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.

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.

No you didn't, but you did say..



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.



Just to clarify, [url=http://www.leeds.gov.uk/docs/046%20Street%20Collection%20Regulations%20LCC.docThe Leed City Coucil Rules for charity collections[/url It's a word document that you download rather than a web page. So, in Leeds it is the law.



That depends on the definition of inconvenience. I'm not going claim to be an expert on the English language, grammer etc but, [url=http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/inconvenienceby this definition of inconvenience[/url I personally would think of myself as being incovenienced if I had had an experience as described by the OP.



But it wasn't asked politely, the OP said





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?

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



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



Nice of you to speak on my behalf, but I [iwas[/i very annoyed.

I think to say "And where is your poppy, sir?" isn't really on. It's more an accusation than an actual question because you know they're not happy that you're not wearing a poppy. If they'd just said "Would you like to buy a poppy too, sir?" then that'd probably be fair enough. The stuff that followed is pretty out of line imo.

For what it's worth I've donated some money but haven't got a poppy this year.

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 [imight[/i annoy a random person but the test is whether it is [ilikely[/i 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.


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.


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.


Would certainly be at more risk of being an offence; asking for money is a base requirement of "importuning"


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.


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.


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.