Our thanks to Jim for this piece on the BBC. So far as I know, nobody has yet corroborated the FT journalist’s story. The piece contains part of her interview by Evan Davis on Newsnight last night. When asked to describe the event she starts, “It’s impossible to describe. Incredibly loud, a huge amount of testosterone in the room…”. 350 men, and testosterone in the room? Shouldn’t be allowed. They should have been required to deposit their testicles in the cloakroom, before entering the event. Extracts from the BBC piece, emphases ours:

Event compere David Walliams said he was “appalled” by the claims but had not witnessed anything…

Madison Marriage, the Financial Times reporter who worked at the event, said she and “numerous other hostesses” were groped at the event.

She said the 130 hostesses were told to wear skimpy black outfits with matching underwear and high heels and also that they could drink alcohol while working. [J4MB: Those evil patriarchs! I’ll  bet they abused the women financially, by covering the cost of their alcoholic drinks.]

They were asked to sign a five-page non-disclosure agreement about the event upon arrival at the hotel, Ms Marriage said, [J4MB: In which case she’s presumably in breach of contract, and hopefully the Presidents Club will bring a legal action against her] and were not warned they might be sexually harassed…

A Downing Street spokesman said Mr Zahawi [J4MB: Nadhim Zahawi, Minister for Children and Families] had “attended briefly and felt uncomfortable at what had begun to happen.”

Mr Zahawi told Newsnight: “I didn’t stay long enough to really comment on the occasion.”

Mr Zahawi later tweeted: “I do unequivocally condemn this behaviour. The report is truly shocking. I will never attend a men only function ever.”

WPP, the world’s biggest advertising agency, which had sponsored a table at the dinner, said it was withdrawing its future support.

Boss Sir Martin Sorrell, who did not attend, told BBC Radio 4’s Today his guests did not see such behaviour and said: “We won’t support the charity in future, which is regrettable because it is a charity that supports numerous children’s charities and has done a lot of good work.”

Real estate investment business Frogmore said the guests at its table were “unaware of any of the described events but in no way condone this behaviour” [J4MB: they don’t condone alleged behaviour which may be the figment of feminists’ fertile imaginations] and it will now end its association with the event.

We’ve emailed the female boss at the Arista agency to enquire about hiring a couple of hostesses to work at the July conference. They could inject the glamour which has perhaps been lacking at previous conferences. We need to challenge feminists who seek to deny employment to women who are “tall, slim, and pretty”, the alleged requirements for hostesses at the Presidents Club dinner. Those women need our support. In the interests of diversity, feminists will surely be keen to employ short, fat, ugly bearded lesbians for their own conferences.

Enjoy. An extract, emphases ours:

One of the staff, who the FT said were only selected for the job if they matched the criteria of being “tall, thin and pretty”, [J4MB: Disgraceful. No short, fat, ugly, one-legged lesbians with beards?] reported [J4MB translation: … invented a story about…] an attendee exposing his penis to her. The women were allegedly told to wear black underwear to match short, black, skirts they had been given for the evening.

It was claimed that they were paid £150 for a six-hour shift, plus £25 for a taxi home, not including any time they spent at an after-party at which one woman was [J4MB: ALLEGEDLY] told to “down that glass, rip off your knickers and dance on that table”. [J4MB: Hmm, that’s puzzling. Why would any of these sexually harassed women have later attended a party with lots of celebrities and rich men? It’s a mystery, all right.]

A piece in today’s Times by Charlie Parker, the emphases are ours:

Hostesses working at a men-only charity event in London last week suffered an evening of groping, sexual harassment and propositioning, it has been claimed. [J4MB: CLAIMED – by Madison Marriage, an FT ‘journalist’ who appeared on last night’s Newsnight. Evan Davis, a gay man, interviewed her, and pretended to be shocked, whilst clearly bemused by the silly woman’s claims.]

More than 100 women were employed to entertain figures from business, politics and finance at the annual Presidents Club Charity Dinner. They were ordered [J4MB: by the Chief Patriarch himself?] to wear skimpy black outfits with underwear to match and high heels, according to the Financial Times. [J4MB: Given the dress code, and (presumably) good remuneration – tellingly, we’re not told what it was – for tottering about on heels for a few hours, the women naturally concluded they were being employed to express their views on the progress of the Brexit negotiations, HS2, and the North Korean nuclear weapon crisis. The FT has become a joke, for its pandering to feminist narratives. You’ll look in the paper in vain for criticism of the government’s bullying of FTSE350 companies into increasing the proportion of women on their boards.]

The secretive black-tie event was attended by 360 men [J4MB: Oh no – men! Most of them probably white and heterosexual, too!!!] and featured a charity auction offering items including lunch with Boris Johnson and afternoon tea with Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England. [J4MB: Afternoon tea with Mark Carney, the worst Canadian mangina after Justin Trudeau? We’d pay money NOT to have tea with him.]

The gathering, at the Dorchester Hotel, raises money for good causes such as Great Ormond Street Hospital.

However, two undercover reporters who gained access to the event claimed [J4MB: CLAIMED] to have witnessed an evening of sexual objectification and harassment. [Oh no! Did the gazes of the straight white men fall upon the Special Snowflakes wearing “skimpy black outfits with underwear to match and high heels”? The ANIMALS!!!] 

They alleged [J4MB: ALLEGED] that over six hours many of the hostesses, some of them students earning extra cash, were subjected to lewd comments, repeated requests to join diners in bedrooms and were even groped.

Some claimed [J4MB: CLAIMED] that guests repeatedly put hands up their skirts and one said a man exposed himself to her [J4MB: A totally uncorroborated claim, needless to say]. The newspaper reported that one unnamed guest [ALLEGEDLY] grabbed a hostess and said: “I want you to down that glass, rip off your knickers and dance on that table.”

Madison Marriage, one of the undercover reporters, said the hostesses were mostly young, ambitious women including aspiring lawyers, film producers and actresses. “There were a lot of women in there who had no idea what they were letting themselves in for,” she told BBC Newsnight. [J4MB: Which all goes to show how naive “young, ambitious women including aspiring lawyers, film producers and actresses” can be. They clearly shouldn’t be allowed out of their houses without chaperones.]

Tables at the event were sponsored by big businesses including WPP, the FTSE 100 advertising conglomerate, CMC Markets, the UK-listed spread betting company, and Frogmore, the land investment business.

A seating plan obtained by the Financial Times listed names such as the Dragons’ Den star Peter Jones, Sir Philip Green, the owner of Topshop, and the Ocado boss Tim Steiner. Political figures were also believed to be invited, including Nadhim Zahawi, the new under-secretary of state for children and families, and the Labour peer and fundraiser Lord Mendelsohn. It is not clear whether all those on the list turned up on the night.

Celebrities were also present, including David Walliams, the comedian, who hosted the evening.

The fundraiser has been running in the capital for 33 years during which time it has raised more than £20 million for charity. Thursday’s event raised more than £2 million. 

Written in the event’s glossy brochure was an unusual waiver stating: “The club shall accept no responsibility and shall not be held liable for any actions of its members, staff or event attendees that amount to harassment.”

Caroline Dandridge from Artista, the events company that provided the hostesses, said: “This is a really important charity fundraising event that has been running for 33 years and raises huge amounts of money for disadvantaged and underprivileged children’s charities.

“There is a code of conduct that we follow, I am not aware of any reports of sexual harassment and with the calibre of guest, I would be astonished.”

The Dorchester said that it had a zero-tolerance policy regarding harassment of guests or employees: “We are unaware of any allegations and should we be contacted we will work with the relevant authorities as necessary.”

You can subscribe to The Times here.

A piece by Jordan Holbrook.

Kate. Bevan. Nailed.

I have a Netflix subscription in part because of the excellent comedy specials it makes. After all, the funniest programmes on the BBC these days are repeats of Dad’s Army recorded more than 50 years ago. Only this week Netflix recorded a Jim Jefferies comedy special in London, I look forward to that. From time to time I’ve watched comedy specials of female ‘comedians’ on Netflix, and they’re generally poor compared with those of male comedians – Katherine Ryan being an exception – generally reflecting the narcissism and obsession with “women’s issues” that is the trademark of these women. You have to assume that the raucous laughter of men in their audiences is the price they pay to improve their prospects of having sex later in the evening.

My thanks to Sean for pointing me to a piece about Mo’Nique, a ‘comedian’ – no, I haven’t heard of her, either – whining that she was making less money for her comedy special than Amy Schumer, another ‘comedian’. Netflix should respond by stop recording comedy specials for female ‘comedians’. And women should fund their own comedy channel, paying the comedians as they see fit. But of course they’ll never do that, while they can be whiny parasites on extraordinary businesses launched and still largely run by men.

Our thanks to Sean for this. The start of the piece:

More than 900 criminal cases were dropped last year due to a failure by police or prosecutors to disclose evidence, it has been reported.

This marks a 70 per cent increase in the number of collapsed cases over the course of two years.

Figures reveal that 916 people had charges dropped last year due to a failure to disclose evidence – up from 537 in 2014-15 and 732 the following year.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said the number of dropped cases represented just 0.15 per cent of the total number of prosecutions, but said there were still “systemic disclosure issues”.

The investigation comes after the high-profile collapse of several rape trials, with Scotland Yard announcing a review of its sex crime investigations after two rape cases were dropped in the space of a week in December.

The trial of Liam Allan, 22, was halted at Croydon Crown Court, while days later another prosecution collapsed against Isaac Itiary at Inner London Crown Court.

The figures were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the BBC. [Our emphasis]

You must check out the diagram in the article, comparing reported rapes and rape convictions since 2010. It’s a testament to Alison Saunders, and explains why she must be fired.

Our thanks to Martin for this. The start of the piece:

Phil Neville deleted his Twitter account within hours of being named the new head coach of the England women’s team after controversial comments he posted in 2012 emerged.

The former Manchester United and Everton player was officially appointed as the successor to Mark Sampson by the Football Association. But the 41-year-old attracted criticism on social media for his tweets from six years ago.

“Morning men couple of hours cricket be4 work sets me up nicely for the day,” Neville wrote at the time.

When asked why he referred only to men in his post, [J4MB: By which particular feminist hatchet-faced trout?] Neville replied: “When I said morning men I thought the women would of been busy preparing breakfast/getting kids ready/making the beds-sorry morning women!” [J4MB: Phil, rule #1. Never explain, never apologise.]

The former England international last night deleted the post and then appeared to remove his Twitter account, @fizzer18, which was unavailable to users.

If I were Phil Neville I’d prefer to coach a better team than the England women’s team, and thereby avoid feminist carping. Any boys’ under-16 team would fit the bill. We turn to a piece from 2016, Don’t believe the movies, girls. It covers the reality of inter-sex competition where merit can be objectively measured – compared with inter-sex competitions where merit is subjectively measured, which can be (and reliably will be) manipulated by women in their favour. An extract:

The Matildas are the Australian women’s soccer team. They represent our countries best chance of an Olympic medal in soccer and are currently ranked 5th in the world by FIFA. These women are supreme athletes. They have played and competed their entire lives to work their way to the elite level they are currently on. They are paid well for what they do, and can literally eat, sleep, and breath soccer. They benefit from some of the best coaches, trainers, sports physicians, sports psychologists and physiotherapist in the world.

In May, in preparation for an upcoming international friendly against Greece, they were pitched against a team of 15 and 14-year-old boys. This wasn’t a 15 and below national side, nor was it a stateside. This was a small local team from Newcastle, of kids barely old enough to have hairs on their balls. Pardon, the pun.

The result: A resounding 7-0 defeat of the Matildas.

This isn’t isolated. It’s the second time in a row that this highly ranked international team of female athletes have failed to beat a bunch of school boys looking to waste some time on a day away from preparing for year nine modern history assignments.

Our thanks to James for this.

In today’s Times:

If you want to know what the culture war is about, look no farther than the spectacular eruption in Britain during the past few days over Jordan Peterson, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto.

Peterson came to prominence in 2016 when he refused to adhere to a proposed new Canadian anti-discrimination law, under which it was claimed that personal pronouns would have to be replaced by preferred transgender activist terms such as ze or zir.

The issue for him was liberty. No one, he declared, had the right to dictate what language people should use.

For this stand, he was compared to Hitler, had his lectures drowned out by white noise and was forced to rely on crowdfunding after his grant application to continue his academic research was rejected. He said he feared for his life.

You can subscribe to The Times here.