^ Nothing to disagree with there.  It's a thorny, knotty problem and not exactly new.  After all, didn't many of us, as wee boys, play with plastic soldiers from Hong Kong?  Our elders and betters told us they were cheap rubbish but, after the demise of lead soldiers, nothing much better was on offer.

The economics of it blow my mind. How has it come to be that retailers have to sell a British made shirt for £120, yet you can buy one that's travelled half way round the world for £3.99? Nobody answer. I wont make it through.

I actually don't mind Chinese tat being sold for pennies as long as everyone's aware of what it is. And surely even the most knuckle dragging Primark shopper has half an idea?

What annoys me is Chinese tat being nicely wrapped up in heritage branding. Inspired by Italy. Designed in Britain. That's just plain underhand.

It's near on impossible to stick by your principles though. I'm not about to insist my kid wears Walsh made in England trainers.

Of course older brands would point out that they'd go out of business if they didn't outsource. Sorry, but so be it. To me that smacks of the same attitude of businesses that party it up through the good times and stick their hands out for a bailout when it gets rough.

Community Clothing seem to have got it very right without thinking or acting too far out the box.

It's tough situation to right that has been created. I mean the average person has a hard time paying $300 for shoes and $150 OCBDs shirts made in the USA. Buying vintage helps keep demand for new goods down and is good for the environment, but doesnt do much to shift the manufacturing issue.

Greed takes over and with greed goes a lack of care, a shrug of indifference, a complacent smirk on the face of the money-grubber.  Nothing new about that.  It's the way of the world - unfortunately.  We were once assured greed is good.  That possibly derived from a deliberate misreading of Adam Smith.  But try depriving the young (and the old) of their digital devices and desires...