Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
That's true. But localities decide all the time in their operation who they will or won't do business with. Sometimes the reasoning is along political lines (for example, South Africa boycotts, US states and municipalities boycotting other US states or municipalities). I would ask:

1. Why should all this activity be restricted (adjusted for UK)?
2. If it should not all be restricted, what is the line?
3. What's the big picture of legal restraints on localities in the UK right now? The context obviously matters as to this particular proposed restriction.

Also,

I should have posted a more recent link on the legislative action, which passed the Assembly earlier this month (Senate unclear).
And how much should the local people suffer because their elected officials have decided to purchase materials / services from more ethically "good" places where it costs more?

And of course is "good" buying local, human rights, emissions, preserving the habitat or a mix of all? Is it better to purchase trainers from Bangladesh (for example) made by children or should be boycott the goods so they go out of business or earn less since they have to resell to a middle man?

And if the West decides to stop working with those trying to improve, is the West in any way responsible that others provide the funding with even less interest in the things the West wishes to improve?

Of course I, along with most people, take the Tim Approach: