Presidents club and groping

[MSS]

A few points if I may.

In response to post 88, the GOSH charity is managed separately from the hospital and has its own governance structure.

The GOSH charity aims to raise around £100m for the hospital each year. I have read that it received a total of £530k from the Presidents Club between 2009 and 2017. This should be seen in relation to the £100m per year. Also, charities hold reserves just like any other business, so one which raises so much each year would be able to expend what is 0.5% of its annual operation at short notice.

In my view the GOSH trustees and directors had a very difficult decision to make and have done what many, including myself, believe to the right. They were going to be damned whether they did or did not by one set of critics or another.

Wraymond - the implications of corrupt (or corrupting) behaviour in your post are very serious from one whose posts are usually very considered. Do you have any facts to back up the sentiment of the statement in your post above?

[wraymond]

Originally Posted by mss

A few points if I may.

.....text deleted without breaking context.


Wraymond - the implications of corrupt (or corrupting) behaviour in your post are very serious from one whose posts are usually very considered. Do you have any facts to back up the sentiment of the statement in your post above?

I assume you refer to the question 'Just who is corrupting whom?'

I wouldn’t want to explain myself to you, from experience it would be bound to result in conflict.

However, an open minded reader might infer that the behaviour of the male attendees at the President’s club was considered to be corrupt in that the women involved were apparently beyond reproach and were likely to be corrupted by them, given a definition of corruption as:

The act of corrupting, or the state of being corrupted. Or a corrupting influence, or tainted or of a perverted character.

If you have a problem with that definition I suggest you pursue The Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary. One thing in your question is, however, true. My posts are considered.

[MSS]

Originally Posted by wraymond

I wouldn’t want to explain myself to you, from experience it would be bound to result in conflict.

I am sorry you feel that way. I was not looking for you to explain yourself to me, but it was not unreasonable to assume that by posting quite a strong viewpoint you may have had an expectation of a debate (an exchange). But, it is your choice not to wish to have an exchange with myself and one to be respected.

As for the rest, I am reasonably aware of the meaning of "corrupting". The reason I asked the question was that I was not aware that the likelihood of the hostesses being corrupted by the acts of the event attendees had been proposed as the cause of the widespread objection to what had occurred. I understood that it was to do with the fact that society is generally moving away from the idea of objectifying women as being acceptable.

Nor have I seen anything published to claim that GOSH charity had itself used the agency in question for similar services.

Could it be that non-factual statements are now being put into circulation in order to press home certain viewpoints that otherwise would not prove sustainable?

[Darcydog]

[QUOTE=mss;2591182]

Could it be that non-factual statements are now being put into circulation in order to press home certain viewpoints that otherwise would not prove sustainable [QUOTE]

So are we to infer that some people beleive anything they read?

You’ve been listening to Trump haven’t you!!!!

[MSS]

[QUOTE=Darcydog;2591266][QUOTE=mss;2591182]

Could it be that non-factual statements are now being put into circulation in order to press home certain viewpoints that otherwise would not prove sustainable

So are we to infer that some people beleive anything they read?

You’ve been listening to Trump haven’t you!!!!

Morning Clive,

My hope would be that most members here would be inclined to believe what is written on the forum by members whose posts are usually well considered.

[rustymotor]

Hope you two are not going to have another slanging match..

[MSS]

Originally Posted by rustymotor

Hope you two are not going to have another slanging match..

Wot, Clive and I?

[Darcydog]

Well we did give a joint declaration to that effect.

[wraymond]

Originally Posted by mss

I am sorry you feel that way. I was not looking for you to explain yourself to me, but it was not unreasonable to assume that by posting quite a strong viewpoint you may have had an expectation of a debate (an exchange). But, it is your choice not to wish to have an exchange with myself and one to be respected.

As for the rest, I am reasonably aware of the meaning of "corrupting". The reason I asked the question was that I was not aware that the likelihood of the hostesses being corrupted by the acts of the event attendees had been proposed as the cause of the widespread objection to what had occurred. I understood that it was to do with the fact that society is generally moving away from the idea of objectifying women as being acceptable.

Nor have I seen anything published to claim that GOSH charity had itself used the agency in question for similar services.

Could it be that non-factual statements are now being put into circulation in order to press home certain viewpoints that otherwise would not prove sustainable?

At the risk of boring everyone I will answer your query. In return I ask you to, in future if you ‘quote’ my posts, do not strip them and quote selectively (as you and others have previously done). As you have said, my posts are considered (in the round), and should be seen as intended.

The following comments are freely available under normal search measures, if I can find them instantly others easily can.

The spokesperson of the agency said to the effect that: The event has been running for 33 years and raises large amounts of money for disadvantaged children’s charities. The Presidents Club has made donations of £2.1 million in the last two years to several charities, including the long-term project with GOSH to fund their Presidents Club high dependency unit’.

Hostesses were told to wear black underwear and ‘sexy’ black shoes. The reporter said they were encouraged by staff to interact with the guests. It was claimed the hostesses, who were spending too long a time in the toilets as a result of being apparently upset at the behaviour of the guests, were told to return to the ballroom.

The brochure for the event told of the need to include a warning to guests not to sexually harass any staff.

All of the above is of pertinent record and can be supplemented by numerous other accounts, given the will to so do.

Feel free to draw conclusions from the above truths from whatever point of view you have. As I and others are. My last on these sordid events which by association ‘taint’ such a fine and worthy cause. That's corruption.

[wraymond]

In an off-line medium it has been brought to my attention by a supportive friend that my request to quote my posts ‘in the round’ has been criticised as ‘elitist’ and ‘controlling’. Although my last post was to be my last on this subject it is necessary to correct any possible misunderstanding. I offer the following as an explanation.

In the past I have posted particular opinions on current affairs which, in the face of later developments and newly presented fact, I have been persuaded to change and post accordingly. Those earlier posts could be accidentally misrepresented by stripping and selectively reproducing to present an inaccurate impression of such changes. It is because, depending on the authority of the source, I have realised I may have been wrong and then changed my view. As these boards are nothing if not current I naturally wish to offer up-to-date views. I hope that might clear up any misunderstanding.