Presidents club and groping

[lady zed]

Originally Posted by Darcydog

And now you are jumping to conclusions about my motives. Please read back through my earlier posts and you will see that I agree with all that you say regarding the appalling behaviour of some who attended this event.

I would suggest you owe me an apology.

My point was that the previous post to yours called naming people invited to attend “excellent journalism” - you endorsed this by saying this “journalism” indicated the “calibre” of those invited.

To name those on the invitation list regardless of if they actually attended is not only sloppy - it is monumentally poor journalism.

And as others have said - for journalists to hold others to some sort of moral judgement in the light of events such as the hacking of phones by journalists - no doubt a “sub set” of the population would regard this as “excellent journalism” as well.

Because both scenarios have nothing to do with the Truth! - it is all to do with the gutter press and how some will accept any report - however ridiculous - if it panders to their prejudice.

No I didn't. I hadn't seen maniders post when I posted my comment so I wasn't endorsing anything. Nor was I addressing you with my further comments, only verifying I didn't say excellent journalism.

[MSS]

It was I who said the journalism in question was "excellent" in response to Groundsman's post. I continue to hold that opinion, but recognise that others' opinions may be different. They are all opinions and equally valid as opinions!

I did not notice anyone endorsing my views, but had this occurred, the endorsements would themselves have been valid opnions.

In my view, excellence in joruralism is achieved by publishing factually correct information about events (provided to do so is not contrary to the laws of the land) and to clearly define the boundaries of the facts. That is the case with the paragraph is question.

[Darcydog]

Originally Posted by mss

It was I who said the journalism in question was "excellent" in response to Groundsman's post. I continue to hold that opinion, but recognise that others' opinions may be different. They are all opinions and equally valid as opinions!

I did not notice anyone endorsing my views, but had this occurred, the endorsements would themselves have been valid opnions.

In my view, excellence in joruralism is achieved by publishing factually correct information about events (provided to do so is not contrary to the laws of the land) and to clearly define the boundaries of the facts. That is the case with the paragraph is question.

So , we have a journalist that publishes a list of people that were invited to a sleazy event and to cover their backside - the journalist - despite listing the names of those invited - they say that the do not know if any of these people actually attended!

But they could have done

Because they were invited










Yes!

I can see what is happening here

And it is as unedifying as the appalling behaviour of the main story.

[wraymond]

Originally Posted by andymc

For those who take the view that a lack of complaints mean everything was fine, have a read through these two paragraphs from a related article (not about the night in question, but someone doing a similar "hostessing" job).
(......content deleted without loss of context)


As for the notion that this is all so awful because the various charities have lost out - I share the view expressed on The Last Leg yesterday evening, that these guys still have all that money and there's no reason why they shouldn't still donate it in the future. They just shouldn't expect a kind of twisted quid pro quo where they get to act like pigs as some sort of reward for doing something generous. That's not how generosity works.

That’s all true of course. Unfortunately not quite true enough.

The charities ‘losing out’ is one thing. Although to be pedantic the charities don’t lose out at all, the executives employed by the charities to maximise donations (and I have known one or two whose salaries boggle the mind) will maintain their fiefdom at great expense .

The drunken donors are another thing. Money means nothing to them, it wasn’t theirs to give anyway.

One other no small thing is that the donors are attracted by the prospect of sex in one form or another and the women are hired by an agency (that was) well known and widely used for similar purposes. So, the ‘charities’ either wholly or in part knowingly take part in these lascivious activities. What price a social conscience?

Sadly, a knock on effect is the possible damage to the huge number of other reputable charities that might suffer loss of support by a generous public. Multiply that by thousands, the number of supported have-nots, and the true cost of this debacle becomes apparent. Cue another wave of virtue signalling by wannabe nobodies.

The undercover jouno Madison Marriage, curious name, will no doubt dine out on this for a long time.

[wraymond]

Originally Posted by lady zed

I didn't say it was excellent journalism.

All I can say is that if the agency I worked for asked if I was interested waiting tables at a mens only fundraiser hosted by David Walliams, even taking into account being asked to wear black knickers and look good, I would NOT for one minute expect that was an open invitation for the invited guests to touch, grope or make unwelcome sexual comments. Being eye candy is one thing, being a piece of meat is another. And shame on those of you who think it acceptable and the girls knew what they were letting themselves in for. They were hostesses, not hired hookers.

Anna, the thought of you associating with such an agency is ridiculous! The point is the suggestion they may be liable to unwanted approaches would be implicit rather than explicit.

Further, I don't think there have been any suggestions that the offences were in any way condoned or acceptable, merely 'to be expected'. Finally, your assumption that any of us think it was acceptable is unfair!

Your inability or unwillingness to accept the distinction between hostess and hooker is charming and underlines your gentility!

[lady zed]

Originally Posted by wraymond

Anna, the thought of you associating with such an agency is ridiculous! The point is the suggestion they may be liable to unwanted approaches would be implicit rather than explicit.

Further, I don't think there have been any suggestions that the offences were in any way condoned or acceptable, merely 'to be expected'. Finally, your assumption that any of us think it was acceptable is unfair!

Your inability or unwillingness to accept the distinction between hostess and hooker is charming and underlines your gentility!

Lol I'll take that as a compliment I think?

[wraymond]

Originally Posted by lady zed

Lol I'll take that as a compliment I think?

Take it as in the best of intentions!

[mileshawk56]

Someone/or two made the decision to return/not accept the money raised? In what other area of decision making in this hospital do they have? Chris S.

[Darcydog]

Originally Posted by mileshawk56

Someone/or two made the decision to return/not accept the money raised? In what other area of decision making in this hospital do they have? Chris S.

Interesting point.

The money is unacceptable because it comes from unacceptable people?

Just as well HMRC does not have the same mindset.

[wraymond]

I read that the charity involved has used this personnel agency (to be polite) since circa 2010 but could be wrong. Anyway, they are to refund all donations received from this source back to the first time they used them. That's a lot of money from 2010 they can magically produce from accounts. Charity? How do they manage to keep such (presumably) reserves free from the use for which the donations were intended and are they subject to the Charities Commission periodic audit? Just who is corrupting whom? I suppose we are not to question such luminaries waving flags of virtue from the battlements of hospitals.