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'm surprised the FT reporters haven't splashed it. Maybe they will later

"You can donate to a hospital without a woman sitting on your lap".

I've been to these sort of things in my day (obviously not men only!). It's hard to describe them. On the one hand , it's utterly distasteful as it's basically about rich City blokes showing off to their mates by bidding huge sums for auction prizes. "Look at me, I'm such a big swinging dick that I can drop a grand on a signed photo of some B list page 3 girl" type of thing. And it's oh-so-great and self congratulatory because "it's for charrridddy".

On the other hand? They do raise a fair chunk of money for some worthwhile causes, so I generally used to grin and bear it.

Obviously this case is rather different because of the men only, hostess thing, but I'm just trying to give you a sense of the type of thing, which certainly used to be pretty common. This sounds like an overblown "big boys" version which got so far out of hand as to be truly offensive.

I'm surprised the FT reporters haven't splashed it. Maybe they will later

I'm not. I think that's a step too far for the FT which, ultimately, relies on the cooperation of the great and the good for access for its journalists. It's a great scoop for them and there'll be loads of red faces. But if they start pointing fingers at individuals they'll a) be liable for legal action and b) might find themselves unwelcome at company events/be refused interviews with senior executives etc. They won't want to go there.

The woman who owns the agency said she would be surprised if she heard about any abuse from people of this calibre.

Is she trying to say only working class men act like this?

It would appear so. What planet is she from?

Yep, pretty much. Her statement was a piece of work.

Having worked in a corporate environment this does not surprise me in the least. Never experienced anything like this but senior men frequently took clients to strip clubs as networking. Inclusive non?

That or bloody golf.

And to say as host/ venue provider/ attendee that you don't know is disingenuous. They knew.

Author Susan Hill defends DW:

www.thebookseller.com/news/trade-reacts-shock-walliams-hosting-men-only-dinner-713146

The President's Guest Listwww.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/24/guest-list-presidents-club-all-male-charity-gala

Susan Hill is a strange one:

www.thebookseller.com/news/susan-hill-cancels-bookshop-appearance-over-anti-trump-views-496201

I find it fascinating how so many who attended didn't see anything & all left early. Bizarre!

I'm disappointed there is so much attention on the charities rather than the companies who sponsored tables - large companies who thought it appropriate to sponsor and/or send (male) employees to such an event really are signalling their real views on equality of the sexes in the workplace.

There's a change.org petition. It says employers have no legal responsibility to protect their employees from harassment from customers since the repeal in 2013 of the relevant section of the Equality Act, and is calling for the reinstatement of that section.
It means that the Presidents Club can with impunity set up an event like this, and legally, they're not doing anything wrong. Link to the petition: chn.ge/2F9DNZi

I see that Sir Philip Green appears on the Guardian list.

I wonder if the waitresses wore Top Shop?

I find it fascinating how so many who attended didn't see anything & all left early. Bizarre!

Tumbleweed blowing around that hall from half ten onwards apparently

I'm sorry, the Chippendale type acts do know they are there to strip, but they are often groped excessively too - which (in theory) is not part of the deal.

It's difficult to accept that women who were 'hostesses' or waitresses didn't realise the situation when they're being asked to wear skimpy outfits. That was the time they should have refused as it was clearly inappropriate at that point already.

The whole event is seedy, but I think it was already clear it was going to be seedy the moment a woman's asked to dress skimpily.

If women hire a group of men to strip, the men become objects for the women's entertainment.
If men hire a group of women to dress skimpily, the women become objects for the men's entertainment.

The strippers can argue that they agreed to strip, but not be fondled.
The waitresses can argue that they agreed to dress skimpily but didn't agree to be fondled.
If the women didn't agree to dress skimpily, they should have called an end to it right at the moment they were asked to dress that way.

The similarities are clear in my eyes. They aren't 100% the same but very similar - but society is currently extremely keen to object to the sexual objectification of women (rightly so), but turns a convenient blind eye when it's in regard to men.

I heard the undercover journo on Jeremy vine . She came across v badly.
I do think anyone can make any conclusions from her story. Let's hear from the people really working there. Not a woman on a a mission to create drama

The similarities are clear in my eyes.

Maybe time to go get that checked out then. Though I'm not sure that an optician can really do much for willful ignorance.

Just to be clear, the men who sexually assaulted and sexually harassed these women are not responsible? The women are, for allowing themselves to get into that situation, yes?

We still live in a world where we have scantily clad women stood on parade on a Formula 1 grid, or parading around a boxing ring. As much as we might like to think the world's moved on, there are still too many reminders that we have a lot more work to do!

I'm male, I can't deny enjoying seeing an attractive scantily clad woman, but that doesn't make it 'ok' to have them in sport, or in a bar etc. It's a bit pathetic how this so called 'glamour world' mixes with sport and even news (page 3?).

We still have newspapers with topless women in them. Let's think about that for a moment!

Gosh, it might be a conspiracy theory, but this thread seems to me like a concerted effort to make it look like there is nothing wrong with men having all men events where they grope and sexually harass the staff.

"a woman on a a mission to create drama" - yeah, can't trust those hysterical dramatic women on a mission to create drama where there were just wonderful, kind, gentle men being totally respectful of any women they happened to interact with.

Sorry, I got this tgread confused with the AIBU one. I guess we just have the normal visitors popping up.

Have seen these arguments so often - from hooters to playboy bunny to lap dancing clubs and now president club... and always poor ol chippendale is trotted out. Wonder why there are sooooo many examples on the one hand versus chippendale on the other hand?

Assassinated... my comment relates to the journalist regardless of he story she was sent to get a story about.
I just think the only woman there I've heard who has said anything is the journalist. What about the real. Workers how do they feel?