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?

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!



[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/sep/21/charity-fundraising-legal-adviceMugs Guide[/url

I usually find that a "No thank you" and a smile normally works wonders, that and the ability to continue walking onwards...

Ah yes but the reason not many do that is because then they'll think you're a twwat, and I reckon it is part of the majority genetic makeup not to be perceived as a twwat. It's a very odd thing, since why logically should you be at all bothered what random people who don't know you and who you'll never encounter again think of you? But I'm sure it's true for most folk. Many even put their posh voice on when taking a call from some totally anonymous person who hasn't a clue about you nor ever will.

Precisely, even people that I personally know think I'm a twwat so I've nothing to lose.



Going off on a tangent (who, me?) I find that the words "please" and definitely the words "thank you" get you absolutely EVERYWHERE with customer service, whether buying or selling.



But then, I am a very charming man.

As does being a KR supporter

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.

That was my understanding too. [url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1974/140/pdfs/uksi_19740140_en.pdfThis[/url 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 :

"=#0040FF8 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".



=#4040FF9 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.

Maybe he just thought they were being rude?

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.