Oooh what a palava! The row is dominating the headlines. Should they? Shouldn't they? Resign! Don't resign! What about the laydeez and the marquesses and duchesses? Will nobody think of them? It's all SO unfair! Who gives a ****? Really. Whatever they do, the chances of you or me ever going in one of those clubs or similar is nil unless in the capacity of serving those plump, pink-faced wastrels and gob*****s with even more luxury food and drink or taking away their rubbish.
Simon Case was going to ‘reform it from within.’ Bollox of the week. While I don’t give a toss about these institutions most days of the week, I’m happy for their little pebble to be turned over and the scurrying creatures to receive a bit of scrutiny. Elitist camaraderie is shameful and undermines democracy, so **** them with a big stick. Let them uncomfortably explain to the UK’s women why they are not allowed and then to us plebs.
Why shouldn't a private club be just for men? Women have plenty of their own exclusionary institutions and environments. Why are men denied the right to share an environment with other men where they don't have to be subjected to the constant harping and misandry that today's nagging fishwives dish out?
Clearly there can be a club just for men. The rest of us are also entitled to take the piss out of it and criticise it. The problem isn’t with men associating, though that used to be clear discrimination when women couldn’t join golf clubs etc. The problem is the networking and access of the rich. It’s not an appropriate club for the Country’s leading Government bureaucrats to be a part of. They should conduct their business in the full beam of scrutiny, not with elite and selected men only. So I repeat, **** them with a big stick.
And now we've been told that women are owed compensation for having to work as long as men. Where will it end?
and as if by magic I've got an invite to my company's Women's History Month Lunch and Learn. When's the one for Men's History Month?
now i understand women tend to **** most things up excluding them seems like a sensible idea how does one join this place
I've been a member of the Royal Overseas League for a very long time. Nice club house with a pleasant garden that opens on to Green Park. I haven't set foot in the place for about 3 years but I pay my annual subs out of habit - a bit like my season ticket!
I was once asked to speak at a lunch held regularly for members of a club that allowed only male members and guests. Women were allowed to be guest speakers, funnily enough, but they wouldn't be allowed to join. I said that I wouldn't speak while the club excluded non-male members and guests. The chap who invited me said that he had joined the club on the basis that he would try to change the culture from within and that he was working on getting the members to vote to admit women. I said when he'd succeeded, I'd reconsider. That was at least four years ago and as far as I know nothing has changed.
I never heard of this club, so I thought I would look into it. Fack me Lloyd compadre, I'm surprised you would confess to being associated with a place like this. Headed by Tory Lord Geidt. Public school and Oxbridge (match) and part of Johnson's government. It was he who mysteriously found his chum entirely innocent over the No.10 stupidly expensive wallpaper whim redecoration. Then later they got fined over it... They said at the time: "Lord Geidt, Johnson's ministerial standards adviser, now cuts a pathetic figure.". They said he was "the ultimate establishment stooge". Also strong suggestions of intelligence services involvement. Described as having "a touch of the spook about him". He sued the hero John Pilger over his documentary on Cambodia, in which Lord Dodgy was linked to the training of the Khmer Rouge in bombing. Suggestions that the state advised Pilger there was no point in resisting the suing because the outcome of the case was already decided...Nice! •Lord Firedamp looking spooky• But perhaps you don't care who the club's leader is. There are "nice gardens" after all. Maybe you can put up with that and you can also comply with the plethora of stupid pettifogging rules. Rules that include strict prohibitions on shirts without collars, shorts, baseball caps and "multi-coloured" shoes and trainers. Thereby ruling out my two-tone, co-respondent wingtips. I had thought richies favourite dress was the tennis shorts, sweater tied round the neck, baseball cap and sunglasses, so it's a bit mysterious. It's good to note though, that in a nod to the club's name and supposed international nature, that "National/ traditional dress equivalents are always welcome.". Obviously there's no requirement for it to be YOUR national/traditional dress, thus opening up the very tempting possibility of wandering up to the bar dressed only in a Papua New Guinea penis gourd. But after ignoring all that, what do you get for your £640 per year? That's 640 pounds sterling. Not pesos. They have a list of their activities on their website. Dinners and music sessions it appears. And that's pretty much it. And not even free dinners either! You have to pay for the grub!! £75 steaks and things like that! And all just plain Richie chow too it seems. The regular steak and chips and prawn cocktail but with posh names and larks tongues in aspic. It'd be alright if they did menus from around the world, you know some naational/traditional dishes. But no, just super expensive posh nosh. Same with the music. Boring old classical scraping violin shyte. "Mrs Pettifog performs on the cello" type nonsense. Nothing international about it, unless you count the fact that I suppose some of the dusty dinosaur old fossil composers from centuries ago came from elsewhere in Europe. About the only relief from the relentless dreary mass violin sawing is the occasional "jazz" session when members can really relax and chill out and gentlemen are permitted to loosen the top button on their frilly dress shirt or penis gourd. I mean each to his own comrade, but what a pile of old shyte.
Thank you for your interest in the ROSL. I have passed your details to the membership team and they will contact you in due course
Literally "dozens" of well to do lady lawyers and madam judges show up in front of the club to deliver a letter of protest and raise their voices in cut glass accented ire. What a crowd. Note the one in the second row sporting a big black twirly moustache, while others are masked or wrapped up like it's the north pole. 50/50 seats for women in parliament! says one sign. So we can have more Maggies, Suellas, Lizs, Prittis and that odd lady who wants to be mayor of London. I wonder if anyone knows any countries that DO have 50/50 seats for women in the parliament. Or 48.9% women at the moment, so very nearly. A country that starts with C ends in A and has UB in the middle? Anyway, after having their photos taken by the newspapers and having a jolly good rah rah rah, the legal ladies decided to deliver their letter but were disgustingly confounded by typical male chauvinistic piggery. "When an organiser called the club asking to be let in to deliver the letter, she said a man at the other end of the line told her “no, thanks” and hung up.". Great work, but I do feel he missed the chance to add "love" on the end of that. The letter said: "For too long, the Garrick Club has stood as a symbol of exclusivity, a bastion of power maintained by the privileged few – predominantly white men who hold sway over the decisions affecting our society, our political system, our justice system, our media, and arts and culture. Women have been systematically excluded from your corridors of influence and power, though, we note, are permitted in their capacities as cleaners, waiters or guests.” Absolutely without irony they wrote that. As though Lady Starvem or Judgess Judy ever did any cleaning or waiting. Really! Replace women with "poor people" in that letter and you would be much nearer the truth.
But not possible to join the Garrick Club, which is what they are arguing for. It’s obviously right that women should be able to join, but it’s also not possible to argue that this would lead to ‘equality.’
Indeed, but I was responding to Clive’s post which suggested that women lawyers were themselves elitist.
