Sexual Abuse and Prominent People

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm struggling with why charities are now rushing to return the money. I mean I get that they don't want to be associated with, or seem to be condoning the behaviour - but given that charities get money from all sorts of unknown sources, some of which could be equally morally suspect, why not take the money and at least make some good out of the vile behaviour that has been reported.

Perhaps the Soroptimists will pick up the tab.

[Harrowby Hall]

I'm struggling with why charities are now rushing to return the money. I mean I get that they don't want to be associated with, or seem to be condoning the behaviour - but given that charities get money from all sorts of unknown sources, some of which could be equally morally suspect, why not take the money and at least make some good out of the vile behaviour that has been reported.

Indeed.

And I am sure that there will have been many people at the Presidents Club event who took no part in the abusive practices but who gave generously to the charitable causes. Are their donations tainted by association?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

I'm struggling with why charities are now rushing to return the money. I mean I get that they don't want to be associated with, or seem to be condoning the behaviour - but given that charities get money from all sorts of unknown sources, some of which could be equally morally suspect, why not take the money and at least make some good out of the vile behaviour that has been reported.

TBH I would not want to go to such an event even if invited, since "sleaze" is not my cup of tea.

What concerns me more is the thought that a sick child has an operation postponed because of a returned donation.

[floo]

TBH I would not want to go to such an event even if invited, since "sleaze" is not my cup of tea.

What concerns me more is the thought that a sick child has an operation postponed because of a returned donation.

That is of great concern.

[Rhiannon]

TBH I would not want to go to such an event even if invited, since "sleaze" is not my cup of tea.

What concerns me more is the thought that a sick child has an operation postponed because of a returned donation.

I have no idea how healthy the finances are at GOSH but I doubt this scenario will happen. That said, I think returning the donations is unnecessary. It’s become clear that the event won’t happen again.

It shouldn’t be of *more* concern to you though. Right now my main thoughts are with the mental health of the young women who experienced unwanted touching and harassment. And I wonder what else these men have done to other women. This won’t be a one off for many of them.

The worst thing was the non disclosure agreement that the agency owner made the women sign. She knew she was throwing them to the wolves.

[Rhiannon]

I'm struggling with why charities are now rushing to return the money. I mean I get that they don't want to be associated with, or seem to be condoning the behaviour - but given that charities get money from all sorts of unknown sources, some of which could be equally morally suspect, why not take the money and at least make some good out of the vile behaviour that has been reported.

No amount of donated money can ‘make some good’ of what happened. But I’m not sure what purpose is served by returning it. Who to?

[Aruntraveller]

No amount of donated money can ‘make some good’ of what happened. But I’m not sure what purpose is served by returning it. Who to?

I think you are being a tad pedantic here. Of course good can come of the money donated, which was my meaning.

[Nearly Sane]

Indeed.

And I am sure that there will have been many people at the Presidents Club event who took no part in the abusive practices but who gave generously to the charitable causes. Are their donations tainted by association?

I would think going to all male event with hired hostesses was in itself abusive. And the whole 'we didn't see anything bad happen' schtick that various parties have trotted out seems monumental self justification.

[Rhiannon]

I think you are being a tad pedantic here. Of course good can come of the money donated, which was my meaning.

I think the issue is that ‘but it raised so much money for charity!’ will be used to both wave away the abuse and be used to justify similar behaviour in the future - this headlined because it’s the City and big names are involved, but we are kidding ourselves if we think this doesn’t happen at rugby clubs, working mans clubs etc etc, and slapping ‘it’s for sick kiddies’ on it is using the misfortune and suffering of others to attempt to legitimise abuse.

This is why the money has been returned. But I don’t know who else will take it and I can see it just sitting in an account somewhere.

[Nearly Sane]

I think you are being a tad pedantic here. Of course good can come of the money donated, which was my meaning.

I suspect the charities returning the money feel they have little choice.  Arguably some of what happened was illegal so keeping the money would be problematic. That they may well receive money from other dubious people isn't going to protect their reputation in taking this money.

[Aruntraveller]

I suspect the charities returning the money feel they have little choice.  Arguably some of what happened was illegal so keeping the money would be problematic. That they may well receive money from other dubious people isn't going to protect their reputation in taking this money.

Maybe. I wonder which is the greater evil? Ensuring their reputation (one that is largely tarnished for many charities with the huge sums they pay their top brass) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11435754/32-charity-bosses-paid-over-200000-last-year.html

or ensuring the money gets used for good?

I'm so glad they are all so principled.

[Rhiannon]

Maybe. I wonder which is the greater evil? Ensuring their reputation (one that is largely tarnished for many charities with the huge sums they pay their top brass) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11435754/32-charity-bosses-paid-over-200000-last-year.html

or ensuring the money gets used for good?

I'm so glad they are all so principled.

‘Come and put your hand down an nineteen year old’s  knickers for charity! She might not want you to but it’s ok because the money’s gone to help sick kids.’

Now do you get why they are principled?

[Aruntraveller]

‘Come and put your hand down an nineteen year old’s  knickers for charity! She might not want you to but it’s ok because the money’s gone to help sick kids.’

Now do you get why they are principled?

Stop it Rhi. You know damned well I get it. Stop attacking people who are on your side. I think the money can be put to good use don't you?

Or do you want it to go back to the rich sleaze bags that donated it?

[Nearly Sane]

My ex went to a mixed event rugby/business event that similarly had a charity auction which had the prizes given out by schoolgirls from Edinburgh Academy referred to as the Academicelles and dressed in school uniform. I got a phone call at one point requesting me to drive in and pick her up because it was all getting very sleazy. My ex was a strong woman but she felt threatened in the environment. And that would be just one of many such events held by 'respectable' society. You would have to have the intelligence of a piece of lint not to pick up on the issues about such events so maybe this will force people to realise the fact that they are complicit in sexual assault.

[Nearly Sane]

Maybe. I wonder which is the greater evil? Ensuring their reputation (one that is largely tarnished for many charities with the huge sums they pay their top brass) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11435754/32-charity-bosses-paid-over-200000-last-year.html

or ensuring the money gets used for good?

I'm so glad they are all so principled.

That underlines the problem. That charities have an issue with reputation is well known, accepting money from such a source isn't going to help.

[Nearly Sane]

Stop it Rhi. You know damned well I get it. Stop attacking people who are on your side. I think the money can be put to good use don't you?

Or do you want it to go back to the rich sleaze bags that donated it?

I think the problem is that there isn't a way of accepting the money that doesn't in some way validate what happened, and continues to happen. I'm sure the charities that received money will continue to get money from similar events but in refusing it here they can at least be seen to be saying that they want/need for this approach to be stopped.

[Rhiannon]

Stop it Rhi. You know damned well I get it. Stop attacking people who are on your side. I think the money can be put to good use don't you?

Or do you want it to go back to the rich sleaze bags that donated it?

I don’t have a ‘side’.

Money made from abuse... the more I think about it the more I think returning the money is right. Even if it ends back with the donors. My bet is there’s some kind of City trust that will take it.

[Aruntraveller]

I don’t have a ‘side’.

Money made from abuse... the more I think about it the more I think returning the money is right. Even if it ends back with the donors. My bet is there’s some kind of City trust that will take it.

I'm afraid in this instance I think your posting style belies that claim. However, I do get the point about returning the money - but I still think it's money that could be put to good use, and that is surely better than letting those involved get it back. You obviously disagree, so maybe leave it at that.

[floo]

I suspect some men thought they were doing women a favour by sexually harassing them, as they were attractive enough to come to the guy's attention!

[Nearly Sane]

I wonder if there could be a sort of charity of last resort that gets donations that other charities return, a sin eater  charity.

[floo]

I wonder if there could be a sort of charity of last resort that gets donations that other charities return, a sin eater  charity.

https://sineatersguild.co.uk/

[Nearly Sane]

https://sineatersguild.co.uk/

Not sure an 'I was groped by a drunk business man and all I got was this lousy T-shirt' would quite live up to the bill.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

I'm afraid in this instance I think your posting style belies that claim. However, I do get the point about returning the money - but I still think it's money that could be put to good use, and that is surely better than letting those involved get it back. You obviously disagree, so maybe leave it at that.

+1.

I do remember some years ago the English Womens FA refused a donation from porn baron David Sullivan. The irony is that his second in command, one Karren Brady, is now being touted as some kind of feminist role model, having made her money & reputation in the porn industry.

[Rhiannon]

I'm afraid in this instance I think your posting style belies that claim. However, I do get the point about returning the money - but I still think it's money that could be put to good use, and that is surely better than letting those involved get it back. You obviously disagree, so maybe leave it at that.

Yeah, my posting style is angry right now. Not because I’m on any ‘side’. This isn’t a fucking game. It’s not a contest. I’m not seeing much on this thread that gives me a great deal of assurance that my daughters will be maturing into a different world, NS’s posts aside.

[floo]

+1.

I do remember some years ago the English Womens FA refused a donation from porn baron David Sullivan. The irony is that his second in command, one Karren Brady, is now being touted as some kind of feminist role model, having made her money & reputation in the porn industry.

YUCK!