Um, No…

Chuggers are not right to make people feel guilty. Abi Wilkinson tries valiantly to defend a practice that is indefensible.

Let’s face it, chuggers are annoying. None of us would choose to be regularly accosted by suspiciously chirpy twentysomethings attempting to cajole us into a “small monthly direct debit” in support of some worthy cause or other.

This is true. Not least because we already pay a direct debit – it is taken from us by the sate and handed out to these organisations without our consent.

No matter how sympathetic we are towards the plight of refugees, spina bifida sufferers, Bengal tigers or whichever plight-stricken group we’re asked to consider on any given day, few of us feel affluent enough to donate to every charity that asks for our support. And attempting to tactfully decline the requests of those who are professionally trained to push our emotional buttons – or face-to-face fundraisers, as the charity industry prefers to call them – can be something of a social minefield.

Actually, it isn’t. See above. We have already given. We don’t need to give more and if it is an organisation that can afford to pay for professional fundraisers, it doesn’t need any more and won’t be getting any from me.

Undoubtedly many will greet the Charity Commission’s decision towarn charities against “hounding” the public for donations “on the telephone, through the letterbox or in the street” with relief.

Yes.

The more altruistically minded will point out that they already give generously to their chosen causes. Others will simply object, on principle, to the idea they should be made to feel guilty for looking after themselves and their families first.

Yes.

This is certainly a perspective I can understand. However, having experienced the other side of the dynamic, I think the anger is ultimately misplaced.

No, really, it isn’t.

Charities do things the way they do because it works. If a more passive approach to fundraising delivered the same results, they wouldn’t bother with the hard sell. We might like to think that we’d still donate without the use of persuasive tactics – in our own time, to the charities of our selection – but evidence suggests that, collectively, we wouldn’t give nearly as much.

That doesn’t make it right and will never make it right. I will never, ever, give to a charity that uses this method. Ever.

When I started as a fundraiser, I was taught to ask for a donation three times. The first request would be for a relatively high amount – £15 a month, perhaps – and the subsequent ones would be lower. I was taught this because the vast majority of people who agree to donate do so on the third try. For each campaign I worked on I was provided with a script containing multiple possible lines to coax people into coughing up.

Well, it’s never worked on me and never will. Again, I will never give to charities that use this method. Ever.

There is evidently an element of guilt-tripping involved, but this can only go so far. I know I’m most vulnerable to fundraising tactics when I really can afford to give a bit more away. It’s not easy to convince myself that £5 a month to Save the Children is an unnecessary extravagance when I’m holding a coffee that costs two thirds of that amount. When truly skint, it is easy to walk straight past or quickly explain the situation.

Guilt tripping doesn’t work on me because I do not feel guilty. I have already given very generously as the state has stolen huge amounts of my money and given it to charities that I would normally never give money to, as I despise everything they stand for. I am not giving any more and  I don’t feel remotely  guilty about that.

A little bit of discomfort, though? That’s the point.

No. It is immoral to make people feel uncomfortable in order to access their money. It simply makes me dig my heels in because I deplore the tactic.

With UK charities losing more than £1bn in funding as a result of government cuts, they’re more reliant on public donations than ever before.

This is a good thing. There should be no government funding and charities should rely entirely on donations.

Those of us with cash to spare should be confronted with evidence of where it is desperately needed. It needs to be difficult for us to ignore.

No, it should not. Try it on and I will make a point of ignoring it and a very firm point of not donating one groat to the “cause”.

Compared with the repercussions of a further drop in charity funding, the mild annoyance of being hassled by chuggers is really a small price to pay.

No, it isn’t. The practice is repugnant. No one should be hassled and cajoled while going about their business. And if charities disappear through lack of funding, then not enough people felt strongly enough to donate. Too bad. Get over it.

It would seem that many of those below the line agree with me.