SIR,

Following a phone-call from an alarmed elderly

resident, I

was made aware that charities are employing

professional

teams using door-to-door coldcalling techniques to

acquire pledges by direct debit.

The lady in question was a pensioner who claimed 2

persons had called on her and inferred that £1.50 a

week

would not be missed out of her pension.

I contacted the police and the Charity Commission

to

verify the authenticity of this event and practice,

particularly as much was carried out during daytime

hours

when people would be out at work, leaving the

elderly and

vulnerable among those most likely to be targeted.

I was told that this was common practice and any

grievances should be taken up with the charity itself.

On contacting the fundraising department of the

charity

in question, I was told it was a legal and wonderful

way of

raising large sums of money. I asked whether they

considered this practice morally justifiable,

particularly as

I had been informed that dwellings in a road clearly

occupied primarily by senior citizens had been

visited.

Their response was that unless a relevant sign was

displayed, the professionally trained people

employed by

them could not possibly know what sort of people

were

living in a particular road. They also told me that

these

professionals were trained so as to ensure the

householder would not part with more than they

could

afford and that people these days preferred to

discuss

their direct debits and charity donations within the

comfort of their own homes.

There are many caring people who give freely of

their

time and make financial contributions to worthy

causes

when they choose to do so. If we are to condone

door-to-

door strangers employed specifically to assess how

much

we are worth and accordingly securing direct debits

from

us, whatever is happening to our personal liberties?

Furthermore we have neighbourhood watch schemes

that

constantly warn us of distraction burglaries.

Procedures

that are familiar to many for checking identities of

callers

can be an ordeal and very worrying for those whose

eyesight and hearing are deteriorating.

So the safest option is to advise our vulnerable

relatives

and neighbours not to entertain cold calling of any

kind.

Are charities employing these methods therefore not

undermining the very efforts that others are making

to

safeguard our communities?

I appreciate that at present charities are feeling the

pinch,

however on discussing this matter with local people,

I

have yet to find anyone who doesn't share my

concerns.

As one person recently told me 'This practice is

giving

charities a bad image'.

I, like others, have my chosen charities that I

regularly and

gladly support. However, as a result of these

revelations I

have resolved never to support any charity that

adopts

this method of fundraising and am heartened to

know that

others intend to take the same stance.

Angela Hoyle

(Monmouth)