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

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.

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 agency should have been protecting these women.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

£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.

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

"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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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 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 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