MP's must ban Chuggers - Get them Off our streets , now

[arista]

Do not get in my way.


Charity Chuggers
take your Credit card number
then a amount is REMOVED
each month for a charity


Now the CEO of that Company (charity)
gets the bulk of your Cash.

http://i2.gazettelive.co.uk/incoming/article10967192.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/JS70086711.jpg
No Madame - YOU are not
getting my card number
(a photo from the Summer)

MP's are due to ban them
once we fecking leave the EU
after it starts in March 2017


Law And Order

[Kizzy]

They are a terrible idea, it should be a more considered decision to which charity you choose to donate regularly to.

[arista]

They are a terrible idea, it should be a more considered decision to which charity you choose to donate regularly to.


Yes Kizzy

[Cherie]

Awful, they get paid 9.00 as hour as well :bored: Yesterday the RSPCA and BHF were both fined for not protecting their doner database .and selling on details..good!

[hijaxers]

Awful, they get paid 9.00 as hour as well :bored: Yesterday the RSPCA and BHF were both fined for not protecting their doner database .and selling on details..good!

£9 an hr to harass people , whilst carers are on the minimum wage . Hurry up and rid the streets of them.

[Kizzy]

Awful, they get paid 9.00 as hour as well :bored: Yesterday the RSPCA and BHF were both fined for not protecting their doner database .and selling on details..good!

Eh there's weird, if they're fined isn't that taking money from doners and depriving the recipients?
Seems rather counterproductive to me.

[Crimson Dynamo]

thankfully I never see them.

[Cherie]

Eh there's weird, if they're fined isn't that taking money from doners and depriving the recipients?
Seems rather counterproductive to me.

Would you rather they continue to sell on details, put their doners under more pressure and break the data protection act or would you rather hit the directors bonuses, I know what I would prefer

[Brillopad]

Eh there's weird, if they're fined isn't that taking money from doners and depriving the recipients?
Seems rather counterproductive to me.

Blimey we actually agree on something. :shocked:

[Cherie]

Blimey we actually agree on something. :shocked:

So you would be happy to have your details sold on if you didn't agree to it to line a Chairmans pocket?

[Brillopad]

So you would be happy to have your details sold on if you didn't agree to it to line a Chairmans pocket?

No I wouldn't, not at all. But I donate to the RSPCA every month and feel that I, along with others that do, will end up paying the fine. There must be a better way of dealing with it.

[user104658]

So you would be happy to have your details sold on if you didn't agree to it to line a Chairmans pocket?
Personally I think someone, somewhere needs to come up with a better punishment than "take derr monies!"... Because they (big companies) don't really care about fines... Consider them part of their operating costs.

Stick whichever monkey-in-charge signed off on the details being sold in prison for 6 months. That might make him (or the next one) think twice before doing it again.

[waterhog]

I agree - tougher punishment and make a few examples - that will stop them mugging I mean chugging us. :joker:

[caprimint]

thankfully I never see them.
How do you avoid them when you go into town? :suspect:

[Cherie]

Personally I think someone, somewhere needs to come up with a better punishment than "take derr monies!"... Because they (big companies) don't really care about fines... Consider them part of their operating costs.

Stick whichever monkey-in-charge signed off on the details being sold in prison for 6 months. That might make him (or the next one) think twice before doing it again.

What do you suggest?

[Cherie]

No I wouldn't, not at all. But I donate to the RSPCA every month and feel that I, along with others that do, will end up paying the fine. There must be a better way of dealing with it.

So you are happy with cold calls from other charities. You must be a saint :hehe: cancel your DD to the RSPCA and find an animal charity where your donation doesn't end up as a chairmans bonus

[user104658]

What do you suggest?
That was the suggestion :shrug:.

[MB.]

How do you avoid them when you go into town? :suspect:

LT never leaves his house, you see

[UserSince2005]

Remember when i used to live in sydney this time a few years ago. a friend of mine was felling these raindeer headband. literally every street in the city had someone selling these headbands.

Anyway she told me how she got 20% of all sales, the company got 70% and the charity they were selling them in the name of got 10%

[Cherie]

That was the suggestion :shrug:.

Can we have a suggestion that's likely to happen :laugh:

[caprimint]

LT never leaves his house, you see
A plausible solution :think:

[Crimson Dynamo]

How do you avoid them when you go into town? :suspect:

I have never seen a "chugger " in my town in 15 years and I dont go south to the big town as I dont really go shopping. I was in Stirling on Sunday with my mother and the weans etc but I never came across a "chugger" there either.

[Cherie]

I have never seen a "chugger " in my town in 15 years and I dont go south to the big town as I dont really go shopping. I was in Stirling on Sunday with my mother and the weans etc but I never came across a "chugger" there either.

The towns too tight for Chuggers :hehe:

[caprimint]

I have never seen a "chugger " in my town in 15 years and I dont go south to the big town as I dont really go shopping. I was in Stirling on Sunday with my mother and the weans etc but I never came across a "chugger" there either.
Lucky you :laugh:

Usually when I'm in town I see at least a couple, most often all on the same street as well

[Crimson Dynamo]

The towns too tight for Chuggers :hehe:

Scottish people are not soft touches for sob stories and coercion

:hee:

[Cherie]

I have never seen a "chugger " in my town in 15 years and I dont go south to the big town as I dont really go shopping. I was in Stirling on Sunday with my mother and the weans etc but I never came across a "chugger" there either.

TL being subjected to shopping with your mother and the weans, you know how to treat a gal :oh:

[Crimson Dynamo]

TL being subjected to shopping with your mother and the weans, you know how to treat a gal :oh:

:nono:

she got to push my mothers wheelchair which can be fun on the shopping centre's smooth floor and I bought her a happy meal with fish fingers.

[Livia]

These people make me less likely to support their charity.

[smudgie]

Ruddy nuisance.
The same as knocking on the door or having the cheek to cold call you.
Chug off normally works in all situations.

[Northern Monkey]

Arseholes.They're basically sales people.They always have sexy chicks batting their eyelashes and waving their sexy butt cheeks at you to try and get your cc deets.
Also if you've got kids with you and it's like a children's charity or cancer charity they'll try and emotionally blackmail you.Saying things like "I see you've got kids,Did you know blah blah blah...." or "I can see you're a good dad,You know that blah blah blah....."
Shameless.
If i'm giving my credit card details to a sexy lady i atleast want a lap dance

[arista]

yes NM students
young women earning cash

[They always have sexy chicks batting their eyelashes and waving their sexy butt cheeks at you to try and get your cc deets.]

[arista]

[If i'm giving my credit card details to a sexy lady i atleast want a lap dance ]

NM
There are places for that.

Sign Of The Times

[arista]

:nono:

she got to push my mothers wheelchair which can be fun on the shopping centre's smooth floor and I bought her a happy meal with fish fingers.


How Nice

[jennyjuniper]

It's far better to donate a yealy sum paid via your bank. It doesn't have to be a large amount and the charity you choose benefits by having a regular 'income'. You also get tax relief on charitable donations.

[Kizzy]

Would you rather they continue to sell on details, put their doners under more pressure and break the data protection act or would you rather hit the directors bonuses, I know what I would prefer

I'd rather someone was held accountable and punished, the fine will only hurt the recipients, not the directors bonus.

[Kizzy]

How do you avoid them when you go into town? :suspect:
You don't, you walk towards them and then past them .

[Calderyon]

Never seen those tbh.

[Cherie]

I'd rather someone was held accountable and punished, the fine will only hurt the recipients, not the directors bonus.

How do you know that?

[Babayaro.]

Chuggers?

Yikes.

[Cherie]

The Information Commissioner’s Office has fined both the RSPCA and the British Heart Foundation for breaches of data protection law in their fundraising practices, following a Daily Mail exposé in September 2015.

The ICO this morning confirmed that it had fined the RSPCA £25,000 and the British Heart Foundation £18,000, after the Daily Mail today published an article citing the figures. But both the RSPCA and the British Heart Foundation have strongly condemned the ICO’s findings.

The fines are the result of an ICO investigation into both charities around so-called ‘wealth screening’ and selling of donor data, which begun after a Daily Mail investigation into the practice in September 2015.

The full findings of the investigation have not yet been published. The ICO had originally intended to publish at the end of the week, but is now expected to publish the full findings later today.

The British Heart Foundation said that it was considering whether to challenge the decision. The RSPCA has said that it will hold a meeting of its trustee board later this week to decide whether or not to make any "future response to the ICO's findings".

RSPCA and BHF “disappointed”
Simon Gillespie, chief executive of the British Heart Foundation, said: “We are extremely disappointed in the action the ICO has taken. The trust our supporters put in us demands high standards of fundraising and we take the data protection responsibilities that come with this very seriously.

“The British Heart Foundation has endeavoured to ensure our practices follow ICO and Institute of Fundraising guidelines and we are committed to constantly evolving and improving our approach.

“We find the decision surprising as earlier this year in June the ICO praised our data handling and said that they had no concerns about us as a data controller.

“In June 2015 we took the decision never to share our supporters’ data with other fundraisers and we have made it clear to our supporters that this is the case.

“We believe that key aspects of the ICO’s decision and findings are wrong, disproportionate and inconsistent. Our trustees will therefore consider whether it’s in the interests of our supporters and beneficiaries to challenge this decision.”

Jeremy Cooper, chief executive of the RSPCA, said: “We are disappointed at the ruling and disagree with the conclusions drawn by the ICO.

“There is no suggestion that we lost or sold any personal data, but rather the ICO considered the information we gave to supporters on how their personal data would be used was inadequate.

“There has been one acknowledged contravention, through an inadvertent error, which we ourselves brought to the ICO’s attention.

“We always strive to ensure that our practices fully comply with all relevant legislation and are carried out to a high standard. We are listening to the public and are changing the way we ask people to support our vital work which meets their needs and expectations, whilst safeguarding potentially vulnerable people.

“Our supporters and members are the heart of the Society. It is only thanks to them that we can do the work we do rescuing, rehabilitating and rehoming thousands of animals each year.”

‘Shaming of the charity vultures’
The Daily Mail published an article today which said that the ICO “fined the RSPCA last night for paying investigators to pry into donor’s wealth” after it launched an investigation into the swapping and sharing of people’s data following an article by the same paper in September 2015.

Today’s article goes on to say that, in the process of its investigation of the RSPCA, “the watchdog subsequently found that the British Heart Foundation was secretly carrying out wealth profiling too”.

The article said that “both charities were also found to have used unscrupulous firms to find out more information about donors and to have been sharing personal data with other organisations,” which, the Mail said, put those people at “risk of fraud”.

The paper said that the penalties "could open the floodgates for thousands of donors to sue the charities for misuse of their private information".

The Samuel Rae case
The findings of the ICO investigation and the Mail’s article this morning stem from an exposé carried out by the Daily Mail on 1 September 2015.

The Mail claimed that 87-year-old dementia sufferer Samuel Rae had been tricked into giving away £35,000 of his own money to “unscrupulous catalogue scammers”, who bought Mr Rae’s contact details from various charities.

While the original article did not name either the RSPCA or the British Heart Foundation, a follow up story on 2 September accused the RSPCA of “paying investigators to assess how much money donors might leave in their wills”.

It said the RSPCA passed Rae’s details on to Prospecting for Gold – a prospect research agency which works exclusively with charities – four times. PFG then used the data provided to “establish a score estimating” the wealth and “donor potential” of Mr Rae.

The RSPCA strongly disputed the claims at the time and said that legacy predictor modelling is “used by many charities” in the sector. It did however promise to review its use of supporter data.

Changes to the Code of Fundraising Practice
The death of Olive Cooke and the subsequent allegations around the selling and sharing of Samuel Rae’s data led to the IoF banning the sale of donor data to third parties, and a number of other amendments to the Code of Fundraising Practice.

Published on 21 September 2015, the IoF banned the selling of donor data by charities, made it mandatory for addressed mailing to carry a clear opt out message and said that charities could only share an individual’s data with a third party “if that individual has opted in and provided express consent”.

The changes were made in response to the interim report published by the FRSB in June 2015.

Peter Lewis, chief executive of the Institute of Fundraising, said: “Charities are only able to make a massive difference in the world because of the generosity of their supporters. No charity wants to damage that relationship.

“Over the last year we have seen a huge amount of change in the charity sector, improving fundraising practices that build on the many ways donors want to support the good causes they care about. We are confident that, if regulators like the ICO and charities can work better together, we can make sure standards continue to improve in the future for the benefit of donors and beneficiaries alike.“

The Fundraising Regulator has said it is unable to comment on the case until it has seen the full report from the ICO’s investigation.

- See more at: https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/ico-fines-rspca-and-british-heart-foundation-after-daily-mail-expose.html#sthash.hEO4JWPV.dpuf

[Kizzy]

How do you know that?

Why would it? Would the directors say 'oh we were fined, I'll take a cut to absorb that then'... Realistically this would never happen.

[Cherie]

Why would it? Would the directors say 'oh we were fined, I'll take a cut to absorb that then'... Realistically this would never happen.

We don't know what terms the ICO will put on the payment, they are pretty nominal sums in relation to Director salaries so it is possible that recipients won't be penalised, Neither of us know the terms so it's all speculation

[Kizzy]

We don't know what terms the ICO will put on the payment, they are pretty nominal sums in relation to Director salaries so it is possible that recipients won't be penalised, Neither of us know the terms so it's all speculation

Well you asked for a scenario that was the most likely to happen, that was it.

[Cherie]

Well you asked for a scenario that was the most likely to happen, that was it.

Well if it is, it will at least ensure other Charirties respect their doners and not look on them as cash cahs to be harassed

[thesheriff443]

The two charities used third parties to find out who was the richest donors and how much their houses were worth, they contacted those donors asking would they leave them money or assets in their will.

[Kizzy]

Well if it is, it will at least ensure other Charirties respect their doners and not look on them as cash cahs to be harassed

Nope, I doubt it will as has happened with other businesses data leaks/sales have happened and the company simply pay the fine and carry on.
A quick search shows this happens regularly.

[user104658]

I have never seen a "chugger " in my town in 15 years and I dont go south to the big town as I dont really go shopping. I was in Stirling on Sunday with my mother and the weans etc but I never came across a "chugger" there either.
You didn't walk around much then, Stirling main street is full of the ****ers and they have military tactics. They try to flank you :fist:

[arista]

I have never seen a "chugger " in my town in 15 years and I dont go south to the big town as I dont really go shopping. I was in Stirling on Sunday with my mother and the weans etc but I never came across a "chugger" there either.


lucky You



All over London and Brighton

[Cherie]

Nope, I doubt it will as has happened with other businesses data leaks/sales have happened and the company simply pay the fine and carry on.
A quick search shows this happens regularly.

Oh right, it's not just about selling data it's also about paying investigators to profile donors so they can target Wills, does every company do this as well :umm2:

[Kizzy]

Oh right, it's not just about selling data it's also about paying investigators to profile donors so they can target Wills, does every company do this as well :umm2:

Possibly, who knows. My mother regularly receives junk asking if she would like to free up the equity in her home and still live in it.
How do these companies know these things?

[_Tom_]

I hate them. They're so aggressive and do the charities no favours. They get paid commission per every sign up as well and I remember reading somewhere that it would take something like 18 months for your direct debit to actually go towards the charity after paying off the chugging company. :worry:

I usually always have my headphones in when I walk around anyway so I just walk past them ignoring them, even if they wave at me etc.

I even had one at my door the other week :nono:

[jaxie]

I don't like the charity 'hard sell' or ' hard sell' from any company. Nothing is more likely to make me steer clear of ever giving them anything, money, time, my business.

[Marsh.]

I thought this thread was about me in my new car.

[Cherie]

I thought this thread was about me in my new car.

Passed our test have we :worry:

[Marsh.]

Passed our test have we :worry:

Omg yes, I passed 6 weeks ago. :amazed: