Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I just had a rather unpleasant experience in Co-op as I tried to buy food for dinner. As I was hunting for what I was looking for a man came up to me and rather creepily said 'You are what I have been looking for all day' and then silence. I stared in disbelief feeling intimidated and then went to walk off. It was only at this point that he quickly said I work for a charity.


Now I've had people say things like this before when trying to get money for charity but this didn't feel obvious enough as a joke and I actually felt worried. When I went to explain to the lady she was working with she made me feel very stupid and could not have looked at me with any more distain. I simply tried to explain that approaching young girls and saying something like that might not be the right approach especially if you hide your clip board behind your back stopping it from being obvious what is happening.


I think it is a real shame that now we can't even shop without being approached for money. As a student teacher I feel bad enough not being able to give as much as I used to. It's one thing when it's out on the street but in your local Co-op I just don't think is on. Plus the guy was creepy and left me feeling very uncomfortable!!!!

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/14852-co-op-charity-muggers/
Share on other sites

This sounds like a very unpleasant experience. I'm never keen on charity chuggers. But at least when they're on the pavement it's obvious who they are so you can make a choice to speak to them or not. To catch you off guard like that is not reasonable and I'm not surprised you weren't happy. I know that the Co-op do sometimes allow charity workers to stand in the entrance but I didn't think they could approach anyone in the store. Probably best to send a letter to Co-Op head office to complain.
Poor you Prussia, that sounds horrible, and you have every right to be suspicious. That just isn't an appropriate thing to say to someone, regardless of whether or not you work for a charity! In these situations, I would always always trust your instincts. If you felt he was a creep, then he was a creep. Keep well away and let the co op know that there is some dodgy behaviour going on in their shop!

Shelter gets a mention above. It's one of those large national charities that has made a fine art of fundraising.


Last year it raised around ?25m from the public. All the people who work there (around 1,000!)are totally committed and it provides very good housing aid, research & lobbying, but it doesn't actually house anyone. A bit of a surprise to some people.


It's ironoc that it's often the smaller less known local charities that actually deliver the frontline services. Giving "local" is often a good option.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • But actually, replacing council housing, or more accurately adding to housing stock and doing so via expanding council estates was precisely what we should have been doing, financed by selling off old housing stock. As the population grows adding to housing built by councils is surely the right thing to do, and financing it through sales is a good model, it's the one commercial house builders follow for instance. In the end the issue is about having the right volumes of the appropriate sort of housing to meet national needs. Thatcher stopped that by forbidding councils to use sales revenues to increase housing stock. That was the error. 
    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...