Well, no, that’s why I created the thread.



No, I meant what I said. It is possible label their behaviour inappropriate without seeking to restrict their right to say such things.



‘Out of order’ is an expression which conveys personal, or even societal, dismay at certain behaviour. It does not mean I wish to impinge fundamental human freedoms.

If someone said it was out of order to refuse to tip a waiter in a restaurant, would you interpret that as an indication that they wanted such acts prohibited by law?



In my view, they were out of order.



Correct.



Correct.



Yes I do.

I think they jolly well shouldn’t have done that, and I was sharing my opinion on a public forum.



The problem with this is you are still relying on your bizarre interpretation of the well-known phrase, 'out of order'.



You do what you want, however you are running the risk of appearing to take the opposite view to me for the sake of it.



It was extremely rude. Most on here seem to agree that it was out of order.



They may or may not have tried to convince me. Either way, I feel it was the wrong way to go about it. Do you think they could have gone about it better?



I’m perfectly aware of what the law says, but you seem to think for some reason that I am not allowed to apply a moral or social judgement to lawful behaviour which I find inappropriate. The phrase I used to convey my views was 'out of order'.

You, again, are relying on a particularly strange interpretation of that phrase. Why? I’ve no idea.

Sorry, your attempts at swerving are about as good as Roman Grosjean's. You wrote:-



So you said it was - in your view - not appropriate for them to judge or criticise you [iat all[/i.

Now you are saying that it was entirely appropriate to judge or criticise, you just are upset at the way they went about it. But what i objected to is your unqualified claim that any judgement or criticism was inappropriate [iper se[/i.

You said it. If it isn't what you meant, just say so instead of trying to pretend you wrote something else!

Show me where I have said that.



Of course, which I why I started this thread and called their behaviour inappropriate.



I honestly don't see what you're getting at here. Can you develop that point?

Also, do you want to clarify your interpretation of 'out of order'? I thought you'd do this is your reply but you obviously forgot.

Should have told the Squaddie to mind his own chuffing business kirkstaller!

Why, can't you do it yourself? Oh, I forgot, you are far too busy to spend seconds looking back in a thread. Well, here it is:




"Honestly"? Give over. Oh, go on then, you said:


Straightforward statement. Unambiguous. Judgment or criticism of non-poppy-wearers is, [iper se[/i, inappropriate.

1. You accused me of saying it is entirely appropriate to judge or criticise:



2. I asked you to show me where I had said that:



3. After the usual sanctimonious twaddle, you supplied the following quote:



Where in quote 3 did I say it was appropriate to judge non-poppy-wearers?



Like I have said numerous times, I stand by that view. The conduct of the soldiers was not admirable.

By the way, you've dodged your explanation of your interpretation of 'out of order', again

You said:


Either they can express their views, or they should not be able to.

Either they have freedom of speech (within the law), or they do not.

Therefore either it is appropriate for them to express those views, or it is inappropriate. It can't be both.

But I note that is indeed your explanation - you're now barmily claiming that they were within their rights to say what they did, but it was simultaneously also "inappropriate" for them to do so.

That is the final word on the subject as honestly the above cannot usefully have anything added to it.

Now, for some bizarre reason you keep asking me to explain what i meant by "out of order". This is another of the regular exanples of your irritating unwillingness to spend a few seconds looking back in the thread to answer your own question.



In context, that is precisely what I said, and precisely what I meant. Which word/s are you struggling with?

Isn't it an offence to try to collect for charity by doing anything more than standing passively with a collection box, or is that just a bye-law in some towns?

The whole thing is a mess. For example, "chuggers" don't need any sort of permit - as they are not collecting money, only direct debit comittments!

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/sep/21/charity-fundraising-legal-adviceMugs Guide[/url

I usually find that a "No thank you" and a smile normally works wonders, that and the ability to continue walking onwards...

Ah yes but the reason not many do that is because then they'll think you're a twwat, and I reckon it is part of the majority genetic makeup not to be perceived as a twwat. It's a very odd thing, since why logically should you be at all bothered what random people who don't know you and who you'll never encounter again think of you? But I'm sure it's true for most folk. Many even put their posh voice on when taking a call from some totally anonymous person who hasn't a clue about you nor ever will.

Precisely, even people that I personally know think I'm a twwat so I've nothing to lose.

Going off on a tangent (who, me?) I find that the words "please" and definitely the words "thank you" get you absolutely EVERYWHERE with customer service, whether buying or selling.

But then, I am a very charming man.

As does being a KR supporter

Aren't these collectors on an hourly wage? There was a report in Aus that if you sign up on the street your first 2 years of payments goes to the recruitment agency.

That was my understanding too. [url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1974/140/pdfs/uksi_19740140_en.pdfThis[/url would appear to lend support to that view, in particular pages 453 and 454 and paragraphs 8 - 10. It's not often I find myself in agreement with Kirkstaller but, without knowing what was said between them, on this occasion he would appear in the right. Free speech doesn't come into it, the person collecting on behalf of a charity does not appear to have the right to demand to know why you are not supporting them.

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.

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."

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".

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.

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.

Whatever, OP wasn't "annoyed", he was "taken aback".

=#4040FF9 No collector shall importune any person to the annoyance of such person.
Importune means to "To beset with insistent or repeated requests". OP doesn't mention specifically being asked for money at all.
And as explained, OP doesn't allege he was annoyed by them.

Maybe he just thought they were being rude?

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.

Shouldn't bother, the model regs don't apply to chuggers, apparently because they are not asking you for money (just for a committment to enter into a direct debit).

Yes I think that's barking too, but don't go on at me, I didn't draft this stuff.

Smile, continue walking, say "No thank you", continue walking, works 95% of the time, for the other 5% a palm to the face often assists.

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.

No you didn't, but you did say..



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.



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.



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.



But it wasn't asked politely, the OP said





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?

As Neil has already said, his tone and manner spoke volumes. It was not polite.



Do you honestly think a soldier telling you that you owe them a debt of gratitude isn't likely to annoy?



Nice of you to speak on my behalf, but I [iwas[/i very annoyed.

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.

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.


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.


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.


Would certainly be at more risk of being an offence; asking for money is a base requirement of "importuning"


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.


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.


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.