Charity pests in Stafford? AKA Chuggers

[zebidee]

The cocky emotive attack ones piss me off. They have no right to make judgements on someone saying no to them. "not even for..." or "looks meaningfully into your house when you've said you have nothing to give" or "I'm not selling you anything" (errr yes you are)

My stock answer for pushy ones is "go ask your chief exec"

*ponders whether I've said all this before in this thread... Probably*

 

[tek-monkey]

I often point out that it's better for the charity if I donate direct, they get very confused!

 

[Carole]

They have no right to make judgements on someone . "not even for..." or "looks meaningfully into your house when you've said you have nothing to give" *

Sorry just playing devils advocate here.

A simple "No, I already donate enough thank you " or even

"No I chose not to donate" would be honest

But why would you lie and say you have nothing to give?

Really? Nothing?

If someone chooses not to donate to charity that is up to them but they should be honest about the reasons.

My sister in law said that she was on the poverty line and therefore couldn't give to charity.
She said this sitting in a dress that cost over £150 and had previously asked about where the nearest Selfridges were so that she could buy her face cream for £50.
And she shops in Waitrose or organic shops.


She would no more do a "Christmas shoe box" for charity than fly to the moon.

 

[Withnail]

Zakat.

People give what they can, and often give more than that.

It is probable that people probably, inadvertantly, donate c. 2.5% of their wealth annually.

Not because they are harrassed into doing so, but because they choose to do so.

I just say, if pressed, that i give what i give and can give no more. Because it's true.

I often wonder whether i should change the priorities i give to my giving, but never the principles that underpin them. Sometimes being pressed upon the street encourages me to consider changing those priorities, and i think that that is the only serious role that our Chugging friends still fulfill.

Mostly i am unaffected - i give what i give, and can give no more.

Sorry.

 

[tek-monkey]

I give to the air ambulance by direct debit, and always give my change to the guy that collects for them outside Iceland, but nobody else regularly anymore. I'll give one off payments but not direct debits, and chuggers won't take cash so they get nothing.

 

[Gramaisc]

I give to the air ambulance by direct debit, and always give my change to the guy that collects for them outside Iceland, but nobody else regularly anymore. I'll give one off payments but not direct debits, and chuggers won't take cash so they get nothing.

In Ireland, air ambulance flights are provided by the military.

 

[Gramaisc]

This has just appeared in my You Tube suggestions.

 

[zebidee]

Sorry just playing devils advocate here.

A simple "No, I already donate enough thank you " or even

"No I chose not to donate" would be honest

But why would you lie and say you have nothing to give?

Really? Nothing?

If someone chooses not to donate to charity that is up to them but they should be honest about the reasons.

My sister in law said that she was on the poverty line and therefore couldn't give to charity.
She said this sitting in a dress that cost over £150 and had previously asked about where the nearest Selfridges were so that she could buy her face cream for £50.
And she shops in Waitrose or organic shops.


She would no more do a "Christmas shoe box" for charity than fly to the moon.

Sounds like you mostly have a problem with your sister in law and minorly have a problem with my phrasing

I'm not lying if I say I have nothing to give them. I have nothing to give THEM. Those who are standing on my door begging for money for a charity that pays six figures to top execs, who think it's OK to attempt to ply a guilt trip on someone who's door they've just knocked on and have no knowledge of their life or income? that can FRO. every. time.

 

[joshua]

I've found that a well-placed tazer to the genital region discourages most chuggers. Even more so if it's the chugger's genital region.

 

[proactive]

I've found that a well-placed tazer to the genital region discourages most chuggers. Even more so if it's the chugger's genital region.

ROFL

 

[StaffordNMD]

Let me start it off by saying that I do give to charity on a regular basis and admire the work they do. However on walking into Tesco yesterday, I was bombarded by a man with a stick asking for donations for the House of Bread. I have admired what they do and donated to them in the past, but on this occasion I had quite literally donated to Macmillan about half an hour before this so hesitated for a moment when he asked if I wanted to donate some food. He saw this and before I could say anything, he had the audacity to ask in a loud and mocking voice "What's your excuse" and thrust one of his leaflets into my hand. Needless to say I was not impressed and decided not to donate.

 

[Radioactive Wolf]

Let me start off by saying that I do not give to any charity, and unlike so many previous commenters I feel no need to virtue-signal. The big 'charities' are just professional scammers in business to pay their senior leadership team mega-bucks. The chuggers are disgusting individuals who prey on the most vulnerable. For the life of me I don't know why the Borough Council allows it, it most definitely puts people off walking up the high street.

Next time you're considering giving your hard-earned tenner to a charity, google the chief-exec's salary and think on.

 

[PeterD]

I have never even heard of virtue signal. I feel the poster above is looking for a reason to be squeaky and currently its the chief of a charity not working for free.

 

[Carole]

Let me start off by saying that I do not give to any charity.

Next time you're considering giving your hard-earned tenner to a charity, google the chief-exec's salary and think on.

You're missing the bigger picture though.

Whether you like it or not, the larger charities have to be run like a business.

To get people to part with their cash to give to charity, or to put it another way, to get people to give time or money to other people who need help is hard work.

Charity covers many different aspects from actual helping out yourself or to donating cash to a hospice, or funding research, giving aid to other countries and the list goes on.

To do this on a massive scale involves huge organisation and therefore some charities have to pay mega bucks for this expertise and organisation.
Further down the line many volunteers work for nothing.

To say that you give nothing, nothing at all ever, says so much about you as a person.

How would you feel if you were in need one day and the world turned its back?

 

[proactive]

How would you feel if you were in need one day and the world turned its back?

Whilst I cannot comment specifically about @Radioactive Wolf as I don't know him/her/it, I have found in life that those who refuse to contribute to things, are never shy to be first in the queue, kicking and screaming to demand their 'hand-out'.

 

[Withnail]

If you don't have enough, you shouldn't be ashamed to ask for enough.

If you have enough and no more you have enough.

If you have enough and over you should be thankful.

If you have enough and over you should start to think about how much more you have.

If you think about how much more you have, you must think 'what must it be like...

If you don't have enough...

 

[Really?]

I thought I might as well offend everyone: I don't give to charity. I feel we pay enough tax in this country and that all the fantastic work done by these people should be paid for out of our taxes. Tax me an extra 2% or 3% to cover all charities and I would have no problem with that - providing the charities are regulated properly and NOT run by people on over inflated salaries.

The reason for this is simple, I once met with a semi drunk politician who told me the government loves charities as it means they can spend the tax money elsewhere. Given the choice of buying a bomb and closing a hospital, the politician will always close the hospital, safe in the knowledge that there would be a public campaign to save the hospital and donations would flood in. The politician gets to buy his bomb AND save the hospital through already taxed donations.

 

[PeterD]

I thought I might as well offend everyone: I don't give to charity. I feel we pay enough tax in this country and that all the fantastic work done by these people should be paid for out of our taxes. Tax me an extra 2% or 3% to cover all charities and I would have no problem with that - providing the charities are regulated properly and NOT run by people on over inflated salaries.

The reason for this is simple, I once met with a semi drunk politician who told me the government loves charities as it means they can spend the tax money elsewhere. Given the choice of buying a bomb and closing a hospital, the politician will always close the hospital, safe in the knowledge that there would be a public campaign to save the hospital and donations would flood in. The politician gets to buy his bomb AND save the hospital through already taxed donations.

That works in that context, but what about lets say Greek cats, Romanian orphans, Staffordshire terrier rescue, children with aids. In the case of the latter, yes the government might help them but charity as I see it is about helping in addition to official funding. Helping a bit more.

(Not specifically aimed at Really or anyone else) No one is obligated to give to charity, people do and people don't, that's choice. I struggle with reasoning not to do it, I would prefer people to say I am apathetic or I prefer to spend my money on me. Thats the honest response.

 

[Gramaisc]

As with all things, it gets complicated. For one example, Save the Children pay their CEO £234,000 a year, basic. I do wonder how things would change for the worse if she ceased to exist tonight?

Governments will always find money to do what they want to do. They seem to be admitting that the 'crackdown' on whatever long-term sickness benefit is called this week has actually cost more than it has saved - but, that wasn't the point of it, many apparently economic policies are really social policies dressed up. Attacking "scroungers" at the bottom looks good to the Daily Mail cohort.

Charities do have expenses, of course, but they can attract "gravy train merchants" too. As with most organisations, the people that actually do the work are generally OK,

Believing what any politician tells you, semi-drunk or not, is generally a poor idea. You are there to be manipulated for your vote every now and then.

This kind of nonsense does make you wonder if some people have just lost the plot entirely - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-Queens-90th-birthday-picnic-on-The-Mall.html .

 

[Lucy]

Interestingly, STC are quit a low paying charity, and have recently lost a lot of their good staff because of this.