I think you and I are very similar in that we instinctively look for the contrarian view, especially when social media/twatter is involved, but sometimes that means that we forget to step back and look at the context and the bigger picture.
This is one of those occasions where one must, IMO, step back.
I was at a conference a couple of years ago and the "entertainment" was a bunch of very (very) scantily-clad South American dancers doing their thing. 90% of the audience was male, and 99% of those just felt uncomfortable, embarrassed, and that the whole thing was inappropriate. Most left almost immediately. And that was just a "native" dance troupe, not some girls who had been briefed to dress sexily.
Yes of course it is yukky and stupid, and I'd like to see the guest list on the grounds that I wouldn't want anyone twattish enough to have been there, managing money for me. But it isn't anything more than that.
Or these universities which have accepted money from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait: SOAS, Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, UCL, Exeter, Dundee and City University.
Misognynist cultures all. I await the Twitter storm.
This is the relative privation fallacy. Just because Oxford and Cambridge do it doesn't (a) make it all right or (b) instantly render null and void any other criticism of accepting funds from the morally dubious.
I prefer "drunk driver's fallacy" - as in why aren't you out catching rapists, officer, instead of breathalysing me?
Osborne: architect of austerity, disser of the disabled. DMiliband: 'extraordinary rendition' TBlair: Iraq
Corbyn : Militant, Scargill, Venezuela, opposing even just wars like Kosovo, IRA, failing to campaign for Remain after voting against every EU treaty, "our friends in Hamas", presiding over huge growth in anti-semitism, ...................................
I don't expect Corbyn to lead the Lib Dems either.
I take little notice of charity-giving as an indicator of probity. It's all irrelevant. Remember that Smashie and Niceie piss-take of DJs by Harry Enfield?
The advert was silly and showed enough on its own. The FT saw an open goal and took advantage. What did the F'T 'discover' that we didn't already know? They sent a reporter suitably dressed to 'find' something they expected to see. The story will no doubt be embellished where possible. If it stands up in court .... well, we'll never know, will we?
Virtue-signalling and a boost in readership? A win-win.
Or the plucky press uncovering evil goings-on and facing the risk of imprisonment?
Or these universities which have accepted money from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait: SOAS, Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, UCL, Exeter, Dundee and City University.
Misognynist cultures all. I await the Twitter storm.
This is the relative privation fallacy. Just because Oxford and Cambridge do it doesn't (a) make it all right or (b) instantly render null and void any other criticism of accepting funds from the morally dubious.
I prefer "drunk driver's fallacy" - as in why aren't you out catching rapists, officer, instead of breathalysing me?
Thanks. I wasn't there. Allegations are allegations. They are not proven facts.
In my experience of other stories (quite unlike this one, I hasten to add) the newspaper reporters have always been incorrect. Always. So I view all newspaper reports with a certain amount of scepticism.
Still, as said down thread, why anyone thought it a good idea to advertise for "hostesses" in the terms they did is astounding.
At large events people see different things. 31 years ago, I went to the Bracton Law Society Dinner, at Exeter University. There were about 400 people there and the guest was Sir Robin Day. It ended up on the World at One, due to the allegedly disgraceful behaviour of the students and other guests, mooning, flashing, pelting people with food and drink, abusing waiters etc. But, I saw none of it, and nor did Sir Robin Day, when he was interviewed.
Likewise, was everyone behaving badly at this event, most of them, or a relatively small number?
Regardless of whether the bad behaviour was by a few people or not, I think that if you advertise for staff using "sexy underwear" in your ads, you are giving out a clear indication of the sort of event you are hosting. I am surprised - like @Twisted Fire Stopper - and appalled that anyone thought this a good idea.
Hmm - "Gentlemen's evenings" rules were look/don't touch last time I checked.. So although the whole dress code for the hostesses may have permitted the "looking" (Excluding mirrors on shoes and that sort of stuff) aspect, the "touching" aspect sends it over the line to the pale
Well that is my view anyway.
Also some people genuinely don't have the money to pick and choose the jobs they do. Such is the nature of the gig economy.
And the ads didn't require sexy underwear. Just matching black underwear so it didn't show through the dress. That is not a sign you are going to be groped by pervs. Can we stop the victim blaming yet?
Despicable. No wonder people support Corbyn. Tories are making a tremendous mistake if they try to defend or be apologists for this stuff.it turns people against the whole capitalist system.
Despicable. No wonder people support Corbyn. Tories are making a tremendous mistake if they try to defend or be apologists for this stuff.it turns people against the whole capitalist system.
Despicable. No wonder people support Corbyn. Tories are making a tremendous mistake if they try to defend or be apologists for this stuff.it turns people against the whole capitalist system.
Is anyone defending it?
No it doesnt turn people against the capitalist system -really it doesnt. There is very little support for communism in this country.
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFD
I thought it interesting that the SPD's youth wing was trying to boost membership specifically so they can vote any coalition agreement down. All is not well in the House of Schulz.
According to PB's brainless trust, immigration from mainly-Muslim countries should be banned because of the cultural problems in those countries.
I look forward to the same people calling for immigration by bankers and people working in finance to be banned because of the cultural problems in those industries ...
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFD
I thought it interesting that the SPD's youth wing was trying to boost membership specifically so they can vote any coalition agreement down. All is not well in the House of Schulz.
Like many a eurocrat, he is used to overplaying a weak hand.
I thought it interesting that the SPD's youth wing was trying to boost membership specifically so they can vote any coalition agreement down. All is not well in the House of Schulz.
Schulz is losing power within the SPD. Without Andrea Nahles the vote on a coalition would probably have been lost already. This was a great defence of pragmatic coalition politics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP3r_ncqCSc
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFD
I think the FDP will grow from 10 too.
The FDP will have no good answer to the question of why they didn't go into government and why a Jamaica coalition would have been worse for their target voters.
Despicable. No wonder people support Corbyn. Tories are making a tremendous mistake if they try to defend or be apologists for this stuff.it turns people against the whole capitalist system.
Socialists will be making a tremendous mistake if they get on their high horse trying to make holier than thou claims of Tories defending or being apologists for this stuff.
Would you like a side bet that there wasn't a member of the Labour Party present?
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFD
I think the FDP will grow from 10 too.
The FDP will have no good answer to the question of why they didn't go into government and why a Jamaica coalition would have been worse for their target voters.
Nature abhors a vacuum. They could gain a couple of percent, though I don't think more
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFD
I thought it interesting that the SPD's youth wing was trying to boost membership specifically so they can vote any coalition agreement down. All is not well in the House of Schulz.
Like many a eurocrat, he is used to overplaying a weak hand.
This one might find him out.
I still think a Spring election is a likely outcome. If the vote to even go into talks about coalition was only won by about 56-44, what will happen in the vote on the actual deal that the parties strike about a program for government, ministries and so on? There has to be a strong chance that it'll be voted down (which would be the worst of all worlds for the SPD as it'll annoy everyone while delivering nothing).
That said, the right long-term solution for them is to get out of government but how someone else forms a viable administration while the SPD recovers, I don't know.
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFD
I think the FDP will grow from 10 too.
The FDP will have no good answer to the question of why they didn't go into government and why a Jamaica coalition would have been worse for their target voters.
The Jamaica Coalition would have been a societas leonina, as far as the FDP were concerned. They were to get nothing, while defending policies they didn't agree with.
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFD
I thought it interesting that the SPD's youth wing was trying to boost membership specifically so they can vote any coalition agreement down. All is not well in the House of Schulz.
Like many a eurocrat, he is used to overplaying a weak hand.
This one might find him out.
I still think a Spring election is a likely outcome. If the vote to even go into talks about coalition was only won by about 56-44, what will happen in the vote on the actual deal that the parties strike about a program for government, ministries and so on? There has to be a strong chance that it'll be voted down (which would be the worst of all worlds for the SPD as it'll annoy everyone while delivering nothing).
That said, the right long-term solution for them is to get out of government but how someone else forms a viable administration while the SPD recovers, I don't know.
On current numbers, even allowing for some quite big shifts, it's hard to see how another election will resolve things. The same combinations of parties which would have already been tried will still be the only viable ones, in all likelihood.
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFD
I thought it interesting that the SPD's youth wing was trying to boost membership specifically so they can vote any coalition agreement down. All is not well in the House of Schulz.
Like many a eurocrat, he is used to overplaying a weak hand.
This one might find him out.
I still think a Spring election is a likely outcome. If the vote to even go into talks about coalition was only won by about 56-44, what will happen in the vote on the actual deal that the parties strike about a program for government, ministries and so on? There has to be a strong chance that it'll be voted down (which would be the worst of all worlds for the SPD as it'll annoy everyone while delivering nothing).
That said, the right long-term solution for them is to get out of government but how someone else forms a viable administration while the SPD recovers, I don't know.
On current numbers, even allowing for some quite big shifts, it's hard to see how another election will resolve things. The same combinations of parties which would have already been tried will still be the only viable ones, in all likelihood.
Swingback from FDP to CDU/CSU combined with a splintering of the SPD vote leaves you with a majority CDU/CSU/Green coalition.
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFD
I thought it interesting that the SPD's youth wing was trying to boost membership specifically so they can vote any coalition agreement down. All is not well in the House of Schulz.
Like many a eurocrat, he is used to overplaying a weak hand.
This one might find him out.
I still think a Spring election is a likely outcome. If the vote to even go into talks about coalition was only won by about 56-44, what will happen in the vote on the actual deal that the parties strike about a program for government, ministries and so on? There has to be a strong chance that it'll be voted down (which would be the worst of all worlds for the SPD as it'll annoy everyone while delivering nothing).
That said, the right long-term solution for them is to get out of government but how someone else forms a viable administration while the SPD recovers, I don't know.
On current numbers, even allowing for some quite big shifts, it's hard to see how another election will resolve things. The same combinations of parties which would have already been tried will still be the only viable ones, in all likelihood.
Germany and functioning democratic government don't seem to be on speaking terms at the moment. Which is always a worrying phrase.
And who cares if a few kids die as long as GOSH can tick all the right PC boxes.
The undercover FT reporter herself was on WATO and said that: most of the waitresses loved it - good money, free booze, good fun, several job offers(!) - and many come back year after year to do it. Small minority were surprised and upset. In her opinion, all absolutely fine except that it should be made clearer on the application form that the danger of being groped was non-zero. Otherwise, no worries.
But I am sure she is a quisling, uncle Tom, traitor to her sex.
I think you and I are very similar in that we instinctively look for the contrarian view, especially when social media/twatter is involved, but sometimes that means that we forget to step back and look at the context and the bigger picture.
This is one of those occasions where one must, IMO, step back.
I was at a conference a couple of years ago and the "entertainment" was a bunch of very (very) scantily-clad South American dancers doing their thing. 90% of the audience was male, and 99% of those just felt uncomfortable, embarrassed, and that the whole thing was inappropriate. Most left almost immediately. And that was just a "native" dance troupe, not some girls who had been briefed to dress sexily.
Yes of course it is yukky and stupid, and I'd like to see the guest list on the grounds that I wouldn't want anyone twattish enough to have been there, managing money for me. But it isn't anything more than that.
No but if it damages GOSH's brand then I can see why they did it.
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFD
I thought it interesting that the SPD's youth wing was trying to boost membership specifically so they can vote any coalition agreement down. All is not well in the House of Schulz.
Like many a eurocrat, he is used to overplaying a weak hand.
This one might find him out.
I still think a Spring election is a likely outcome. If the vote to even go into talks about coalition was only won by about 56-44, what will happen in the vote on the actual deal that the parties strike about a program for government, ministries and so on? There has to be a strong chance that it'll be voted down (which would be the worst of all worlds for the SPD as it'll annoy everyone while delivering nothing).
That said, the right long-term solution for them is to get out of government but how someone else forms a viable administration while the SPD recovers, I don't know.
On current numbers, even allowing for some quite big shifts, it's hard to see how another election will resolve things. The same combinations of parties which would have already been tried will still be the only viable ones, in all likelihood.
Germany and functioning democratic government don't seem to be on speaking terms at the moment. Which is always a worrying phrase.
Neununddreißig Millionen sechshundertfünfundfünfzigtausendzweihundertzwanzig !
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFD
I thought it interesting that the SPD's youth wing was trying to boost membership specifically so they can vote any coalition agreement down. All is not well in the House of Schulz.
Like many a eurocrat, he is used to overplaying a weak hand.
This one might find him out.
I still think a Spring election is a likely outcome. If the vote to even go into talks about coalition was only won by about 56-44, what will happen in the vote on the actual deal that the parties strike about a program for government, ministries and so on? There has to be a strong chance that it'll be voted down (which would be the worst of all worlds for the SPD as it'll annoy everyone while delivering nothing).
That said, the right long-term solution for them is to get out of government but how someone else forms a viable administration while the SPD recovers, I don't know.
Me too.
I was roundly ridiculed amongst politically inclined Europeans when I suggested this a few months back. Will be nice to be vindicated.
If the fundraiser was raising money for GOSH then it's entirely plausible that the Foreign Secretary approved a lunch dinner for GOSH without being involved in knowing who the middle men were.
Indeed it's entirely possible his diary secretary would have a set number of charitable lunches set aside and he doesn't get involved at all in organising them.
And who cares if a few kids die as long as GOSH can tick all the right PC boxes.
If they take the poisoned cheque, they will lose the equivalent from other donors. They should be asking the underlying donor for the cash, which I suppose they now will.
Indeed. There was an effective net £1.6m of donations from £2.05m, so kind of a net 'wastage' of £600k. You could argue if people should have donated the money directly then it would be more efficent and charities would have received more, but then people don't tend to work that way.
I'm no expert, but doesn't the 'spending' include the donations paid over to charities. I.E. their spending is the money they donate....
Perhaps someone like @Charles know their way around a charity balance sheet?
I actually prepare charity accounts as part of my work.
You can see £2,05m of income, and about £1.5m or so of onward charitable donations.
I don't know who to be more angry at - the twitterati who forced GOSH to return the money, or the Presidents' Club for engaging in f*cking idiotic behaviour so as to put it all in jeopardy.
Plenty of charities on their donations list can't, I bet, afford to give the money back.
Exactly. It would be interesting to look at the net 'return' on chartable activity of a lot of charities. IE their direct charitable work compared with their overall income.
I'm no expert, but doesn't the 'spending' include the donations paid over to charities. I.E. their spending is the money they donate....
Perhaps someone like @Charles know their way around a charity balance sheet?
I actually prepare charity accounts as part of my work.
You can see £2,05m of income, and about £1.5m or so of onward charitable donations.
I don't know who to be more angry at - the twitterati who forced GOSH to return the money, or the Presidents' Club for engaging in f*cking idiotic behaviour so as to put it all in jeopardy.
Plenty of charities on their donations list can't, I bet, afford to give the money back.
Given the publicity I would imagine they could easily make up the shortfall by appealing for donations.
I'm no expert, but doesn't the 'spending' include the donations paid over to charities. I.E. their spending is the money they donate....
Perhaps someone like @Charles know their way around a charity balance sheet?
It does. Looking at the numbers the event earned £1.6m at a cost of £600K - so a reasonable surplus. They also received donations of £400K (which I would assume are the items donated for auction on the night).
They then gave away £1.5m (some of which was a carry over from the previous year) to a long list of charities (but these donations are shown as expenditure)
I'm no expert, but doesn't the 'spending' include the donations paid over to charities. I.E. their spending is the money they donate....
Perhaps someone like @Charles know their way around a charity balance sheet?
I actually prepare charity accounts as part of my work.
You can see £2,05m of income, and about £1.5m or so of onward charitable donations.
I don't know who to be more angry at - the twitterati who forced GOSH to return the money, or the Presidents' Club for engaging in f*cking idiotic behaviour so as to put it all in jeopardy.
Plenty of charities on their donations list can't, I bet, afford to give the money back.
Agree on both. The behaviour is indefensible but to my mind so is returning the much needed money in an act of self destructive virtue signalling
And who cares if a few kids die as long as GOSH can tick all the right PC boxes.
If they take the poisoned cheque, they will lose the equivalent from other donors. They should be asking the underlying donor for the cash, which I suppose they now will.
No they would not. I simply don't believe people are either that dumb or that shallow.
I'm no expert, but doesn't the 'spending' include the donations paid over to charities. I.E. their spending is the money they donate....
Perhaps someone like @Charles know their way around a charity balance sheet?
I actually prepare charity accounts as part of my work.
You can see £2,05m of income, and about £1.5m or so of onward charitable donations.
I don't know who to be more angry at - the twitterati who forced GOSH to return the money, or the Presidents' Club for engaging in f*cking idiotic behaviour so as to put it all in jeopardy.
Plenty of charities on their donations list can't, I bet, afford to give the money back.
Neither could the LibDems I think after a dodgy donor was found out.
In other words, the attitude rewards rich charities who can afford to repay £30k or whatever at the drop of a hat.
The attitude to women sounds like that of Miss World 1970 which attracted feminist protests. Have we really reverted to the culture of 50 years ago, with a brief improvement in between?
One difference I suppose is that in 1970 the women who in 2017 felt obliged to take on this work would have been guaranteed virtually full employment, albeit I expect in menial jobs.
I'm no expert, but doesn't the 'spending' include the donations paid over to charities. I.E. their spending is the money they donate....
Perhaps someone like @Charles know their way around a charity balance sheet?
I actually prepare charity accounts as part of my work.
You can see £2,05m of income, and about £1.5m or so of onward charitable donations.
I don't know who to be more angry at - the twitterati who forced GOSH to return the money, or the Presidents' Club for engaging in f*cking idiotic behaviour so as to put it all in jeopardy.
Plenty of charities on their donations list can't, I bet, afford to give the money back.
Given the publicity I would imagine they could easily make up the shortfall by appealing for donations.
There are 50-odd recipient charities on there. It is far from easy to get charitable donations from anyone at any time.
If I were them I would send a mail (cost) to their donors and anyone on their lists explaining they received money from TPC and that in the light of recent disclosures, would not be doing so in future, unless demonstrable changes are made to the mode of event they run.
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFD
I thought it interesting that the SPD's youth wing was trying to boost membership specifically so they can vote any coalition agreement down. All is not well in the House of Schulz.
Like many a eurocrat, he is used to overplaying a weak hand.
This one might find him out.
I still think a Spring election is a likely outcome. If the vote to even go into talks about coalition was only won by about 56-44, what will happen in the vote on the actual deal that the parties strike about a program for government, ministries and so on? There has to be a strong chance that it'll be voted down (which would be the worst of all worlds for the SPD as it'll annoy everyone while delivering nothing).
That said, the right long-term solution for them is to get out of government but how someone else forms a viable administration while the SPD recovers, I don't know.
On current numbers, even allowing for some quite big shifts, it's hard to see how another election will resolve things. The same combinations of parties which would have already been tried will still be the only viable ones, in all likelihood.
I agree. Though a second election producing a similar outcome to the first might prompt parties to sign up to something they currently regard as unacceptable.
Interesting, in a very broad-brush way, it's comparable with Oxfam. Oxfam had income of £414m and charitable work of £322, so a efficency of 78%. The Presidents Ball had income of £2.052m and charitable work of £1,601m, which is an efficency of guess what, 78%....
Exactly. It would be interesting to look at the net 'return' on chartable activity of a lot of charities. IE their direct charitable work compared with their overall income.
What is stupid is that people don't want to pay for the essential functions that allow charities to operate
For instance with one of the programmes at my foundation where we are seeking external partners, instead of donating cash we chose to fund 100% of the administrative costs.
In real terms that is absolutely the same thing - but being able to tell donors that "100% of your donation will go to good causes" massively increases the likelihood that they will support the programme
What I don't about get the President's Club thing is the mentality behind having "hostesses". If you want to spend time with an attractive young lady on a strictly transactional basis and don't want her to complain if your hands or any other bits end up where they probably shouldn't be, that's not exactly a difficult thing to arrange in London. I dare say you could even take her to the Dorchester if you really wanted to. Admittedly she probably wouldn't donate her fee to charity but I'm guessing that isn't a major issue in most cases. So why on earth are they doing it? Am I missing something here?
Swingback from FDP to CDU/CSU combined with a splintering of the SPD vote leaves you with a majority CDU/CSU/Green coalition.
Yes, I suppose that might work but it's a stretch.
That's not where current polls are though. It might well be where they are come 2022 if there is another election this year resulting in another CDU/CSU-SPD coalition.
Exactly. It would be interesting to look at the net 'return' on chartable activity of a lot of charities. IE their direct charitable work compared with their overall income.
What is stupid is that people don't want to pay for the essential functions that allow charities to operate
For instance with one of the programmes at my foundation where we are seeking external partners, instead of donating cash we chose to fund 100% of the administrative costs.
In real terms that is absolutely the same thing - but being able to tell donors that "100% of your donation will go to good causes" massively increases the likelihood that they will support the programme
Likewise no one wants to contribute to cleaning products or vacuum cleaners for charities. Most see a sports trophy, or a hall with a suitably prominent plaque somewhere as being preferable. Whereas as I know you are aware, charities can't function without cleaning products or hoovers...
Exactly. It would be interesting to look at the net 'return' on chartable activity of a lot of charities. IE their direct charitable work compared with their overall income.
What is stupid is that people don't want to pay for the essential functions that allow charities to operate
For instance with one of the programmes at my foundation where we are seeking external partners, instead of donating cash we chose to fund 100% of the administrative costs.
In real terms that is absolutely the same thing - but being able to tell donors that "100% of your donation will go to good causes" massively increases the likelihood that they will support the programme
Likewise no one wants to contribute to cleaning products or vacuum cleaners for charities. Most see a sports trophy, or a hall with a suitably prominent plaque somewhere as being preferable. Whereas as I know you are aware, charities can't function without cleaning products or hoovers...
Hah! My Dad set up the foundation because he was a trustee of AMREF (www.flydoc.org) - it was very easy to raise money for a plane and very difficult to raise money for a secretary. But without the latter the former is pretty useless.
We focused on "core funding" 30 years before it became fashionable.
Interesting, in a very broad-brush way, it's comparable with Oxfam. Oxfam had income of £414m and charitable work of £322, so a efficency of 78%. The Presidents Ball had income of £2.052m and charitable work of £1,601m, which is an efficency of guess what, 78%....
And who cares if a few kids die as long as GOSH can tick all the right PC boxes.
If they take the poisoned cheque, they will lose the equivalent from other donors. They should be asking the underlying donor for the cash, which I suppose they now will.
No they would not. I simply don't believe people are either that dumb or that shallow.
The funds weren't simply raised by "bad" people, people were actually abused in the commissioning of raising the funds.
If someone auctioned lots of child pornography and then used the proceeds net of quarter of the funds going to an evening abusing the kids, should GOSH accept money from that?
Charlie Wasshisname the plumber is putting himself forward as a new leader.He's a Brexiteer turned Remoaner who wants TMay out,apart from which he's a Tory.Wherever he stands he should be encouraged to do so to help split the Tory/Ukip vote.
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
The fact that some people behaved oafishly at a fund-raising dinner should not mean that one returns money raised at that dinner.
Serious question. If a group of paedophiles got together and donated money should GOS accept it? I'm testing the limits of your consequentialism here.
The waitresses or whatever you call them were responding to an advertisement requiring them to be tall, thin and pretty and wear black underwear. Until we hear that anything happened which caused anyone to go to the police I am comfortable with the assumption that they knew what they were letting themselves in for, and don't need their decisions second guessed by a lot of patronizing elderly white men.
They could have been forced to apply by Esther McVeys DWP under threat of having benefits sanctioned for three years.
Of course when they actually were - as in Rotherham and Rochdale and many other towns - and the victims were very vulnerable young girls from poor backgrounds not adult women the media, the police and local councils covered it up or ignored the problem for years until they could ignore it no longer.
O Brien himself was all over the various cases involving politicians and tv stars - most of which came to nothing for years. He was much more reserved on Rotherham et al
No one excuses what happened at this event - but it is just a shame even worse examples of the treatment of under age girls in the UK and abroad do not seem to generate the same media outrage until of course they have no alternative to report it.
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
The fact that some people behaved oafishly at a fund-raising dinner should not mean that one returns money raised at that dinner.
Serious question. If a group of paedophiles got together and donated money should GOS accept it? I'm testing the limits of your consequentialism here.
The waitresses or whatever you call them were responding to an advertisement requiring them to be tall, thin and pretty and wear black underwear. Until we hear that anything happened which caused anyone to go to the police I am comfortable with the assumption that they knew what they were letting themselves in for, and don't need their decisions second guessed by a lot of patronizing elderly white men.
They could have been forced to apply by Esther McVeys DWP under threat of having benefits sanctioned for three years.
One imagines the hostesses for this party were not hired from job centre referrals.
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
The fact that some people behaved oafishly at a fund-raising dinner should not mean that one returns money raised at that dinner.
Serious question. If a group of paedophiles got together and donated money should GOS accept it? I'm testing the limits of your consequentialism here.
The waitresses or whatever you call them were responding to an advertisement requiring them to be tall, thin and pretty and wear black underwear. Until we hear that anything happened which caused anyone to go to the police I am comfortable with the assumption that they knew what they were letting themselves in for, and don't need their decisions second guessed by a lot of patronizing elderly white men.
They could have been forced to apply by Esther McVeys DWP under threat of having benefits sanctioned for three years.
One imagines the hostesses for this party were not hired from job centre referrals.
Though most events of this sort have a "look but don't touch" policy. Once people start getting groped, unless they've consented, that's abuse.
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
The fact that some people behaved oafishly at a fund-raising dinner should not mean that one returns money raised at that dinner.
Serious question. If a group of paedophiles got together and donated money should GOS accept it? I'm testing the limits of your consequentialism here.
The waitresses or whatever you call them were responding to an advertisement requiring them to be tall, thin and pretty and wear black underwear. Until we hear that anything happened which caused anyone to go to the police I am comfortable with the assumption that they knew what they were letting themselves in for, and don't need their decisions second guessed by a lot of patronizing elderly white men.
They could have been forced to apply by Esther McVeys DWP under threat of having benefits sanctioned for three years.
One imagines the hostesses for this party were not hired from job centre referrals.
Though most events of this sort have a "look but don't touch" policy. Once people start getting groped, unless they've consented, that's abuse.
I'm not saying otherwise, just pointing out that the agency were probably not recruiting from job centre referrals.
Of course when they actually were - as in Rotherham and Rochdale and many other towns - and the victims were very vulnerable young girls from poor backgrounds not adult women the media, the police and local councils covered it up or ignored the problem for years until they could ignore it no longer.
O Brien himself was all over the various cases involving politicians and tv stars - most of which came to nothing for years. He was much more reserved on Rotherham et al
No one excuses what happened at this event - but it is just a shame even worse examples of the treatment of under age girls in the UK and abroad do not seem to generate the same media outrage until of course they have no alternative to report it.
Well said.
People don’t seem to understanding that there are degrees of wrongdoing, and that trying to equivocate a bawdy dinner with Rotherham or Jimmy Savile is ridiculous.
Or these universities which have accepted money from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait: SOAS, Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, UCL, Exeter, Dundee and City University.
Misognynist cultures all. I await the Twitter storm.
This is the relative privation fallacy. Just because Oxford and Cambridge do it doesn't (a) make it all right or (b) instantly render null and void any other criticism of accepting funds from the morally dubious.
I agree.
I was merely pointing out that if challenging misognynist culture is a good thing - and I think it is - then we should do so wherever it rears its head and not just pick on one example which happens to be in the newspapers.
If the fundraiser was raising money for GOSH then it's entirely plausible that the Foreign Secretary approved a lunch dinner for GOSH without being involved in knowing who the middle men were.
Indeed it's entirely possible his diary secretary would have a set number of charitable lunches set aside and he doesn't get involved at all in organising them.
Foreign secretary gives up his time to assist the fund raising efforts of a world renowned kids hospital who help sick kids from all over the UK and abroad - absolutely disgusting as you say! He was supporting GOSH not the Presidents club.
How many of the terminally outraged twitterati give to charity - or do they just spend their hard earned money on being outraged? What has Mr Waterson handed over of his cash - perhaps he will let us know!
Of course when they actually were - as in Rotherham and Rochdale and many other towns - and the victims were very vulnerable young girls from poor backgrounds not adult women the media, the police and local councils covered it up or ignored the problem for years until they could ignore it no longer.
O Brien himself was all over the various cases involving politicians and tv stars - most of which came to nothing for years. He was much more reserved on Rotherham et al
No one excuses what happened at this event - but it is just a shame even worse examples of the treatment of under age girls in the UK and abroad do not seem to generate the same media outrage until of course they have no alternative to report it.
Well said.
People don’t seem to understanding that there are degrees of wrongdoing, and that trying to equivocate a bawdy dinner with Rotherham or Jimmy Savile is ridiculous.
Even if no women were the victims of inappropriate behaviour, the mindset of any organisation and the people who attended it has to be questioned, given the past year of revelations about powerful men and their attitude to women.
Comments
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-01-23/tpp-members-complete-text-seek-to-sign-by-march-singapore-says
I take little notice of charity-giving as an indicator of probity. It's all irrelevant. Remember that Smashie and Niceie piss-take of DJs by Harry Enfield?
The advert was silly and showed enough on its own. The FT saw an open goal and took advantage. What did the F'T 'discover' that we didn't already know? They sent a reporter suitably dressed to 'find' something they expected to see. The story will no doubt be embellished where possible. If it stands up in court .... well, we'll never know, will we?
Virtue-signalling and a boost in readership? A win-win.
Or the plucky press uncovering evil goings-on and facing the risk of imprisonment?
And the ads didn't require sexy underwear. Just matching black underwear so it didn't show through the dress. That is not a sign you are going to be groped by pervs. Can we stop the victim blaming yet?
He was there was PMQs, then ran away before the UQ
I look forward to the same people calling for immigration by bankers and people working in finance to be banned because of the cultural problems in those industries ...
This one might find him out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP3r_ncqCSc
Would you like a side bet that there wasn't a member of the Labour Party present?
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/956152641108762631
Not sure these are 100% compatible...
That said, the right long-term solution for them is to get out of government but how someone else forms a viable administration while the SPD recovers, I don't know.
That will be long-term Labour-supporting David Walliams.
Here's a pic of him with his side-kick:
https://twitter.com/davidwalliams/status/865168876933455872
But I am sure she is a quisling, uncle Tom, traitor to her sex.
The others are fascists.
http://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?subid=0®id=1017310
Perhaps someone like @Charles know their way around a charity balance sheet?
I was roundly ridiculed amongst politically inclined Europeans when I suggested this a few months back. Will be nice to be vindicated.
If the fundraiser was raising money for GOSH then it's entirely plausible that the Foreign Secretary approved a lunch dinner for GOSH without being involved in knowing who the middle men were.
Indeed it's entirely possible his diary secretary would have a set number of charitable lunches set aside and he doesn't get involved at all in organising them.
You can see £2,05m of income, and about £1.5m or so of onward charitable donations.
They paid out or promised to pay out £1.6m.
They spent nearly 600k on organising their event(s)
http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends10/0001017310_AC_20161031_E_C.PDF
http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends10/0001017310_AC_20161031_E_C.PDF
Raise loads of money and piss a lot of it away.
Plenty of charities on their donations list can't, I bet, afford to give the money back.
They then gave away £1.5m (some of which was a carry over from the previous year) to a long list of charities (but these donations are shown as expenditure)
Fucking awful experience, even for people who aren’t good Muslim boys like me.
I made an effort.
I vowed never to go to one again.
In other words, the attitude rewards rich charities who can afford to repay £30k or whatever at the drop of a hat.
The attitude to women sounds like that of Miss World 1970 which attracted feminist protests. Have we really reverted to the culture of 50 years ago, with a brief improvement in between?
One difference I suppose is that in 1970 the women who in 2017 felt obliged to take on this work would have been guaranteed virtually full employment, albeit I expect in menial jobs.
If I were them I would send a mail (cost) to their donors and anyone on their lists explaining they received money from TPC and that in the light of recent disclosures, would not be doing so in future, unless demonstrable changes are made to the mode of event they run.
So somesuch...
For instance with one of the programmes at my foundation where we are seeking external partners, instead of donating cash we chose to fund 100% of the administrative costs.
In real terms that is absolutely the same thing - but being able to tell donors that "100% of your donation will go to good causes" massively increases the likelihood that they will support the programme
You had chaps there talking about their wives like they were cars, ‘always trade in the old banger for a new/younger one every few years’
A group of traders were talking about roasting their female underlings.
Free (expensive) drinks is a recipe for turning people into twatbadgers.
We focused on "core funding" 30 years before it became fashionable.
Thanks.
If someone auctioned lots of child pornography and then used the proceeds net of quarter of the funds going to an evening abusing the kids, should GOSH accept money from that?
O Brien himself was all over the various cases involving politicians and tv stars - most of which came to nothing for years. He was much more reserved on Rotherham et al
No one excuses what happened at this event - but it is just a shame even worse examples of the treatment of under age girls in the UK and abroad do not seem to generate the same media outrage until of course they have no alternative to report it.
People don’t seem to understanding that there are degrees of wrongdoing, and that trying to equivocate a bawdy dinner with Rotherham or Jimmy Savile is ridiculous.
I was merely pointing out that if challenging misognynist culture is a good thing - and I think it is - then we should do so wherever it rears its head and not just pick on one example which happens to be in the newspapers.
How many of the terminally outraged twitterati give to charity - or do they just spend their hard earned money on being outraged? What has Mr Waterson handed over of his cash - perhaps he will let us know!