Re: Remembrance Day and the Poppy Mafia : Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:29 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: The whole thing is a mess. For example, "chuggers" don't need any sort of permit - as they are not collecting money, only direct debit comittments! Mugs Guide Aren't these collectors on an hourly wage? There was a report in Aus that if you sign up on the street your first 2 years of payments goes to the recruitment agency.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: The whole thing is a mess. For example, "chuggers" don't need any sort of permit - as they are not collecting money, only direct debit comittments! Mugs Guide Aren't these collectors on an hourly wage? There was a report in Aus that if you sign up on the street your first 2 years of payments goes to the recruitment agency.

Re: Remembrance Day and the Poppy Mafia : Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:36 pm  

Scooter Nik wrote: Isn't it an offence to try to collect for charity by doing anything more than standing passively with a collection box, or is that just a bye-law in some towns? That was my understanding too. This would appear to lend support to that view, in particular pages 453 and 454 and paragraphs 8 - 10. It's not often I find myself in agreement with Kirkstaller but, without knowing what was said between them, on this occasion he would appear in the right. Free speech doesn't come into it, the person collecting on behalf of a charity does not appear to have the right to demand to know why you are not supporting them.

Scooter Nik wrote: Isn't it an offence to try to collect for charity by doing anything more than standing passively with a collection box, or is that just a bye-law in some towns? That was my understanding too. This would appear to lend support to that view, in particular pages 453 and 454 and paragraphs 8 - 10. It's not often I find myself in agreement with Kirkstaller but, without knowing what was said between them, on this occasion he would appear in the right. Free speech doesn't come into it, the person collecting on behalf of a charity does not appear to have the right to demand to know why you are not supporting them.

Re: Remembrance Day and the Poppy Mafia : Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:05 pm  

Neil wrote: That was my understanding too. This would appear to lend support to that view, in particular pages 453 and 454 and paragraphs 8 - 10. It's not often I find myself in agreement with Kirkstaller but, without knowing what was said between them, on this occasion he would appear in the right. Free speech doesn't come into it, the person collecting on behalf of a charity does not appear to have the right to demand to know why you are not supporting them. Firstly, I have never argued for unfettered freedom of speech, which is a ridiculous concept; I have made it clear that anything you say must be within the law. What you have linked to is "model regulations" - it isn't a law. In any given location, any collection or collector must comply with the relevant locally passed regulations. If they passed regulations as per the model, then : "8 No collection shall be made in a manner likely to inconvenience or annoy any person." First, OP was obviously not "inconvenienced" in any way nor does he suggest he was. They didn't obstruct him, detain him, or do anything else that could inconvenience a person. That leaves "annoy". The first reported statement, ""and where is your poppy, Sir?" seems like polite enough question, especially addressing the OP as "Sir", so I can't see how that would be "likely" to annoy. The other reported statement was that the soldiers told the OP "telling me about their colleagues in Afghanistan who were dying to save me." I can't see how that would be "likely" to annoy, either. Whatever, OP wasn't "annoyed", he was "taken aback". 9 No collector shall importune any person to the annoyance of such person. Importune means to "To beset with insistent or repeated requests". OP doesn't mention specifically being asked for money at all. And as explained, OP doesn't allege he was annoyed by them.

Neil wrote: That was my understanding too. This would appear to lend support to that view, in particular pages 453 and 454 and paragraphs 8 - 10. It's not often I find myself in agreement with Kirkstaller but, without knowing what was said between them, on this occasion he would appear in the right. Free speech doesn't come into it, the person collecting on behalf of a charity does not appear to have the right to demand to know why you are not supporting them. Firstly, I have never argued for unfettered freedom of speech, which is a ridiculous concept; I have made it clear that anything you say must be within the law. What you have linked to is "model regulations" - it isn't a law. In any given location, any collection or collector must comply with the relevant locally passed regulations. If they passed regulations as per the model, then : "8 No collection shall be made in a manner likely to inconvenience or annoy any person." First, OP was obviously not "inconvenienced" in any way nor does he suggest he was. They didn't obstruct him, detain him, or do anything else that could inconvenience a person. That leaves "annoy". The first reported statement, ""and where is your poppy, Sir?" seems like polite enough question, especially addressing the OP as "Sir", so I can't see how that would be "likely" to annoy. The other reported statement was that the soldiers told the OP "telling me about their colleagues in Afghanistan who were dying to save me." I can't see how that would be "likely" to annoy, either. Whatever, OP wasn't "annoyed", he was "taken aback". 9 No collector shall importune any person to the annoyance of such person. Importune means to "To beset with insistent or repeated requests". OP doesn't mention specifically being asked for money at all. And as explained, OP doesn't allege he was annoyed by them.

Re: Remembrance Day and the Poppy Mafia : Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:05 pm  

Maybe he just thought they were being rude?

Re: Remembrance Day and the Poppy Mafia : Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:15 am  

Neil wrote: That was my understanding too. This would appear to lend support to that view, in particular pages 453 and 454 and paragraphs 8 - 10. It's not often I find myself in agreement with Kirkstaller but, without knowing what was said between them, on this occasion he would appear in the right. Free speech doesn't come into it, the person collecting on behalf of a charity does not appear to have the right to demand to know why you are not supporting them. This is new to me. I might memorise the legislation and quote it Sheldon-style when next a chugging is attempted on me on Victoria St in that London.

Neil wrote: That was my understanding too. This would appear to lend support to that view, in particular pages 453 and 454 and paragraphs 8 - 10. It's not often I find myself in agreement with Kirkstaller but, without knowing what was said between them, on this occasion he would appear in the right. Free speech doesn't come into it, the person collecting on behalf of a charity does not appear to have the right to demand to know why you are not supporting them. This is new to me. I might memorise the legislation and quote it Sheldon-style when next a chugging is attempted on me on Victoria St in that London.

Re: Remembrance Day and the Poppy Mafia : Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:51 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

This is new to me.
I might memorise the legislation and quote it Sheldon-style when next a chugging is attempted on me on Victoria St in that London.

Shouldn't bother, the model regs don't apply to chuggers, apparently because they are not asking you for money (just for a committment to enter into a direct debit).

Yes I think that's barking too, but don't go on at me, I didn't draft this stuff.

Re: Remembrance Day and the Poppy Mafia : Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:23 pm  

Smile, continue walking, say "No thank you", continue walking, works 95% of the time, for the other 5% a palm to the face often assists.

Re: Remembrance Day and the Poppy Mafia : Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:43 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

This is new to me.
I might memorise the legislation and quote it Sheldon-style when next a chugging is attempted on me on Victoria St in that London.

The rules are for street collections and I don't think they apply to chuggers since they aren't collecting money.

Chuggers, if i'm not mistaken are people employed by a PR company to get people to sign up to make regular donations via direct debit. Since a fair bit of the money debited from your account goes into the coffers of a PR company before the charity gets any, you can probably tell chuggers to **** off without feeling guilty. I avoid making eye contact with anyone holding a clip board any if they still try to get my attention I give a quick "no thanks" and don't break stride.

Re: Remembrance Day and the Poppy Mafia : Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:01 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Firstly, I have never argued for unfettered freedom of speech, which is a ridiculous concept; I have made it clear that anything you say must be within the law. No you didn't, but you did say.. Ferocious Aardvark wrote: I think you may be confusing having these freedoms, with holding certain views. The irony of this particular situation is that if someone chooses to go up to forces personnel selling poppies, but not be wearing or buy a poppy for himself, it is hardly unexpected that the sellers will have a certain viewpoint. But because millions died so we can all have these freedoms, they point which somehow has managed to escape so many on this thread is that the soldiers selling the poppies also have freedoms, and those include giving you the benefit of their opinions. 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. Ferocious Aardvark wrote: What you have linked to is "model regulations" - it isn't a law. In any given location, any collection or collector must comply with the relevant locally passed regulations. If they passed regulations as per the model, then : "8 No collection shall be made in a manner likely to inconvenience or annoy any person." Just to clarify, The Leed City Coucil Rules for charity collections It's a word document that you download rather than a web page. So, in Leeds it is the law. Ferocious Aardvark wrote: First, OP was obviously not "inconvenienced" in any way nor does he suggest he was. They didn't obstruct him, detain him, or do anything else that could inconvenience a person. That leaves "annoy". That depends on the definition of inconvenience. I'm not going claim to be an expert on the English language, grammer etc but, by this definition of inconvenience I personally would think of myself as being incovenienced if I had had an experience as described by the OP. Ferocious Aardvark wrote: The first reported statement, ""and where is your poppy, Sir?" seems like polite enough question, especially addressing the OP as "Sir", so I can't see how that would be "likely" to annoy. But it wasn't asked politely, the OP said kirkstaller wrote: the two squaddies manning the stand asked me in an accusatory manner, "and where is your poppy, Sir?" Ferocious Aardvark wrote: The other reported statement was that the soldiers told the OP "telling me about their colleagues in Afghanistan who were dying to save me." I can't see how that would be "likely" to annoy, either. That depends entirely on the individual on the receiving end as to whether they find it annoying or not and granted, he says he was not annoyed. 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? If the OP says he wasn't annoyed then Ok he wasn't and by strict definition no breach of the rules occured in that instance but, if my understanding of "incovenience" is correct then, the collectors were in the wrong by Leeds City Councils rules. If I'm wrong, then 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?

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Firstly, I have never argued for unfettered freedom of speech, which is a ridiculous concept; I have made it clear that anything you say must be within the law. No you didn't, but you did say.. Ferocious Aardvark wrote: I think you may be confusing having these freedoms, with holding certain views. The irony of this particular situation is that if someone chooses to go up to forces personnel selling poppies, but not be wearing or buy a poppy for himself, it is hardly unexpected that the sellers will have a certain viewpoint. But because millions died so we can all have these freedoms, they point which somehow has managed to escape so many on this thread is that the soldiers selling the poppies also have freedoms, and those include giving you the benefit of their opinions. 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. Ferocious Aardvark wrote: What you have linked to is "model regulations" - it isn't a law. In any given location, any collection or collector must comply with the relevant locally passed regulations. If they passed regulations as per the model, then : "8 No collection shall be made in a manner likely to inconvenience or annoy any person." Just to clarify, The Leed City Coucil Rules for charity collections It's a word document that you download rather than a web page. So, in Leeds it is the law. Ferocious Aardvark wrote: First, OP was obviously not "inconvenienced" in any way nor does he suggest he was. They didn't obstruct him, detain him, or do anything else that could inconvenience a person. That leaves "annoy". That depends on the definition of inconvenience. I'm not going claim to be an expert on the English language, grammer etc but, by this definition of inconvenience I personally would think of myself as being incovenienced if I had had an experience as described by the OP. Ferocious Aardvark wrote: The first reported statement, ""and where is your poppy, Sir?" seems like polite enough question, especially addressing the OP as "Sir", so I can't see how that would be "likely" to annoy. But it wasn't asked politely, the OP said kirkstaller wrote: the two squaddies manning the stand asked me in an accusatory manner, "and where is your poppy, Sir?" Ferocious Aardvark wrote: The other reported statement was that the soldiers told the OP "telling me about their colleagues in Afghanistan who were dying to save me." I can't see how that would be "likely" to annoy, either. That depends entirely on the individual on the receiving end as to whether they find it annoying or not and granted, he says he was not annoyed. 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? If the OP says he wasn't annoyed then Ok he wasn't and by strict definition no breach of the rules occured in that instance but, if my understanding of "incovenience" is correct then, the collectors were in the wrong by Leeds City Councils rules. If I'm wrong, then 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?

Re: Remembrance Day and the Poppy Mafia : Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:25 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

The first reported statement, ""and where is your poppy, Sir?" seems like polite enough question, especially addressing the OP as "Sir", so I can't see how that would be "likely" to annoy.

As Neil has already said, his tone and manner spoke volumes. It was not polite.

The other reported statement was that the soldiers told the OP "telling me about their colleagues in Afghanistan who were dying to save me." I can't see how that would be "likely" to annoy, either.

Do you honestly think a soldier telling you that you owe them a debt of gratitude isn't likely to annoy?

Whatever, OP wasn't "annoyed", he was "taken aback".

Nice of you to speak on my behalf, but I was very annoyed.