Pathetic

[panoma1]

On 25/01/2018 at 14:04, grrclark said:

This was your original post, for the sake of clarity as I think in the subsequent series of posts the message has been somewhat lost, what was the original point you were trying to make?

 

If your really interested in the point I was trying to make, rather than the self righteous criticism I received off the covert PC police on PW.......google....Presidents Club " the easy moral outrage of the online mob" by Brendan O'Neil.....that may inform? 

[grrclark]

57 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

If your really interested in the point I was trying to make, rather than the self righteous criticism I received off the covert PC police on PW.......google....Presidents Club " the easy moral outrage of the online mob" by Brendan O'Neil.....that may inform? 

I absolutely was and remain interested in the point you have to make in this debate, although I'm not entirely sure that i am any further forward having read that article.

In essence what Brendan O'Neill has said in that article is that is to suggest is that there is an expectation that wealthy men will be boorish and inappropriate and nobody should complain about that because it isn't surprising and somehow that makes it OK, after all they were raising money for charity.  Essentially money grants privilege and that it is OK for a wealthy guy to be able to treat girls that are working at the event as something that they can be inappropriate with, because they have more money than them.

To be absolutely clear, I have no issue at all with men only events where attractive women are employed as hostesses and add glamour and an aesthetic appeal.  Even better if they have a personality and can indulge in a good witty conversation.  Where I do have an issue is that there is some sort of unspoken expectation that the guys are allowed to go beyond the boundaries that would be acceptable anywhere else and it strikes me that is the message that Brendan O'Neill is peddling and that is what I picked up from your first post as well.

Conflating this story, in his article, with the reports of men touching women on knees, i.e. Michael Fallon, and dressing that up as some sort of conspiratorial desire of new feminism and political correctness to crush everything is disingenuous.

A woman being employed as a hostess at a men only event, even if naked and covered in shimmery paint, is still entitled to the exactly the same level of respect as if the guys were in a regular restaurant being served by waitresses or on an aeroplane and being served by air hostesses.

Sexual objectification happens in both directions, there is a business called buff butlers where guys employed as hosts wander around naked  wearing only an apron.  I have no objection to that either, but again they are doing a job and the normal constraints of respectful behaviour should be the minimum standard.

Some years ago I worked with a woman who was a brilliant electronics engineer and she paid her way through university in the Netherlands by working in a strip bar and occasionally the red light windows.  She was very candid about her experiences and her reasoning for doing what she did, she was comfortable with her choice, it suited her own personal circumstance and belief system and she was an exceptionally well balanced woman.  What did really hack her off however was those men that had learned of her background, 15-20 years hence, and thought that it was OK to drunkingly and inappropriately proposition her on a works night out or make highly suggestive remarks because they thought that what she used to do somehow gave them an entitlement to to be able to do that, it freed them of the normal restraints of socially acceptable behaviour.  None of those guys ever took the same approach with any of the other female staff, just with her.  It has to be asked why?

That is what I see as the problem at the President's Club events, an assumed expectation that behaviour that would not be tolerated in any regular circumstance somehow is OK because in the case of that event it is labelled as men only and lots of money is being raised for charity and after all the pretty girls, who need the money, were paid to be there.

I don't see that thinking that attitude is wrong as being politically correct at all, I simply see it is reasonable and respectful behaviour.

 

Edited January 27, 2018 by grrclark

[Gordon R]

grrclark - good post.

[panoma1]

Whether intentional or unintentional? I do not feel you have grasped the main points I was trying to make, even though I pointed you to an article which broadly made the same points....you have chosen to concentrate on one issue which was part of the story, but not the reason I originally posted comment on it!

No one condones boorish behaviour by anyone drunk or sober, rich or poor!........but in your response to my posting you have ignored all other points made in the article including the main points I was making!

Which for the sake of the clarity you requested, was that in my opinion, the feminist crusade had scored a hit against men............at the expense of sick kids!

 

 

[Rewulf]

38 minutes ago, grrclark said:

 

I don't see that thinking that attitude is wrong as being politically correct at all, I simply see it is reasonable and respectful behaviour.

 

Ive avoided this branch of the original topic so far ,as I think it really should have had its own thread, plus I dont think the 2 subjects actually have anything to do with each other.
I agree with Grrs point above but, it is an inherent thing within our culture that men are not men, unless they 'try it on' especially in situations like this , with wealthy men, used to getting what they want , inebriated .
Im not excusing the alleged behaviour, what I will question, is the motive behind the investigation.
Why after so many years of the event, with all its money raised for good causes, and no apparent complaints from staff, did the journalist feel it was necessary to go undercover to report on it ?
She must have had an inkling of what she might uncover ?

The end result is we used to have a charity, and now we dont, so the good causes suffer, but its OK because morality has triumphed ,and all the alleged victims can rest easy knowing that they will not be employed next year at the event.
But, you cant have that sort of behaviour I hear you say, no you cant ,but after 33 years of running, it seems it takes a female journo from the FT of all things to put us all right.
Apparently girls were going upstairs with some of the attendees, no doubt they had been forced or drugged to comply with these activities ?
Again, if a young lady applies for the job, and has no idea it might get a bit 'handsy' or she might get propositioned, because it does seem that some girls there were 'working' fair enough, an unpleasant experience, which no doubt they will not want to repeat, or if serious enough, they could make an official complaint to the management or police.
But none of these complaints have happened, well not yet anyway, now the media have  new chew toy who knows.

There is one parallel to the deaf woman case, and that is expectation, you apply for a job in a venue that demands a certain dress code, with men of a certain type?
You may be naive, but surely they must have had an inkling that the boundaries might be stretched or broken, if so then report it.
 

[walshie]

You're right. None of this is relevant to my original post other than members can argue about both subjects. 

[grrclark]

59 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Whether intentional or unintentional? I do not feel you have grasped the main points I was trying to make, even though I pointed you to an article which broadly made the same points....you have chosen to concentrate on one issue which was part of the story, but not the reason I originally posted comment on it!

No one condones boorish behaviour by anyone drunk or sober, rich or poor!........but in your response to my posting you have ignored all other points made in the article including the main points I was making!

Which for the sake of the clarity you requested, was that in my opinion, the feminist crusade had scored a hit against men............at the expense of sick kids!

 

 

That is why I asked the question.  I'm not deliberately ignoring your main points, I simply did not discern from your original post or the linked article what your main points were.

As it happens, I disagree, I think that the point in bold is deductively and logically invalid.  I think that an investigative journalist uncovered what was socially unacceptable behaviour, nothing more and nothing less.

For the record I think that the clamour from the charities or those celebrities and notable names to distance themselves from the event is actually nothing more than virtue signalling.  If the individuals and charitable benefactors were not complicit in the bad behaviour then simply say that, let the spotlight of scrutiny fall upon those who can't behave and who were at fault.  The mass acceptance of some sort of affiliated blame has been as damaging as anything else.

34 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Ive avoided this branch of the original topic so far ,as I think it really should have had its own thread, plus I dont think the 2 subjects actually have anything to do with each other.
I agree with Grrs point above but, it is an inherent thing within our culture that men are not men, unless they 'try it on' especially in situations like this , with wealthy men, used to getting what they want , inebriated .
Im not excusing the alleged behaviour, what I will question, is the motive behind the investigation.
Why after so many years of the event, with all its money raised for good causes, and no apparent complaints from staff, did the journalist feel it was necessary to go undercover to report on it ?
She must have had an inkling of what she might uncover ?

The end result is we used to have a charity, and now we dont, so the good causes suffer, but its OK because morality has triumphed ,and all the alleged victims can rest easy knowing that they will not be employed next year at the event.
But, you cant have that sort of behaviour I hear you say, no you cant ,but after 33 years of running, it seems it takes a female journo from the FT of all things to put us all right.
Apparently girls were going upstairs with some of the attendees, no doubt they had been forced or drugged to comply with these activities ?
Again, if a young lady applies for the job, and has no idea it might get a bit 'handsy' or she might get propositioned, because it does seem that some girls there were 'working' fair enough, an unpleasant experience, which no doubt they will not want to repeat, or if serious enough, they could make an official complaint to the management or police.
But none of these complaints have happened, well not yet anyway, now the media have  new chew toy who knows.

There is one parallel to the deaf woman case, and that is expectation, you apply for a job in a venue that demands a certain dress code, with men of a certain type?
You may be naive, but surely they must have had an inkling that the boundaries might be stretched or broken, if so then report it.
 

Did you miss the bit about the 6 page non disclosure agreement that each hostess was obliged to sign?

Is that is why there have be no formal complaints, because the liability for doing so may have been excessively punitive?

28 minutes ago, walshie said:

You're right. None of this is relevant to my original post other than members can argue about both subjects. 

It has been an epic thread hijack that's for sure, but there were comments made that I believe could not go without challenge.

Edited January 27, 2018 by grrclark

[panoma1]

2 minutes ago, walshie said:

You're right. None of this is relevant to my original post other than members can argue about both subjects. 

Walshie,

Please read the first line of my original response to your posting, the relevance as I saw it, was to do with certain individuals/minorities/factions apparently manouvering and trying to further their cause/personal interests......such as in your example the disabled woman trying to establish her "rights" and in my example the destruction of the presidents club charity night! For what! In order to further a moral and/or feminist cause....... but what really irked me was all the publicity surrounding the event was the outrage by the PC, feminists and/or morally puritanical which forced the intended recipient children's hospitals to decline donations of the tens of thousands of pounds raised!.........the only ones who pay in your example us the taxpayers, the only ones who pay in my example are the taxpayers, who have to find the funding from the presidents club, the hospital has declined to accept!.........Oh and of course the sick children!

 

I had no intention of reigniting this debate, I just felt it courteous to reply to grrclarks request for clarification.

[Scully]

2 hours ago, grrclark said:

I absolutely was and remain interested in the point you have to make in this debate, although I'm not entirely sure that i am any further forward having read that article.

In essence what Brendan O'Neill has said in that article is that is to suggest is that there is an expectation that wealthy men will be boorish and inappropriate and nobody should complain about that because it isn't surprising and somehow that makes it OK, after all they were raising money for charity.  Essentially money grants privilege and that it is OK for a wealthy guy to be able to treat girls that are working at the event as something that they can be inappropriate with, because they have more money than them.

To be absolutely clear, I have no issue at all with men only events where attractive women are employed as hostesses and add glamour and an aesthetic appeal.  Even better if they have a personality and can indulge in a good witty conversation.  Where I do have an issue is that there is some sort of unspoken expectation that the guys are allowed to go beyond the boundaries that would be acceptable anywhere else and it strikes me that is the message that Brendan O'Neill is peddling and that is what I picked up from your first post as well.

Conflating this story, in his article, with the reports of men touching women on knees, i.e. Michael Fallon, and dressing that up as some sort of conspiratorial desire of new feminism and political correctness to crush everything is disingenuous.

A woman being employed as a hostess at a men only event, even if naked and covered in shimmery paint, is still entitled to the exactly the same level of respect as if the guys were in a regular restaurant being served by waitresses or on an aeroplane and being served by air hostesses.

Sexual objectification happens in both directions, there is a business called buff butlers where guys employed as hosts wander around naked  wearing only an apron.  I have no objection to that either, but again they are doing a job and the normal constraints of respectful behaviour should be the minimum standard.

Some years ago I worked with a woman who was a brilliant electronics engineer and she paid her way through university in the Netherlands by working in a strip bar and occasionally the red light windows.  She was very candid about her experiences and her reasoning for doing what she did, she was comfortable with her choice, it suited her own personal circumstance and belief system and she was an exceptionally well balanced woman.  What did really hack her off however was those men that had learned of her background, 15-20 years hence, and thought that it was OK to drunkingly and inappropriately proposition her on a works night out or make highly suggestive remarks because they thought that what she used to do somehow gave them an entitlement to to be able to do that, it freed them of the normal restraints of socially acceptable behaviour.  None of those guys ever took the same approach with any of the other female staff, just with her.  It has to be asked why?

That is what I see as the problem at the President's Club events, an assumed expectation that behaviour that would not be tolerated in any regular circumstance somehow is OK because in the case of that event it is labelled as men only and lots of money is being raised for charity and after all the pretty girls, who need the money, were paid to be there.

I don't see that thinking that attitude is wrong as being politically correct at all, I simply see it is reasonable and respectful behaviour.

 

An excellent post. ?

If I were as articulate I could have made this point so much sooner and with much more eloquence. 

The girls at the strippers night I attended, would, for an additional fee, give a personal performance to an individual ( in plain view of all those close enough to see ) while he was seated on a chair. The performance consisted of titivation (literally! ?) during which the thong came off and her muffin and gangle pin, bare for all to see, would be gyrated millimetres from the ( by this time crimson ) unfortunates face, much to the amusement of his mates. After the performance she would go back to her normal duties of waiting on etc, but the common thread was that the unspoken golden rule of KEEP YOUR HANDS TO YOURSELF was observed. Like I said, a great night was had by all. 

[panoma1]

26 minutes ago, grrclark said:

That is why I asked the question.  I'm not deliberately ignoring your main points, I simply did not discern from your original post or the linked article what your main points were.

As it happens, I disagree, I think that the point in bold is deductively and logically invalid.  I think that an investigative journalist uncovered what was socially unacceptable behaviour, nothing more and nothing less.

 

"Deductively and logically invalid"? How so?

I think your comments prove my point! "Socially unacceptable" to whom? Yourself? The participants? The puritanical? The PC? The feminists? The envious? The class warriors?

Socially unacceptable? On Moral grounds? If what went on was legal, who decides what is morally/socially acceptable and what isn't?

As far as I know all those present were consenting adults, if they didnt want to participate in any activity, presumably they weren't forced to? Were they? If anything that occurred there was illegal the non disclose agreement would potentially be invalid? So we will see if any of the hostesses or others present want to persue that!....

There are some practices/activities that I find abhorrent, but if others want to participate........as long as it's legal that's their choice! 

Plenty of people claim to find live quarry shooting abhorant.....But it's legal, the way I do it is morally acceptable, to me......so do you think the opinion of those that find it socially/morally unacceptable,  should determine whether or not I do it? 

[Gordon R]

Much as I agree with many of the posts - grrclark take a bow - I think in broad terms, Panoma1 is correct in his assertion

Quote

Which for the sake of the clarity you requested, was that in my opinion, the feminist crusade had scored a hit against men............at the expense of sick kids!

There are more subtle points, but this really the bottom line - no pun intended.

[grrclark]

48 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

"Deductively and logically invalid"? How so?

I think your comments prove my point! "Socially unacceptable" to whom? Yourself? The participants? The puritanical? The PC? The feminists? The envious? The class warriors?

Socially unacceptable? On Moral grounds? If what went on was legal, who decides what is morally/socially acceptable and what isn't?

As far as I know all those present were consenting adults, if they didnt want to participate in any activity, presumably they weren't forced to? Were they? If anything that occurred there was illegal the non disclose agreement would potentially be invalid? So we will see if any of the hostesses or others present want to persue that!....

There are some practices/activities that I find abhorrent, but if others want to participate........as long as it's legal that's their choice! 

Plenty of people claim to find live quarry shooting abhorant.....But it's legal, the way I do it is morally acceptable, to me......so do you think the opinion of those that find it socially/morally unacceptable,  should determine whether or not I do it? 

I'm heading out for a bit, but will reply later

[walshie]

I heard on the radio that those NDAs weren't worth the paper they were written on.

Unless the hostesses there were working prostitutes then no man there had any right to lay a hand on any woman without her express permission. Tolerating it and not reporting it in order to keep their job doesn't imply permission to me. 

At best it was sexual harrassment. At worst, assualt. 

Just my take on my hijacked topic. 

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, grrclark said:

 

Did you miss the bit about the 6 page non disclosure agreement that each hostess was obliged to sign?

 

No, but it doesn't mean you can commit a crime and get away with it.

The implied crime in this case being sexual assault.

[Gordon R]

Much is being made of having to sign non-disclosure agreements, but they seem commonplace in show business. If anyone objects to signing - don't sign.

[henry d]

In a perfect world this would be totally acceptable and these events would die a death naturally, however there are women who have to support themselves and possibly families too who need this money. Other than that there are women who are culturally told that they should use their body to earn their wages (most visual media uses this techinque) and one must ask whether a non-disclosure agreement is the correct policy, it seems to be the (verbal) policy used by paedophiles and other sex pests, and the brutality of both a piece of paper or a threat of violence have similar bases, that of controlling someone for your own ends

[eddoakley]

Wow!

What a thread.

Seems to have split into 2- the deaf woman's case and the men only event.

My opinions- and they are just that- my own opinions (and we all know that opinions are like %€£holes...everybody has one but nobody needs to hear it) are this:

The deaf woman's case is absolutely ridiculous!

I'm amazed that people are defending her or supporting her in any way at all.

If you buy a ticket to an event knowing full well that you can not utilise the full package then that's your choice. The analogy about buying a car or joining the London marathon and then demanding a chauffeur or someone to carry you is a very good one. You make your choice.

Yes- If we can help to make people's lives better then lets but they should not demand it.

Absolutly crazy.

Political correctness gone mad!

The second part of the thread is more complex.

Should the charity money have been handed back? No! Why should someone lose out?

The "undercover reporter" has certainly gone looking for and then sensationalized a non story. There's touching and then there's "touching".

Putting your hand on the small of someone' s back as you lean in to speak/listen is indeed touching, but I'm sure we have all done that. Putting a hand on someones knee, surely the same thing? In a situation where women are (well) payed to be scantily dressed and entertain men,  make them smile and be comfortable enough to spend lota of money in the name of charity then I can see how that would happen a lot. Holding the hand of a "host/hostess" is almost certainly going to happen and lots of other touching may be completely expected and accepted. The situation (being paid to entertain) surely dictates what is accepted?  But there must be a line. From what I have read the line doesn't seem to have been crossed. Not my line anyway.

People on here talking about what is morally correct and acceptable. Acceptable to who exactly? If the charity event had been in another country there could well have been more, How can we say? "Adult" scenes.

The level of intimacy/touching/flirtation or titivation is decided by the people involved. Don't like it? Don't be there.

I am massively against the level of "political correctness" forced upon us.

It seems that you can't speak or act without offending someone or not including a section of this screwed up society and then you facing prosecution for it!

When did it become a world where you can go to jail for offending someone?

Anyway, I digress.

My thoughts are that the deaf woman should be made to pay all of the costs incurred for her ridiculous claim and that the charity money should be kept and the undercover reporter should provide evidence of wrong doing and not just gossip and conjecture about what has possibly offended some of the people involved in the event.

 

Edd

[Gordon R]

Quote

one must ask whether a non-disclosure agreement is the correct policy, it seems to be the (verbal) policy used by paedophiles and other sex pests, and the brutality of both a piece of paper or a threat of violence have similar bases, that of controlling someone for your own ends

From memory - guests at a party held by Leonardo DiCaprio had to sign up. Just how does he fit into people described above?

[eddoakley]

7 hours ago, Gordon R said:

From memory - guests at a party held by Leonardo DiCaprio had to sign up. Just how does he fit into people described above?

A non disclosure has a simple explanation- privacy.

Some rich people giving possibly large sums to charity and not wanting it to be known. Not everyone wants publicity.

There doesnt need to be a more sinister reason behind it.

 

Edd

[oowee]

1 hour ago, eddoakley said:

A non disclosure has a simple explanation- privacy.

Some rich people giving possibly large sums to charity and not wanting it to be known. Not everyone wants publicity.

There doesnt need to be a more sinister reason behind it.

 

Edd

No there does not have to be a more sinister reason but in my experience there often is. A better description is gagging order used to exert remote power and fear. Fear of financial consequences (uncertainty and inexperience play a large part) , lack of future work and livelihood. 

 

 

[grrclark]

19 hours ago, panoma1 said:

"Deductively and logically invalid"? How so?

I think your comments prove my point! "Socially unacceptable" to whom? Yourself? The participants? The puritanical? The PC? The feminists? The envious? The class warriors?

Socially unacceptable? On Moral grounds? If what went on was legal, who decides what is morally/socially acceptable and what isn't?

As far as I know all those present were consenting adults, if they didnt want to participate in any activity, presumably they weren't forced to? Were they? If anything that occurred there was illegal the non disclose agreement would potentially be invalid? So we will see if any of the hostesses or others present want to persue that!....

There are some practices/activities that I find abhorrent, but if others want to participate........as long as it's legal that's their choice! 

Plenty of people claim to find live quarry shooting abhorant.....But it's legal, the way I do it is morally acceptable, to me......so do you think the opinion of those that find it socially/morally unacceptable,  should determine whether or not I do it? 

Apologies for the delay in replying.

Deductively and logically invalid: What you said was "Which for the sake of the clarity you requested, was that in my opinion, the feminist crusade had scored a hit against men............at the expense of sick kids!"  In order to arrive at that statement logically you would have to prove that the agenda of the journalist was one of feminism and an anti men agenda and also part of a collective cause, you can't do that.  You might believe it was that, which is fair enough, but you can't logically deduce that, hence it is invalid.  It's semantics.

As for socially unacceptable, that covers a few things, it is about consent, about exploitation and of course behaviour if performed in open society that a consensus would consider to be unacceptable.  So in the case of the first two elements of consent and exploitation, if the girls at that venue consent to be pawed, to be propositioned and it is in a private session then it isn't socially unacceptable.  If however the girls have not consented to that behaviour and are being exploited, i.e. being subjected to behaviour that they did not consent to because they happen to have been employed for the evening, then you have to consider if that event had not been in private that behaviour absolutely would be considered unacceptable, i.e. if it was in an office, shop or restaurant.  Simple really, no moral arbiter or higher purpose or no plea to some other moral authority. 

I happen to believe that it is the latter of those two scenarios, the girls were employed to do a job of work and that job does not include having some wealthy and obnoxious guy make lewd suggestion or put his hands on her so therefor the behaviour is unacceptable.

If you believe that is somehow puritanical of me or PC, to think that exploitative behaviour is wrong, then i guess we simply have a different threshold for right and wrong.

As for your suggestion of live quarry shooting, that is about consent too and exploitation too, if you are out with other shooting folk or on your own then there is no requirement for consent and you are not exploiting anybody else, so perfectly acceptable.  However if you have shot your bag it would probably be socially unacceptable to carry them on open display down a high street where you know there is a reasonable expectation that some folks may find the sight of that dead quarry distressing.  Same as posting pictures of shot foxes or the like on an open public facebook page where there again would be a reasonable expectation that some may find the sight of that distressing.  Neither of which is illegal, it is simply about respect and consideration towards other folk.

I see that there have been some other comments added to the thread as well that suggest it is ok to lay hands on a stranger or make lewd suggestions because a girl happens to be employed in a job, all I can say is that I am exceptionally happy not to have those guys that believe that in my social circle.

[panoma1]

4 hours ago, grrclark said:

Apologies for the delay in replying.

Deductively and logically invalid: What you said was "Which for the sake of the clarity you requested, was that in my opinion, the feminist crusade had scored a hit against men............at the expense of sick kids!"  In order to arrive at that statement logically you would have to prove that the agenda of the journalist was one of feminism and an anti men agenda and also part of a collective cause, you can't do that.  You might believe it was that, which is fair enough, but you can't logically deduce that, hence it is invalid.  It's semantics. I merely offered opinion! which subsequently corresponds to the opinion expressed by many others! In the absence of any other explanation to the contrary, it seem reasonable to conclude a feminist, anti men agenda was at work. But as the true motives remain, as far as I'm aware, unknown, any opinion expressed contrary to my own, is no less deductively and logically invalid! However this to a certain extent is irrelevant, because the main point (which some posters on here have consistently avoided comment on!) was that the subsequent publicity ended up depriving the hospital of a considerable amount of money collected over the years for sick children is valid!

As for socially unacceptable, that covers a few things, it is about consent, about exploitation and of course behaviour if performed in open society that a consensus would consider to be unacceptable.  So in the case of the first two elements of consent and exploitation, if the girls at that venue consent to be pawed, to be propositioned and it is in a private session then it isn't socially unacceptable.  If however the girls have not consented to that behaviour and are being exploited, i.e. being subjected to behaviour that they did not consent to because they happen to have been employed for the evening, then you have to consider if that event had not been in private that behaviour absolutely would be considered unacceptable, i.e. if it was in an office, shop or restaurant.  Simple really, no moral arbiter or higher purpose or no plea to some other moral authority. 

I happen to believe that it is the latter of those two scenarios, the girls were employed to do a job of work and that job does not include having some wealthy and obnoxious guy make lewd suggestion or put his hands on her so therefor the behaviour is unacceptable.

If you believe that is somehow puritanical of me or PC, to think that exploitative behaviour is wrong, then i guess we simply have a different threshold for right and wrong.

As for your suggestion of live quarry shooting, that is about consent too and exploitation too, if you are out with other shooting folk or on your own then there is no requirement for consent and you are not exploiting anybody else, so perfectly acceptable.  However if you have shot your bag it would probably be socially unacceptable to carry them on open display down a high street where you know there is a reasonable expectation that some folks may find the sight of that dead quarry distressing.  Same as posting pictures of shot foxes or the like on an open public facebook page where there again would be a reasonable expectation that some may find the sight of that distressing.  Neither of which is illegal, it is simply about respect and consideration towards other folk.

I see that there have been some other comments added to the thread as well that suggest it is ok to lay hands on a stranger or make lewd suggestions because a girl happens to be employed in a job, all I can say is that I am exceptionally happy not to have those guys that believe that in my social circle.

I have repeatedly expressed  the opinion that the reported conduct of some of the guests present (and indeed some of the hostesses!) was on the face of it open to critism...but everyone (including those on PW) seems to  want to focus on the alleged conduct of the rich blokes present.....the reports that some of the "hostesses" encouraged and took an active part in this conduct, seems to be to some irrelevant! As does the fact that sick kids have been deprived of money that could improve or save their lives!..... but if people think that Kicking rich old men is more of a priority? Then ignore the real tragedy and crack on with the PC witch hunt!....I'm out!

[grrclark]

My last comment on this, as it is getting really boring, is that who says the kids are being deprived of the charitable donations?

Sure via the avenue of the Presidents club that funding route is closed, but for those wealthy benefactors who chose to donate to the charitable cause there is a multitude of channels available to continue to do that.

For me suggesting that shining a light on unacceptable behaviour is somehow detrimental to the charitable cause is disingenuous.

[JDog]

10 minutes ago, grrclark said:

My last comment on this, as it is getting really boring, is that who says the kids are being deprived of the charitable donations?

Sure via the avenue of the Presidents club that funding route is closed, but for those wealthy benefactors who chose to donate to the charitable cause there is a multitude of channels available to continue to do that.

For me suggesting that shining a light on unacceptable behaviour is somehow detrimental to the charitable cause is disingenuous.

So you have only just concluded that this thread is boring?

Me too. The same members posting over and over again, not content with making their point once, even twice but many more times. Come on chaps give the rest of us a break and cut out the bickering and obtuse behaviour. Reasoned debate yes, bullying over others point of view no thanks.

[grrclark]

14 minutes ago, JDog said:

So you have only just concluded that this thread is boring?

Me too. The same members posting over and over again, not content with making their point once, even twice but many more times. Come on chaps give the rest of us a break and cut out the bickering and obtuse behaviour. Reasoned debate yes, bullying over others point of view no thanks.

Where was the bullying, just out of interest?