• Men Only: Inside the charity fundraiser where hostesses are put on show
    59 replies, posted
[quote] FT investigation finds groping and sexual harassment at secretive black-tie dinner At 10pm last Thursday night, Jonny Gould took to the stage in the ballroom at London’s Dorchester Hotel. “Welcome to the most un-PC event of the year,” he roared. [b]Auction items included lunch with Boris Johnson, the British foreign secretary, and afternoon tea with Bank of England governor Mark Carney.[/b] 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. [b]Hostesses reported men repeatedly putting hands up their skirts; one said an attendee had exposed his penis to her during the evening.[/b] ... But the auction offers a hint of the evening’s seedier side. Lots included a night at Soho’s Windmill strip club and a course of plastic surgery with the invitation to: “[b]Add spice to your wife.[/b]” ... [b]One hostess was advised to lie to her boyfriend[/b] about the fact it was a male-only event. “Tell him it’s a charity dinner,” she was told. Two days before the event, Ms Dandridge told prospective hostesses by email that their phones would be “safely locked away” for the evening and that boyfriends and girlfriends were not welcome at the venue. [b]Upon arrival at the Dorchester, the first task given to the hostesses was to sign a five-page non-disclosure agreement about the event. Hostesses were not given a chance to read its contents, or take a copy with them after signing.[/b] ... By midnight, one society figure who the FT has not yet been able to contact was confronting at least one hostess directly. “You look far too sober,” he told her. Filling her glass with champagne, he grabbed her by the waist, pulled her in against his stomach and declared: “I want you to down that glass, [b]rip off your knickers and dance on that table[/b].” [/quote] Not surprised, disappointed that a few celebs/business peeps I thought highly of (Sugar, David Walliams) were involved. These are the peeps with the power to fight sexism and they're doing this, I'm all for a bit of fun but this seems foul, like institutionalised use of money and power to harass people with less money and power. Most insidious, politically, seems to be the whole buying influence part of it, its so blatant, they're corrupt and they know it and they know nothing will become of it. I'm disappointed at Mark Carney too, I know its part of the game to be so corrupt but he's good at his job and the UK would, imo, have been fucked without him but selling his influence like this. It stinks. Glad this is reported since exposing this out in the open will hopefully put press on them to fix it the sexism and the corruption. I hope I'm right in speculating that not all attendees are responsible for the misbehaviour there [url]https://www.ft.com/content/075d679e-0033-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5[/url] Update: [QUOTE=Bob The Knob;53077885]Wow this exploded really fast: The Presidents Club, which organised the event, has announced it is shutting down [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42810724[/url][/QUOTE]
Reading about what they had to go through sounded like a nightmare. I mean the article does point out that they were paid reasonably and some of the hostesses were excited to use the occasion to network and some actually got job offers - especially those who were also students. But literally everything else was terrible. People who suggest that sexism and objectification of women no longer exist, or are no longer significant in western society, really need to pull their heads out of their asses.
I saw someone post about this on Twitter and someone with #metoo in their bio literally replied with 'well, when they dress like that in a room full of men, what do they expect to happen'. Fucking vile.
Disgusting. We have to live by higher standards than the pigs that run the world.
[quote]Outside the women’s toilets a monitoring system was in place: women who spent too long were called out and led back to the ballroom. A security guard at the door was on hand, keeping time. [/quote][quote] Meanwhile, Artista had an enforcement team, made up of suited women and men, who would tour the ballroom, prodding less active hostesses to interact with dinner guests. [/quote] They got systems in place to stop the hostesses getting away from the creepy gropey businessmen by herding them like animals No doubt this sort of thing has been standard practice for as long as the event has been going on and now that it comes to light they act oh so surprised.
Yay even more evidence that the 1% are a bunch of sleezebags.
That site made me think my backlight had failed.
Skin crawling stuff. They were forced to go there that night as part of their jobs. Fucking [i]students.[/i]. Not only is this organisational sexual harassment, but it's taking advantage of a vulnerable group. Fuuuuck me.
Imagine a hidden camera or mic that got in the kind of event. Oh man would it be great to shine a spot light in this garbage.
Wow this exploded really fast: The Presidents Club, which organised the event, has announced it is shutting down [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42810724[/url]
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;53077885]The President's Club, which hosted the event, has announced it is shutting down [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42810724[/url][/QUOTE] Good.
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;53077885]Wow this exploded really fast: The Presidents Club, which organised the event, has announced it is shutting down [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42810724[/url][/QUOTE] Nice one Added to op
[QUOTE=Jon27;53077811]Skin crawling stuff. They were forced to go there that night as part of their jobs. Fucking [i]students.[/i]. Not only is this organisational sexual harassment, but it's taking advantage of a vulnerable group. Fuuuuck me.[/QUOTE] on the one hand, I'm wondering how they did this with a bunch of girls who weren't in on the joke and were basically held against their will at this point, without expecting to get ratted out? Even with NDAs you can request anonymity with the police, right?
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;53077885]Wow this exploded really fast: The Presidents Club, which organised the event, has announced it is shutting down [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42810724[/url][/QUOTE] Fuckin' A.
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;53077885]Wow this exploded really fast: The Presidents Club, which organised the event, has announced it is shutting down [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42810724[/url][/QUOTE] good. This kind of boys club shit shouldn't be allowed to exist anymore
Now I'm all for eating the rich and stuff But you can just choose not to sign the papers you don't have the opportunity to read. You could choose not to take the job where they tell you to to wear next to nothing for men with more money than morals, you could choose not to go to the after party. I mean there's victim blaming, and then there's making drama out of a job you knew you were going to do, of which you got paid well for. Fucking stupid thing to get morally outraged about.
Jesus Christ, this reads like one of those creepy Japanese CEO meetings where girls become literal tables.
[QUOTE=The Jack;53078085]Now I'm all for eating the rich and stuff But you can just choose not to sign the papers you don't have the opportunity to read. You could choose not to take the job where they tell you to to wear next to nothing for men with more money than morals, you could choose not to go to the after party. I mean there's victim blaming, and then there's making drama out of a job you knew you were going to do, of which you got paid well for. Fucking stupid thing to get morally outraged about.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE][B]At their initial interviews, women were warned by Ms Dandridge that the men in attendance might be “annoying” or try to get the hostesses “pissed”[/B]. One hostess was advised to lie to her boyfriend about the fact it was a male-only event. “Tell him it’s a charity dinner,” she was told. ... [B]Two days before the event, Ms Dandridge told prospective hostesses by email that their phones would be “safely locked away”[/B] for the evening and that boyfriends and girlfriends were not welcome at the venue. [B]The uniform requirements also became more detailed[/B]: all hostesses should bring “BLACK sexy shoes”, black underwear, and do their hair and make-up as they would to go to a “smart sexy place”. Dresses and belts would be supplied on the day.[/QUOTE] All the details were not clear before the event and clearly you don't sign up for an event that says "hostess with potential sexual harassment". Also leaving when given the NDA might sound easy, but they might have been deep in the building at that point and most caved to peer pressure.
Reading about this honestly makes my blood run cold.
[QUOTE=The Jack;53078085]Now I'm all for eating the rich and stuff But you can just choose not to sign the papers you don't have the opportunity to read. You could choose not to take the job where they tell you to to wear next to nothing for men with more money than morals, you could choose not to go to the after party. I mean there's victim blaming, and then there's making drama out of a job you knew you were going to do, of which you got paid well for. Fucking stupid thing to get morally outraged about.[/QUOTE] you'd have a point if we were talking about a strip club, but this was a [I]charity fundraiser[/I], how many charity fundraisers do you go to where sexually harassing the hostesses is considered 'normal'?
[QUOTE=The Jack;53078085]Now I'm all for eating the rich and stuff But you can just choose not to sign the papers you don't have the opportunity to read. You could choose not to take the job where they tell you to to wear next to nothing for men with more money than morals, you could choose not to go to the after party. I mean there's victim blaming, and then there's making drama out of a job you knew you were going to do, of which you got paid well for. Fucking stupid thing to get morally outraged about.[/QUOTE] So these girls should've expected to be groped and sexually harrassed at a goddamn charity fundraiser is what you're saying? Besides, remember that a good few of these girls were students. You don't always have the luxury of turning down jobs when you're a student so going 'well, they could've chosen NOT to' is a bit of an unfair argument to make.
[QUOTE=The Jack;53078085]Now I'm all for eating the rich and stuff But you can just choose not to sign the papers you don't have the opportunity to read. You could choose not to take the job where they tell you to to wear next to nothing for men with more money than morals, you could choose not to go to the after party. I mean there's victim blaming, and then there's making drama out of a job you knew you were going to do, of which you got paid well for. Fucking stupid thing to get morally outraged about.[/QUOTE] Okay but was it literally in the job description "you should expect to be sexually assaulted!"? Because even if it was, I'm pretty sure that's still illegal anyway. It's weird that you would preface your post by saying you are all for a "eat the rich" mentality and then end it saying "what are you complaining about? you were paid good money to let these men abuse you!". Not everyone has the luxury of turning down jobs, and most workers expect to be protected from this kind of behaviour. Usually it's not part of the service to fucking grope the staff. Shit, even strip clubs tend to have "no-touching" rules.
[QUOTE=Murkrow;53078123] they might have been deep in the building at that point and most caved to peer pressure.[/QUOTE] yeah I think one of the major shackles was that phones (and probably other belongings like purses) were locked up somewhere. Making it impossible to access your stuff to leave, and of course the threat of not being paid for their time (probably a decent amount by waitstaff+college student standards) made them second-guess bailing
[QUOTE=Murkrow;53078123]All the details were not clear before the event and clearly you don't sign up for an event that says "hostess with potential sexual harassment". Also leaving when given the NDA might sound easy, but they might have been deep in the building at that point and most caved to peer pressure.[/QUOTE] hang on a minute they were literally told at their initial interviews that this would be a very sketchy and dubious place??? big, bold, in your face red flags from the very beginning
[QUOTE=Anteep;53078664]hang on a minute they were literally told at their initial interviews that this would be a very sketchy and dubious place??? big, bold, in your face red flags from the very beginning[/QUOTE] There's quite a difference between 'annoying' and 'sexual harassers', come on.
[QUOTE]Upon arrival at the Dorchester, the first task given to the hostesses was to sign a five-page non-disclosure agreement about the event. Hostesses were not given a chance to read its contents, or take a copy with them after signing.[/QUOTE] Every NDA I've signed was taken away after I've signed both copies. The content of the NDA [B]is[/B] under NDA. I don't see the problem with this part of the story.
[QUOTE=Lime-alicious;53077648]Yay even more evidence that the 1% are a bunch of sleezebags.[/QUOTE] I doubt proportionally the 1% have much, if any, more people who are of the disposition to sexually assault someone than the rest of the population. Rather, I suspect it's that the 1% have the money and connections to largely avoid the consequences, and thus are far more likely to act on their disposition.
[QUOTE=Anteep;53078664]hang on a minute they were literally told at their initial interviews that this would be a very sketchy and dubious place??? big, bold, in your face red flags from the very beginning[/QUOTE] A very sketchy and dubious well known charity fundraiser
[QUOTE=Unsmart;53078719]Every NDA I've signed was taken away after I've signed both copies. The content of the NDA [B]is[/B] under NDA. I don't see the problem with this part of the story.[/QUOTE] They weren't given the time to actually read the thing. What's the point of one if the other party doesn't even know what it covers?
[QUOTE=Unsmart;53078719]Every NDA I've signed was taken away after I've signed both copies. The content of the NDA [B]is[/B] under NDA. I don't see the problem with this part of the story.[/QUOTE] That doesn't make it better.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.