Neil wrote:
I'm sorry but, I am going have to disagree with you on this point. Collecting money for a charity is not a forum for the expression of free speech as there is always the chance that you are going offer an opinion to someone who might disagree strongly with you [and therefore annoy or inconvenience them].
You may be surprised that I agree with that [apart from the bit I put in brackets]. The first distinction (drawn by the regulations) is "annoyance" which is a result of words and (b) inconvenience, which is a result of actions, such as blocking the pavement or obstructing passage. Nothing like that was claimed, (although give the OP time!) so there was no "inconveniencing"
It's possible anything I say
might annoy a random person but the test is whether it is
likely to. Nothing reported could be "likely to" annoy the average person, and the OP didn't say he was annoyed anyway so we are arguing in the abstract.
Neil wrote:
That depends entirely on the individual on the receiving end as to whether they find it annoying or not
Except that, for the relevant puropse (ie whether there's been an offence) it doesn't. The test is likelihood, which must be objective. For obvious reasons.
Neil wrote:
and granted, he says he was not annoyed.
Well yes, but tbf now it's relevant, he's posthumously decided that he was indeed annoyed. it's a form of Late Onset Annoyance, I think.
Neil wrote:
However, I would say that under the rules, collectors should refrain from giving opions to people who are not donating to avoid such a situation. With the reference to colleagues in Afghanistan, the squaddies in question could have phrased the statement in the form of a plead for help to injured friends or an accusatory manner i.e "why aren't you donating to help our injured friends". Would the latter be appropriate under the rules?
Would certainly be at more risk of being an offence; asking for money is a base requirement of "importuning"
Neil wrote:
are we to conclude that you can't annoy or inconvenience people but you have right to intimidate people who have chosen not to donate?
You're way off course. These regulations are just to govern the very specific and narrow area of charity collectors. They do not replace or override the general law, and if you go around in public intimidating anyone then you (rightly) risk getting your collar felt for a public oredr offence, a much different thing to a mere breach of a local bye-law.
kirkstaller wrote:
Do you honestly think a soldier telling you that you owe them a debt of gratitude isn't likely to annoy?
On the face of it, not at all. 1. I do. 2. In the unlikely event of disagreement, why would it "annoy" me? Are you "annoyed" every time anyone says anything you disagree with? That's not normal.
kirkstaller wrote:
Nice of you to speak on my behalf, but I was very annoyed.
Nice of you to invent that, but as you know I was hardly "speaking on your behalf", but rather "quoting what you had said". I do note however that about one year after it was pointed out that one limb of a potential breach of regulations relates to annoyance, you have suddenly declared that, conveniently, you were in fact also annoyed.
