Comments by "Betty Swunghole" (@bettyswunghole3310) on "Chuggers on your doorstep." video.

As a charity worker myself ( NOT a "chugger"), I kind of feel obliged to say that a lot of small, local charities do very good and valuable work, and are run by some of the most genuinely selfless and noble people you could ever hope to meet. It's the big national ones that have a lot of freeloading fat-cats...
55
A good way to deal with chuggers is to tell them: "I don't give money to charities, I give my time. I'm a volunteer for XYZ." Soon shuts 'em up.
6
Yes, this is the really galling thing..."chuggers" are professionals to who don't actually work for the charity the purport to represent.
4
@robinpickett7618 Well frankly, I think the distinction between "local" and "national" is fairly self evident. This is rather like asking what the difference between a "town" and a "country" is. Where exactly did I claim that: a) I personally have had a bad experience with a national charity, and b) that my statement was absolutely true...(it's merely my opinion)? I've worked for numerous charities over the years, both local and national, and as a volunteer and as paid staff in a variety of capacities. I can only speak from my experience. I also keep my eye on the news. The only charities I've every seen castigated for immoral activities such as obscene bonuses for directors and otherwise inappropriate use of funds are the large "household name" ones. I'm not claiming that it doesn't happen in smaller charities, but I've never known it to. Again, I can only speak from my experience. Why do we need charities? OK, I'm kind of guessing there are two parts to this question. Firstly: "why don't a few more of these scroungers get off their fat arses and find a job?" Yes, I admit there are a certain number of "scroungers" that abuse charities. There always have been...it's not a new phenomenon. There are also a great many genuine cases that need charity through no fault of their own...consider charities for battered women, or abused children, for example. They can hardly be described as "scroungers", I think. A common error that people make is that people who use charity shops are the beneficiaries of the charity. They're not. A charity has very specific aims that it raises money for. Secondly, I guess you're asking "We pay taxes...why doesn't this pay for everything charities do?" Good question. One you'll have to put to Rishi Sunak rather than me, I'm afraid. All I can tell you is that a need exists for the work charities do. There are deeper societal questions, too. For example, the charity I currently work for raises money for a hospice (going back to the previous point, I don't really think the terminally ill can be described as "scroungers"). We receive a certain amount of money from the NHS, but the bulk comes from our own fundraising. But then the questions arise, "Is it the government's responsibility to care for the terminally ill...they're going to die anyway...it's far better to use taxes for the living? Anyway isn't it their family's responsibility to look after them, not the state's?" The situation really isn't as "neat" or as "black and white" as we might like it to be.
1