Puffer

Indeed so, and isn't it ironic that in fact the 'peacock' is the gaudy male bird whilst his mate, the peahen, is positively drab!

I agree with most of the comments on male versus female fashion. Whilst women clearly follow a very different agenda in terms of their appearance (whether through choice or in response to outside influences), they seem to be in a different league when it comes to expenditure on clothes, make-up etc. As I see it, women buy a significant (indeed usually dominant) part of their wardrobes and cosmetics in response to: 1. changing fashion and fad, whether or not it really suits them 2. changing season and perceived need to follow it 3. peer and partner pressure (including sometimes a wish to compete) 4. an inbuilt desire to engage in retail therapy as a panacea for all ills 5. a need to replace worn-out or unsuitable items (often barely necessary when wardrobe is still bulging) 6. a genuine need for something extra for a specific purpose (such as enhanced protection or weather-proofing). I expect there are other reasons too - but very few of them, 5 and 6 excepted, apply regularly to men. And what about total expenditure - some of the figures I see are horrifying, even ignoring the over-hyped and extravagant 'designer' items? I find it hard to understand the justification for a woman spending £100+ on a pair of shoes or a dress when so much stuff of style and fair quality (given its likely lifespan and usage) is available for often much less. Do labels and price tags really matter that much? Very few men get sucked-in in this way, surely? The typical fashion-conscious woman must not only buy three or four times as many items as her male counterpart in a period but probably spends six or seven times as much as him in doing so. And the relative weight and simplicity of many female items (ornate gowns excepted) must mean that the production costs of most female items are a smaller proportion of their selling price. This disparity is already obvious when such mundane things as underwear and razors are considered, both being broadly unisex in construction (and function!). I freely admit to having a limited interest in clothes - but I know what I like and what I think suits me with little need to follow the slowly-changing trends in male fashion, most of which are entirely irrelevant to my age and lifestyle. And I find I can increase or replace my wardrobe almost entirely by judicious purchases in the 'sales' and/or from major high street chains, at very modest cost. My wife is not extravagant, but still finds the 'need' to buy things regularly that merely triplicate what she already has, and possibly rarely wears.

Oh dear - but thanks for telling us! I'll have to throw away anything I've got that wouldn't appeal to the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg then. (He reputedly wears double-breasted pyjamas, probably with a wing collar too.)

This article makes what I consider a fair and reasoned case for men wearing heels in 'real life': http://www.konbini.com/us/lifestyle/john-benge-man-in-heels-fashion-gender-fluidity/ I knew nothing of John Benge before reading this but I gather he is an Englishman and primarily an artist's life-model. I very much like his boots in the pic below (although the contrasting brown heels are perhaps not ideal) - surely any man should be able to wear these without censure or ridicule?

Essential hi-vis wear for those working in sewers and the like. And I like the natty bag for the gas detector.

I'm glad to hear that - too many Americanisms invading our country! But 'fall' is a very suitable word for the current season as it conjures up the right picture of gold and red leaves fluttering gracefully towards the ground. [That's quite enough poetic imagery ...]

Yes, the fall can be most enjoyable - unless it results from heels being too high or pavements uneven!

Well, I suppose the first four pics show an outfit suitable for biking but I for one don't find unzipped trouser bottoms attractive. And the heels on those ankle boots are simply ugly; I wouldn't consider wearing them or want any woman to do so.

I believe it is the norm on Strictly for the men to wear such modest Cuban heels during any of the Latin dances. Not exactly nosebleed-inducing! Although I am a dancer and have similar heels, I've never tried dancing in them but I can see that they would be of some help with the men's footwork and stance. I understand that the women are not allowed to wear heels higher than 3.5" as anything higher is considered hazardous (!) - a rule that more than one contestant has challenged in the past.

The plug was the usual chrome-on-brass, so no 'rust'. And bacteria, if any, are hardly an issue in a cloakroom basin - as I don't expect anyone to be drinking from it (and it does not have a mains water cold supply anyway). Come to think of it, the waste and the taps must be chock-full of bacteria - I'd better replace the lot. As to your rejection of the house, I doubt you will ever find one that doesn't have equally unacceptable faults! Must be worth at least £50 off the asking price though.

Freddy/Shyheels: Do these Public Desire boots appeal to you: https://www.publicdesire.com/dolly-belted-over-the-knee-boots-in-khaki-faux-suede?istCompanyId=6441a7c9-a919-4383-ae34-84ed6652725c&istItemId=xwrwirlmiq&istBid=tzwt&gclid=CjwKCAjwmK3OBRBKEiwAOL6t1ERiMpNmrpG04YhBAxPx0ePigOgMOW9jPh37MCr8QuT47Qj8hn4KORoCsvUQAvD_BwE&awc=6343_1506585653_86c977c0a6d392209e854e13735efb50&utm_source=Affiliate_Window&utm_medium=metro.co.uk&utm_campaign=78888&utm_content=0&utm_term=0 I could envisage them being worn by a bold man more easily than many heeled boot styles.

I agree entirely about the prevalence of poor plumbing, both design-wise and in its execution. Squashed and creased pipes, uphill gradients on wastes, ruined floors and joists, ugly joints ... the list goes on. I think most of it is simply down to a lack of imagination and consideration rather than of skill - after all, the actual pipe-fitting etc is easy enough - coupled (no pun) with the wish to minimise time and maximise profits which is all most 'tradesmen' have in mind. I do not have any adverse opinion about the shoe-owner, beyond considering any Louboutins an extravagance. She may have moved into the house after the alteration and is aware (or not) of its plumbing frailties, or she is totally ignorant of the poor design beyond (perhaps) disliking the untidy appearance. If she's like my wife, however, she would be insisting on that rad/pipe being changed, regardless of its efficacy, on purely cosmetic grounds. Only yesterday, I was bullied into replacing the chrome plug in a cloakroom basin because the existing one had a few specks of corrosion (not just limescale). 'Yes, Sybil, going to fix the moose's head in a minute ...'

You make too much of the extra bends, Freddy! Yes, they add a little resistance but it will make little overall difference in the grand scheme of things when considering the CH system as a whole, and that rad's connections in particular. Using self-formed pipe bends rather than elbows would be an improvement (and good practice anyway, here or anywhere in the system where space allows) but the chosen solution is a sensible one in the circumstances. A same-size replacement rad may simply not exist (at least from a convenient source and at an affordable price) and I know of no (single) tail extension that would make up that difference, apart from it looking ugly. If I was faced with that job and this was the only acceptable rad, I would if at all possible lift the floor and alter the pipework so it lined up. Alternatively, a new vertical pipe above the floor with a formed set (double bend) to give an easy entry to the valve. Failing that, substituting a straight valve and using a formed bend (or a single elbow, if insufficient room) would improve both looks and (marginally) the flow. I don't think the presence of the shoes (whatever their exorbitant price) is relevant; the (lady) owner probably had no idea of the plumbing implications and the plumber she used took the easy way out, without necessarily being 'cheap'. I've seen far worse plumbing anyway, as I know you have!

Interesting, even though (as Shyheels says) somewhat forthright and a tad defensive. It includes a link to pics of his shoe collection - worth a look - and also one to some rather nice-looking over-the-knee belted boots from Public Desire.

If you must, but don't frighten the horses.

I never replied originally because I couldn't fathom what the relevance of the pic was, nor what you were asking for. I still can't, beyond the fact that the pipework is clearly altered to suit the shorter rad - nothing wrong with that, surely, and arguably neater than an extension to the rad tail? Are the shoes significant? I wait with bated breath ...

I really wish that I hadn't posted the pic of the girl in leather, given the rise in blood pressure that it caused you, dear reader. I have no idea who the girl is (if anyone) or what she might represent if identified, and I don't care. As I said before, I merely spotted a pic of an attractive female wearing some rather nice leather clothes and shoes who conveyed a look that combined smartness and sexiness. Provocative - yes, but only in the sense that it hinted at latent desire in a rather sultry way. And most women who make a reasonable attempt at 'dressing-up' (and not all do, alas) are surely attempting at least a little provocation? The top was scarcely indecent and the knee-length skirt, albeit partially unzipped, showed a lot less than many do - with the caveat already noted that it could be adjusted as would be appropriate (or not!). If that zip was either fully-down, or fully-up, we would likely be in a different realm - imagination is a fine thing but it can run away with its owner. (I'm reminded at this point of the schoolmaster who rebuked a boy thus: 'Stop whistling that filthy tune!'). For the record, I would be distinctly embarrassed to be seen out in an ordinary public setting with a female companion if she was really provocative/tarty in appearance (however one might define the boundaries of such a look). Most of the women in so-called reality shows (not that I am a fan) provide examples. But I wouldn't consider that the girl in my pic has crossed that line. And certainly not as closely as do skin-tight latex or PVC skirts or dresses, even if showing no thigh (see examples above), or wet-look leggings. And conceivably - now there's a word to ponder - my opinion of any of these women would change for the worse when she opened her mouth - and I'm referring to how she spoke and what she might say - or if her conduct was in any way raunchy. Time for a cold shower, methinks.

I judged the pic I posted at its face value, not where it may have come from originally or what connotations it might have to some. By your yardstick, anything in leather or with a stiletto heel could be classified as 'fetish' - which ain't so! I agree that a new 'fashion' thread is called for.

I quite like the last pic above; a good balanced look. And, although not leggings-related, how about this: Sexy and smart but not overly-provocative. As the caption says, the zip can be adjusted to taste.

Indeed - and if she sat in my late granny's armchair, she would disappear.

Sorry, but there is nothing about that outfit that I like. She is quite a pretty girl but lets herself down as soon as she opens her mouth - or puts on clothes like these.

If you think that my disapproval of Craig's younger lifestyle was a 'sour' comment, then so be it. My understanding is that his family and other circumstances did not compel him to adopt a form of prostitution as a means of survival. Maybe he got into bad company and was initially seduced - but his apparent willingness to continue that lifestyle speaks for itself. As to your teenage experience (or lack of it), I'm glad to know that it did not turn out badly for you. I was travelling into and around London by myself on public transport when I was only 9 or 10 - and my parents certainly didn't always know my intended (and often quite complex) itinerary. I had no problems during my travels, although I admit that they did not involve the less salubrious parts of the West End, at least after teatime - but they did include much of those areas of West, North and East London where mean streets and meaner inhabitants existed, and where I saw some interesting sights. All good practice for my ensuing years at grammar school in West London, which involved a half-hour train journey each way and additional trips on school business. I was in the Cubs up to the time that I started school, but it was only some years later that I learned that the Akela I had 'served under' at the age of 7 - 8 had been a paedo, with at least two of my chums his victims. That explained his sudden departure, which at the time I welcomed as he and I had never got on, which is doubtless why I had avoided his attentions, plus the fact that I was tall and scarcely a pretty boy. Sorry - we are straying somewhat from shiny leggings. Neither Cub's nor school uniform is quite in the same league, although I understand that it holds appeal for some.

Well, we seem to have a consensus about Bruno: exuberant (but often OTT), good-humoured, perceptive, fair, wise, articulate. Apart (perhaps!) from the first quality, all qualities that a good judge (of any discipline) should have. Thinking of pantomime, Craig seems determined to play the boo-hiss villain - again, I suspect 'direction'. In real life (e.g. on TV in his interesting family history exposure a few months ago), he is a much more mellow and considerate person, although I can scarcely approve of his rent-boy background.

I have to disagree about Bruno. Yes, his over-the-top exuberance could be a trifle wearing but I for one liked his impish sense of good humour and his ability to speak English (not of course his first language) in a better and more articulate manner than many reputedly well-educated native English speakers. If I was hosting a dinner party and could invite anyone I chose, I would certainly like to include him.

I didn't suggest, Freddy, that you 'repudiated' anything (or used that term yourself); it was my belief that the insurer, in rejecting your claim, would likely have 'repudiated' it, in such terms. You apparently 'refuted' an assertion made by the insurer in relation to your renewal application with which you disagreed; fine by me! Yes, maybe we should have an 'English language' thread in which definitions, objectionable words and the like could be discussed. I will only say here that, whilst the English language undoubtedly develops and becomes richer over time, it should not be allowed or encouraged to do so in a totally unstructured and often ignorant manner. Embracing willy-nilly the latest Americanisms, slang or solecisms (however widely (mis)used by Joe Public) may seem clever and trendy but does nothing to improve our culture or literacy. 'Make haste slowly' (or festina lente for those of a old fogey persuasion) is not a bad maxim.