club full of women were whooping and some, including a very staid work colleague, were trying to get up on the stage with them.

The thing is, they are still performing in 2018 .....
Shouldn't be allowed either.

Doesn't matter if the girls did all know what the evening was going to be like, if they were all completely worldly wise and totally Ok with being groped or even more, as some on here are implying, such a ghastly sleazy event shouldn't be happening in 2018.

Would the girls have been told the ages of the men MOnica?

BlueBell, would you not have thought being told to wear black underwear and heels nothing to be of concern or doubt ?

Most of the men at this event were old enough to be the hostesses grandfathers, the girls probably thought that men of that advanced age were beyond it and that they(the hostesses) were a bit of fun and giggles for these essentially emasculated men.

Well I m very glad these dirty old men have been shown up for what they are and if the ladies were as worldly and knowing as some of you think ( I m not so sure) I m equally glad their employment arrangements have been curtailed

ps that is not to mean that I would excuse the behaviour of the guests which was appalling.