Forums Forums National News Presidents Club

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.

Have you got a wife or daughter, would you be happy that they are treated like that in their employment?

Hiding wrongful activity behind "fundraising" is an age old immoral trick.

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.

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 .

Playboy clubs always struck me as barking mad.

Women dressed as rabbits?

Why, for heaven's sake? There were - and probably still are - some very confused men about!

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.

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.

Probably best ignored.

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.....

How on earth do you know what Macaulay was referring to? Or more interestingly NOT referring to?

My criticism was of the press and its love for this sort of story.anyway, not the protagonists.

Not from www.brainyquotes.com thats for sure . Do some research.
My favourite is
Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.