Puffer

I shudder when I look at her; nothing appealing at all. Asymmetric top, tattoo, flat shoes, pout, sticky red lips ...

A most interesting 'list', Freddy - thanks. Some definite memories there. Let's not forget that many of the best-known and largest high street shoe retailers were progressively acquired by the erstwhile British Shoe Corporation, part of Sears Holdings (owned by Charles Clore), which also owned Selfridges. Much of the footwear sold was merely 'badge engineered' but each of the chains had its own specialities and price ranges. The names (and shops) have mostly gone now - indeed, it seems that very few high streets outside big towns have any shoe retailers these days. That said, general fashion shops, large and small, very often sell at least some footwear - almost unheard of until the 1960s or later; one invariably had to go to a 'proper' shoe shop or a big department store. Yes, maybe a new 'nostalgia' and 'shoe history' thread is called for. Will you apply for planning permission?

Some interesting info there, Freddy. First, I apologise - you did not edit your reference about men in suede shoes; I misread it on looking back. Yes, 'desert boots' were popular men's footwear in the mid-60s, generally in sandy suede but also in other colours and in ordinary leather. Commonly worn by 'mods' (as an alternative to cuban heels); they are still around - indeed, I have a pair in dark blue leather. Their worst trait was their crepe-soled slipperiness in wet weather - I recall sliding down a smooth concrete slope after rain and only just avoiding a nasty collision! As to Derber, my limited knowledge is as follows. Around 1985, I quite often bumped into a couple in a business context; the wife (then aged about 50) was nothing special to look at - hardly glamorous - but very often competently wore very high (5 - 5.5") stilettos. On one such occasion, another woman present asked her where she got her 'high heels' and the answer was 'Derber', which meant nothing to me. A couple of years later, I was in Oxford Street (between Selfridges and Marble Arch) - definitely not New Oxford Street - with my then (first) wife and we passed a Derber shoe shop, with some very interesting footwear in the smallish window - but 'circumstances' precluded a proper appraisal, to my later regret. The shop had disappeared when I attempted to find it some time afterwards. Years later, when Google was around, I searched for 'Derber' and recall that there was indeed an old reference to the shop there, and also I think to another branch in the East End somewhere. I have just looked again: the company is shown as having its registered office at 1 Great Cumberland Place (almost opposite Marble Arch station) and this was apparently also the shop location - agreeing with my sighting. The company existed from 1961 until dissolved in 2003. Another company of the same name currently trades from Neal Street, but I'm guessing there is no connection. I have seen occasional references elsewhere to Derber as an erstwhile purveyor of sexy footwear. As you suggest, it was in the 1980s possibly the only ready source of really high heels, apart from Cover Girl, LSB and a couple of general fetish shops. I'm sure there is a lot more to the Derber story than this.

Indeed so. And it was noteworthy that even Albert Steptoe could, and did, dress extremely sharply when occasion required. The fact is, nobody really bothers any more - and we are all guilty at least some of the time.

I agree about the softer, different look of suede - and the need for extra care. As a matter of interest, I have just looked at the Next website; that retailer alone lists some 118 styles of men's suede footwear (or almost 100 if trainers are excluded). It may not be an everyday look but it does exist! (And what else would I wear with my black suede jacket but the boots I showed above - my 'poofy' boots as the wife calls them?) Elvis didn't seem to lose much street cred by wearing blue suede shoes - although he was rightly wary of them being stepped on. But, as he has left the building, we can't check the facts with him ...

The devil lies in the detail, as always! I assume you mean that Mrs F's collection is a mixture of high heels (how high?) and flats, as all shoes have 'heels' (of a sort)! But I know what you mean about an unworn collection of high heels, languishing in the wardrobe; my wife has the same but is even more resistant to wearing them or trying-on others. Interesting about Faith, and sad that it is no longer worthwhile. I know of Derbers, but no detail - can you enlighten us about its products, which I believe were at the more exciting end of the spectrum? You have edited your original reference to suede shoes but I interpreted it as being a suggestion that suede shoes were a no-no for men (in principle), rather than just a lack of availability or preference. We are both right: suede shoes for men are neither widely available nor popular - but they do exist and are worn, as I confirmed; here are my favourites:

I'm assuming, Freddy, that the legs emerging from the stripey skirt belong to Mrs F. If so, will we being seeing her here on a regular basis, undergoing further stiletto sampling under extreme coercion? Perhaps a special feature here: 'Mrs F's Diary' or 'More Brownie points redeemed'? You say that you don't try much from Debenhams on the basis that it is mostly 'own brands'. One of which is 'Faith' - surely a label associated with some stylish stilletos and other desirable footwear? Or has its range and quality gone downhill since it was was of the best High Street sources of sexier shoes (20 or so years ago) when they were otherwise mostly thin (and low!) on the ground, and thick in the heel? The 'Tina' style of pointed court, with a properly-positioned thin 110mm heel being an excellent example. I don't agree with your suggestion that men don't usually wear suede shoes, although I accept that they are not so commonly available (in men's styles). I have in fact a few pairs and quite like them, although wary of them getting marked or too shiny. A generation or more ago, any man in suede shoes (usually brown) was considered 'fast' or untrustworthy - as suggested by Captain Mainwearing about Sergeant Wilson when the latter wore some to an informal function . My father had a pair in the early 1960s but they would never have been worn for anything related to business or otherwise formal and were essentially 'something for the weekend'.

I agree - shoes and most other garments should stay on, unless adverse weather, terrain or other environmental issues absolutely force removal. Nothing looks worse at a 'formal' event, such as a wedding or up-market party, than seeing stylishly-dressed women going without their shoes, or men in suits without the jacket and with a tie undone. It looks so sloppy and can be an insult to the organisers or hosts - would you really want your photo taken for posterity whilst so 'undressed'?

When we have 'summer' here - by which I mean anything warmer than about 18-20 Celsius - I will likely be in sandals whenever practicable, and shorts too. Boots, or even light shoes, are simply not right for hot and usually swelling tootsies unless the terrain or activity demands them. Fortunately, there are not too many venomous snakes or other predators in my part of the world. I was on holiday for two weeks until yesterday: a week's cruise around Spain from Palma followed by a week in northern Mallorca. Sunny and quite hot throughout (around 25 - 30 Celsius) so sandals and shorts were a must. I envied some of the women with (flat) sandals in lighter and more open styles than are usually available for men (with big feet anyway), although I have some that are acceptable and suitably unisex.

Nice sandals, Russ, but wouldn't you feel conspicuous going out with that patchwork box on your head? Wedge sandals are usually a great look on women, assuming they are not too clumpy. It is a look that should pass muster on men too - I wish. Wedges were about the only footwear (apart from flat or nearly flat flip-flops and similar sandal styles) in evidence during my holiday last week in Mallorca, although I expect that a few stilettos came out after dark, well past my bedtime.

I have had occasion to re-stick a variety of both soles and heels in a variety of materials that have partially come away. I have had good success with an ordinary impact adhesive but now use a similar product sold for 'trade' shoe repairs - 'Adesvig E', from Italy. The latter appears to be a pretty standard impact adhesive (toluene based) in a fairly runny form - easy to apply into a 'sole gap' (e.g. with old credit card to 'wipe' the surfaces). After 20 mins or so for the stuff to go off, clamp together (in vice if necessary) and leave for a few hours. Success - so far! (The adhesive seems eminently suitable for other DIY purposes too, and is certainly cheaper than many sold for that usage.) If your local repairer cannot make a simple repair with the right 'glue', I should be both surprised and disappointed. Worth trying for yourself if he can't.

Indeed so. I don't feel satisfied at bedtime unless I can look back over the day and say that I have (a) learned something at least moderately useful or interesting; and (b) made (or fixed) something. Oh no! I shall have to dispose of my mirrors now, before I inadvertently catch sight of a reflection I don't like. And I must start looking for a car with a centrally-positioned steering wheel - which I can drive down the middle of the road (as most people do on the motorway).

Perhaps we should form a 'symmetry' group to promote 'equality of appearance'. Amongst other things, it would do away with the fly-front, although the zip mechanism would still have to engage on one side or the other. As, physiologically, humans have two of everything visible at the sides and one of everything up the middle, we would merely be carrying-out what nature had intended by banning one-shoulder garments and the like. Consideration ought to be given to humane disposal of one-legged men and others similarly unbalanced. (It's strange but true that the average man has something like 1.9999 legs but the typical man has 2.0000; a good illustration of loose usage of statistical terms such as 'average'.) As to driving on the right in the remains of the primitive world, it seems that this developed when one practical requirement usurped another. Originally, riding/driving on the left was the norm as this enabled effective use of a sword against oncoming foes, and at the same time facilitated mounting and riding with least danger or discomfort to riders or pedestrians. But then (to quote): 'In the late 1700s, however, teamsters in France and the United States began hauling farm products in big wagons pulled by several pairs of horses. These wagons had no driver’s seat; instead the driver sat on the left rear horse, so he could keep his right arm free to lash the team. Since he was sitting on the left, he naturally wanted everybody to pass on the left so he could look down and make sure he kept clear of the oncoming wagon’s wheels. Therefore he kept to the right side of the road.' Given the influence of Napolean across Europe and elsewhere and the desire of the Yanks to distinguish themselves from their British oppressors, it is hardly surprising that driving on the right gradually became the norm outside the UK and its major colonies - including much of Canada until post-WW2. Gibraltar is a notable exception, keeping right in harmony with Spain - a rule I must remember when I'm walking around there next Saturday - despite the 'British' bobbies, telephone boxes etc.

It's interesting that very few common-or-garden medical practitioners (GPs, dentists etc) have a 'doctorate' (e.g. MD, DDS), at least in the UK; most having nothing 'higher' than a batchelor's degree in medicine, surgery, dentistry or whatever. But the convention is to give them the title of 'Doctor' and address them likewise in all situations - the main exception being senior hospital consultants who are known as 'Mr'. Conversely, the significant number of non-medical professionals who hold a doctorate (PhD, DLitt, LlD, DSc etc) are discouraged from using their well-earned 'Doctor' title outside the realms of academe. In other countries, notably Germany, it seems as though every second businessman or professional has a doctorate and mentions it (e.g. in correspondence) or is referred to by it at every opportunity. 'The Herr Doktor is playing golf today ...' Somewhow, I can hear the click of jackboot heels and expect a smart stiff-armed salute ...

The suggestions about left/right zips are interesting. I was tempted to agree with Freddy that it was something to do with nasty continental Europe - who, after all, persist in driving on the wrong side of the road - or possibly related to the carrying of swords or somesuch. But it seems as though the historic reason is more prosaic: most men are right handed and therefore, when dressing themselves, find having zips (and buttons) on the right much easier to manipulate. Conversely, women - at least those from the wealthier parts of pre-Corbyn society - were more likely to dress with the aid of a maid, who of course would herself be facing the mistress and would therefore find the latter's left-hand fastenings became her convenient right-handers. I suppose that, logically, zip-sided boots should have both zips on either the right (men) or left (women and Freddy ) - but I'm glad they don't as that would upset my preference for visual symmetry. (Seeing a woman in a dress or blouse with one shoulder bared requires me to lie down in a darkened room - and I find wearing a man's jacket with only one breast pocket distinctly discomforting.) Must go now ... time for my medication.

I am tall too, and of average build with fairly slim legs. In that sense I am 'large' rather than 'small' and well aware that I stand out somewhat in a crowd, as you must do. That makes me cautious about what I wear and I doubt that I could risk shiny PVC trousers - I admire your balls (in the abstract sense of course!). And, speaking of which, I did not say (or think) that any onlooker would be 'transfixed' by any part of your appearance or anatomy, merely that shiny and arguably feminine trousers are not exactly discreet. I had assumed a 'reversed fly' because of what is shown in the pic; interesting that it is not. I have no experience of wearing women's trousers with a reversed fly but it does seem fairly obvious, hence my query about reaction from others. It is, I suppose, much the same situation as I experienced when I first went out in (men's) cuban heeled boots - expecting everyone I passed not only to notice them but also to think that I was of doubtful sexuality. I soon realised otherwise but retain an element of caution and discretion. No offence intended and I hope none taken!

Do you not find that having the fly-front reversed is (a) a peculiar sensation; (b) potentially embarrassing, if noticed by others? I can't help thinking that a rather large man in shiny PVC draws attention to himself anyway, without inviting any further inspection of the nether regions? (Perhaps adding a pair of shiny crotch-high boots with 6" heels would tone down the look sufficiently to minimise detection.)

I don't 'do' politics [see piece above] - and I deplore the poor grammar of that expression too. But, as someone shaken by what has happened (quite aside from my political leanings, such as they are), I have to commend Freddy for some insightful comments which I consider have put things into sharp focus. In particular, I think he is dead right that Corbyn was very ready to promise the earth in the clear knowledge that he would not be called upon to deliver it - regardless of some very dubious costings. And, in doing so, he succeeded in convincing a large section of the population - and particularly students - that his was the one true path. And Freddy rightly identifies that at least one worthwhile result of the election has been the emasculation of the SNP and its gorgeous stiletto-wearing leaderene, leaving the United Kingdom to concentrate on more important cross-border matters. I am no tactician or diplomat and I do not pretend to understand the dirty game that underlies most political activity. But I cannot see how we could have another election within the foreseeable future without the liklihood of shifting the present position even further to the left. Many, of course, would welcome that and press for it - but if the Conservatives are to avoid further humiliation and potential defeat they must surely regroup and, much as Freddy suggests, introduce (and not just promise) measures which will fairly address the concerns of students, pensioners and the sick without bankrupting the country - or completely screwing middle-England, along with those 'fat cats' who have not by then emigrated. We shall see ...

Why the change in hole number/depth? Maybe time to visit your nearest 'holesaler'? On the general subject of shoddy professional work, my elder son has recently had his ground floor flat extended and much work done in the garden. The main contractor (and its subbies) for the extension left a catalogue of shoddy or incorrect work behind and the idiots who worked in the garden did nothing right. All this coincided with the birth of his first child and, aside from general disruption, a significant area of the property was initially unusable because of damp problems that had not been rectified or were caused by the builders. In both cases (fortunately) he has been able to withhold significant payment but he still needs to get things put right - and you can guess who is doing his best to oblige. How these people can claim to be 'professional' is beyond me; they neither know what to do nor have the skill and mind-set to do it properly and completely.

One big advantage of being a 'jack-of-all-trades' (and, one hopes, master of most), is that there is little loss of time or momentum on a major job which involves at least some work from a variety of trades, e.g. the plumbing, electrics, plastering, tiling and carpentry etc that would all typically be required when refitting a kitchen. I can, and often do, change hats several times during a day and my 'customer' does not need to engage, and wait around for, a whole series of tradesmen who, however skilled, will never all turn up when booked and inevitably both disrupt the programme and potentially cause problems for each other by either leaving something vital not done or jumping the gun instead of waiting for another task to be completed first. Unfortunately, wives and sweethearts usually fail to appreciate that efficient multi-tasking also requires a multiplicity of tools and materials to be on site simultaneously ...

That may be the common female view, which usually fails entirely to recognise the downside of the alternatives in terms of their cost, uncertainty, quality, inflexibility and disruption. If you really lack any DIY skills and have the cash and the temperament, then get a man in - but don't expect him to be truly an 'expert' unless you are very lucky (or rich). For the record, my wife is herself skilled in 'making things' - mainly in fabric (clothing and furnishing) - and can readily turn her hand to wallpapering, decorating and gardening. She has 'done her bit' around the house (e.g. superb curtains) and does not decry my complementary skills. But she expresses herself forcibly about the disruption and mess in what is, necessarily, a worksite almost permanently. This despite her own endearing habit of thinking that 'tidying-up' merely involves opening the nearest convenient door and shoving everything into the room or cupboard concerned - ideally my workshop or office which she (rather than I) treats as a dumping ground. Together, we achieve a lot for ourselves - to our fairly demanding specification and standards - and for the family too. But I can't pretend the journey is without friction - which is surely also the case in most facets of a marriage? (And, unlike Freddy, I am married to a woman with no appreciation at all of my interest in heels (whether as observer or wearer) - regarded by her as a perversion, and potentially a more explosive marriage-breaker than any DIY misconduct.)

If it helps, I have been in much the same position for the 17 years I have lived with my wife (and her three sons, until they moved on) in our current house. The (Victorian) house is large and has required significant refurbishment and improvement throughout - it was structurally sound but cosmetically run-down and in many respects 'bodge-repaired'. It is only about 18 months since I completed work on the last room to be dealt with, and since then (you've guessed it!) work has started all over again on freshening-up my original work, starting with a repaint of the front door and surround and an improvement to one of the showers. There is no garage or outbuilding available but I have one basement room as a workshop and store, although it cannot and does not contain everything and all sorts of materials for every building trade lurk in odd corners, inside and out. Not exactly a tip or Steptoe's yard but not (I freely admit) a totally tidy and family-friendly arrangement. My wife nags constantly about this - and about my alleged inability to carry out work swiftly, tidily and completely - but fails to give credit for the huge range of tasks that have been effectively dealt with by me, almost single-handed, continuously during that 17 year period. And, in addition during that period, I have done much similar work on a seaside flat that we own (a four-year project, starting with a derelict shell) and on at least seven other properties in the extended family! I am, in effect, a full-time tradesman with no paying customers! If I was to stop my activity and dispose of all but a very basic selection of tools and materials, the wife would be delighted. But, when anything needed attention in the house (and there is always something), we would have to 'get a man in' - with the certainty of significantly increased costs and the probability of a much lower overall standard of work. I am not proposing to go down that route; disposing of the wife would be easier! Maybe so, but the pile of aggregate and the bags of cement in the kitchen may cause minor annoyance meanwhile.

Oh dear! I rather wish that I had not started this topic, given its digression into somewhat loose discussion of unnatural sexual conduct and potentially illegal acts. Ariana may be somewhat child-like in her physical development (or lack of it) but she is still a pretty and personable young lady with a taste for the sort of fashion that members here generally like to see. If she appeals to certain men for other reasons, that is neither here nor there; I didn't mention her with that in mind. As to 'paedophilia' et al, we must be careful to distinguish between medical conditions and acts which may constitute offences in law. Whilst Wikipedia is not always totally reliable, its summary here is helpful in clarifying the position - the first sentence being the key: 'Pedophilia is not a legal term,[9] and having a sexual attraction to children is not illegal.[6] In law enforcement circles, the term pedophile is sometimes used informally to refer to any person who commits one or more sexually-based crimes that relate to legally underage victims. These crimes may include child sexual abuse, statutory rape, offenses involving child pornography, child grooming, stalking, and indecent exposure. One unit of the United Kingdom's Child Abuse Investigation Command is known as the "Paedophile Unit" and specializes in online investigations and enforcement work.[119] Some forensic science texts, such as Holmes (2008), use the term to refer to offenders who target child victims, even when such children are not the primary sexual interest of the offender.[120] FBI agent Kenneth Lanning, however, makes a point of distinguishing between pedophiles and child molesters.[121]'

Being an old fart with negligible interest on what passes for (err) 'popular music', I had never heard of Ariana Grande before the Manchester atrocity. By the same token, I had no intention of watching the concert last night but caught the last five minutes on TV whilst waiting for the late-running news to start. Ariana looks to be a pretty and personable young lady and obviously has a big following. Whether she is truly a good role model is something I cannot judge but her heart appears to be in the right place. And I could scarcely not notice her black suede platform boots with what looked like a six-inch stiletto heel: Her ability to prance and run in them onstage was enviable - and let's hope it inspires her followers likewise. I gather that she is a high heel lover and indeed is uncomfortable when not in heels.

I'm with Shyheels; 'difficult' and potentially critical or conflicting situations appear to arise with almost monotonous regularity as one's body-clock speeds up. World uncertainties, and those closer to home (including the election, regardless of the outcome, Brexit, terrorism ...) do little to inspire confidence in the future and thereby can undermine one's personal stability. Working in my elder son's garden on Saturday whilst my 10-month-old granddaughter sat and crawled in the sun gave me some renewed hope, however - as it should. She responds to any mention of 'grandad' with a big smile and I hope to enjoy her company for many years to come. And she might even inherit something worthwhile in due course if a future government does not confiscate or squander it all.