Puffer

Snow in West Kent too this morning, and it got worse mid-morning. But it all then disappeared completely in a couple of hours and the rest of the day, although still cold, was bright and quite sunny. Weird.

Interesting stuff - and has prompted some recollections of dreams and aspirations I've had too. I have a number of recurrent dream themes [make of that what you will], one of which is centred on the period just before final professional exams were to be taken - in the expectation that I was poorly prepared and would certainly fail. (Of course, this was a retrospective view 45+ years on - the reality being that I could not now pass the exams I took then, quite aside from major changes in the syllabus since.) The dream is tinged with concerns that my social life is limiting my study time and I am preoccupied with women and heels, including some shoes that I attempt to wear but which are too small [real life intervenes again] - and the time spent in finding them and trying them threatens my prompt arrival at the exams ... Another footwear-related dream I have had revolves around the discovery of some sexy shoes of various sorts that I can wear - but in circumstances threatened by insufficient opportunity to do so or the probability of discovery [real life again?] and, of course, I invariably wake up before I really get anywhere. Frustrating, ain't it? As to what I would have done if I had my teens and twenties over again, I guess I would have been less inhibited in my clothing and activity. But the environment then was less conducive to male heel-wearing etc than it is now, so I question whether I would have achieved more at that period of time. (I realise that platform shoes etc were popular and widely worn by men in the 1970s, but that was not and is not a fashion that I would ever adopt. And, ironically, although I had some mild winkle-pickers, I owned no cuban heels in the 1960s but have them now. In retrospect, I would have loved to have worn them then, as some contemporaries did.) I am, as ever, mindful that I have a retired psychiatrist as a next-door neighbour - and his wife is a psychologist. And an anaesthetist lives on the other side. I fear a whole lot of unpleasant new dreams in the offing ... Quick, nurse - my medication!

Might depend on exactly what 'legwear' you have in mind; please explain.

Then you will certainly need a good lawyer when your case comes up ...

Freddy: You have broadened the discussion concerning defamation and other forms of comment or disclosure way beyond the previous limits. The English law on defamation was somewhat modified by the Defamation Act 2013. There is a difference between 'fair comment' (now called 'honest opinion') and 'truth'. A statement which is made maliciously will negate the defence otherwise available of being an honest opinion. A malicious statement which is 'true' cannot be actioned in defamation but might be actionable in other ways, if damage is caused and proven. My comment about you being 'obtuse' was not, as I trust you realise, intended to be offensive (let alone malicious or defamatory!) and of course it was you who described yourself thus.

'Defamation' is the general term covering libel (written or broadcast - as above) or slander (spoken). The scope for action and the remedy in a libel are not quite the same as in a slander. In any action for libel, I would claim the defences of 'fair comment' and 'truth'. I rest my case. Failure to mention the lady's name is of no assistance to you; she was (and is) readily identifiable from the picture that you published here, as indeed my first reply indicates. I do however completely agree that your own comments were 'obtuse' (although I'm not sure that you intended that to be the description).

It was indeed (Lady) Fiona Shackleton. And her husband is a descendant of Sir Ernest. She appears to have a rather offbeat idea of fashion, at least given her profession and her age (61, and looks it). [Having said that, she will probably now sue me for libel - I hope I will be able to afford someone cheaper than her to defend me; I believe she charges around £600 per hour!]

Fiona Shackleton? If so, a very formidable lawyer, and woman, who is certainly best retained by your side - if you can afford her.

I appreciate that some respondents may have poor English skills. But very few of them seemed able to make meaningful comments, however poorly expressed, which makes me doubt the value of anything said, beyond a simple and very subjective 'yes' or 'no'.

A somewhat pathetic poll, with most of the respondents scarcely able to marshal an argument, and seemingly semi-literate too. The question itself does no-one any favours: 'Should men wear high heels?' implies that we are being asked if men ought to wear them, whereas the question that really should be asked is: 'Should men be free to wear high heels if they wish?'. On the basis that an attempt to cast a simple yes or no vote produces a requirement to add a headline and a comment, it would appear that the responses so far are limited to those shown, i.e. fewer than 20 so far, which is far too small a sample to be truly meaningful. I haven't voted.

Or, as the poet said; 'Hard work never killed anybody - but then again resting results in very few casualties'.

I was not intending earlier to dismiss footwear with more substantial soles (as distinct from true platforms) as I can see that their better wearing properties and greater insulation (from both cold/wet and uneven surfaces) are beneficial and do not need to upset the style unduly. I wonder however whether blind people make a conscious decision to avoid footwear that negates the useful warning given by tactile projections? Come to that, would a blind person who is otherwise fully mobile consider (high) stilettos, platforms, loose-fitting mules etc to be too dangerous for wear except in very familiar or obviously safe ground conditions? (Visions of an accompanying guide dog in high heeled bootees come to mind ... )

Religion may well be the opium of the people, but someone once said that 'work is the curse of the drinking classes' - all too true. Cheers, everyone!

It is called 'sloe' gin because it hangs about for ages, as you have found. I don't often imbibe spirits, although an occasional white rum and cola is acceptable, and a white vermouth (scarcely strong stuff) is good, especially with a lemonade mixer. Gin (or rather tonic) is far too bitter for my taste. Campari is likewise totally unacceptable - but I found that it brings my paintbrushes back to life quite effectively.

I could live with greater conformity imposed in spelling. (And the vigorour the better.)

Shyheels: You make some interesting and valid points about the degree of (so-called) cross-dressing. But some of your examples of what women have borrowed from men are not so sound. Go back 100 years or so and a necktie was a familiar item of everyday dress for women, and has remained so in a smaller way, particularly as part of a uniform, in schools and otherwise. Ditto, 'Oxford' shoes (i.e. lace-ups with a toecap and a heel of varying height) which were commonly worn by women of most classes in a non-dressy situation until well into the 1950s; again, often as part of a uniform (nurses, policewomen, servicewomen). Although (now) predominantly male wear, both items have never been exclusively male. Leaving trousers aside, many other items of male wear have been 'adopted' by women, often for expediency rather than pure fashion, e.g. loafers, macintosh raincoats, caps. I can agree that women can and do wear men's items without thought of being considered weird, but my feeling is that this is largely because the items concerned are pretty tame and often utilitarian. The reverse is not the case when men adopt the more frivolous and 'pretty' items worn by women, e.g. stilettos, some sandals, dresses, frilly blouses - none of which could really be considered utilitarian or more suitable than 'normal' menswear. My feeling is that this is largely about attitudes to fashion. Men are expected to be boringly drab for most of the time and any departure from that calls for comment, often adverse, especially when anything more colourful or delicate is involved. The extremes of the late 60s - late 70s exemplified this. I am not of course advocating censure of men for wearing 'high' heels or other traditionally feminine items, although often they go to extremes in appearance and conduct which does them no favours and 'queers the pitch' (pun definitely intended) for others. And I agree that tall boots or cuban heels, for example, do not per se constitute cross-dressing, and certainly do not call for criticism or ridicule. It must be largely a question for education, but that takes time - and the current obsession with 'trans/gay equality' etc is probably doing more harm than good because it merely highlights a quiet revolution in a way which, to many, invites censure and prejudice. (There are parallels in the molestation situation that has become flavour of the year; I'm sure that mischief is being made simply because the concept has become more widely recognised rather than because real harm has been (allegedly) done. An unpopular view maybe - and I certainly don't support rape or serious assault, sexual or otherwise.)

Forget the (alleged) sex of the wearer - I think the overall look is well-coordinated and attractive. The nails are a finishing touch and show attention to detail. Flamboyant and showy, yes, but not nearly as OTT as many 'event outfits' worn by people who should know better. He could quite easily 'pass' imho - although my initial reaction was that I was looking at Martha (from the Tom & Jerry cartoons) on her night off!

I agree entirely! Platforms (or even just a thick sole) do nothing to improve the look of any footwear, especially when the platform is clearly an 'add-on', often of a different size/shape to the 'normal' sole and upper. The fastest way to destroy the elegance of what would otherwise be a stylish shoe is to add a platform, regardless of heel height.

Ah! Now I see the interest in tight and shiny clothing. I assume the 'we' means Freddy and you; mind how you go!

I didn't realise that Woman's Weekly was so strict.

Empty sand/ballast bags - regularly re-used for taking rubble/rubbish to the tip. Far too valuable to blow away and enhance the environment - or worse. (I heard of an incident where such a bag blew into the road and wrapped itself around the head of a passing motor-cyclist, with obvious unpleasant results.)

Hello ducky! Mind if I take a gander at your heels? Even more wind here in West Kent than experienced after sprouts on Christmas Day. Rain too; not nice - especially when chasing empty poly bags across car park at Wickes this morning after they blew out of my car. (No, I wasn't in heels.)

Oh dear! You mean that I can't have a snooze in the lounge in front of the TV?

Surely, Freddy, you would want a properly-tanked concrete floor and vinyl sheet (siliconed at perimeter) in every room? [Private joke ]

You are right, and I think I have mentioned this before. The financial aspects of any marital break-up are likely to be daunting, to say the least. There are no true 'winners' (however much of Freddy's negotiating skills are employed!). I am certainly not exempt from such heartache, although both parties would emerge with sufficient assets to maintain a reasonable lifestyle. But what is more daunting, and certainly more stressful, is the whole range of logistical and physical processes that would come into play - especially the potential sale of property and house-moving. (I dread the thought of a house-move regardless of its trigger; my workshop alone would take a week to sort out and pack up!) All in all, 'staying put' is the current intention.