Jump to content

Recommended Posts

They're supporting a youth charity/organisation that produces a magazine that they sell on the streets. 

I'm not 100% sure as I couldn't remember the name, but from quick bit of research it could be "Inside Success" who've had some bad press in the past for their tactics and handling of donations and have similar blue "uniform" and branding?

well behaved at Paddington.

On a promise of a direct donation to a website, they refuse, you have to buy a magazine. I suspect they are not paid but get a slice of what they sell. Like the lads selling overpriced tea towels door-to-door

this is the same as the people who used to try and get you to switch power supplier (eventually banned). They had no further info tolook at. You just had to agree to their form of words (of which you had no proof) and sign. They were paid for every signature.

Perhaps if you had gone & had a chat with them rather than jumping to the wrong prejudicial conclusions (ie your phrase “a lot of police around possibly unconnected- “) you’d have discovered that they are selling a magazine called ‘Inside Success’ raising funds to combat knife crime and to help London’s disadvantaged youth.

They are always enthusiastic, polite & friendly. Next time you see them, I hope you’ll buy a magazine.

IMG_7949.jpeg

IMG_7948.jpeg

IMG_7945.jpeg

IMG_7946.jpeg

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1

Some interesting findings on them from the Fundraising Regulator earlier this year https://www.fundraisingregulator.org.uk/more-from-us/resources/inside-success-union-cic-january-2024

 

Quote

Code themes examined: Pressurised fundraising, misleading fundraising, fundraising licenses, causing an obstruction, wearing appropriate identification when engaged in street fundraising, complaint handling and learning from complaints. 

Code breach? Yes 

[...]

In most  complaints, we found a recurring theme that members of the public felt that ISU employees placed undue pressure on people to donate. None of the complainants indicated they had been pressured to buy a magazine or sign up for a subscription; only to donate or make a “one-off contribution”.  Moreover, some complainants told us that they were led to believe that the vendors were representing a charity instead of a community interest company. Considering this, we concluded that ISU breached sections of the code that prohibit misleading donors and pressuring them unduly to donate.  

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

They are certainly persistent - they try to sell us it every time we walk up and down Lordship Lane - no matter if you told them no thank you three minutes earlier! Anyone else feel that sense of relief when you walk and see they have someone they are talking (invariably looking like they are trying to get away) allowing you to walk past without becoming their next sale target?

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

    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
    • I guess its the thing these days to demonstrate an attitude, in this instance seemingly of the negative kind, instead of taking pride in your work and have standards then 🤷‍♀️
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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