I work for an NPO by the way and all our fundraisers work direct. We don’t use agencies, they just don’t suit our model. As such we’re very concious of ensuring our reputation is kept intact.

Obviously I have no idea of how your company operates – or indeed which it is or which charities it represents – but am happy to accept that your company is not one of those that causes problems. If anything, it’s as much in your interests as a reputable company to sort out the problem chuggers, as it is in the interests of local businesses or residents.

I’d like to add that I’ve certainly appreciated our little exchange on here (more than one of the other exchanges on this topic I could mention).

Anyone experiencing any of the issues you’ve mentioned should certainly contact the charity concerned. In our case it will be dealt with very seriously.

Your comment (and another discussion I’m having about Royal Mail) makes me wonder if maybe it’s the agencies that are the problem, since they are – effectively – employing mercenary chuggers. Perhaps if directly employed, they would focus more on making sure they didn’t harm the charity’s reputation and possibly even enhanced it by what happened on the street.

It is a fascinating subject, and I won’t pretend I don’t see the points behind the pro-chugging argument. But obviously my job, and the council’s job, is to look after the residents and businesses, and chugging clearly has an effect on both as people alter their routes to avoid being chugged.

Obviously we won’t persuade each other since, I suspect, we represent different camps in the argument. But there are two things I would say:

1. This is a big issue to a lot of people, while we can quibble about the numbers, I would say enough to mean there needs to be a serious look at the training and tactics of chuggers and how they are regulated. Until that happens, it won’t go away as an issue.
2. If that doesn’t happen, I think charities themselves will start considering the cost of chugging. While it might bring in short term revenue, it is at a cost to their reputation. Several people have told me how they stopped giving to a particular charity because they were chugged by them – and these had been fairly substantial direct donors, definitely in excess of the annual direct debit. I think that will be a growing trend unless there is change.

You must remember though that street fundraising is used as a source of recruiting new supporters, not gaining further donations from existing ones. Yes there are cheaper ways of fundraising, but supporters will not give forever and those that are lost need to be replaced with new supporters, otherwise those remaining will have even more demand for their support, which is unsustainable.

Yes, in an ideal world there isn’t a charity that would forgoe the expense of recruitment just to hang on to what they have already. But we don’t live in that world sadly.

The fact is that although such practices are meant to be the exception, they seem to be the rule – and not just in Wandsworth. It’s because of this the issue has taken off, with Ben Goldacre championing #chuggerstop and national media continuing the debate. Why? I don’t know. It might be that the training is the problem, or that there isn’t sufficient regulation. But a simple Google will reveal no shortage of websites from across the country expressing the same sentiment.

And to quickly nail this ‘it’s the only way’ argument. In 2008 the PFRA reckoned that around £70million was raised this way. The NVCO reckons total giving in 2008 was £10.6 billion. To pretend that the charitable sector as a whole is dependent on chugging is a nonsense. I won’t pretend it’s not a lot of money, but it’s still less than 0.7% of the total.

Simply put if you have a negative issue with a fundraiser complain to the company or charity. Don’t ban them as that will ruin it for all the people who are polite not pushy and really care about what they do.

I would argue that, similarly, you don’t have a clue about fundraising, and most of your comments would offend the average fundraiser. None of the practices that you have suggested are condoned by the industry. In fact, they are all contrary to the code of practice. Much like in any walk of life there are those who don’t follow the rules. That, however, does not make their behaviour the rule.

I genuinely don’t believe that there is this huge swathe of negative opinion about street fundraisers (but would be delighted for you to show me the evidence of the vast majority you suggest). Merely a small, vocal group rallied by people like yourself. Someone so blinded by your own opinion that you can’t believe that two people might speak up in defence of fundraisers within a 10 minute period.

The only point that I will concede to you is the cost of running a website. I’m sure that you will know how much one costs, seeing as you have your own. However you ignore the considerable, regular investment that marketing and driving traffic to a site requires. Web media space is not cheap, or particularly succesful in converting visitors in to donors. As someone who runs a donor recruitment programme, I can vouch for the success of street fundraising over any other method that we currently use, including our website.