Boys night out

In its report, the commission said trustees failed in their legal duties to manage the charity’s resources responsibly and protect it from reputational damage. The regulator highlighted the “purchase of clothing for female staff to wear and instructions on how female staff should appear, neither of which we consider acceptable in a charitable environment”.

Trustees were aware before the dinner of the risk of “inappropriate behaviour” and members were reminded at the beginning of the evening of a new code of conduct, the report said.

Despite that, trustees did too little to prevent harassment or ensure that the agency who employed the women put in place procedures to allow them to voice any concerns.

So, boys night out. Blokes get lewd. And nowt else happens except lots of money raised for charity.

The Charity Commission says this must all stop.

The commission said nobody who worked at the gala dinner had come forward to complain in answer to a call for evidence, which was published on a government website. It did not issue any sanctions against the trustees, instead offering them “formal regulatory advice”.

Liberal Democrat MP Jo Swinson, who headed the group of MPs that called on the regulator to investigate, said this did not go far enough. “The report is scathing about the trustees, yet disgracefully they are getting away with no more than a slap on the wrist,” she said. “The Charity Commission should not be afraid to use its full powers and should disqualify these individuals from holding trusteeships until they can prove they are fit for the role.”

Yep, boys night out.

Where the lads got a bit lewd.

17 comments on “Boys night out

  1. So we are back to the death of the gentleman. They do not seem to have done anything wrong – much less illegal, and I notice that not a single waitress has come forward to complain despite wads of cash being waved at them. It is just that they were not gentlemen.

    Who. Gives. A. F**k.

    This is the world the Left wanted. If they don’t like it, it is up to them to make a case for some alternative. They cannot explain what went wrong here because it would expose the idiocy of their assumptions.

    The regulator highlighted the “purchase of clothing for female staff to wear and instructions on how female staff should appear, neither of which we consider acceptable in a charitable environment”.

    I find it hard to believe there is any professional environment where people are not concerned with what people wear. Certainly my last workplace had to remind people from time to time. Still, it is a good thing that these people haven’t looked to see what the rules on Airline hostesses are, or at least used to be. Or the girls who work in Starbucks.

  2. SMFS, I can’t tell you how sad it makes me feel to think of you in a workplace.

    I prefer to think of you in the study of your tumbledown farmhouse in a remote part of Norfolk, wearing a smoking jacket as you duckduckgo your way through the latest interesting trends in rap.

  3. At least the girls at the President’s Club dinner got to wear pants, which is more than some female employees “in a charitable environment” got.

    And they didn’t have to suck off elderly Belgians…

  4. “The organisation has since announced that it would close down after disbursing its remaining funds to recipients such as the Great Ormond Street hospital. The children’s hospital initially vowed to hand back a £530,000 donation in light of the allegations but has since reversed the decision.”

    Will Jo Swinson be pressuring them to hold fast to their ‘principles’, I wonder?

  5. Edward Lud – “I prefer to think of you in the study of your tumbledown farmhouse in a remote part of Norfolk, wearing a smoking jacket as you duckduckgo your way through the latest interesting trends in rap.”

    Actually you are not far off. Although I think “farmhouse” is a little bit of an exaggeration. I mean it may have been. Back in the early 1800s. I really should do more upkeep around the place. Not a smoking jacket either. Unless people smoke in their Army-surplus anorak. Besides, ANFO and smoking don’t really mix well.

    You are 100% right about duckduckgo. As it turns out they really are spying on us. And the Court said I was paranoid!

  6. SMFS

    Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t watching you. ;-P

  7. The one possibly useful function of a Charities Commission should be to see charidees aren’t spending the money collected on purposes other than they collected it for.

    Well —as Oxfamine proves— the CC* aren’t doing that anyway.

    It is worse than that since I am fairly sure kissing the arse of cultural marxism is not a legitimate reason to use charitable funds unless your charidee is the ZaNu Home for Mental Cases.

    * When I say CC I get a mental image of Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes examining a left-behind , initialed walking stick and saying to Nigel Bruce ” Isn’t it more likely Old Fellow that the letters CC on a walking stick owned by a womiccumalobus parasite would stand for Charity Commission rather than Charing Cross Hospital?”

    “If you say so Old Boy” replies Dr Watson dubiously muttering “NHS” under his breath.

  8. At it appears that the major crime here was that rich white men were spending their own money, when it should have been given to MPs to spend on their pet causes aka votes.

  9. If this is how the Guardian and the Charity Commission react to this charity, just wait until they look at the far more serious acts at Oxfam.

    So, wait. Still waiting? Hmm.

  10. The organizers asked people to behave. Most did. A small number didn’t.

    The FA already holds football clubs responsible for their fans misbehaviour but surely they do not expect the clubs to stop whistling at some girls on the way to the game?

  11. Since the charities don’t want the money, could the event be resurrected as a UKIP fundraiser?

  12. “Where the lads got a bit lewd.”

    The CC report doesn’t even say that.

    Apparently none of the charities that were considering returning their money did so!

    And none of the newspaper articles covering this story actually links to the CC report.

    The Independent’s headline contains a quote that isn’t in the report, and the Guardians headline doesn’t appear to reflect reality either.

    Neither Guardian nor FT allowing comments on this story?

  13. Jo “too weak to lead” Swinson and CC spouting CM PC garbage – get lost.

    The girls were hired on condition of wearing supplied uniform and other dress codes. Possible behaviour of attendees and dress code explained before hiring.

    The girls made an informed free choice to work at event. Case dismissed.

    What next? Local theatres admonished for buying skimpy clothing for Peter Pan, Cats etc?

  14. Perhaps the girls knew it was for charity and did it knowing they are helping to drive up the funds raised?

    Or maybe, as this is an older woman complaining, it’s the old green eyed monster raising its head as they remember that men no longer make lewd remarks at them, if they ever did?

Leave a Reply

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