Albert Tatlock Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 In my opinion, if you want to collect for whatever charity or cause you wish to, just go ahead and do it. I doubt very much that anybody would end up in court for doing so. I am sure that's good advice. A council led prosecution against a charity would be outrageous. I think there is a role for the council to provide permits and ensure charities/collectors are legitimate i.e. to provide identification assuring Joe Public the charity is a valid charity and ensure they follow rules - otherwise you might end up with some of those so called charities that abounded on the streets of the UK a few years ago, that payed their collectors and took 80% of donations for 'admin purposes'. It is the council decision to limit the number of charities allowed that grieves me - when it is Joe Public that should decide whether, and for whom, he digs into his pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 It is the council decision to limit the number of charities allowed that grieves me - when it is Joe Public that should decide whether, and for whom, he digs into his pocket. Come on, AT. There's already 28 occasions when you'll have to sidle quietly to the opposite side of the street and stare straight ahead as you walk by! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 It is the council decision to limit the number of charities allowed that grieves me - when it is Joe Public that should decide whether, and for whom, he digs into his pocket. Come on, AT. There's already 28 occasions when you'll have to sidle quietly to the opposite side of the street and stare straight ahead as you walk by! I collect for a charity on occasions. I do understand what you mean about pestering, but that's surely a different issue to deciding on who should be allowed to collect. Clear 'rules of engagement' by the council would stop pestering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 I see what you mean Albert. There were recently problems in Manchester with people pretending to represent charitable organisations. I was conned out of a few quid by some supposedly Spanish deaf people. A few days later the police were after them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverfoxie Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Talking of charity collections...havent seen Mr Collection man lately outside M & S or the bank - anyone know why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky boy Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 If the corpy is going to restrict charity collections in town on the grounds that they pester people then they could start by banning those bloody mormon kids who accost all and sundry outside M&S I have no problem donating to the RNLI etc. but I will not be mithered by sales reps from some crackpot religion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 If the corpy is going to restrict charity collections in town on the grounds that they pester people then they could start by banning those bloody mormon kids who accost all and sundry outside M&S I have no problem donating to the RNLI etc. but I will not be mithered by sales reps from some crackpot religion The Douglas bylaws as I read them does ban this - being accosted by sales reps for a religion in this way would seem to be covered by the ban on 'touting' - whether they are trying to collect money, or simply offering a soul-saving service. It's the same regulation that requires charities to get permission from the Council to make collections or face possible prosecution. However to stop the mithering mormon menance requires someone does something about it - you could point that out to them mormons, or make a complaint about this illicit touting to the Council or local constabulary who might then prosecute. Ridding the streets of religious sects engaging in these proscribed activities is hardly religious persecution, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 why not offer to buy the mitherers a pint or a nice cappucino while they discus the 'translation' of the book of Abraham and how divine revelation was overturned when threatened with US legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 If you take a look HERE you'll see that there are over 600 locally registered charities. The street could get very crowded if they all wanted to hold flag days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 If you take a look HERE you'll see that there are over 600 locally registered charities. The street could get very crowded if they all wanted to hold flag days. But the reality is they don't of course. If 600 charities did flag days and they allowed 28 a year out to collect, and did it fairly, e.g. you would only be able to buy a poppy in the street once in every 20 years. Even if the number of annual street collections reached 100 (which it get's nowhere near I am sure) I still say the council should 'manage it' (standards/terms/positions/dividing the area into slots, regions etc.) - and not discriminate against charities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 why not offer to buy the mitherers a pint or a nice cappucino while they discus the 'translation' of the book of Abraham and how divine revelation was overturned when threatened with US legislation. I'd agree I really think they should be banned from accosting the public (in fact extend that to all 'religions'). I hate to see their furrowed brainwashed brows and confused expressions when you say something to them that was not part of their indoctrination course. If they're not spouting rubbish from a script most of them are totally out of their depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjDan Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 you know that's not true at all.... but as this is just an internet forum, you feel comfortable in spouting off your own 'indoctrination' on what you have been told they are like. I think if you were to try and ban religious people... you may as well go ahead and ban 'all communication' in the street. Ban those people who ask you directions..! Ban those people who ask you what time it is! Ban those people who stop you in the street to talk to you about how cute and adorable your baby is.... your hate of religion has conquered your common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 I'd agree I really think they should be banned from accosting the public Isn’t it already banned? I think if you were to try and ban religious people... you may as well go ahead and ban 'all communication' in the street. Ban those people who ask you directions..! Ban those people who ask you what time it is! Have a look at what is actually banned/prohibited by Douglas Bylaws: http://www.douglas.gov.im/byelaws/GeneralByelaws2007.pdf 6. Touting(1) No person shall in any street, open area or foreshore:- (a) tout, advertise, solicit custom or otherwise importune any person for any service or event … in such a manner as to cause obstruction or give reasonable grounds for annoyance to any person in the street, open area or foreshore. (2) The local authority may grant permission, subject to certain conditions, which may include:- (i) organisers and persons taking part in distribution of leaflets to ensure that discarded leaflets are retrieved so as to prevent littering of the streets; and/or (ii) such organisers and persons to remain in certain areas thus minimising the possibility of obstruction, nuisance or annoyance being caused to members of the public in the street or open area. This regulation I take it covers the touting of soul-saving services and importuning people for donations, to attend religious events or ‘bringing them the word’. If the mithering mormons lurking outside M&S are doing this and gives reasonable grounds for annoyance to cheeky boy, then he is entitled to make a complaint. Similarly these bylaws would stop someone standing on a soapbox and having a rant about Jesus or their political views. That would be importuning people in a way that might give reasonable grounds for annoyance. Asking for the time, directions, or having a chat in the street is quite different and is not covered under these provisions in S.6. The bylaws don’t “ban religious people”. Mormons can still find a spot which does not obstruct, but where they are available to people who are interested, and which does not cause obstruction, nuisance or annoyance. This prohibition just stops touting and obstructing, accosting and harassing passers-by. Being mithering in the street is banned, being a mormon isn’t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Mormons can still find a spot which does not obstruct, but where they are available to people who are interested, and which does not cause obstruction, nuisance or annoyance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.