Puffer

I don't know who this is - and don't really care (unless she happens to live in the next street):

Do you mean that the (national) Blue Badge scheme is being revamped, in terms of tighter control of issue/renewal and/or reduction in designated spaces? (My mother-in-law has a Blue Badge and there was no issue at last renewal.) I can understand tighter control (there is undoubtedly abuse) and of course parking of all types becomes more difficult as demand outstrips spaces. There was no direct challenge intended (re WC/SB etc) but a wish to establish your views. Others here might not have the same knowledge of London's geography or understand your departure from how Westfield describes itself. In any event, if you go back to my penultimate post, you will see that I was suggesting that WC would be the better location descriptor - despite the adjoining station being 'SB'. Either will do. Obviously, if approaching Westfield from the north, you do not venture into SB proper beyond 'WC'. If coming from the south (at least), you do first have the pleasure of navigating SB Green etc. And public transport is another matter ...

I was aware of your 'Blue Badge' access, but not sure why you implied that the parking concession at Westfield would be ending - Westfield action or loss of friends with badges? Shame for you if it does. Wikipedia may regard the shopping centre as being in White City but Westfield itself says it is in Shepherds Bush. White City (no longer so important for BBC TV since the majority of the TV centre was sold/redeveloped) is within SB and has long been recognised as a 'locality', but it ain't a 'town'. The nearest (and newest/smartest) station to the shops is Shepherds Bush (Overground) with a good service from Milton Keynes, Watford Junction, Willesden Junction etc and (from the more salubrious south), Clapham Junction, East Croydon etc. Wood Lane is only served by the Hammersmith & City/Circle Line local services. I have known Hammersmith/SB/WC well since 1960 and seen its decline and, more recently, rejuvenation (if you can call the WC development 'rejuvenation'). The improved transport links (especially on the long-neglected WL line) have been very welcome. My earliest memories (c1960) were of the rows of large houses (mostly between H and SB) that were turned into run-down tenements and offered with the universal caveat 'No coloureds, no Irish, no dogs' displayed on the street door. Despite that, many West Indians seen in and around SB; the women very often in colourful dresses and stilettos. In all respects, an eye-opener to many of us. And a schoolfriend who was keen on chemistry and lived in SB was delighted to find a pharmacy there that would not only sell him the ingredients for gunpowder but also in the right proportions! Fortunately not an eye-opener (or closer) for any of us!

Just to prove that fashion is cyclic - but I think that these 'shoes' need no further comment from me:

Interesting, Freddy, that you refer to it as 'White City' whereas Westfield itself describes its location as 'Shepherds Bush'. Both are correct (in that WC is arguably a discrete area within SB) but, knowing the area well, I would tend towards the WC designation as being the more precise, i.e. the area around Wood Lane that is north of SB Green. However, the nearest station - immediately adjoining the site - is Shepherds Bush (Overground, WL Line). I agree that it has relatively little to offer - apart from some comfy chairs when a breather is needed. And it is inferior to other locations and/or the internet for most shopping. The parking charges are appalling and must be a deterrent - my two visits there were by public transport - how did you get to park free?

I gather that London's two Westfield shopping malls had a bumper Easter, with nearly 1m 'visitors' (some of whom, presumably, spent money there). The Shepherd's Bush site (one of Freddy's favourite emporia) is allegedly the largest shopping centre in Europe. Retailers usually measure their custom in terms of 'footfall' - which, taken literally, rather suggests an absence of anyone in heels. But I imagine that Westfield could be considered a 'high yield' investment.. Happy new tax year, everyone. (Oh, well - back to writing the Christmas cracker jokes - less than nine months to go. )

Nice - but I wonder why the dressmaker's dummy is there; surely a shoehorn would be more useful? (Not sure if I'd want a big poof in the middle of my dressing room though. )

I see what you mean, Freddy, and it is absurd to limit searches in this way - size must be potentially the most critical filtering factor when buying any footwear. I do see that a small selection of size options comes up at the top, and clicking on one then leads to the possibility of further size-searching at the left, but the 'system' does not seem to be reliable. Get your act together, eBay! Over the years, I have been amazed at how often newspaper/magazine small ads omit the essentials, or miss-spell or garble them (probably due to morons on the phone). If you want a 'shays lounge' or a 'louvrey door' or a 'dinning table', you will find a large selection (I kid you not!). With footwear, ads such 'Pair of ladies shoes, good condition, £2.00' is as informative as it could possibly be - I don't think. But my all-time local favourite (appearing every week for a couple of months) was 'Bag of sand 50p - no time wasters'. (I didn't check, but maybe the seller's location was miles away.)

Well, I'm back in Blighty - after enduring 10 days of 28-30 C sunshine, with just a little breeze and the odd shower to improve the comfort level! Shorts and sandals all day, every day - but glad I had something more suitable for the 2 C and rain on arriving at Gatwick early this morning. Still, I was half-expecting snow ... An almost totally heel-free holiday in that 99% of women (tourists and locals) were in flat sandals everywhere; the exception being a couple of pairs of wedges. And very few heels seen in shop windows. I imagine that a few younger women wore heels whilst enjoying the nightlife (such as it was) but as I didn't venture out at night - a combination of tiredness (couldn't shake-off UK time!) and convivial self-catered dinner in the villa precluded that - I can only speculate. Not much been happening here during my absence, it seems.

Quite - and anyone would think this was Newcastle, or similar, where it seems that wearing a coat is illegal. I'm off to (much) warmer climes tomorrow; back Good Friday. Enjoy the snow whilst it remains!

Nice! Pamela has gone up in my estimation; she seems to wear the right sort of shoes as a matter of course. But too young for me, naturally ...

I'm surprised, Freddy, that you don't have a greater memory of 1962-63, despite your claimed youth! I'm sure you were old enough to go outside (or not) during that prolonged freeze-up and struggled to get to school etc. Alternatively, being confined indoors surely gave you many opportunities to try on mum's shoes whilst she was outside, digging her way to the Co-op? My main memory was of being cut-off for several days in an Army camp on Salisbury Plain (pre nerve-agent days), having gone there with the school CCF on 27 December only to find the snow piling up behind us. I fiddled the rosters to obtain more-or-less permanent 'cookhouse duties' for the week - I stayed warm and dry and was popular because I kept the boilers going (without any re-plumbing!). Eventually, the Army bulldozed a way into the camp (and nearby village) and we regained civilisation, and home. Happy days!

Yes, it has been cold today but the snow here (such as it was) did not really linger, although some pavements have an icy frosting. Those of us with vivid memories of the 1962-63 'big freeze' (and indeed other winters since) would not put this winter far up the league table, either for severity or persistence. I agree that the two or three bouts have been unpleasant and disruptive (particularly a fortnight ago) but the country recovered within a few days. In 1963, whole areas were more or less paralysed for two or three months continuously. I think 1947 was even worse - but I missed that ...!

You've said it all, Freddy, and proved to us that the world - or at least a sizeable chunk of its population - is getting more out-of-hand by the day. It might take another world war (God forbid - but not currently inconceivable) to shake things up and restore more rational conduct in everyday matters: 'elf and safety, rationing, law 'n' order, ... etc

And back on the subject of the delightful, ever-smiling Mrs Beckham, I consider these shoes from her collection some of the ugliest I have seen for years - and the price (£646) is just stupid:

If it isn't obvious already, 'alumnus' is the singular, 'alumni' the plural. On a related point (touched upon above), it is more usual in the UK (rather than the US) to say that 'I graduated from university/college ...'. Strictly, one should say (as the Yanks generally do) that 'I was graduated by my university/college ...' as 'graduation' is the awarding of a specified 'grade' of degree or other qualification by the institution. Much the same concept as a ruler or a thermometer being 'graduated' with discrete unit markings. See me in my study after prayers if you seek further pedantry.

You may well be right about the typical prices of higher-end footwear in the UK but that does not make them either attractive or affordable. I wouldn't pay more than £50-60 for a pair of shoes unless they were very special, such as the bespoke MJs - and then £120 or so would be my limit. If MJ can do it ... (Yes, I may be unrealistic - but I doubt that I am alone in setting a definite budget for any such items.)

'Alumnus' is from Latin and neither Queen's English nor American English. Used (in the sense of 'former pupil') more in the US than in the UK, but understood in both. But it should not be shortened to 'alum', which is another thing altogether - usually meaning potassium aluminium sulphate (UK spelling!), which inter alia [Latin again] is used in solution as a vagina tightening product (for those who might need it! ). I don't know why I should recall either the Latin or the chemistry I learned at my alma mater more than 50 years ago, but some things stay in the mind. (My birthday was yesterday so I'm feeling my age more acutely at present! And don't ask me what was in the news a few days ago; I've forgotten already. )

I think these are the boots Tech means: If so, they are from Miguel Jones in Mexico and very similar to some I have (in black) with a 5" heel - pictures previously posted on H4M. That is what I had in mind when I referred before to having something custom-made at modest cost; mine were around £110 delivered and of very good quality. I take Tech's point that, heel apart, the Cross Sword shoes look 'ordinary' (as distinct from fussy or flamboyant) and that they might well appeal to some men. But I don't like such styles - 'ordinary' here = boring, imho. The MJ boots with a blocky heel, pointed toe and neat stitching are still restrained and masculine but never 'boring'. If there was a UK supplier of styles similar to MJ's, and in all sizes, I reckon there would be good business if the price was right (say around £100).

Yes, I've heard of Heidi Klum, but had no reason to recognise her, even though I believe she has 'introduced' a range of affordable and quite stylish clothing for Lidl. Maybe I'll bump into her next time I shop there? I hope so!

I hesitate to pour cold water on a brave venture, but I fail to see the appeal of the shoe styles so far shown by Cross Sword. The uppers are conventional (distinctly boring) men's styling which I for one would not wear, regardless of the heel type. And the heel (with a gimmicky insert) is rather too feminine. The price is going to put these out of reach for anyone but a fashionista too. Sorry! If CS (or someone else) introduced some more neutral loafers or ankle boots with a tapered toe and a plain cuban or stacked heel of (say) 3.5" for £100 or so in sizes above UK8, I guess there would be a fair interest. Until then, most UK male heel-wearers will buy women's styles (if they fit), have something custom-made (which need not be expensive) or go without.

Are either of them 'known' - or just models?

Hardy? Yes - as in 'Laurel & Hardy' - but stupid rather than plain funny.

Not at all - I went out without my woolly hat yesterday.

No - I'm glad to say it is not me. I wouldn't dream of mixing feathers with silver jewellery like that - far too bland. I do, however, dance the samba - but not usually in the middle of a road junction when the lights are green.