Charity Muggers...do they harm the reputation of charities?

[Badgers]

These vermin were out in force at London Bridge station tonight using VERY hard sell techniques on people and blocking their paths.

Funnily the guy tried to stop me........

Moved across to block my path saying really loud 'here comes a man with a big bank balance and a big heart'

I wonder if he still thinks the same after I walked straight into him and knocked him over?

but

 

[dolly's gal]

I wonder if he still thinks the same after I walked straight into him and knocked him over?

but

yeh if someone tries to get you to donate to a charity resort to physical violence. brilliant.

what's wrong with "no thanks"? or "no"? or even just saying nothing?

 

[tbaldwin]

Whereas you magically know better.

Well, that's me convinced.



You really are pointless.

I wish it was magic but its experience...Sadly a lot of people take charities on face value, a sad mistake..

 

[William of Walworth]

Why do I and several others think chooch's posts here have more credibility than yours baldwin?

Is it because 'we' are 'all' liberal supremacists who are ignoring YOUR truth?

In my experience (limited, but not based on pure prejudice, like your insane ravings) a few charities are dodgy but most are not.

if you want to come in ranting all sorts of allegations about charities then it is incumbent on you to back your points up. It's not for others to clean up your gross oversimplifications, allegations and lazy cliched rants. You said it : back it up or shut up.

So let's hear you justify your lazy assertion that 'most charities are incredibly shit' then. What proportion of charities have shares in arms companies, what proportion are in 'expensive central London HQs?' When you say 'most' are 'plain shit' what criteria are you using to assess them? What information do you know, what experience do you have of charities etc etc.

To be honest Balders, I strongly predict you'll respond with another load of evidence-light, loudmouth sub-Littlejohn toss as a diversion - nothing like a gobshite on his favourite 'look at me - I'm soooo controversial' soapbax yet again. But hey - surprise me with an adequately reasoned and well argued post for a chance.

Entirely agree with this ... not because I'm incapable of thinking beyond 'liberal orthodoxy' as baldwin will no doubt claim, and not because I think charities are beyond (fair and informed) criticism either, but because I can't stand bigots ranting sweepingly generalised and prejudiced shite in what looks like utter ignorance of the subject in hand, with no facts/links/stats, and who rather than provide any, then order those sceptical of their ranting to dig out the evidence for themselves.

 

[Iam]

I wish it was magic but its experience...Sadly a lot of people take charities on face value, a sad mistake..

But not everyone - certainly not everyone here as some have pointed out, so to be automatically dismissive of their experiences based on yours is not a reasonable foundation for debate on an issue, imo.

Sorry, but there you go.

 

[tarannau]

Seen too many charities close up...worked for charities for years,raised money for them and ran a couple.....Been on various committees....Know that loads of them pay a shedload of cash to senior staff....Cant be any more specific than that .....But look up the salaries of chief execs of charities if your interested....

There was a good programme on banks last night (Panorama on the debt crisis) Kinda aamazing how people trust banks....Banks exploit that trust and so do charities...But LiberalLeties seem a lot more guillible about charities...

Ah. So it's a variation on Balders' favourite last-ditch device: "I've got a black/gay/disabled friend who says...<insert conveniently unsourced supportive comment> here..."

Only this time it's apparently how you used to work closely with, and indeed even run a couple of, charities, once again with no names mentioned or any verification. It's hardly a convincing tale is it, nor one which really speaks of any depth or insight into the whole charity sector.

Now I'm perfectly willing to concede that some charities are hopelessly inefficient organisations, but my experience is that it's far from 'most' that are 'incredibly shit.' I can't speak for your own 'experience', but I suspect that it's probably far fairer to say something like:

Most charities that choose to work with or employ T Baldwin - that near-illerate oaf, legendary for not inspiring minds and not winning hearts - are likely to be incredibly shit.

Fair enough? Sounds much more likely to be plausible to me...

 

[Hollis]

I am against these people. They essentially represent an aggressive form of fundraising with their mob tactics on the high street. Okay - they're not going to beat you up, but the intimidatory tactic is there, which is not in keeping with the ethic of charity donating.

Why can they not behave like poppy salespeople and stand quiety on the side of the pavement??

Ultimately it is only the large charities that employ these people - and I'd be interested to know (it is probably impossible to prove) how much these people raise overall funds for the sector or just switch funds towards the larger charities.

 

[tbaldwin]

Why do I and several others think chooch's posts here have more credibility than yours baldwin?

Is it because 'we' are 'all' liberal supremacists who are ignoring YOUR truth?

In my experience (limited, but not based on pure prejudice, like your insane ravings) a few charities are dodgy but most are not.



Entirely agree with this ... not because I'm incapable of thinking beyond 'liberal orthodoxy' as baldwin will no doubt claim, and not because I think charities are beyond (fair and informed) criticism either, but because I can't stand bigots ranting sweepingly generalised and prejudiced shite in what looks like utter ignorance of the subject in hand, with no facts/links/stats, and who rather than provide any, then order those sceptical of their ranting to dig out the evidence for themselves.

William facts/links/stats....You really dont get it do you.......Charities routinely make up facts and stats....They get away with it thanks to well erm people like you....You live in Walworth check out how many charities got money thru the SRB,New Deal,Southwark Regeneration....Check out how much they spent and then find out how much difference any of it has made.....Who has done really well out of it...Local people on the Aylesbury or the usual middle class parasites....

 

[tbaldwin]

Ah. So it's a variation on Balders' favourite last-ditch device: "I've got a black/gay/disabled friend who says...<insert conveniently unsourced supportive comment> here..."

Only this time it's apparently how you used to work closely with, and indeed even run a couple of, charities, once again with no names mentioned or any verification. It's hardly a convincing tale is it, nor one which really speaks of any depth or insight into the whole charity sector.

Now I'm perfectly willing to concede that some charities are hopelessly inefficient organisations, but my experience is that it's far from 'most' that are 'incredibly shit.' I can't speak for your own 'experience', but I suspect that it's probably far fairer to say something like:

Most charities that choose to work with or employ T Baldwin - that near-illerate oaf, legendary for not inspiring minds and not winning hearts - are likely to be incredibly shit.

Fair enough? Sounds much more likely to be plausible to me...

tarranau, yes ive got black,disabled and gay friends......And suprise suprise ive worked for charities...

But of course as i dont agree with you,then i must be an ignorant bigot....Racist,Homophobic and hate the disabled......
What a twat you are....

 

[Dougal]

My town centre Croydon is infested with chuggers. I would spend an hour politely chatting with them as people, I won't waste the time. If they are employed or it's direct debit time then no. Other than that, if it ain't religous I would always give a few coins.

 

[axomoxia]

Why can they not behave like poppy salespeople and stand quiety on the side of the pavement??

Isn't there some restriction on what you can do if you are soliciting cash for a charity? As in you can stand around shaking the tin up and down and yell "donate for the sick and needy" but not activley stick the collecting tin under someones nose? I've the feeling that soliciting direct debit details dosn't count as money and therefore an agency sales rep can be a lot more pro-active in signing you up....

Andy

 

[dolly's gal]

Isn't there some restriction on what you can do if you are soliciting cash for a charity? As in you can stand around shaking the tin up and down and yell "donate for the sick and needy" but not activley stick the collecting tin under someones nose? I've the feeling that soliciting direct debit details dosn't count as money and therefore an agency sales rep can be a lot more pro-active in signing you up....

Andy

nope, not allowed to shake tins or buckets.

 

[pogofish]

Isn't there some restriction on what you can do if you are soliciting cash for a charity?

Restrictions vary from town to town but yes, most places now have some control of the number of charities that can be out collecting on any one day, the number of collectors they can put on the ground & where.

IIRc, chugging, as a corporate/buisness activity gets viewed differently. Certainly, here, they are only still considering restricting chuggers whilst charity collections themselves have had to apply for a licence & meet conditions for some years now.

 

[tbaldwin]

Why do I and several others think chooch's posts here have more credibility than yours baldwin?

Is it because 'we' are 'all' liberal supremacists who are ignoring YOUR truth?

In my experience (limited, but not based on pure prejudice, like your insane ravings) a few charities are dodgy but most are not.



Entirely agree with this ... not because I'm incapable of thinking beyond 'liberal orthodoxy' as baldwin will no doubt claim, and not because I think charities are beyond (fair and informed) criticism either, but because I can't stand bigots ranting sweepingly generalised and prejudiced shite in what looks like utter ignorance of the subject in hand, with no facts/links/stats, and who rather than provide any, then order those sceptical of their ranting to dig out the evidence for themselves.

Typical of some on urban...Lazy assumptions that anyone they dont like must be ignorant...Yes of course its just sheer prejudice.....What a comfort for you to believe anyone who questions anything you say is just an ignorant bigot.....Sadly charities employ loads of people like you....Which is part of the problem..

 

[Iam]

Typical of some on urban...Lazy assumptions that anyone they dont like must be ignorant...

And that's your job, right?

 

[tbaldwin]

And that's your job, right?

More or less...

 

[Iam]

More or less...

Fair play.