Pecunia non olet

The charities rejecting Presidents Club donations over scandal
Allegations of groping and sexual harassment at men-only fundraising gala prompt action

Idiots.

Great Ormond Street hospital – sending the money back, will not accept future donations
Received: £530,000 between 2009 and 2016.

Comment: “We are shocked to hear of the behaviour reported at the Presidents Club charitable trust fundraising dinner. We would never knowingly accept donations raised in this way. We have had no involvement in the organisation of this event, nor did we attend and we were never due to receive any money from it.”

Evelina children’s hospital (part of Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS trust) – sending the money back
Received: The Presidents Club pledged £650,000 to fund a six-bed high-dependency space within a new intensive care unit. Construction is under way. At the dinner, Richard Caring pledged £400,000 to put his name on the unit – Evelina confirmed that would not be going ahead.

Comment: “We are very alarmed by the allegations about the behaviour of some of those attending the Presidents Club fundraising dinner. This is not the kind of event we would wish to be associated with and we will therefore be declining funding from it and returning all previous donations from the Presidents Club.”

Truly, idiots.

54 comments on “Pecunia non olet

  1. The naked exercise of power over an organisation is more important to these dolts than helping the organisation to care for sick kiddies.

    Brutal.

  2. Who can blame them? If a few hundred sick kids have to die in order to win the approval of a handful of cunts on Twitter, it’s a price worth paying.

  3. So despite the constant cry of “underfunded NHS”, they don’t actually need the money? Puts everything into perspective, doesn’t it?

  4. So, we discover that none of the Trustees, nor friends and family, have any need for the services provided by these donations.

  5. It would be interesting to go over the other donations they received for the same period and look at the organisations which gave them. I wonder what behaviour would be ‘unacceptable’ and what would not be.

  6. Perhaps this is actionable to make the responsible individuals personally liable on the grounds of breach of fiduciary obligations as a trustee if a litigant with a material interest could be found – eg a parent of a child dying or suffering due to budgetary constraints at a hospital?

    Could a public spirited QC with a keen interest in pro bono public cause actions be found to take this on, one wonders, he would not necessarily be tilting at his own windmill.

  7. Tim Newman – “Did any of the hostesses complain? Or are women who don’t even know their names complaining on their behalf?”

    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/jan/24/ive-never-done-the-presidents-club-before-and-i-wouldnt-again

    It seems at least one of them did. Anonymously. Although mainly it looks like the FT stitching them all up.

    t was claimed the women were paid £175 – plus a taxi home – for a six-hour shift, although that did not include any time spent at the event’s after-party.

    £36 an hour? A little bit better than minimum wage. And the organisers seem to have tried to keep a lid on the harassment, such as it was:

    The brochure for the dinner warned male guests against “harassment and unwanted conduct”, while upon arrival the hostesses were handed a five-page non-disclosure agreement to sign …. Dandridge told her staff that the men might try to get the women “pissed”, and just before they were sent out into the ballroom they were told that if any of the guests became “too annoying” the hostesses should alert the boss. Or, to put it in the words of one of the guests: “Down that glass, rip off your knickers and dance on that table.”

    Which is interesting but can anyone explain that last sentence to me? I have not edited anything. How does it follow from the preceding paragraph? Or … what?

  8. “This is not the kind of event we would wish to be associated with” but couldn’t be bothered to ask around before cashing the cheque.

    Oh, also, being an awkward bugger I can’t help but wonder whether any of the waitresses decided to put up with the groping because at least it would be for charity. Or the tips, whatever.

  9. Some really nasty people pay taxes, where do they stand on receiving that money? Or does rinsing it through the State make it ok?

  10. No more money for GOSH then, if they can afford to throw this back in the doror’s face simply to grandstand & please thankless SJWs…

  11. Do you think if I wrote and told the Inland Revenue I was known to call the odd person of a female persuasion “honey” and even “sweetheart” they would let out of paying my income tax?

    Or would I have to up the ante to “chickie” and “babe”?

    For the record, although it would be a difficult obstacle to surmount, I am willing to consider slapping a girl in high heels, fishnets and a short black miniskirt on the rear end if I means the government will refuse to take my money. I am sure the Guardian would approve.

  12. Again a five minute task for a PM with balls.

    To inform both showers that they will take the money and publish a very nice thank you note to all the kind people who paid it over or they lose their Charidee status before the end of the week.

  13. Mother Theresa accepted money from all sorts of dubious people, but then again, it seems she didn’t use it to save lives……

  14. I would suggest the gentleman of the presidents club who like a bit of a grope pay a visit to “Fallen Angels” in Great Yarmouth,

    Groping and lewd behaviour is most acceptable, I recommend Sharon as the best hostess who provides a professional and discreet service and is on whatsapp under the name of Albies taxis

  15. £36/hour

    Any professional escort will charge more than that. They’ll also discuss expectations and boundaries beforehand as well reserving the right to leave should party-goers exceed these.

    The organisers did it on the cheap and are now reaping the whirlwind.

  16. “This is not the kind of event we would wish to be associated with”: there’s that strange, intrusive “would” that appears when cunts want to sound like lawyers. Do lawyers write that way to appear cuntish? All a great mystery.

  17. You could look at this as a speed dating club for young ladies in search of sugar daddies. A certain amount of handling the merchandise is to be expected.

  18. You could look at this as a speed dating club for young ladies in search of sugar daddies.

    That was my impression too. A few eastern European girls, looking to become someone’s mistress? Parties like this are almost an audition.

  19. Nautical Nick – “Mother Theresa accepted money from all sorts of dubious people, but then again, it seems she didn’t use it to save lives……”

    No she used it to save souls. She also used it to feed, wash and sit with people as they died. So they would not die alone in the street.

    What have you done with your life?

  20. It’s quite a cunning plan

    1. Set up organisation to raise money
    2. Raise money for good causes
    3. Do something awful and get all the money back
    4. Fold your organisation and pocket the cash

    I never understood the logic. These people have done terrible things, we must give them money!

  21. The outraged FT journo Madison Marriage normally works for the FT fm (fund management) section on a Monday. The previous editor of that section was obsessed with the ghastly Gina Miller when she was drumming up huge publicity for her and her third husband’s investment fund, by claiming that all fund managers needed to reduce their fees – not coincidentally the Millers run a fund of funds business. Since that editor left (and Gina went full remainiac) Ms Madison’s section of the paper has gone full Guardianista. Articles about how all fund managers are useless and crooks, how woman fund managers are better than men, how there should be more women on boards, more women in fund management, how all fund mangement groups MUST publish on the appalling gender pay gap. You get the picture. Bear in mind that most of their readership in this section will be white, male, honest and competent fund managers. Talk about insulting your readers – although for old times’ sake they never mention how poor the Millers’ performance is.

    So now Ms Madison has made it to the big time. Front page and page 2 on a total non story. “My mate worked one of these events and hated it so I am going to take them down” type stuff. No one complained at the time, no assaults were reported, the police were not called. Girls were paid to flirt with the guests (most of whom seem to have been in property of some sort) and told that if anyone got too frisky the girls should contact the agency staff. In the same way that a pretty barmaid sells more beer, the organisers know that half pissed blokes at a charity auction are more likely to bid up if they are trying to impress an attractive young lady. It’s delusional, but it’s human nature.

    So outraged student type journalism, huge tabloid promotion by what is supposed to be a financial newspaper, questions in the house and a statement from the Prime Minister. About nothing at all. Meanwhile, in Rotherham, Bradford, Leeds, Newcastle…….

  22. Ms Madsion looks like she missed the target in my opinion, the talk of anonymous businessmen is a poor substitute for Piers Morgan or Philip Schofield.

    I bet she was promised a big fish in the room before she went looking for loose hands.

  23. Can I ask, at the risk of being very stupid, what exactly is being alleged here? Because all I’m hearing is a big party took place, wealthy middle-aged men got a bit pissed and a bit randy and girls had been bought in who, mostly, knew the score. Oh… and a couple of the girls were disgusted.

    So I ask again, what exactly have I missed?

  24. Tim Newman said:
    “Did any of the hostesses complain?”

    From the article, it seems they were warned up-front what it was going to be like, but still took the job. The journalist went along deliberately to complain afterwards.

  25. BraveFart said:
    “Perhaps this is actionable to make the responsible individuals personally liable on the grounds of breach of fiduciary obligations as a trustee”

    Just my thought; would be interesting to see it tried.

    Presumably the trustees’ defence would be that the bad publicity would make them lose even more money if they hadn’t given this lot back, but I think they’d struggle to prove that was a reasonable assumption.

    Especially because, as others have said above, some people will think “oh well, they clearly don’t really need the money”.

    I think MC has it; this is charity trustees using charity money to make themselves feel and look good.

  26. It should of course be said that if they had hired professionals then the usual suspects would be crying foul over that instead

    So is alleged on the front cover and pages 9-11 of (my father in law’s) this mornings Daily Wail.

    And, oh my effing God, yes, They are wailing about it.

  27. Well, they won’t be getting any more money from me, because, clearly, they’re sufficiently well off that they can do without the Presidents Club donation.

  28. “That was my impression too. A few eastern European girls, looking to become someone’s mistress? ”
    No. £25 per hour for a real looker working late into the night is not a licence to grope. Most of the women will have expected to get through the evening with a nice smile and a good line in chat.
    Presumably some fraction were working the room looking for the big tips or a job or maybe a trick, but not the majority.
    And another fraction were hanging around rich men in suits in the same way as others like to hang around even richer men in tracksuits.
    But most of them landed in a situation nastier than they expected and it needn’t have worked out that way. Maybe colour coded wrist bands would help…

  29. @Mark T: Bear in mind that most of their readership in this section will be white, male, honest and competent fund managers.

    Do any fund managers still bother with the pink ‘un?

  30. Excellent. Great Ormond Street don’t need any of my money. Next time someone shakes a tin, I’ll tell them I’ll be spending it on Romanian hookers instead.

  31. NDReader,

    Two journalists filmed for 4 hours, yet have produced no footage of any groping.

    Not saying groping doesn’t happen, but the complete lack of any video of it over 4 hours suggests this journalist is a lying cunt.

  32. @Mark T, January 25, 2018 at 4:17 pm

    +1

    Seems like an opportunity to me: attractive young females paid to solicit tips, charity donations and consensual relationship with a sugar-daddy.

    PM May demeans herself by becoming involved.

    As for Bercow approving Urgent Comment/Debate on this – makes Parliament look worse than a third rate Poly.

  33. I’m frankly sick of all of these cunts – journalists, politicians, third sector. And entitled feminists are the fucking worst. Those cunts have nothing at all to give to society and all they do is make everything worse.

    There’s no point in engaging with any of these people. Destroy their strongholds . Use any tactics, however dirty (but legal) to build evidence to destroy the organisations they work for and their careers. Because they’ll do it to you first, if you don’t. They want to leech off your efforts and ruin your fun.

    We need a libertarian party in this country. At this point, I’ll vote for a full-on fucking objectivist just to wash this filth away.

  34. It’s obviously been overblown: I am a trustee of a medical charity and wanted to apply to this lot for the money GOSH and others were handing back, but my fellow trustees didn’t like the idea. That said, who in the current “me too” climate wouldn’t have seen this coming – a boozy event for middle aged sleazebags with too much money where the hostesses’ dress code includes instructions as to what colour pants to wear? You’d either have to be a fucking idiot – or think that you have so much dough that no societal norms apply to you any more – to attend.

    Now some of those who attended do indeed have enough money that societal norms do not, in fact, apply to them any more, but unfortunately for some of them they crave acceptance and respectability, or operate in, or around the fringes of politics. If that’s the case, then societal norms very much DO apply to you, and now you know.

  35. “That said, who in the current “me too” climate wouldn’t have seen this coming – a boozy event for middle aged sleazebags with too much money where the hostesses’ dress code includes instructions as to what colour pants to wear?”

    Do you know why they specify what colour pants to wear? It’s because they’re going to wear skimpy black dresses and white knickers look terrible as a combination. Not because some bloke is going to look up there. If it was about that, it would be no knickers and get a waxing.

    “Now some of those who attended do indeed have enough money that societal norms do not, in fact, apply to them any more, but unfortunately for some of them they crave acceptance and respectability, or operate in, or around the fringes of politics. If that’s the case, then societal norms very much DO apply to you, and now you know.”

    Please, show me any evidence that anyone there did anything wrong. The Mail has a horror story from the event of a 25 year old woman being propositioned for sex, and being offered wine. The Guardian has the nightmare of a 19 year old being asked if she’s a prostitute. That’s all they’ve got. It’s not exactly matching the scenes of Eyes Wide Shut being suggested in the FT.

    The whole thing is one of those stories that pushes at the buttons of people’s imaginations. But there’s nothing there.

    And if you think sucking up to feminists will fill your coffers, think again. They’re mean.

  36. don’t worry – when sharia law arrives there will be no loose half clad young women. That should please the SJWs.

  37. “PM May demeans herself by becoming involved.”

    And therein lies a big problem with the 24 news cycle and cult of the President / PM. She should have said something like, fuck off, I’ve got Brexit and any number of real major international and national issues to deal without worrying about boys being boys.*

    I remember Cameron’s first PMQs and he was asked a question about the closure of a local swimming pool. FFS, we were in the middle of sorting out the mess of a financial meltdown and the PMs supposed to not only know about, but have an opinion on, a local swimming pool. He should have said fuck off, that’s what we have local politicians for, instead he has to waste oxygen dignifying the question.

    “And if you think sucking up to feminists will fill your coffers, think again. They’re mean.”

    Only with their money, most of which has not been earned, unless you count writing carping articles in the Guardian or getting government grants as generating wealth.

    *For the record I think these people are appalling and if they can’t behave like grown ups then they should be fleeced of as much money as possible as long as it’s buy consenting adults.

  38. “I remember Cameron’s first PMQs and he was asked a question about the closure of a local swimming pool. FFS, we were in the middle of sorting out the mess of a financial meltdown and the PMs supposed to not only know about, but have an opinion on, a local swimming pool. He should have said fuck off, that’s what we have local politicians for, instead he has to waste oxygen dignifying the question.”

    These people are drips. I’m not saying they should live in a permanent state of Ecksian rage, but there’s no sense of purpose to most of them. IDS and Gove seem to have something about them, but the rest of them are just ambling along. The most significant reform to government in that era was forced on them.

  39. “Not saying groping doesn’t happen, but the complete lack of any video of it over 4 hours suggests this journalist is a lying cunt.”
    So here I am in the middle then. Some people think there was no great amount of lewd behaviour and it’s all fake news. And others think that there was loads of lewd behaviour, everyone should have expected it and adjusted their expectations and attendance accordingly.
    I don’t think there’s likely to be agreement…

  40. Who gives a shit either way.

    “Now some of those who attended do indeed have enough money that societal norms do not, in fact, apply to them any more,”

    What like the massive preponderance of heterosexuals in society? Like that you mean Fatfool? Sounds like it still applies. They even have the balls to touch women without begging for written permission.

    ” but unfortunately for some of them they crave acceptance and respectability, or operate in, or around the fringes of politics. If that’s the case, then societal norms very much DO apply to you, and now you know.”

    If societal norms means being a ball less soy boy you are right Fatfuck. However the rich dudes don’t give a shit. Its those who sanctimoniously posture as helpers of the helpless but then stand exposed in fact as caring more about virtue-signalling to CM scum than they do about sick kids. They are the scum in the harsh spotlight.

  41. NDReader,

    Journalist claims groping happened. Two journalists film for 4 hours. No footage emerges of groping.

    If there was significant levels of it, witnessed by this journalist, why is there no footage?

  42. Actually the rich dudes very much give a shit. Caring wanted his name in lights on a hospital ward and another fool (big Tory donor, forget his name) thought he was on for a knighthood, but not any more.

    So Caring doesn’t get his name in lights (which he cared about to the tune of half a million quid) but instead generally looks like a sleazy cunt, and the same for the other bloke.

    And your heroes’ little club is now shut. Don’t cry baby

  43. “If there was significant levels of it, witnessed by this journalist, why is there no footage?”
    Because putting such footage online, with identifiable victims, would be abusive and voyeuristic?
    I don’t know how much continuous footage there is available online. I don’t know whether the FT has finished with this story.

  44. @ NDReader
    All such pictures are pixellated to protect the victims.
    I am convinced by *none* of the journalists – however Nadim Zahawi saying that he went home because he felt uncomfortable does suggest that, even if 90+% of the “hostesses” were willing to go along with the guests’ conduct, it was the sort of dinner that I do not want to attend.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.