There goes civilisation...

that's intriguingly complex as dilemmas go. It could be argued that they're being naive here. Idealogically they could easily adopt the position that they're turning bad money into good. In terms of association with companies they wish to distance themselves from idealogically it's a natural standpoint to adopt at first glance. But they're very simply missing out on opportunities. In its coldest form I think the point I'm trying to make is - do the beneficiaries of their efforts care where the money is coming from that is making their lives better? And isn't it more sophisticated to try to make bad money serve a good purpose?

True, its all based on 'belief' isn't it. Lots of Faith based orgs won't take lottery funding as its contrary to their religious beliefs. Some will compromise on that, as its 'soft' gambling, but its still gambling.

In terms of end punter, it depends on the need and the situation they're in. If, at an acute point in their life they're offered the choice of selling some of themselves for a roof over their head, they won't care whether the donation has come from an exploitative profit or from some yoghurt weaving rainbow collective.

Further down the line when they're working or being supported to get work, they'll have the liberty of more choice, as their needs aren't as acute. But that choice is theirs, and at some points its rested in the hands of the Management Committee who decide to operate the charity.

Most charitable acts are about change. You can't engender that change if you perpetuate the very things you're trying to alter.

Its not all as black and white as that, and lots of the big figure heads in the sector have skeletons. Same as any other sector.