| |
Welcome to the NEW RLFANS.COM. After twenty-five years of service, the old site expired over the last few days. To maintain service we have had no option but to make an early switch to the new site which was in development/testing. Some elements of the new site are unfinished, such as; page numbering and quotations. We will fix these minor issues as soon as we can, please bear with us.
If you are having problems logging in, please try a different browser or platform, if problems persist then email support@rlfans.com
 |
| 
 |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 679 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Sep 2016 | Sep 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote El Barbudo="El Barbudo"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.'"
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.
|
|
Quote El Barbudo="El Barbudo"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.'"
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.
| |
|
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 679 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Sep 2016 | Sep 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"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.'"
No you didn't, but you did say..
Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"I think you may be confusing having these freedoms, with holding certain views. The irony of this particular situation is that if someone chooses to go up to forces personnel selling poppies, but not be wearing or buy a poppy for himself, it is hardly unexpected that the sellers will have a certain viewpoint.
But because millions died so we can all have these freedoms, they point which somehow has managed to escape so many on this thread is that the soldiers selling the poppies also have freedoms, and those include giving you the benefit of their ">opinions.'"
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.
Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"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."'"
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.
Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"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".'"
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.
Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"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.'"
But it wasn't asked politely, the OP said
Quote Ferocious Aardvark="kirkstaller"the two squaddies manning the stand asked me in an accusatory manner, "and where is your poppy, Sir?"'"
Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"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.'"
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?
|
|
Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"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.'"
No you didn't, but you did say..
Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"I think you may be confusing having these freedoms, with holding certain views. The irony of this particular situation is that if someone chooses to go up to forces personnel selling poppies, but not be wearing or buy a poppy for himself, it is hardly unexpected that the sellers will have a certain viewpoint.
But because millions died so we can all have these freedoms, they point which somehow has managed to escape so many on this thread is that the soldiers selling the poppies also have freedoms, and those include giving you the benefit of their ">opinions.'"
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.
Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"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."'"
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.
Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"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".'"
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.
Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"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.'"
But it wasn't asked politely, the OP said
Quote Ferocious Aardvark="kirkstaller"the two squaddies manning the stand asked me in an accusatory manner, "and where is your poppy, Sir?"'"
Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"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.'"
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?
| |
|
| | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1318 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Nov 2008 | 16 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2014 | Mar 2013 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"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.'"
As Neil has already said, his tone and manner spoke volumes. It was not polite.
Quote Ferocious AardvarkThe 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. '"
Do you honestly think a soldier telling you that you owe them a debt of gratitude isn't likely to annoy?
Quote Ferocious AardvarkWhatever, OP wasn't "annoyed", he was "taken aback".'"
Nice of you to speak on my behalf, but I [iwas[/i very annoyed.
|
|
Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"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.'"
As Neil has already said, his tone and manner spoke volumes. It was not polite.
Quote Ferocious AardvarkThe 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. '"
Do you honestly think a soldier telling you that you owe them a debt of gratitude isn't likely to annoy?
Quote Ferocious AardvarkWhatever, OP wasn't "annoyed", he was "taken aback".'"
Nice of you to speak on my behalf, but I [iwas[/i very annoyed.
| |
|
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 203 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Nov 2012 | 12 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Dec 2018 | Apr 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
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.
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 28357 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2024 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote Neil="Neil"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.'"
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.
Quote Neil="Neil"That depends entirely on the individual on the receiving end as to whether they find it annoying or not '"
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.
Quote Neil="Neil"and granted, he says he was not annoyed. '"
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.
Quote Neil="Neil"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? '"
Would certainly be at more risk of being an offence; asking for money is a base requirement of "importuning"
Quote Neil="Neil"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? '"
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.
Quote Neil="kirkstaller"
Do you honestly think a soldier telling you that you owe them a debt of gratitude isn't likely to annoy?'"
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.
Quote Neil="kirkstaller"Nice of you to speak on my behalf, but I [iwas[/i very ">annoyed.'"
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.
|
|
Quote Neil="Neil"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.'"
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.
Quote Neil="Neil"That depends entirely on the individual on the receiving end as to whether they find it annoying or not '"
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.
Quote Neil="Neil"and granted, he says he was not annoyed. '"
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.
Quote Neil="Neil"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? '"
Would certainly be at more risk of being an offence; asking for money is a base requirement of "importuning"
Quote Neil="Neil"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? '"
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.
Quote Neil="kirkstaller"
Do you honestly think a soldier telling you that you owe them a debt of gratitude isn't likely to annoy?'"
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.
Quote Neil="kirkstaller"Nice of you to speak on my behalf, but I [iwas[/i very ">annoyed.'"
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.
| |
|
| | | |
| |
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
Copyright 1999 - 2025 RLFANS.COM
You must be 18+ to gamble, for more information and for help with gambling issues see https://www.begambleaware.org/.
Please Support RLFANS.COM
|
|
| POSTS | ONLINE | REGISTRATIONS | RECORD |
|---|
| 19.67M +2 | 470 | 80,283 | 14,103 |
| LOGIN HERE
or REGISTER for more features!.
When you register you get access to the live match scores, live match chat and you can post in the discussions on the forums.
|
|
|
