This hoo ha over a charity night is a bit odd. A fairly tame lads night out by all accounts - unseemly but not the end of the world. I am staggered that Ormond Street Hospital has turned down millions of this 'tainted' money that could help sick children. Who are these moralists deciding on life and death? only in Britain.
These girls must have known what they were in for with the type of costumes they were told to wear, also considering they were 'models' and being paid £200 for the night!
These girls must have known what they were in for with the type of costumes they were told to wear, also considering they were 'models' and being paid £200 for the night!
No, I thought the "your asking for it because you dress like that" attitude had been quashed in this country?
A model is a model not an escort, even a nude model or stripper is not an escort.
They were employed as hostesses not escorts, you have to be scraping the barrel to get escorts at £200 for 6 hours.
We don't do charity in Germany, we pay taxes. Charity is a failure of governments' responsibilities - Henning Wehn
[quote=muzzy2]These girls must have known what they were in for with the type of costumes they were told to wear, also considering they were 'models' and being paid £200 for the night!
No, I thought the "your asking for it because you dress like that" attitude had been quashed in this country?
A model is a model not an escort, even a nude model or stripper is not an escort.
They were employed as hostesses not escorts, you have to be scraping the barrel to get escorts at £200 for 6 hours.[/q
Well said dd, those words "they must have known what they were in for" must have been the very thoughts in some of the minds at that pathetic night out, as you say for £200 for six hours they wouldn't get a feel of my coat, someone wrote a fairly tame night, if that is the mindset now we should be very worried.
We had Playboy clubs did we not , attractive women in revealing costumes hostessing! Hugh Hefner all his life used women as play things and gave lots to charity , his own charitable foundation set up , bet his money was accepted!,...I was surprised that in this climate of sexual harrasment being bandied about if a man should even look at you the wrong way that they put on such an event. These girls were well aware of what this gig was about. Picked out especially for their looks , phones taken away and signing a agreement of disclosure. They would have been most probably thinking about the generous tips etc they could make. I'm not saying it was right but am weary of all this nonsense and accusations of sexual harrasment etc going on. I heard someone on the radio say that she was involved in this way of life and said the women are worse than the men in most cases . I'm not sticking up for every creepy pervert weve always had them and always will in my opinion .
We had Playboy clubs did we not , attractive women in revealing costumes hostessing!
Are you confusing Playboy Clubs (casinos) with other parts of Heffner's private life and businesses?
Do you really think Heffner risked his casino licences by allowing inappropriate behaviour? He had bouncers on patrol, microphones hidden in tables and secret shoppers in order to police inappropriate behaviour. Without the casino licenses the clubs were nothing and certainly would have lost a lot of money.
Playboy "revealing clothes" are far from revealing, there is far more flesh on many public beaches.
We don't do charity in Germany, we pay taxes. Charity is a failure of governments' responsibilities - Henning Wehn
We had Playboy clubs did we not , attractive women in revealing costumes hostessing! Hugh Hefner all his life used women as play things and gave lots to charity , his own charitable foundation set up , bet his money was accepted!,...I was surprised that in this climate of sexual harrasment being bandied about if a man should even look at you the wrong way that they put on such an event. These girls were well aware of what this gig was about. Picked out especially for their looks , phones taken away and signing a agreement of disclosure. They would have been most probably thinking about the generous tips etc they could make. I'm not saying it was right but am weary of all this nonsense and accusations of sexual harrasment etc going on. I heard someone on the radio say that she was involved in this way of life and said the women are worse than the men in most cases . I'm not sticking up for every creepy pervert weve always had them and always will in my opinion .
What about the likes of 'The Dreamboys/ 'Chippendale' dancer groups? My understanding is that if I was to pay to see such a show then it would be acceptable to sit and perve at the dancers. Does not give me the right to touch any of them whether that be groping a 'manly muscle' or slapping a pert little arse? Should be no different for men either.
If women choose to take a job on the basis on their looks- then so what? Have to wear skimpy clothing and are ok with that- so what? What they did not sign up for was groping etc
That dirty barstard- Hugh Heffner- did you know he bought coffin space above Marilyn Monroe so he could be 'with her' in death because she 'refused him in life'. That is sick.
'Some attitudes/ opinions on here (across the Forum- not just this thread or indeed personal to the poster to which I am replying) are so Old Fashioned and Out-dated. I struggle to grasp.
Disheartening that it's 100 years since women got the vote and clearly there is so much in-equality between the sexes, in part accepted!
I'm not going to get in to rights and wrongs, but i have a friend in London who has 2 daughters that worked "The tables " at these functions all across London. Pay anything between £150 / £250 per night but with tips this could double, doing 2 events a week got them through university and money towards deposits on a flat. At most functions there were staff walking the floor to ensure no groping etc.
I see Tarbuck has jumped to the defence of the said party, his defence being well what about hen parties they can't have it both ways, well Jim two wrongs don't make a right, by the way Jim didn't witness any bad behaviour they were all well behaved, but sadly Jim left early, it must have been very boring as everyone appears to have left early.
"We know no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality."
I think it was Macaulay who first said this, but it is as true today as it was then. The press love this sort of story. It allows them to claim a high moral position whilst including as much salacious detail as possible to entertain their drooling readers. The feminist angle adopted allows them to exhibit a variety of committed feminists who can usually be relied upon to go a little too far and this adds to the fun as well.
i agree with what you say about this particular event. I don't think we should ignore "our betters" behaviour in general. We rightly had a good go at the child grooming ring while the upper crust gathered and destroyed the evidence about historic child abuse pedophile rings." British Public morality is not a headline in a paper or a statement made by a long dead Tory/ whig MP. Macaulay was not talking about sexual morality, so your misuse of his words out of context is exactly what the press do.The drooling readers more than likely turn straight to the Sport page, morals intact.....
This is what Giles Coren had to say about it in The Times yesterday - and he was there. I couldn't agree more. It all sounds unspeakably vile and vulgar.
Don't bother trying to substantiate your claim. The remark was a general one. It doesn't specifically exclude 'sexual morality' so it includes it.
I would be surprised if the sentiment hadn't been around long before Macauley was too, and that was the point I wished to make. There ARE periodic outbreaks of alarm over the silliest things. I recall 'Horror Comics' being discussed by moralising politicians, religious leaders and others who seemed quite convinced that 'young people' could be instantly turned in murderous thugs by reading these American imports. Then television was thought to do the same. Then there was a great furore about whether the British Public could be allowed to read "Lady Chatterley's Lover". You will probably recall Mrs Mary Whitehouse pontificating about the 'tide of permissiveness' poured over us every day.
You will note that society survived all these threats, and I expect it will survive this one too.
Actually it does beg the question; why didn't they just hire girls who will do that sort of thing? And yes, sir, i do have a wife and daughters.
By "they" do you mean the event organisers or the patrons themselves?
The event is not that sort of event, it is some of the patrons that misbehaved and perhaps poor security by the event organisers. Can you imagine what some of their PAs etc have to put up with? There are loads of other events which hire pretty hosts/models and sometimes a lot more scantily dressed but you'd be missing a few teeth if as a guest you behaved the way these idiots have.
It shows serious misjudgement by these people and I hope the shareholders take note.
We don't do charity in Germany, we pay taxes. Charity is a failure of governments' responsibilities - Henning Wehn
OMG, these events being going on for centuries - Romans definitely did these type of events. And of course no women reading this forum have ever been to a "ladies night" with male "models" or is that "escorts".......
If you pitch up, are told to wear scanty clothing, sign a non-disclosure agreement then you pretty much going in with eyes open...
And notice it was a busy-body reporter who was at event who kicked-up a fuss
Men have always looked at women, and women always looked at men. Its kind of a natural thing
Fully agree with above, going on for centuries and always will in my opinion. Think it's been blown out of all proportion a good story to throw in the mix of women being sexually used! I think if you asked some of these males from Chippendales etc they would say women are worse than men for touching and groping some having escaped barely all intact. I'm not dissing the girls who want to do these events it's their choice , I'll bet most if them are cursing all this bad publicity makes work just that bit harder to find!!
Men have always looked at women, and women always looked at men. Its kind of a natural thing
[/quote]
Wow that's got to be the quote of the week, how about you don't look with your hands, or you don't go where your not invited, If as you say it has been blown out of all proportion why the haste to disband or cancel future events? and the deniers wanting to distance themselves from it, it wasn't me gov I left early, it has also been condemned by some of those that attended, confirmed substance or the whims of a busybody reporter ?
Well it's not surprising to me that future events etc have been cancelled , who wants to put up with the hag in light of this! And the men who attended of course they don't want sexual abuse claims thrown at them so easier to say left early etc! Sure this has gone on in previous years with this event so should imagine they aware of what happens. I just think all this nonsense is going too far. There will be many charities losing out because of such events not being PC....
What is being overlooked here is the sense of entitlement that the male attendees had/ have. Think that they are so rich and privileged that they can do what they like with no consequences. Or so they thought.
No body who uses their looks to their advantage in gaining employment by hostessing, stripping, posing for pictures or whatever should be touched inappropriately as a result of taking on that job. Male or female. It's not a race to the bottom re. whether 'women are worse than men for groping'.
Don't buy the 'it's been going on for years so it's ok' attitude either.
And theres the rub Rude, quote Rich and Privileged men ...If this had had been the local factory men's night and this went on it wouldn't have made a story. Still not right, would have raised a few eyebrows but soon forgotten....Whether we like it or not there is always going to be those with money and privileges and girls who will want to take advantage of money, and of course many charities have come to rely on these benefactors. It's all just pretty sleasy to me but it goes on...
In working clubs the blokes would get their own pints from the bar!
As mentioned above most decent fella's would not sit around and watch women being treated in this way.
No progress can be made if everybody just turns 'a blind eye' and accepts it. Clearly, this behaviour is acceptable amongst those invited to such events but now the 'secret' is out regular people are holding them to account (hence the 'I left early' responses).
These girls were not taking advantage of money. They thought they were employed as hostesses and as such expected to do the job and get paid for it without being subject to sexual harassment.
Interesting point Venice- I'm not sure that I could define a typical 'Hostess' Job Spec.
I'm sure it does not include 'Tolerate your breasts, hips, thighs and bum being groped. Remember to smile sweetly especially if a stray hand appears up your dress, uninvited'.
A poster above said that his friends daughters work as Hostesses in London to support themselves whilst studying in Uni. Nothing wrong with that. Bet the 'Hoorah Henriettas' do not have to do undertake work like this though? No, they will have Daddys Allowance to support them.
It is the in-equality that annoys me. The priviledged know that for every skint student on a zero hour contact refusing to work for Events like this and treated like a slab of meat can be replaced by ten more.
I asked the question , because I always thought they were glorified (by that I mean glammed up )waitresses . Now waitresses I reckon would earn maybe £8 an hr for a 6 hour stint . Hostesses appear to earn c£33 an hour. Why are they paid so much more? More interestingly, why do they think they are being paid that much more?
I asked the question , because I always thought they were glorified (by that I mean glammed up )waitresses . Now waitresses I reckon would earn maybe £8 an hr for a 6 hour stint . Hostesses appear to earn c£33 an hour. Why are they paid so much more? More interestingly, why do they think they are being paid that much more?
Because of their looks and demeanour and it is a "high class" event, not Edna's birfday party down the chippy. They are after models not just waitresses. Non-named model's rates of pay are normally around £40 an hour.
£33 an hour for an escort will get you a diseased smack head street walker if you are lucky. Rooney paid £45 for 30 minutes for a 48 year old grandmother.
We don't do charity in Germany, we pay taxes. Charity is a failure of governments' responsibilities - Henning Wehn
Well it's not surprising to me that future events etc have been cancelled , who wants to put up with the hag in light of this! And the men who attended of course they don't want sexual abuse claims thrown at them so easier to say left early etc! Sure this has gone on in previous years with this event so should imagine they aware of what happens. I just think all this nonsense is going too far. There will be many charities losing out because of such events not being PC....
It's very sad that future events have been cancelled, mmm why have they been cancelled? if nothing happened and it was all above board, as claimed by Jimmy Tarbuck then surely there would have been no need to cancel, why haven't all those forthright "gentlemen" and giver's to charity defended their "charity event" and denounced those that spoke out as money grubbing little sluts that lied to get compo, that is the usual response blame the victim, these people do nowt for owt, Knighthoods mentioned in dispatches, tax fiddles, I have just read that the so called celebrities get paid for appearing on charity quizzes and other events, anything up to £10,000, it would appear charity begins in the wallet first.
![[Linked Image]](https://t-ec.bstatic.com/images/hotel/max1024x768/513/51314929.jpg)
Good answer .
