Puffer

I well recognise your advanced photographic skills, Freddy, but you must tell us all how a photo of a used battery will demonstrate to the buyer the condition of the 'internals', which is what really matters. And are you really suggesting that you can and should show the buyer every possible scratch or mark on an item like this or risk facing a rejection? I appreciate your caution and self-preservation but there are limits. Keeping a clear record of what you send against possible challenges makes sense, however.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but surely an item like this is often bought and sold on description alone, particularly if it is a catalogue item with a reference number etc. Unless there was some difference or defect only apparent from a pre-sale photo, the purchaser can hardly argue that he didn't get what was advertised.

I totally agree about having something custom-made as distinct from buying an over-priced 'designer label'. My Miguel Jones boots are a case in point - for (then) about £110 delivered I got a well-made pair of leather boots that were to my spec and fit; not exactly peanuts but by no means in the same price range as anything comparable from Louboutin or YSL etc. Why spend £700+ on the YSL (men's) boots, nice though they may be, when an equivalent can be provided for (now) about 20% of that outlay? Don't be fooled by the different prices quoted by Jean Gaborit. Purchases from outside the EU do not bear the IVA (VAT) charge of 20% but will be taxed locally on importation into the purchaser's country. Short of some sort of fiddle (and almost certainly involving double-shipping and the extra costs thus entailed), a UK purchaser would have no choice but to pay the IVA - but at least knows that there will be no surcharges on reaching Blighty. I note that Gaborit makes a significant surcharge (around 20%) on boots above size Eu45; not justified in my view for the small amount of extra material involved.

I think that 'faux' has been adopted because it is a weasel word; it sounds better and more acceptable than 'imitation' or 'artificial' and certainly more so than 'fake' or 'false' or 'substitute' or 'ersatz'. And 'counterfeit' sounds so very dishonest. A typical marketing ploy to dress something up with a fancy, foreign-sounding name that will appeal rather than detract. The point is really that the various materials commonly used instead of leather may or may not be truly intended to have the same appearance or characteristics as leather, and therefore be fully accepted as a substitute which is, in most cases, cheaper to produce. Some materials, such as PU, can be better or more attractive than leather in certain applications - provided that the stigma of not being 'real' leather is overcome if it matters. The most accurate way of describing a plastic material intended to be a leather substitute is probably to call it 'synthetic leather', as is often done with footwear - but again not an attractive term. (I can almost smell the chemicals as I type that.) I don't know where, or when, 'faux' entered our language but it seems to have gained currency in many applications where an imitation or substitute product is offered, e.g. bricks and tiles, moulded door and furniture panels, jewellery.

That must change!

I looked at those boots too, although unlikely to wear them. Nothing larger than UK9 now available. The same outlet has (i) these with wider shafts up to UK12: eBay item 131829555765; and (ii) these up to UK8 - perhaps more to Shyheels's liking but, alas, too small for both him and me: eBay item 122148418242.

... and the belt too, unfortunately!

Ah - I knew there would be a catch! But it does depend on what one means by 'slender' - I will settle for 'not obese'.

https://bblpgg.tumblr.com/post/131806903552/leather-trimmed-cotton-hoodie I suspect that this overall look would find much approval here! I have to say that I like it myself, particularly below the waist as the top is not really something I would choose to wear. Whether I would get away with the trousers and boots in public is a moot point - my wife would definitely NOT approve! Perhaps it is only good for under-30s?

There is a programme on TV tonight at 9pm about would-be London taxi drivers doing 'The Knowledge'. If you can spare a few years for intensive activity, you might wish to join them, Freddy! More seriously, the potential restrictions in London (and elsewhere) on using diesel cars are a matter of much concern - in effect, retrospective legislation that will affect the many thousands who bought diesels in good faith. And broadening the congestion charge zone to the area bounded by the North and South Circular Roads is a harsh and unduly restrictive measure that will affect millions daily. Although I rarely have need or desire to drive into central London, or even beyond the 'Circulars', I really don't see why I can't continue to do so without putting my hand deeply into my pocket.

Well, my influence with TfL clearly worked then. The additional closures and works were put in place to discourage Freddy (and others) who prefer to use the car to travel into London. Travelcard, anyone?

If she is Les's daughter, I can see that she has inherited his gurning ability!

Yes, indeed. I've spent three days last week and another three this week up on scaffolding above a busy street in a bustling seaside town. No, not taking a pervy view of passing women (well, only occasionally) but renovating a first-floor bay window. The weather has been kind: warm (with several hours of high teens temperature), little wind and only a few spots of rain on one of the days. Although I rarely started work before 9am, I was ready to knock off by 6pm although the light and warmth would have been good for another hour's work at least. It was noticeable that, as soon as the first really warm day dawned (30 March), at least 25% of the passers-by of both sexes and all ages were in their summer outfits, with shorts or short skirts and sandals predominating. And the trend has continued despite a few dips in temperature; I'm guessing that many would have put the winter stuff away and are sticking to the summer gear now, almost regardless of the weather. Let's hope that Easter does not cause a rethink. The other, and less pleasant, experience from 'up aloft' has been the level of noise generated by Joe Public throughout the day. There seems to be a constant supply of youth of both sexes wandering up and down the street shouting at one another (and often far from politely) and a fair number of so-called adults doing much the same. And then there are the passing cars with windows open and loud (alleged) music blasting forth. I suppose the noise carries up to me more than it does to people at ground level but it ain't pleasant - and will surely get worse now that schools are on holiday. I think I'll give next week a miss ...

Your 'travel' position is well understood, Freddy and clearly your circumstances do favour the car rather than the train. As a matter of record, your train journey (off-peak return) would cost £16.80 (or £14.90 on some trains) and take 27 or 40mins; a Travelcard would be £22.00. OK, if you need a taxi or pay-parking your end, that inflates the cost. In my case, the 40 min journey on a frequent service is cheaper after 10am (the £13.90 quoted before) and I am near enough to the station to walk (10 mins) although free street parking nearby is usually available. I don't need a Travelcard unless I want to explore further afield than the immediate West End - but even then I can travel free on the bus. I used to live in Brighton and, yes, the London train service is pretty good - EXCEPT for the last 6m or so with the ongoing and very disruptive strike action making things very difficult much of the time. I had a bike too when I first moved to Brighton but the area is rather too hilly to make cycling much fun. Maybe I will get one now I live in a flatter area as the exercise would be beneficial - but leisure-cycling (or any other activity that is not directly productive) has little appeal for me.

Yes, a canal holiday is both relaxing and reasonably energetic at the same time - highly recommended. BUT, even for experienced canallers, it is preferable to go as a small party (say 6) in a reasonably large narrowboat - say with 8 berths, giving a bit more room for each person. I say this because if there are only 3 or 4 (a family, say), it is all too easy for the same people to be lumbered with the steering or the locks (or the cooking) nearly all the time. So, get a few friernds together (apart from the cat, who might wander away into oblivion) before you cast off. (I don't really recommend a secluded towpath after dark for heeling activity - too many trip and fall-in hazards - but the possibility is there for the dedicated.) I can in fact be in Trafalgar Square, for example, an hour after shutting my front door - if I go by train. By road, even without peak-period hold-ups, it would take closer to two hours under present-day conditions and use a full two gallons of diesel for the return journey, costing almost £11 against an off-peak train fare of £13.90. OK for two people, not so good for one.

I identify with most of Freddy's experiences (or lack thereof). Until a few years ago, I resisted foreign holidays for much the same reasons - too much expense and aggravation for the possibility of a stress-free week or fortnight away from it all, rarely achieved. Much better to spend the time and money on something more permanent and/or within easy reach. (My preferred - indeed only - regular holiday was a week on the UK canals with a group of like-minded friends, but alas they ceased to be annual fixtures as people 'drifted away' (not literally).) In more recent years, however, retirement has made an annual holiday more appropriate and do-able and, for me, a week's Mediterranean cruise fits the bill. So - never say never. As to a social life, I don't go looking for one but it tends to come to me, mainly courtesy of my wife's circle of friends and some neighbours, all of whom are good company when the occasion is right. Clubbing and similar activity (heels or not) is not my bag and formal heelmeets have not yet been on the agenda. As to travel, especially into London on the limited occasions I bother to go there, I find the train is generally the better bet. Motoring costs are not limited to the immediate cost of fuel as wear-and-tear cannot be ignored and parking etc can be frighteningly expensive. But I try to avoid (central) London as it is never very welcoming and always expensive. And flying is generally a complete pain: getting up at some unearthly hour to travel (at some cost) to an airport, endure numerous queues, delays and restrictions - only to fly back over one's house some hours later whilst crammed into an uncomfortable seat. Must go now - time for my medication and therapy ...

Are you saying that no-one commented on your heels? Or showed any obvious reaction to them? It would be interesting to know what style they were and how much was concealed (under trousers). Poor Freddy has told us elsewhere that he has no social life and doesn't go on holiday, but it is sad that he cannot even afford a train ticket to London. Maybe we should have a Travelcard whip-round?

Yes, the seminar or similar event - or even a Women's Institute meeting - would almost certainly have most women present in more elegant and 'competitive' clothes, including heels. Subconciously or otherwise, they would want to be 'noticed and admired' by the other women present - and by the men (if any) too. (Clearly not the issue at my wife's birthday lunch as she had no-one to impress or out-shine - her mother, cousin and niece did not count and neither she nor they have any interest in dressing for my pleasure.) As to lurking at Victoria Station, from personal experience I think that a more productive venue would have been Liverpool Street or Fenchurch Street. Caricature or not, Essex girl is alive and well and more likely to be out in heels than many others. Alas, white stilettos are not so often seen nowadays.

Absolutely! I was at lunch last week with my wife (on her birthday), two of her sons and three female relatives. I happened to be wearing a pair of 2" cuban-heeled boots - higher than anything worn by the others present but scarcely earth-shattering - or nosebleed-inducing.

The most compelling reason would be exactly that - to put French and German noses out of joint! The UK could become a high-yield (as well as high-heeled) teritory. But - wait a minute - where would we in the UK put OUR money?

VAT was levied in most if not all of the EU states at the time we joined in 1973. It was (and is) a requirement of the EU that all states had VAT and it was supposed to be closely harmonised in its application, although the rates in each country could vary. The UK therefore introduced VAT on April Fools Day 1973 and it has grown in scope and complexity ever since. We had to fight to get things like childrens clothes zero-rated (not supposed to be allowed under EU dictats) and are still less harmonised than most other states (thank goodness). Whether or not we are in the EU, VAT badly needs simplification and, ideally, should be at a lower standard rate than 20%. I am doubtful that it will be abolished, or even much simplified, as it is now too entrenched and too much of a revenue-raiser. What would be the alternative? (Don't forget - VAT costs registered businesses NOTHING - it is essentially a tax on consumers: us!)

Those are lovely sandals and I am very surprised that they were so hard to sell, and only then for a pittance. Apart from being elegant and feminine (and with a 5" heel), that style appears to be currently popular - so where were all the customers? I assume you only sold them because, much as you would like to have worn them outside, they would have been too obviously girly - a pity though.

I do agree that the prominence of the 'legs' item in the DM was ill-judged, given the significance of the occasion. But, in difficult times - Brexit, Westminster - a tongue-in-cheek diversion can help to retain the public's sense of proportion and help us all to 'keep calm and carry on'. TM stands out as much for her height and slightly gawky gait as for her clothing choices. She makes an effort and generally looks smarter than many of her contemporaries.

Well, as a regular DM reader, I didn't take offence at the light-hearted 'legs' article although I can see why it ruffled so many PC-obsessed feathers. There are far more serious things to worry about than allegedly offensive words - generally objected to vicariously and vociferously by anyone but the apparent target. Sticks and stones ... As to Ms Sturgeon, I admire her guts whilst disliking her attitude and values - and she scrubs up well on occasions, especially in the shoe department. I'm just waiting now for newspaper comment (DM or otherwise) about the need for the many foreigners injured in the Westminster attack to be charged in full by the NHS for their treatment. They should be, if the rules are to be applied properly, but I suspect that any such suggestion will be treated as 'outrageous' by the great unwashed. I will now duck down behind the nearest parapet ...

I suppose that nylon tights could be said to have been adopted by men in quite recent times for practical wear in cold weather, as distinct from being for fetish or other aesthetic reasons. Yes, tights have never disappeared completely from men's wardrobes (think ballet, court dress) but clearly were/are not mainstream and not of the same nylon quality either. And it is not unknown for a man to wear a bra if he has the misfortune to grow 'man boobs'. But I remain of the view that, in reality and ignoring cross-dressing and fetish activity, almost nothing can be considered as being worn only by one sex to the exclusion of the other, whether historically or not.