Difficult. Trying to live ethically is fraught with frustration. I too didn't think Panaroma put its case well, and reminded me of some of the more desperate stories on Watchdog where you end up siding with the company in the spotlight....

I suppose Amazon was chosen on the basis of maximum impact, as more people watching will have used Amazon than most other warehouse companies, and they do it all in house. Most of their competitors share resource, making a programme like that harder to keep simple.

Up till recently, I have had the view that very large companies cannot really afford the bad PR, so tend to be better employers. John Lewis and years ago, Marks &Sparks being two examples, so I could buy with them with confidence. (Once Th*tcher blatantly promoted M&S though, I was able to make a point of avoiding the place. Pity as their socks used to be the best for the price...)

Now, there is a degree of arrogance in large companies where they feel untouchable by bad press, mainly because there is so much media coverage of so many stories, any story is drowned in the sea of media.

Companies were held to account more when there was just BBC, ITV and the tabloids, which were either a help or a hindrance, depending on the day of the week.

I'm not saying the choice or invention of newsfeeds is bad, just that tomorrow's chip paper has now become the next minute's chip paper.

On balance, I work on the idea that if I wish to buy something I buy it. I recently bought a new car, and although the list price is still as high as it has ever been for a premium brand, (BMW) the discounts available are far higher than they used to be. Good? Or is it that this car is now made in Eastern Europe, with lower pay and working conditions?

If I let my conscience tell me off all the time, I'd forget why I worked my nuts off for years to enjoy life now in the first place. There was a time when Mrs Musket banked with the Co op for ethical reasons, but that was before the crystal Methodist.