FT investigation: Men only fundraiser and sexual harrassment

[RedToothBrush]

amp.ft.com/content/075d679e-0033-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5?__twitter_impression=true
Sexual misconduct allegations
Men Only: Inside the charity fundraiser where hostesses are put on show
FT investigation finds groping and sexual harassment at secretive black-tie dinner

It is for men only. A black tie evening, Thursday’s event was attended by 360 figures from British business, politics and finance and the entertainment included 130 specially hired hostesses.

All of the women were told to wear skimpy black outfits with matching underwear and high heels. At an after-party many hostesses — some of them students earning extra cash — were groped, sexually harassed and propositioned.

The event has been a mainstay of London’s social calendar for 33 years, yet the activities have remained largely unreported — unusual, perhaps, for a fundraiser of its scale.

Hats off to the FT for sending two undercover reporters

I’ve heard some people criticising the waitresses- “they should have known what they were getting into, this gig was notorious” - while this is generally hideous - but also, how many people really, genuinely who live /work in London or have done over the last 33 years, have heard of this event before this? (and if heard of it, realised what it was like)

While some of the young woman may have met other young woman who've worked this event in the past, how many of the 19 year olds being recruited are going to have moved in the sort of circles where they might have heard about what this sort of event really is like?

Twitter is awash with middle aged people expressing their shock at the abuse that happened at the event. That they didn't realise what else was going on.

How are we expected to believe that the men who have attended this event in the past didn't realise that some of the other attendees were sexually abusing /exploiting the young woman working there, yet at the same time, expect the young woman who are about to work there this year to know that in previous years, woman were abused and that it was 'notorious'?

Either everyone who was in that room went knowing what sort of event it was (because it was an open secret), or we accept that most didn't know before getting there.

This was on radio 2 today

@CoffeeOrSleep that's clearly not a correct reading of the difference between the guests and the workers. The guests are part of the club, may well have been before, have good mates who have gone before, may have been given the programme/advertising before the event etc etc. They were quite literally in the club, privy to inside info. The women working there? Not so much. I find it baffling that you can't tell the difference between the male guests and the workers.

If the organisers thought that the waitresses knew the true nature of the event, there would not have been any need for cloak-and-dagger around the uniforms, confiscation (sorry, "safe storage") of the waitresses phones or the last-minute-no-lawyers-no-copies confidentiality agreements, would there?

Everyone concerned knew that many of these women were ingenues, naïve and unsuspecting. I rather suspect that was the attraction.

You miss understand me assassinated - my argument is that so many people are quick to believe the men saying the left early and are "shocked" this happened. Fine. But then at the same time we've got so many people saying the woman "knew" what they were getting into, because it's so famously awful.

Both arguments are used to justify the men who were there, the woman knew what the event was going to be like, yet the men didn't. Sorry but that doesn't wash.

Either it was so well known that woman would be abused there that these high level men and companies sponsoring tables knew this would happen, yet still chose to attend, or it wasn't well known, so the woman can't be 'blamed' for chosing to work in that environment.

And you are right, the male guests had a much better idea going in what it would be like. I can believe not all did. But I find it much easier to believe that the majority of the young woman working there had little idea until they'd already committed themselves. Yet it's being parrotted all over twitter/comment sections that they should have known. bollocks.

I think it's very unlikely that the men didn't know what the event would be like. I can accept that some may not have been specifically aware. I think it's very likely that many of the women working wouldn't have known much about the event, given the age range of those hired and the fact that many of them had not worked for the agency or this event before. Some of the women clearly had worked there before and were aware what it was like.

I agree it's ridiculous to suggest that somehow none of the men knew what it would be like, yet all of the women should have know what it was going to be like.

I imagine that the entire guest list will claim to have left early and not seen anything.

If I went to a black tie event I would be on my best behaviour. How did the men involved know that this event was different? How did they know that it was okay to hold hands with girls, pull them in thier laps, grope etc etc. That's not normal bahaviour at a charity event is it? (Is it??)

So there must have been something (nudge nudge, wink wink or brochure material or the knowledge - safe and secure knowledge- that this is expected) to tell the men that it was fine and dandy and that was what the girls were there for.

Now to say that the girls and men had an equal knowledge is laughable. One was prey and the other was the hunter... - not quite but similar.

Namechanger here - more lurker recently but was around at the inception of the FWR board...

I'm appalled but not shocked at what is being reported.

I've just heard a clip of Jess Phillips talking about this in the HoC and the sheer emotion and power of her words had a big effect on me. I'll try and find a link into BBC Parliament TV to the whole debate/exchange.

I came here to check whether there was a thread and I'm glad there is one.

I've just started a thread in AIBU to share and ask for people's stories of sexism at corporate/professional dinners if anyone would like to contribute?

Oh FFS they think I'm a Daily Mail reporter on the AIBU thread,

Can't imagine even an incognito Mail reporter using a name of PurpleGreenWhite

This.

twitter.com/helensaxby11/status/956190597286686721

Oh, that’s perfect.

I’ve heard some people criticising the waitresses- “they should have known what they were getting into, this gig was notorious”

By that logic, women that go in to male dominated industries and the City are willingly submitting to sexual harrassment because we all know its about the bantz and what did you expect. Its not OK. Fucking pigs. And none of those men that left early thought to ring the Police to report the persistent and flagrant sexual assault of these poor women. So gallant!

To paraphrase someone on a Hollywood related thread:
"If groping is part of the job, why isn't it (explicitly) in the job description"

twitter.com/Peston/status/956243093178765313
Interview with one of the women at the dinner.

If anyone else felt like commenting on the AIBU thread, it's in dire need of some common sense from someone other than me. They're blaming the women for having "no values" now.

I'll have a loom

Look ffs

These type of men-only events with young, scantily clad hostesses aren't a new thing.

I don't know why everyone is pretending to be so shocked about this one. Hypocrites. It's only newsworthy because of current events.

Why do people think the women aren't invited? At my old work organisation (globally known, well respected), the boss and male colleagues would go out and get trashed and end up at strip clubs etc. They'd all bond together sleazily.

Done, @Bluelady.

At my old work organisation (globally known, well respected), the boss and male colleagues would go out and get trashed and end up at strip clubs etc. They'd all bond together sleazily.

.....yup. And they'd take clients with them for "entertaining" purposes. And put it on expenses completely legitimately. Not that long ago, either.....

I'm surprised that the attendees are mainly keeping their names out of it. How?

Link to House of Commons debate about this

I'm surprised that the attendees are mainly keeping their names out of it. How?

It's an "old boys' club" for the great and the good. They won't tell on their mates.

Plus - why do you think they deliberately choose anonymous agency hostesses? If I saw, say, Martin Sorrell (I know he wasn't there as he was on R4 this morning stating the fact loudly) walking down the street, I'd know who he was. I bet they deliberately pick women who are nothing to do with finance or business so they are just another load of men in suits.

Good work, thank you. Jess Phillips was amazing: "You can donate to a hospital without a woman sitting on your lap".