My fault, it was in a different post – I know I’m the only avid reader of this blog, but sometimes forget I’m the only avid reader!

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.