For those not familiar with UK media, The Guardian (better known as The Grauniad due to the frequency of spelling mistakes in its pages) is a very left-leaning paper.
Therefore topics such as private members' clubs are to be considered fair game for The Guardian as its the sort of place their readership would not be seen dead.
I would suggest that the truth is somewhere half-way between two sides of the proverbial coin.
There are some clubs that do indeed have a bit of a reputation. The Carlton Club mentioned in the first paragraph for example. As one Londoner put it to me in relation to the alleged Pincher incident, "if it was bad enough to raise eyebrows at the Carlton Club, it must have been bad".
Moving more to the other side of the coin, the Reform Club also mentioned in the article is not particularly controversial. Sure some of its ways may be old-fashioned my modern standards (e.g. wearing of ties by gentlemen is NOT optional). However for the non-Londoner for example, membership does have its benefits in that they have a small number of accommodation rooms available at a nightly rate that you would be hard pushed to find in such a central location, especially during peak season.
Finally, firmly on the other side of the coin are those clubs that try to scrape by a living by catering for pursuits that are rather more rarified in the modern age. For example, anyone who's anyone in the Bridge world will know of the Portland Club, the main parameter for membership there being a (very!) decent Bridge player (a fact that will need to be vouched for by your proposer and seconder). You won't find any debauchery at the Portland Club, its a serious club for serious people !
Other examples exist, but point being to take The Guardian's opinion on such matters with a pinch of salt.
Did you read the article? It's just a review of a book - the article itself doesn't have much to say either way about modern clubs, besides acknowledging the recent Pincher news.
|> For those not familiar with UK media, The Guardian (better known as The Grauniad due to the frequency of spelling mistakes in its pages) is a very left-leaning paper.
It’s left of centre, but not ‘very left’.
And ‘The Grauniad’ is a very niche term - I’ve never heard it used in conversation, and have only ever seen it used in Private Eye.
The Guardian has some absurdly left-leaning articles. Like, I’m fairly far left, but I eventually unsubscribed from the Guardian because it was just comical.
I mean, lawyers and creative folk aren't mutually exclusive. Most of the time when lawyers are criticised in the media it's for their "creativity".
Surely one of the benefits of being in a club like this is that you get to meet people outside your circle, people who aren't exactly like you. If you want a programmer-only social club, could you not just hang out at the office?
The whole point of Soho house was to be a place for people working in creative industries. Now that everyone can get in, they’re just boring restaurants with mediocre-at-best food.
“Left-leaning” and “right-leaning” are somewhat objective. Add the word very to either, and suddenly we are much more in subjective eye-of-the-beholder territory. What’s “centrism” or “moderation” or “milquetoast” to one person will be seen as “radicalism”, even “extremism”, by another.
Will dang appear out of nowhere to condemn this post like he did when Bari Weiss was criticized for her "common sense" BS website or "ad hominem" (per him) is fair game against left wing media?
Therefore topics such as private members' clubs are to be considered fair game for The Guardian as its the sort of place their readership would not be seen dead.
I would suggest that the truth is somewhere half-way between two sides of the proverbial coin.
There are some clubs that do indeed have a bit of a reputation. The Carlton Club mentioned in the first paragraph for example. As one Londoner put it to me in relation to the alleged Pincher incident, "if it was bad enough to raise eyebrows at the Carlton Club, it must have been bad".
Moving more to the other side of the coin, the Reform Club also mentioned in the article is not particularly controversial. Sure some of its ways may be old-fashioned my modern standards (e.g. wearing of ties by gentlemen is NOT optional). However for the non-Londoner for example, membership does have its benefits in that they have a small number of accommodation rooms available at a nightly rate that you would be hard pushed to find in such a central location, especially during peak season.
Finally, firmly on the other side of the coin are those clubs that try to scrape by a living by catering for pursuits that are rather more rarified in the modern age. For example, anyone who's anyone in the Bridge world will know of the Portland Club, the main parameter for membership there being a (very!) decent Bridge player (a fact that will need to be vouched for by your proposer and seconder). You won't find any debauchery at the Portland Club, its a serious club for serious people !
Other examples exist, but point being to take The Guardian's opinion on such matters with a pinch of salt.