I stand amazed at the progress we have made. People work together to aid those in need…like at The President’s Club Charity Dinner in London. They’re trying to raise money for hospitals! How can one possibly criticize them for that?
You can trust men to fuck it up.
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.
They’ve been doing this for 33 years, in relative obscurity, which has only been broken because a couple of women went undercover as “hostesses” to discover what shenanigans were going on. It was an unpleasant night for them.
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.
That was an omen. I’ve noticed that only assholes take pride in not being “PC”. That’s exactly what it was, too: a parade of privileged assholes letting their hair down to just be themselves, i.e. deplorable and unpleasant.
The nature of the occasion was hinted at when the hostesses were hired. The task of finding women for the dinner is entrusted to Caroline Dandridge, founder of Artista, an agency specialising in hosts and hostesses for what it claims to be some of the “UK’s most prestigious occasions”.
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”. 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.
“It’s a Marmite job. Some girls love it, and for other girls it’s the worst job of their life and they will never do it again . . . You just have to put up with the annoying men and if you can do that it’s fine,” Ms Dandridge told the hostess.
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.
The uniform requirements also became more detailed: 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.
For those who met the three specific selection criteria (“tall, thin and pretty”) a job paying £150, plus £25 for a taxi home, began at 4pm.
Now I wonder, though — I bet the attendees are furious right now at being exposed. Caroline Dandridge is probably being angrily denounced by organizers for having let a few spies sneak in. No one is upset by their behavior, but only at being caught in this behavior.
I also wonder whether the President’s Club Charity Dinner will take place next year, whether it will change its rules, and whether anyone will attend. Were the attendees actually there for an opportunity to assist worthy charities, or for the opportunity to harass and abuse women with their good sexist buddies?
Some progress: a government minister left early (probably because he realized he was going to get into trouble) and was subsequently reprimanded for going at all.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42813873
I also wonder whether the President’s Club Charity Dinner will take place next year, whether it will change its rules, and whether anyone will attend.
Signs point to no! https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/24/europe/presidents-club-disbands-after-sexual-harassment-report-intl/index.html
Sigh… I really don’t know what to add to what we’ve been saying for who knows how long. I am sorry for all the young women. The men I wish a very, very, very unpleasant life.
For me that’d be a nerdy kink event.
Boyz Gottabe Boyz
doubter — Will there be any announcements of the new club forming on CNN?
What exactly is a hostess, anyway? If I understand correctly, It takes some serious social skill to facilitate other people’s partying – but these women are instructed like they’re not professionals and not really even adults. Like, if you’re serious about the no recording rule, maybe have them sign an NDA. That’d also prevent random pesky feminists from reporting things by memory.
@lumpina
I am sure that an NDA was part of the 5 page contract that the hostesses were required to sign without being given a chance to read it. They were not given a copy of the contract to keep. It looks like the primary criteria were “tall thin and pretty”. Many of them were students, actors etc. and of course a two of them were reporters from the Financial Times.
@1 From the BBC article
From what I read about the event, the women signed an NDA, of course they wouldn’t report anything if they were at all afraid that they’d be sued into oblivion.
From the OP
Both, they assisted worthy charities in order to give themselves license to harass and abuse women.
If they were really interested in assisting worthy charities they would have given the money directly to the charities rather than having a good chunk of it go to venue rent, catering costs, lawyers fees for drafting a 5 page bullet proof “I will not complain about being groped by skeevy rich men” contract and hostess pay.
militantagnostic @ #9: Yeah, I’ve been to a couple of industry back-slapping self-congratulatory “charity” events, and I’ve always figured you’d be better off just donating the cost of organising the damn thing if you were really interested in the charity aspect.
lumipuna @6:
In this case, “hostess” just means a fancy term for waitress.
@ 10 Dunc
But then you don’t get to preen and strut around.
Of course, some people might not give anything without being able to strut, so perhaps it increases giving enough to cover the costs and more.
Aside from being really disgusting, that’s also not enough money for a taxi in London!
Ah, our English cousins!
They say “lift,” we say “elevator.” They say, “bonnet,” we say “hood.”
They have a gropey sexual assault party dressed like a black tie event, we hunt strippers in the Nevada desert with paint guns…
microraptor:
A waitress? OK, then it makes even less sense that they were explicitly forbidden from bringing a date. It’s like, without reading that damn 5 page contract they only have a vague idea of what the job even involves.
I thought hostessing was more like a chatting and flirting service. Or in this case, as the club members might say, “totally not escorts/cheaper than escorts”.
Tinjoe @8
The signed a 5 page contract that they weren’t able to read and weren’t given a copy of. They have no (or at best a vague) idea of what they signed. They have to assume they signed away anything and everything. I would be interested in hearing from any lawyers how binding such a contract would be.
Militantagnostic, No. 16, I’m no expert on English law, but in the United States, I think it’s a binding contract. I think most courts would hold that if you’re stupid enough to sign something without reading it, you’re stuck with the consequences.
However, there are some contract terms that are illegal, whether knowingly entered or not, and agreeing not to disclose illegal behavior is one of them. So I think the contract fails on that ground. If I see illegal behavior, no court is going to say that I have to keep quiet about it because of a nondisclosure agreement. So then the question is whether groping women without their consent is illegal under English law. Again, I’m not an expert in English law, but I very much suspect the answer to that question is yes.
thirdmill:
Common-law expects that contracts are reasonable. The definition of reasonable depends on who you are, and what the contract is about.
You can reasonably expect a company to get legal advice before signing a business deal, or at least to know that it should have gotten legal advice. So you can hold a company to some pretty stiff terms.
You can’t reasonably expect that an individual actually fully understands what they’re signing — especially not if you tried to prevent them. Employees in particular have a lot of protections (even in the US) against signing away their rights.
Another example: a EULA that 99.99% of users just click through to make it go away? Mostly unenforceable if you put anything weird in there, because no reasonable individual would have expected those terms and no reasonable person would have read the damn thing.
numerobis, except that there’s a whole boatload of caselaw essentially holding that if you’re stupid enough to sign something without reading it, it’s your fault. And there is no requirement that contracts be reasonable. They can’t be unconscionable, but that’s a pretty difficult standard to meet. I’ve seen plenty of contracts that I thought were unreasonable that were enforced.
The EULA you refer to is an outlier. In the US, courts have enforced contracts in which employees signed away their rights to sue their employer for any reason whatsoever. The US Supreme Court upheld such a contract only a couple of terms ago.
The speed with which the club has disbanded is a big signal that there is much worse in the past history, which they are hoping to be able to kick the dust over.
Also, of course, the fact that the FT knew it was worth investing time and effort digging in the first place. There is almost certainly more to come out here, if the people involved aren’t still too intimidated.
I’ve noticed that only assholes take pride in not being “PC”.
As I’ve gotten older, I’ve realized that 9 times out of 10 (or, really, more like 999 times out of 1000), when someone says that the world is “too PC” what they actually mean is “I can’t be an asshole without being called out on it anymore”.
I’ve begun to use that as a heuristic. So far, it hasn’t led me astray – as a heuristic it really does a good job of identifying assholes.
I don’t know how courts treat NDAs when it comes to disclosing illegal behaviour, but anything illegal ought to be automatically exempt from disclosure consequences. Same as any contract entered into involving an illegal act is null and void (please correct me if I’m wrong about that).
Thirdmill groping would come under Common Assault where “no injury or injuries which are not serious occur”. If the police had been able to find the bloke who nicked the glasses off my face without hurting me at all he would have been charged with Common Assault, maximum sentence six months.
PZ Myers: “I’ve noticed that only assholes take pride in not being “PC”.”
I don’t take pride in not being PC, so I guess I’m excluded from that category. However, although I do not take “pride” in not being PC, I certainly am not automatically PC (and I’m not saying that you are). If I were to be automatically PC, then I would be accepting dogma – don’t question it, just do it (or don’t do it as the case may be). I’m not prepared to do that. I will think about issues and come to conclusions about them, and if they happen to align with PC then fine. If not, this might cause me to re-examine my conclusions and listen to reasons why others support the PC position. But I certainly won’t blindly accept everything that is PC, just because it is PC (again, not saying that you do). After all, what is PC is not set in stone, it changes over time.
I’m not saying you don’t do what I do. But it would be a remarkable coincidence that all your conclusions align with what, at present, is PC. So why put PC on a pedestal (if that’s what you’re doing, of course)? Maybe I’m misinterpreting what you said.
billyjoe, #24
Note that PZ put “PC” in quotes, because it’s a bullshit term used by whiny bigots.
Using a trans person’s pronoun, for example, is not politically correct. It is just correct. “PC” is the bigots’ way of trying to frame the conversation to make themselves look like victims.
Saad,
Hmmm…that took a bit to unpack!
But, if I understood that correctly, and using your trans pronouns as an example, you would not call someone an asshole unless he satisfied all of the following criteria:
– dismiss any reasonable arguments for using trans pronouns.
– not offer any reasonable arguments for not using trans pronouns.
– accuse a person using trans pronouns of being politically correct.
– play victim by implying an accusation of being politically incorrect.
– indicate pride in not being politically correct.
If so, I agree, but it seems a pretty high bar for labeling someone an asshole in these circumstances. You would have to show that all five criteria apply.
@jazzlet #23:
It’s probably telling, but somebody nicking your glasses off your face is the most absurd thing I’ve seen on this page. The actions of the men at this dinner are, unfortunately too normalized to be shocking.
But, seriously, spectacle theft is honestly a thing? I wonder if it’s only in the UK (where I presume you are) or if it’s widespread in the US and other parts of the world as well.
@billyjoe #26:
Saad can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe any one of those criteria are enough to call someone an asshole. The way I see it, if I ask to be called one thing, and you refuse to call me that, I am in my rights to think of you as an asshole.
Calling someone by their preferred pronoun is no harder than using their preferred nickname, such as calling someone Jen instead of Jennifer, or possibly if they prefer Jennifer to any diminutive, i.e. Jen or Jenny.
Watch Office Space and see Michael Bolton as an example. I thought it completely reasonable and not at all funny that he wanted to be called Michael instead of Mike. Everyone who mentioned it more than a couple times was acting like an asshole, especially Samir and Peter who were his friends.
Methuseus,
I wasn’t looking for the criteria to be called an “asshole”.
I was looking for criteria to be called an “asshole for taking pride in not being “PC”.”
#17 Re: British contract law
The relevant case law would be J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] which basically says the clause needs to be reasonable, in which the presiding judge stated:
“I quite agree that the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink on the face of the document with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.”
It’s now commonly known as the Red Hand clause.
Being groped is not on a waitress’ job description. Why didn’t these guys hire some sex workers? That would have been clear and honest, and consensual I presume.
billyjoe, #26
This isn’t what I was talking about in my post about PC. It was in response to your post about you not blindly taking the “PC position”. I was saying that there is no such thing as the “PC position” and going along with a conversation about “PC” is playing into the right-wing/alt-right hand. It’s not “PC” to criticize a club dinner full of male guests where women are objectified. Just like it’s not “PC” to object to a pediatrician refusing to see a white baby because of the baby’s skin color.
In response to your quoted post though:
The only criteria that needs to be satisfied before I consider someone an asshole is if the misgendering or use of wrong pronoun is deliberate. “Reasonable arguments” don’t come into it. For instance, we don’t stop and consider “reasonable arguments” if you insist on calling a cis man “she”. It’s not a debate topic. You might as well start arguing with someone who says they like chocolate that they actually don’t like chocolate.
That’s good. When do you intend to start?
Saad,
Nevermind, I can’t seem to explain my meaning, ad I don’t think a third try would be any better. I’ll just assume I don’t fall into the category of assholes who are assholes because they take pride in not being “PC”.
KC,
Was that just you trying to be clever.
Pulling a quote out of context.
billyjoe, #34
It’s gonna be a meaningless conversation because you haven’t defined what you even mean by PC. Are you using it exactly the way Jonny Gould used it at the dinner when he said ““Welcome to the most un-PC event of the year”?
Not being “PC” alone qualifies you as an asshole. That’s precisely what not being “PC” means since being “PC” means treating a group of people who are generally marginalized in society with the same basic level of decency and courtesy that is shown to the privileged groups. For example, using the correct pronoun for a genderqueer person without going on a quest for “reasonable arguments” just like we do for the vast majority of people (i.e. cis people) we encounter.
Sorry, in my second paragraph, I’m using “you” as the general you, not specifically you.
The basic premise of political correctness is that people should be treated with dignity and respect, and the fact that that idea is even controversial is appalling to me.
As with every viewpoint, there are fringe elements that take it to laughable extremes, such that opponents of equality can always point to one or another instance of someone doing something stupid in the name of political correctness. But for every such instance, there is probably a thousand instances of marginalized people being treated very badly. So yeah, tell the fringe that they’re being silly, but don’t use them as an excuse to continue to marginalize people who really do need protection.
Saad,
You are right. Pride is not necessary. I was just quoting what PZMyers said.
I have no problem with using the pronoun people prefer. Many originally thought that Ms would not catch on, but it did. The only problem I see for trans pronouns is that there are large number of them. It’s going to take a long time for people to catch up, especially if they don’t come across any trans people in their social and professional lives.
The Presidents Club is being wound up and its cash is being distributed to good causes.
A Labour party Peer who attended has resigned from his front bench job.
One of the directors of the Presidents’ Club has been forced to stand down from the government committee he sat on.
Conservative MP who attended is getting rather more scrutiny than he’d like.
Police have been asked to investigate.
Think about the most evil possible take on the situation. Now assume something 50% worse than that. Congratulations, now you know what Da Law dictates. (This applies to everything.)
Three reasons why it’d never fly with these scumbags.
Why doesn’t Apple open their events this way?
Having to pay for sex is way beyond these guys’ little egos. Every woman is theirs to take.
We should perhaps be somewhat heartened by the immediate strong response from so many of the parties: potential beneficiaries have not only refused to accept the donations from this event but also returned all previous donations. The Charities Commission immediately condemned the behaviour and opened an investigation, also pledging to issue new guidance about acceptable behaviour for charity events (note that they have the power to remove trustees of registered charities or deny charitable status altogether to organisations not complying with acceptable standards).
Urgent condemnations and questions were issued in parliament.
The Presidents club was forced to shut down within a matter of days, rendering some of those points moot. The “hostess” agency has also closed their website.
David Meller, a trustee of the charity, has been forced to step down from his role as trustee of six academy schools, and the other trustees issued a statement saying they were appalled by the reports.
The PM issued a strong and unequivocal condemnation and reprimanded the Minister who attended.
Lord Mendelsohn, a Labour peer who attended, was sacked from the front bench in an important role as spokesman for International trade. This is not insignificant, since Brexit makes this an especially important opposition position, and shows a healthy disregard by Jeremy Corbyn for party politics.
The Atorney General has urged any victims of criminal assaults to make complaints even if NDA’s exist, which would certainly not be enforceable in the case of a crime and may even be unconscionable agreements in total; in any case, public disclosure and public interest in the events would make enforcement difficult even where the women wasn’t a victim of a crime. Also, the PM has pledged to review such use of NDA’s to see if changes to the law are necessary.
Even the most tawdry of the UK press has written in disapproval of the event, and there has been a generally unified national voice that this sort of behaviour cannot take place in future.
The response has been pretty good in total.
The beginning of the end of British Upper-Class Twit culture. Good.