Latest news with #soliciting
Washington Post
29-05-2025
- General
- Washington Post
Miss Manners: How to deal with solicitors in a ‘no solicitor' building?
Dear Miss Manners: I work in an upscale office building in the downtown core. Our building is supposed to be solicitor-free, but on occasion we get walk-in solicitors, companies trying to sell their services and people trying to give resumes. This is both annoying and bothersome. Our office is locked, so these people need to ring or knock to be let in — and then when they come in, I realize they are not clients, but peddlers. Is it impolite to say there is no soliciting in the building, or should I take their card and just say I will pass it on, even though I won't? I understand that these people are trying to better themselves, but they are already breaking rules and taking time away from my work. One can enforce a building rule rudely and one can enforce it politely, but you appear to be asking if the rule itself is rude — a habit, perhaps, in an age when everyone is asked to comment on everything. The rule itself strikes Miss Manners as innocuous. More importantly, it is not within your authority to change. Tell the person that you are sorry, but the owners have a rule against soliciting in the building. You can then pick up a phone, leaving them to guess whether this is to inform someone of their presence or merely to go about your own business. Dear Miss Manners: I learned from a treasured friend that if a person brings up a topic regarding themselves, it usually means they want to talk about it. Said friend will then, sometimes, seem to throw up her guard when I ask a question, wanting to hear more. Is it rude to ask questions when someone brings up a personal subject? Am I asking the wrong questions? Perhaps I'm asking the wrong way. If so, how should I politely ask? Maybe I want the correct preface. There is no one-size-fits-all answer to such a question except to say: When in doubt, attentive listening is usually the least likely to get one in trouble. Dear Miss Manners: Both of my sisters-in-law's grandchildren graduated from high school last weekend. We gladly traveled the two hours to their respective parties and gave each one a cash gift. Both sisters-in-law have texted, thanking us for coming and for the nice gifts. I suspect (in one instance, anyway) that we're not to expect a reply from the recipient, as the text went into detail how appreciative the graduate is, how the money will be put to use and what his future plans are. How do I respond? It feels misplaced to say 'You're welcome' to the grandparents, when we attended and gifted in honor of the graduates. The problem, as both you and the sisters-in-law know or suspect, is that the unmannerly recipients are not going to express thanks themselves. So the question within your question is whether you let the sisters-in-law — who do not want you to think ill of their grandchildren — off the hook. Miss Manners would have you text back that you are 'Glad they are enjoying the gift.' This will reassure the sisters-in-law that you have no quarrel with them — while its brevity relieves you of directly addressing the larger question. New Miss Manners columns are posted Monday through Saturday on You can send questions to Miss Manners at her website, You can also follow her @RealMissManners. © 2025 Judith Martin
CBS News
08-05-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
AB 379 passes committee despite opposition from progressive Democrats
After Democrats and Republicans argued for weeks, a California bill aimed at allowing prosecutors to charge suspects with felonies who solicit 16 and 17-year-olds for sex has passed through committee. "You sit there and you water down the penalties," said Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego). Despite being introduced by a Democrat, progressives tried to tank the bill, claiming it could be used to abuse people of color and teens who are close in age. "I've heard concern about, and this provision related to 16- and 17-year-olds in terms of how it's applied and whether it's applied equitably," said Assemblyman Nick Schultz (D-Burbank). "We all know that in the past, law enforcement has discriminatorily applied certain provisions of California law against particular communities, so I think that concern is real. However, Gov. Gavin Newsom and some fellow Democrats weighed in and slammed their members. They said there should be no question that soliciting teens for sex should be a felony. State Republicans said Democrats who opposed the bill are out of touch. "This is a no-brainer," said State Senator Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach). "It's about protecting kids. I give credit to Gov. Newsom for weighing in on this." In the end, Democrats backed down, pushing the bill through the committee with an exception in a rare case where the suspect is within three years of the victim's age. "The important thing to understand, because there's been so much misinformation about this particular bill over the last 10 days, it is already a felony in the state of California to contact or communicate or attempt to contact or communicate with a minor to engage in sexual activity," Schultz said. AB 379 must still pass a full vote in the Assembly and the state Senate.
