From Claire M

Friday, 19 August 2011

i hate been cornered by these well meaning people! I have no extra money to give, I already give what I can to various charities. Last month I got cornered by a young man when I was with my little girl and he used her to make me feel bad about children in developing countries - for heavens sake! Plus I'm hardly assertive I signed up to a direct debit of £10 month which I can ill afford and now I'm going to have to cancel it. I know why they do what they are doing but folks will give money to charity on their own terms

From Graham Barker

Friday, 19 August 2011

Claire, I'd cancel that direct debit pretty quickly because you'll soon get phone calls persuading you to increase the monthly amount. I got 'done' a few years ago by Friends Of The Earth, whom I was initially happy to support. But their high pressure tactics once I was a member put me right off, and now I won't give them a penny.

From Emma H

Friday, 19 August 2011

I've experienced this on a number of occasions. I already give to charities when I can and I volunteer but am not financially able to sign up to a monthly direct debit as much as I might support the principle of what the charity does. They have quite 'sales' pitch and leave me feeling guilty for the next hour. People will give when they feel it is appropriate and I think these people actually give the charities a bad name.

From Stephen C

Sunday, 21 August 2011

No one should feel guilty about ignoring these "Chuggers" they may seem well meaning and polite people but they are generally assertive and persistent and the language is of course designed to make you take pity on the cause they are working for that particular day. Most of these people work for an agency who get a cut from any donation you sign up for. Often they get their money from the direct debit donation before the charity can begin to get its share. For several years now the Local Authorities in bigger cities have restricted the practice of these agencies to certain days and certain areas. It's more difficult to do in the smaller towns of course.

My own experience of looking after the affairs of an elderly relative who can't cope with paperwork, was to discover that, a well known dog charity used an agent in the entrance of the large supermarket, and that agent persuaded this 80 year old woman to part with her bank card, they took the details and duly signed her up to monthly payments. I wonder how many other were "chugged" like that, who didn't have someone to sort it out for them?

At the end of the day charities will use such agents as it is a lucrative way to raise funds without staff overheads, but in reality when you donate this way it is the most inefficient way to ensure your total donations go to the cause you want it to.

The Local Authority can control this activity and if enough people feel the same as those in this thread seem to and complain, the practice locally can be limited or stopped if desired.

I was interested to see a Google ad for UNICEF pop up next to this thread! Ummm?

From Martin F

Monday, 22 August 2011

Due to the law course that I have just finished at university I have learned how little unwanted contact (e.g. getting hold of the lady mentioned by Jack) counts as assault.

If anyone tries to get hold of you, tell them it is assault and that you will be contacting the police.

If anyone asks me for a donation I tell them simply and clearly (if appropriate) that I have decided to which charities I will give and that theirs is not one of them.

From Andy M

Sunday, 28 August 2011

One smiling charity lad collared me the other day with a 'Hello gorgeous' - obvioulsy in-tune with the town's open-minded character!

I gave him all the cash I had ;-)

From Ellen H

Tuesday, 30 August 2011

The sun was shining a few weeks ago, lifting my heart and making me feel glad to be alive. Ah the simple life! I popped out to the bank...

On the way there I successfully dodged and weaved 3 Amnesty International (feeling a bit guilty and causing myself to examine all feelings about political prisoners, then remembered all the letters I'd written in student days) and some other charity I can't remember which . . . (which set me off on a chain of thought about developing countries, then fortunately remembered the little boy in Ethiopia I used to send money to) so by the time I reached the bank I was racked with guilt, confusion and miserable self justification, whilst I paid my birthday money into my bank account. (Hang on, that money could have paid for a Top UK charity to employ another wannabee actor to accost people on the streets of a small Yorkshire town . . . oops sorry I mean it could have built a well in a small African village)

On the way back, I dodged three more before being accosted by a young girl who was far too over-familiar for my liking . . . narrowly avoided the aggressive in your face tactics of the busker in the square (does Hebden get the buskers it deserves? discuss) and got home feeling decidedly grumpy and as though my inner Daily Mail reader had been unleashed.

From Andrew B

Tuesday, 30 August 2011

I too was accosted by the Amnesty International lot last week- I thought I had avoided the first one but eye contact was made, she pounced towards me, arms literally wide open "Oh give me a hug, it's been ages!!!" How nice if it really had been a friend I hadn't seen 'for ages' but the truth is, this girl was not known to me! The lengths these people will go to shows that they clearly gain by getting you to sign up to fund whatever they claim to support, it would be interesting to know just what percentage they take.

From Anne H

Tuesday, 30 August 2011

Saw an item about this on North West News

It seems there is something that can be done, but I'm not sure if it's a step that the Town Council are able to take or not. Chorley signed an agreement with the Public Funding Regulatory Association (PFRA) to restrict the number and time when they could collect in the town centre and also to give preference to local charities.

Perhaps Hebdenroyd council could look into it?

From Martin F

Wednesday, 31 August 2011

Usually, in threads of this kind, we receive the views of the 'opposing camp' - in this case the charity 'collectors' themselves.

Could any one of their number please respond to the charges made, or are you all ashamed of your actions?

I think we should be told - and the people affected offered an apology!

From Cllr Nigel Yorke

Wednesday, 31 August 2011

The activity of street collectors is regulated by the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association. They set out clear guidance on how they can operator and for information it states;

"?fundraisers should not impede the motion or progress of pedestrians or passersby. PFRA therefore interprets 'obstruction' as any
deliberate action that causes a person to:

• involuntarily stop
• suddenly change direction in order to get past the fundraiser and continue their journey."

A full set of guidance is here, although it's not the easiest of reads.

To operate I believe they need the permission of Calderdale Council at least.

From Jill Robinson

Thursday, 1 September 2011

I too was accosted last week by Amnesty chuggers, I dived into the coffee shop to avoid the man who had addressed me, asking how I was;(I explained I had been suffering from phlebitis,) I decided I would have a coffee and sit outside since the sun was shining, and in the short distance, a matter of a few feet between the door and the outside tables, was accosted by yet another chugger, a young woman this time. It really puts me off coming into town.

On the Hebweb I noticed a message from an organisation for women who have been harassed in the street, I posted a contributuon about a man who followed me to a meeting at cafcas in Leeds, having snatched my work papers from my hand as I walked along the street looking for the right building. He then begged the train fare back to Merthyr Tidfil, which I refused On reflection there seems to be little difference between outright harassment and these charity hasslers. The Welshman's opening remark had been 'you look like a nice woman', to which I had replied grimly that appearances can be deceptive, but I suppose it is better to ignore all these people completely as any response is taken as encouragement . . . they must rely on the innate politeness of people not to tell them to f...off as my son says I should do.

From Stephen C

Thursday, 1 September 2011

As Martin F points out it seems like an unusual degree of consensus has broken out in this thread and I would suggest it has wider ranging representation than is often the case.

As the only public representative to look into this matter and comment here, I'd ask Cllr Yorke to consider taking taking this issue up with Hebden Royd or Calderdale Council to investigate how to reduce or eliminate this practice, which clearly seems to irritate even the most charitable of Hebden folk!

From H Clarke

Thursday, 1 September 2011

I am fed up with being harrassed by charity muggers. Last weekend I was enjoying a relaxing mooch around Hebden with my husband when we were also accosted by numerous Amnesty International charity muggers.

A very confident young lady from this charity tried to get our attention after we hurried past by asking if we had just been to specsavers (we both wear glasses). This confused me so I turned round to enquire what she meant, she then repeated 'specsavers' at me as if I was deaf and stupid, I carried on walking as she kept shouting 'specsavers?' at us at least 5 more times in the same tone.

I felt felt harrassed and they always go out of their way to make it look like its you who is being rude. The following week this same woman shouted to me in the square that I had dropped something as I passed her. she followed me shouting "excuse me, excuse me! you've dropped something!" I clearly hadn't but was made to feel rude infront of everybody else.

To make this experience worse, we constantly have these types of people from charities coming to our house as we live in the town centre.

I also think they give charities a bad name.

From Cllr Nigel Yorke

Saturday, 3 September 2011

Happy to take this issue up. It's too late to get it on next Wednesday's HRTC meeting agenda, so I'll get it on the one after that. In the meantime I'll contact Calderdale to see what arrangements they have in place allowing this activity to happen.

Just for a matter of balance, is there any level of 'Chugger' activity that people would think is acceptable? Just for example, 11am until 4pm on a Saturday perhaps?

Personally I think the streets/pavements of Hebden are too narrow to allow people to comfortably avoid these collectors and the more traditional static street collections are more appropriate, as we see from time to time in the square. Of course it should not be a matter of having to avoid the collectors, more that we should be consenting to allow them to approach us if we so wished.

From Jim M

Saturday, 3 September 2011

Can I recommend asking Amnesty International chuggers about the mega pay offs to it's CE etc. Still not explained or justified to reassure me that the organisation is currently worthy of support - despite the desperate need for the work it does.

From Joel B

Saturday, 3 September 2011

With regards H Clarkes comment, if these people come to your house, answer your door advise them that you don't accept cold callers and ask them, their company or their "charity" to request an appointment, they'll soon disappear.

If I am approached by someone trying to fund-raise on the street, I immediatley state that I don't believe in foreign aid. I support British charities and choose which I do decide to donate to.

Our government might be willing to forget our children, old people and vunerable people (the list goes on) but continue to send money abroad.

If Help for Heroes were collecting then I wouldn't think twice about putting some change in. Yet we continue to see British people collecting for thousands of British charities that need their countries help.

Maybe the government should think the same before budgeting the "countries" finances and allowing these "chuggers" on the streets??

From Jack Hughes

Saturday, 3 September 2011

An interesting article in the Torygraph here

The Amnesty bunch do seem to be the most 'pro-active', though I've seen the Shelter crew give them a run for their money, hassle-wise.

From H Clarke

Saturday, 3 September 2011

Cllr Yorke,

Thanks for taking this issue up. I think static charity volunteers/staff collecting from a table is absolutely fine so members of the public can approach them rather than be approached.

I think it is unacceptable that, in a small town like this, 'chuggers' have the right to force themselves upon the public in such an agressive way.
Joel B, I do now, after plenty of practise manage to get rid of them quickly by telling them of the only charity I support - but having to say this every week as they knock at my door gets tiresom as again I'm made to feel rude and guilty.

From Stephen C

Sunday, 4 September 2011

Credit to Cllr Yorke for taking up the issue. The thread seems to suggest to me that no one really likes the aggressive pursuance of folk who ar going about their business. Being approached by anyone once is OK, be they Market Researchers or Electoral Candidates or even Sales People but "No thanks" should be respected and usually is. It seems to be the nature of these "Chuggers" to break 'the rules of engagement' as is reported in a number of National papers and the BBC, so I would suggest static collections only. No need to limit the days or times in that case.

From Rev Tony Buglass

Sunday, 4 September 2011

"I support British charities and choose which I do decide to donate to."

Your choice. I agree entirely with the second part of the sentence, and that's what I tell chuggers who try to stop me.

However, I can't accept the first part of the sentence. Need knows no frontiers. I choose charities on the basis of the need they try to meet, and I wish UK Charity Law was a little more tuned in to that. A few years ago the Methodist Church was told by the government it could not contribute church monies to the Wolrd Council of Churches' 'Programme to Combat Racism' on the grounds that the programme was 'political' and therefore excluded from charitable status. The same legislation allows posh schools whose termly fees are the same as my annual income to register as charities and get gift-aid. Obscene.

From Paul Clarke

Sunday, 4 September 2011

I really hate these clowns who clog up our streets and give otherwise great charities a bad name.

So I use two tactics:

- keep my earphones on, avoid any eye contact and speed up as I near them. They seem to get the message.

Or:

- if they have made eye contact I put my hand out in front of me backed with a very firm but polite no thanks. Works every time.

Of course the other thing is to do is have some backbone and not give them in to them.

We need to drive these pathetic guilt trippers out and I'm glad Cllr Yorke is going to take it up.

From Anthony Rae

Monday, 5 September 2011

Since there's such a degree of unanimity in this thread, and to sort of respond to Martin's invitation, let me provide just a little balance.

I'm linked to Friends of the Earth (at the moment I serve on the Board committee responsible for fundraising) so have some insight into the other side of the story. I've had conversations with the FOE in-house team of street fundraisers who cover the North of England, and as a member of the Environmental Funders Network I'm aware of the wider context for UK philanthropy.

So it's interesting to see the other side of Hebden Bridge on display: mean-spirited, greatly exaggerating in terms of frequency of occurrences and accounts of 'bad' behaviour; and in the language used, somewhat nasty ? not just the pejorative 'charity muggers', 'Amnesty bunch', 'Shelter crew', 'we need to drive these pathetic guilt trippers out', etc, but also the insinuation of baser motives.

But, hold on, I thought in this enlightened town we were in favour of Amnesty, Shelter, and yes, even Friends of the Earth. Well, apparently not entirely. No doubt many people will want to preen themselves as supporters of all these causes, but how exactly do they think such organisations are able to carry on with their difficult and sometimes exhausting work?

Apparently it's all about money. Well, yes, you're right, it is, but not in the grubby way depicted. Funding for this country's nearly 200,000 charities ? whose activity allowed us to reach a commendable 2nd position in the international league table ranking charitable donations as a % of GDP - doesn't grow on trees. You actually have to go out, indeed on to the highways and into the towns of Britain, to try and get it. Of course street funders should follow their code of practice (downloadable here) but charities wouldn't use them unless they did this, and also represented good value for money.

And if some people feel embarrassed by the requests made to them then, taking a wider perspective, isn't that the point? I understand (never been there myself) that in many parts of the Global South you can't walk down the street without being continuously asked for money by desperately poor people. Well maybe the occasional presence of these (I've always found entirely polite) fundraisers is just a momentary reminder on behalf of those importuning masses, wherever they are - to us in the pampered and over-consuming West (which includes Hebden) - that there are always others worse off than ourselves, and who need our help.

So, Councillor Yorke, whilst you've been asked to investigate how 'to reduce or eliminate this practice', can I suggest that you don't.

Final tip (maybe practice this in front of a mirror. Assertive expression, and repeat five times): 'Thanks, but I already give to you'. Alternatively: 'I support your cause but I don't want to sign up today. Thanks'. (Then sideways turn, as if to walk on). When you're feeling a little more self-confident, you can progress to holding a simple conversation with them, ask how things are going, what their particular message or appeal is this week, etc. Remember always to thank them for their work on behalf of their particular good cause, which serves to remind us of our common humanity. Basically treat them like casual acquaintances you've bumped into, nothing to be afraid of.

There. Wasn't so bad, was it?

From Anne H

Monday, 5 September 2011

It looks like thefollowing parts of the Code of Conduct might have been broken by some of our recent collectors who have become a bit over-zealous.

Could the activity bring the fundraising organisation or provider into disrepute? (3.0)

Could the activity confuse or obstruct the public? (3.0)

Perhaps the appropriate action would be to bring this to the attention of the Charity in question - after all, they are paying the street collectors to represent them. If they are behaving in a way that stops normally charitable people from giving money then they are neither doing their job properly nor behaving as is expected of them.

From Coun Susan Press

Monday, 5 September 2011

To be frank I am astonished at the amount of bile being heaped on people who are committing the heinous crime of . . . what?

Being maybe a little too pushy in trying to raise money for charity.
The other night I had a cold doorstep caller from Macmillan. I agreed to donate a sum each month. I could have said no. I chose to say yes.
I chose to say yes because without Macmillan my father and my sister would have been denied a lifeline in dignity at end of life. Just two of millions in UK who need our help because the Govt does not fund hospice care.

Maybe it is annoying to be collared by people from Amnesty but rather more annoying I would suggest to be banged up in a cell and tortured because you don't happen to agree with certain ideologies.Or, of course, killed and thrown into a mass grave.

Maybe those who have such busy lives that they cannot tolerate a bit of aggro from fund-raisers should get things in perspective. I thought Hebden Bridge was a compassionate kind of place? This thread reads more like Tunbridge Wells. I find it rather sad

From Andrew B

Monday, 5 September 2011

Whilst everyone is entitled to their opinion I completely disagree with the comments made by Cllr Press.

What gives anyone the right to give me aggro? No one has that right, and to be perfectly blunt I couldn't care less who they represent, approaching me in the street would not encourage me to donate, it would actually completely put me off doing so.

The reason people sign up is because they feel pushed into doing so, and that is the reason these people continue to harass people going about there daily lives. Does anyone wait in hope of bumping into a charity rep on the street before donating? No, if they were so supportive of the call they would call or go online to the charity direct. It would be interesting to see how many people continue to make monthly payments say 3 months after being pushed in to signing up.

From Stephen C

Tuesday, 6 September 2011

Cllr Press has probably come up with the best lines yet for these agents to include in their approach. Scene one: 'I know you are elderly and probably don't have too much money and it is annoying to be stopped every 10 yards today by us but'...

Quote-
"It would be more annoying I would suggest to be banged up in a cell and tortured because you don't happen to agree with certain ideologies.Or, of course, killed and thrown into a mass grave."

'Now if I could just have your bank card I'll copy the details out for you on this form.. you sign here and you can go about your business again knowing you have the freedom not to be coerced'

That is sort of what happened to my elderly relative at the hands of these 'charitable people'.

Both Cllr Press and Anthony Rea make exaggerations of their own about the distaste expressed on this thread. I would hazard a guess that all of the contributors give freely to charities of their choice. And to suggest that the town or this thread is showing some sort of lack of compassion is just a nonsense. Thousands of good and kind people up and down the country have made similar complaints about these tactics. Many don't have the self-confidence to stand up to these agents. Badgering elderly or vulnerable people into being compassionate and parting with their money is hardly a charitable act in itself.

Cllr Yorke I think you will be doing the town a service, but follow your conscience of course!

From Jim M

Tuesday, 6 September 2011

I always thought that we were non judgemental as well as charitable. Except when it comes to Tunbridge Wells it seems!

I would be interested in views on the number and role of charity shops on high streets. I always wonder if people really appreciate what a good job they do, and the people who work in them, when they get cited as a sign of an 'inferior' town centre.

From Jack Hughes

Tuesday, 6 September 2011

Anthony, I'm sorry but you're being ridiculous. "Charity muggers" as a slang term is in common usage, as is the slightly more euphemistic "chuggers". I used the terms "bunch" and "crew" not in a perjorative sense, but because I am a middle-aged Yorkshireman and this is how I speak. Sorry. You might also notice that in my first post I was criticising the sometimes aggressive and intimidatory tactics of some of these charity "collectors". Not the charities themselves.

If people wish to donate to charities (as I occasionally do myself, when I can afford it) then that's fine. I am fully aware that in these straitened times donations are likely to be harder to come by for these organisations than in the past. I'd just query the wisdom of sending out teams of young people whose occasionally over-zealous tactics may be unintentionally dissuading potential donors from giving to a variety of worthy causes.

From Claire M

Tuesday, 6 September 2011

How dare you say such things Coun. Press! Really you should know better and at least try to be objective, afterall don't you represent us??

There was a very useful suggestion made that the charity workers could have a table and members of he public could approach them. This would ne much better and much more appropriate. I will personally think twice about shopping in hebden if i keep getting aggresively targeted like this.

I earn £500 a month and I give £50 to charity. How dare you suggest we dont care

From Phil M

Wednesday, 7 September 2011

The Hebden Charity collectors have not accosted me in any way badly personally but I do appreciate the arguments against them using these particular tactics.

Claire raises a valid point and emphasises the big difference that has been adopted. That of a movement away from a decorated table and the choice of the passer by to come over, read abit about the cause and sign up... to the active standing infront of you and the assumption that you will stop and talk!

From H Clarke

Wednesday, 7 September 2011

Even if these agency fundraisers weren't so annoying, signing up to a charity via a 'Chugger' is not the most efficient way to give your money. I listened to a programme on Radio 4 a while back which discussed how much of your money gets through to the charity via this method.
It seems for a standard £5 a month direct debit donation, for the best part of the year the enire lot of the money goes to the agency not the charity, then after that time some money finally goes to the charity. Hmmm

I think people are ok to winge about them. I agree with all the objections to Cllr Press, carry on Cllr Yorke!! Not everyone is equipped to say no and to walk past Amnesty/ Macmillan etc..when they need money but what is the point in signing up to just pay chuggers wages for a year?

A table top run by volunteers and shopping in charity shops is surely better...

From Coun Susan Press

Wednesday, 7 September 2011

It is perhaps difficult to be "objective" when one has seen loved ones suffer horrible lingering deaths with only charities like Macmillan Cancer Support and St Ann's Hospice in Manchester able to give some dignity to what is essentially a traumatic end to life.

I therefore have no problem being physically, accosted , dragooned or indeed frogmarched by any cancer charity into doing what I can to support them.

When I was Mayor in 2008, thanks to the help of the local community we raised over £4000 for Overgate in Elland. It paid for one day of running the place. That's the reality out there which is maybe why these youngsters are over-enthusiastic. Maybe they need some tactical advice.
But, as I originally said, people really should get things in perspective.
Charities need our money. We should give what we can. And if we can't then a simple "no" is all that is required. Amnesty, Save The Children, Oxfam all do fantastic work. We can't always chip in, but they surely deserve our goodwill.

In an ideal world charity would not be necessary. But we don't live in one . . . .

From Paul D

Wednesday, 7 September 2011

I find myself in full agreement with Susan Press on this. Today I saw a group of perfectly well behaved young people, clearly identifiable as collecting on behalf of Shelter, wearing bright tabards and carrying ID, politely approach passers by and ask them if they would like to support Shelter. Not all of them did, indeed few seemed to take the opportunity, but they were asked to help people less fortunate than themselves in a public place ? what on earth are people getting so het up about?

From Joel B

Wednesday, 7 September 2011

Coun Susan Press, I have to say that as you are an allegedly upstanding respected member of our community, I am astounded by your 2 responses to this debate.

Yes everyone knows someone who has been affected by conditions such as cancer. I'm sure those people are grateful for the support they have received from the cancer charities and quite possibly do give to charities of their choice.

This however is their choice. I'm all up for fundraising for charities and fund raise myself for come charities.

"Maybe it is annoying to be collared by people from Amnesty but rather more annoying I would suggest to be banged up in a cell and tortured because you don't happen to agree with certain ideologies.Or, of course, killed and thrown into a mass grave." I'm sorry about these people, its a horrible life they are living but there are 1000's more UK based charities that need our help such as Overgate Hospice.

People do not want hassling in the street, as someone else said earlier, a small stall with information about their charity will be more than enough. Its your choice to go over to the stall. Its obvious when you see these "chuggers" that the majority of people in Hebden Bridge try and avoid them.

You say you find the thread rather sad. I find it rather sad and astonishing that as a local councillor you put your own personal views before your communities.

From Paul Clarke

Wednesday, 7 September 2011

I really wish Anthony and Susan would climb down from their high horses as their views on this issue are doing them no credit.

If I choose not to give my bank details to a complete and over familiar stranger in the street it doesn't mean I don't care about people with cancer, the planet or am somehow colluding in genocide. It just means I find chuggers offensive.

Neither of them know what I - and the others who dislike being chugged - give to charity as that is a private affair and if I want to give to charity I know exactly how to do it via the interweb.

I work in Leeds and every lunchtime I have to run the gauntlet of these failed drama students and their pathetic chat up tactics. I even went on business to Southampton this week and got some idiot in a bib telling me my hat looked nice. None of his business so he got a firm 'no thanks' as Anthony suggested.

Not wanting to be bothered by these people doesn't make me mind spirited or illiberal....just bored to death with their pushy and tiresome antics.

But as Anthony is in the chugging inner circles at FoE could he answer the following questions:

• how much an hour are these people paid?
• are they on a set figure for everyone they sign up?
• are they on sliding scale so the more they chug the bigger their fee?
• what percentage of the figure you might give goes directly to FoE and when?
• what percentage of the chugged cancel their direct debits within a month/six months?
• exactly how long does it take FoE to make money off a chugged donation?
• wouldn't it be more cost effective for high minded volunteers like Anthony to get a bib on and chug away?
  

To suggest I lack compassion because I won't be chugged is insulting and I find it sad people have to resort to guilt tripping to make their point.

From Coun Susan Press

Thursday, 8 September 2011

In response to Joel B, he obviously did not read my reference to Overgate - it was my Mayor's Charity in 2008 and we as a community raised £4000. People's generosity and help was brilliant but that paid for one day running the hospice.

I'm not guilt-tripping anyone. But surely our personal experiences of pain give us valid reasons for doing what we can to help causes.

And also perhaps finding ourselves a little mystified that people get so het-up about something so relatively trivial.

From Anthony Rae

Thursday, 8 September 2011

I had to smile at Paul Clarke's admonition that Councillor Press and I should 'climb down from their high horses' in view of the fact that it was only our two little ponies which had dared to ride in front of the positive squadron of dragoons trotting about the town with swords drawn looking for public enemies to dispatch.

And such enemies! Charity funding collectors! What a complete loss of perspective, avalanche of exaggeration and overreaction, and misplaced questions. Paul's account is fairly typical. Apparently he's been irritated by such people not just in Hebden, but in Leeds ('every lunchtime', no less) and Southampton, and now he just wants 'something to be done' about this nuisance - despite the fact that he successfully practices the already available remedy: saying 'No, thank you'.

Joel says: 'People do not want hassling in the street'; that is, approached with an enquiry. Such as: 'Have you thought of supporting this charity?', 'Spare some change, please?', 'Big Issue?', or 'What's the way to the station, please?'. When we go out into a public space we should expect such enquiries, as long as they are lawfully and politely expressed, and deal with them routinely.

Then there are the misplaced enquiries into the financial effectiveness of streetfunding. As I mentioned, charities wouldn't use this method unless it delivered an adequate ROI ('return on investment') within their mix of fundraising. It's for them, as independent organisations, to be the judge of that effectiveness. So Paul's seven detailed questions are just not relevant; as a non-executive Board member, as long as I'm satisfied with the overrall fundraising strategy (including ROIs), and standards of activity including adherence to the code of practice, then it's not my job to intrude to that level of detail - unless someone draws a potential concern to my attention. A number of years ago FOE's executive directors advised the Board that they were bringing the streetfunding operation in-house, rather than it being provided through agencies, because it would be more effective on a number of measures, and we accepted their decision. When I happened to bump into our street team in Leeds last week I witnessed perfectly acceptable behaviour; nor have I personally ever seen other organisations conducting themselves inappropriately.

So we're left with some perfectly ordinary, everyday choices. If you want to donate or signup, do so; otherwise politely decline. If you think you've been 'harassed' in any way, or a street fundraiser has breached the Code, contact the organisation concerned or more immediately the police. If you're concerned about the cost effectiveness of fundraising methods, contact the charity concerned. But always remember and respect the positive and moral purpose for which funds are being sought, whether you personally agree with it or not.

Now, if the dragoons want to continue their (in my judgement) unnecessary harrumphing so be it but, to borrow a phrase, I think it's 'their views on this issue that are doing them no credit'.

From Dominic Vince

Saturday, 10 September 2011

Nobody is doubting some money is made by this tactic but its clearly not the best way of insuring your donation goes where you'd like it to, not with ten months worth of your donations going to a paid employee. However, this is not the point. The friendly "hello, can I take a moment of your time" that has been referred to has been lacking from the particular charity workers that have led to this debate. Attempting to stop people by pretending they have dropped something in the street, as happened to me, is deceitful and deeply annoying. These people have been attempting to distract pedestrians in a rather aggressive way and it shouldn't be tolerated. They put passers by in a position where they were forced to feel rude. They give other charity employees/volunteers a bad name.

I had no probem with the people from Shelter who politely asked for my time this week, there were only two and they were non-intrusive, but personally if I wanted to donate to Shelter I would nip into the shop just next to them and donate there. Modern big charites (or BINGOs as they are now known) are run like corporations and compete against each other accordingly. Charity "muggers" are part of this aggressive competition so its no wonder it leaves a bad taste in people's mouths. Now these BINGOs have a commitment to so many paid staff they are in direct competition with other BINGOs and compete for your custom and larger market share rather like energy companies - they have to in order to survive. Yes this is the modern world - but that doesn't mean we have to like it. In deed I would suggest its very non-Hebden Bridge.

From Anthony Rae

Monday, 12 September 2011

In my first post I pointed to the pejorative language being used to stigmatise street funding collectors and by extension the organisations they represent ? charities. I was told I was being ridiculous. Then Dominic Vince's post provides us with yet another example. His three sentence statement ?

'Modern big charites (or BINGOs as they are now known) are run like corporations and compete against each other accordingly. Charity "muggers" are part of this aggressive competition so it's no wonder it leaves a bad taste in people's mouths. Now these BINGOs have a commitment to so many paid staff they are in direct competition with other BINGOs and compete for your custom and larger market share rather like energy companies - they have to in order to survive' ? would be worthy of a right-wing American lobby group, who are well practised in the dark arts of 'sneer and smear'; packed with insinuations, false comparisons and weasel words, sewing little seeds of doubt about the nature and probity of NGOs and charities. The take-home message: 'they're just like profit-maximising companies, in it for self-interested motives'.

The use of this type of language has proved to be an effective, undermining tactic; its consequence would be to damage the income of charities. Just so we're clear what that means - the best known example in this country of a BINGO (a term which Dominic applies wrongly; it means Big International NGOs) is Oxfam, so essentially what he's doing, presumably unintentionally, is attacking the reputation, and asking us to think the less, of the likes of one of this country's great charitable creations just at a time when organisations like Oxfam are straining to collect funds to prevent hundreds of thousands of people starving to death in the Horn of Africa. How helpful.

As I said, it's been fascinating to see the other side of Hebden Bridge on display: ill-informed, lacking in generosity, almost reactionary.

From Graham Barker

Monday, 12 September 2011

I think Anthony is in danger of losing all sense of proportion. Dominic's point, and those of most posters here, is a perfectly valid one. Nobody denies the worthiness of the causes the chuggers represent. The problem is the methods used to waylay people. Charities depend on goodwill and chuggers are destroying it. The argument that the charities do such valuable work that any fundraising tactics are acceptable just doesn't wash. Generosity has its limits, one of which is set by the perception of being pestered and coerced.

From Lizzie D

Tuesday, 13 September 2011

I fully agree with Graham. It looks to me like the majority of folk find these chuggers a bit annoying with their in your face requests and that this actually puts them off giving. As someone who diverts from the path if I see anyone in a tabard with a clipboard, I am aware that one day I might actually 'miss out on summat good' as they could actually want to give me something, rather than take my bank details and pension but I don't take that risk. And yes, I find them a bit too pushy too. I have tried the 'no thanks' and the 'I give what I can' replys but the be(u)ggars can wear you down if you get stuck with them!

When these no doubt, kind and lovely young people that collect, do it out of the goodness of their hearts, and not as a means of paid employment, then I might give. Till then, I will put my meagre funds towards local charities by supporting charity shops (note the Overgate one Cllr Press) manned by mainly volunteers. I also agree with Joel B that charity begins at home. I recall someone, somewhere once saying somehting like "When the corrupt leaders of countries are as thin as their own people then I will give them some money" until then mine is given to who I want and when I want.

From Dominic Vince

Tuesday, 13 September 2011

Apologies for my language, "aggressive" was the word constantly used by the CEO of one of these NGOs at an AGM I attended as a steward at the Barbican some years back. He justified using "chuggers" (not me term either) as a response to the need to be more "aggressive" in the persual of donations. "Market share" was also a term he used.

My cynicism and term "deceitful" can be justified quite legitimately I think by the example of a so-called charity worker who knocked on our door and told my wife, if she couldn't afford to commit to monthly donations she could just sign up now then cancel her donations the following week - so that he could get his comission! (To be fair we should have reported him to the charity in question but failed to)

As this forum has shown, the commercial agencies used by these NGOs are giving charities a bad name. Good intentions do not justify bad means. This Amnesty group in question were irritating and nobody should feel bullied into feeling ashamed to say it.

From Jack Hughes

Tuesday, 13 September 2011

Well said, Graham. I cannot see how criticism of these profit-making agencies that seemingly cream off a substantial proportion of donated cash can be seen as "reactionary". I'd rather cut out the middle man and give my money direct, rather than subsidising some organisation with perhaps questionable ethics and methods - I find it hard to believe that the pushy tactics employed are suggested by the charities themselves.

From H Clarke

Wednesday, 14 September 2011

I also agree with Graham. I am slightly taken back by Anthony Rae's emotional reaction to this general whinge about paid charity fundraisers.
His strong views do give another perspective to this discussion, yet it seems that the simple fact is that most people resent being asked give their bank details to a perfect stranger in the street (invariably over confident, young and good looking) being approached by a smiley person who is paid to try all legal tactics to get your bank details is irritating.
why don't charities use volunteers?

For A. Rae to assume the people who dislike 'chuggers' are lacking in generosity is bizarre.

From Martin F

Wednesday, 14 September 2011

Apart from a very occasional £1 to a different charity, I give ALL my donations to one particular charity, based between 20 and 30 miles from where I live.

I know what happens to the money that is given - it is used for the benefit of the objects of the charity, not on executives and paid fundraisers - since, apart from still being in contact with it, I used to do voluntary work there and I was on the committee for 18 months.

When composing messages, please follow forum guidelines - we have had 2-3 messages to this thread which didn't, and so weren't posted. Thanks. Ed