Why do people go to events like the Presidents Club?

The salacious events at the Presidents Club gala dinner have naturally drawn much media attention, with allegations of sexual harassment rightly hitting the headlines. What struck me and what has been rather lost is the irony of a group of affluent businessmen and others attending a fundraising event, many of whom will be using highly-paid accountants to ensure that they limit their tax liabilities.

Vital tax income will go towards education and health and the avoidance of which is estimated to cost the UK economy £70bn a year. As Clement Attlee famously said, “Charity is a cold, grey, loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes.”

Alex Orr
Edinburgh

I do wonder how many businessmen and politicians were actually at the party, since everyone who has been found to have attended [the Presidents Club charity dinner] saw nothing and apparently “left early”. It seems this “party” was a repeat of last year’s event in terms of hostesses. It is surprising that the Financial Times was so sufficiently aware of what was going on that they placed a reporter undercover – and still the politicians and captains of industry were unaware.

Arthur Streatfield
Bath

Is the Theresa May who says she’s “appalled” at the sexual harassment that allegedly took place at the men-only Presidents Club charity dinner the same Theresa May who said she stood “shoulder-to-shoulder” in solidarity with the self-styled “pussy grabber,” Donald Trump at Davos 2018?

Sasha Simic
London

The eye-watering prices asked for rooms – or even tents – for the World Cup made me think of the equally ridiculous prices charged for event tickets here by touts and agencies who hoover them up in bulk and then resell them. The best way to stop this greedy and immoral behaviour is a boycott. If everyone holds their nerve and refuses to pay over the odds, the parasites would be left out of pocket and hopefully out of business.

Mike Margetts
Kilsby

Someone must take responsibility for the pro-Brexit lies. [Ukip founder] Alan Sked may be proud and valedictory in self-praise for his part in bringing about Brexit, but he also shows no remorse for the hurt and deep anxiety felt by those millions who voted to remain. Will no one take responsibility for the pro-Brexit lies? In particular, the racist undertones which have seen a spike in hate crime. Are there any kind Brexiteers, or is that a contradiction of terms?

Simon Watson
Worcester

Those poor, poor, little cloned monkeys. They have been created specifically to be experimented on – and in China, a country not exactly famous for its animal welfare standards. It amazes me that the controversy surrounding this development focuses not on the utter, cold-blooded cruelty of vivisection, and the fiendishness of creating animals to be specifically modelled to suit experimentation, but on the perceived immorality of possibly cloning humans. What a selfish and heartless species we are.

Penny Little
Great Haseley

In addition to justly being seen as a feminist icon for her intellectual and artistic contributions, Virginia Woolf also has relevance in the light of today’s #MeToo movement. As documented in Quentin Bell’s biography of his famous aunt, Woolf suffered repeated sexual abuse as a child at the hands of a much older half-brother. The trauma of these years undoubtedly influenced Woolf’s life, work, and eventual death by suicide. The horror of what Woolf faced in a time when women and girls had virtually no recourse against such abuse should inspire sadness and respect in all those who admire Woolf and her achievements.

Daniel Fuller
Portland, Oregon

For my younger daughter’s hen party she arranged for the drinks to be served by a couple of bare-bummed waiters. It was such an enjoyable event that when, a few months ago, my wife wished to have a garden party for a group of her female friends, she booked two waiters from the same agency to serve the fizz. Once again, they were a great hit, and their presence and wit entertained the party. It was a great deal of fun and everyone enjoyed themselves, including the two waiters.

Counter this to the dust storm created by the events at a Presidents Club charity event. Of course, the hostesses were not required to have bare bottoms but the sisterhood decided to rant at any event where men may find mild titillation entertaining.

To believe, as your correspondent Robert Boston apparently does, that the hostesses were unaware of what their job entailed, is naive. This is as unlikely as the two waiters being given their skimpy aprons and told they were going to a female-only gathering were not likely to be unaware that they may be “ogled” at.

The vast amount of money raised for good causes was raised by the hard work of the organisers and the assistance of these young ladies, who encouraged the guests to part with their money. To assume that they thought they were going along to a tombola evening at the local church hall is ludicrous. Like the two waiters who entertained the female members of my family, these ladies accepted their role and their salary.

The choice is theirs, not that of some matronly government prude.

Ms Milton, an education minister, wishes to make sure “this behaviour isn’t going on anywhere” – does that include my daughter’s and wife’s parties then? Is she at least consistent in wishing to drain every bit of joy out of life?

On another note, I read over the course of this week that thousands of Rohingya women have been raped and murdered in front of their children; that a woman in Syria watched her one-month-old baby starve to death; and that thousands of girls are suffering FGM in Britain every year. Yet our female MPs overlooked all these trivialities to get up on their feet and rant about a successful fundraising function where hostesses were asked to wear short skirts.

The stench of rank, unadulterated hypocrisy hangs over this whole affair, and it nauseates both my wife and I. While the world starves and suffers, the “affronted” can only look away, yet are quick to condemn seduction. It makes one weep.

Ian Poole
Liverpool

Many people, as they get older, just do not like spending their surplus cash. They just want to see it grow and, then, leave it to their children and/or grandchildren.

However, they would like a return on their money by way of interest so that they get some regular income or simply so their money is not wholly wasting away with inflation. The problem is that rates of interest in the market today are very low, often just a small part of 1 per cent. Even where interest rates are higher, they are not very much beyond one per cent or two.

Is there an option which satisfies both desires, namely: managing the cash desire and getting a fair return on it? The Old Nincompoop thinks that there is, but he is not giving advice because he does not know the reader’s situation. Moreover, any idea needs careful thought related to all the circumstances. Nevertheless, if we don’t hear about ideas we cannot give any thought to them. How about the following idea:

The older person has a few thousand pounds, or even many thousands of pounds. The likely beneficiaries of that money will be the children and the grandchildren, but only when the older person passes away. The likely beneficiaries will probably have earned income, but not much capital. So, how can one mutually balance the interests of all of the parties? By way of example only, if the beneficiaries have a mortgage in respect of their home, then, if the older person paid just a few thousand pounds, or more, off the mortgage; and, if the beneficiaries paid the older person a gift, perhaps monthly, which was the equivalent of the interest related to that bit paid off the mortgage, then, one would have a sensible balance for both.

In short, the beneficiaries would not be facing any more expenditure than they face already, but they would have more capital than they had before; whereas, the older person would not be worse off because it was their intention to keep the money safe in order to leave it to the beneficiaries on death, but now they would be getting a helpful repayment of some money until the day they died. Thus, mutual benefit would give both parties the pleasure of doing something useful and kind to each other, but neither would be worse off in terms of regular income and expenditure.

Of course, the old saying of don’t put all your eggs in one basket carries as much wisdom today as it did when first stated. The other angle is potential tax liabilities. At the present time, one can give up to £3,000 a year without worrying about tax; and if the older person’s total estate is not above the threshold it would not matter anyway. However, as always, one needs to be aware of the tax liabilities, but either way the mutual benefit would outweigh the reality of taxation. However, a full description of that in this letter would not be possible. The Old Nincompoop hopes that this letter triggers your thinking and, maybe, you will find your own ideas and perhaps also share them.

Francis Miller
Address supplied