Dear Sir...

Britain is, by and large, a charitable nation.  Certainly charity is the only possible explanation for the continued enthusiastic support of some of the nation’s national football teams, who can be relied upon to put in a truly tragic performance in any tournament more challenging than the one down the rec using anoraks for goalposts.

Charity takes many forms.  For instance, many older men, even married ones, help to support young women by putting them up in a small flat in Mayfair and ensuring they have enough money for their education, gym memberships, discreet visits to Harley Street and, if necessary, impromptu foreign travel one step ahead of the press.

There are national charity days for broadcasters, when the BBC tests to destruction the patience of an audience who have only tuned in to see the special seven minute long ‘Doctor Who’ episode and who have to sit through musical number after musical number for fear of missing it and not Tweeting something snarky in the moment.

There are charity days that take the form of brave volunteers who, armed only with regulation anorak and a thermos containing a cocktail of gin and paraffin, stand on the high street for hours rattling a tin, in aid of funds for Lifeboats, or the fight against some vile disease, or the welfare of any animal from the donkey to the, well, it’s usually donkeys.

The English in particular love their animal charities.  Ironically this is a result of knowing fuck all about animal welfare and thinking meat comes from the supermarket rather than a Disney character voiced by a beloved recovering alcoholic.  This affection and affectation has given rise to the myth that the English give more to animal charities than they do charities that look after humans.

Why does this myth persist?

The thing is, charities have started sending gifts to those who contribute, like calendars and stickers and, frankly, people are much more likely to use, and display, their bookmark of a grinning donkey in a hat than they are the sort of image usually sent out by a charity that looks after children in some war torn hell hole, which is usually, how shall we put this, authentic, and not the sort of thing you want fellow commuters thinking you consider appropriate to mark your place in ‘What Ho Jeeves’.

Whilst charities may send you gifts to prompt you to donate (‘please find enclosed a free biro, now use it to fill out the enclosed standing order form you middle class biro stealing bastard’), that’s a lot better than the menace that risks turning us from a nation with our hand in our pocket to a nation with our hands round the throat of the gurning tosser obstructing our path on the pavement.

I speak of the ‘chugger’.  And if you thought the BBC News team doing a ‘Kids from Fame’ medley in aid of ‘Children in Need’ was irritating, that’s nothing compared to some twat in a cagoule with a smile and a clipboard trying to get your bank details off of you without even the common courtesy of pretending to be a Nigerian prince.  Or giving you a coaster.  These are young people who are employed to cheerfully try and slow your progress to the cake shop or pub by asking you if you have ever thought about the problems of the lack of availability of drinking water in the world.

BTW the correct answer is not, as I found out, ‘absolutely, Waitrose is out of Highland Spring again, it’s a fucking disgrace’.

I think people find chuggers irritating because British people are genuinely generous to charities but like it that by giving they can be both anonymous and altruistic.  That’s why those (now considered to be a little bit offensive and, actually, when you think of it, somewhat creepy) collection boxes in the shape of life-sized replicas of children that used to stand outside shops could do so safely and unchained, no one would dream of nicking one.

Actually, it was because they were full of coppers so they weren’t worth nicking, and, because they were full of coppers, nobody could lift the fucking things anyway!