Puffer

Aren't all eBay sellers thus?

The Airflow fan has quite a long rear spigot and will certainly allow it to project through (say) 1" of total ceiling and with enough remaining to go nicely into a 4" pipe duct (or, as in my installation, a corrugated aluminium duct). But, if you are in any doubt, just make the duct come through to the front face of the ceiling - which might make fitting easier anyway, especially if access above the ceiling is poor. I don't really think you need back the entire hole with ply - you could just have a couple of strips or tabs, which would leave the hole area itself free of ply, if that helps. And that can be done working entirely from below - screw and/or glue the ply above the PB overlapping the edge of the oversize hole and then fix the 'insert' to it likewise. Gripfix or equivalent solvent-free adhesive is ideal for this. There are several different types of fan these days and I think that the main development has been to provide smaller and more powerful fans (and often quieter too) which makes a 4" man enough for most jobs, large kitchens aside. The old Xpelair or Vent Axia 6" chunky (ugly) fans are a thing of the past, although still sometimes seen and working too.

I fitted this fan a few weeks ago in the ceiling of the en suite at my son's flat: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Airflow-Aura-eco-100HT-100mm-Humidity-Bathroom-Extractor-Timer-Fan-9041349-/350614005792?hash=item51a2392820:m:mj_CCSkVaHHbNF8-RpYbcqQ The same fan is available elsewhere but this was, I think, the cheapest source (£24.95). It is humidity controlled and has a timer overrun; both are adjustable. So, for addition to lighting circuit, it requires a switched live, perm live and neutral feed. It is very quiet (reason for choosing this model) and seems to have settled down quickly, but the low power and noise means that, even if it runs continuously in 'humid' conditions, it can be ignored. There is no internal shutter but that is not needed if (as I prefer) there is a 'flap' on the external grille. The fan requires a 4" hole, so if your existing one is 6" (as many old fans were), I suggest you patch in with a piece of plasterboard and skim before re-cutting a 4" hole. (I can explain a technique to make that easier if you wish.) You could fit an equivalent 6" fan but that would involve more expense and is really overkill unless bathroom is very large. What size is onward ducting?

Depending upon the existing wiring and how accessible things are, you have a choice between (a) a DP switch (or a 3A fused switched spur if the fan circuit is not already fused) before you supply the fan, in which case the switch will operate it; or (b) a 3-pole fan isolating switch between the supply and the fan, assuming that the fan requires a permanent live as well as a switched live. If the fan is operated in tandem with the light, (b) will generally be needed. I'm not really sure why fans require an isolating switch, allegedly for 'maintenance' purposes. Any sensible person would isolate at the CU (if no downstream isolator was fitted). But I suppose that the presence of a permanent live in many (but not all) fans introduces a further hazard and justifies a fancy 3-pole isolator.

Glad you got the job finished, Freddy. Fingers crossed all will remain watertight and unblocked for the duration. I spent the weekend working at my elder son's flat (normally a letting but occupied by him whilst his 'main' residence undergoes extensive alteration/extension). I had (and still have) several minor-ish jobs to do to put everything in good order for intended autumn sale. One of these was to rearrange the wiring in an en suite bathroom (which has no window) so that the humidity/timer fan is automatically switched on with the lights (as required by Building Regs) but without the lights being cut off if the fan (and another in an adjoining bathroom) are isolated. A fairly simple alteration to reasonably accessible wiring should have done the trick - until I discovered that the fans are on a different circuit from the lights which prevents them from being 'amalgamated' - at least without an extensive rewire with no other requirements or advantages. I then realised that, instead of the en suite lights and fan being separately switched by a two-gang wall switch just outside the en suite door, I could replace the switch with a single DP switch, each pole switching one of the circuits. Not what a DP switch is really intended for but it will do the job, and safely. Needless to say, I didn't have the necessary switch to hand so it will be obtained and fitted next visit - Dad hasn't finished yet! Lateral thinking - whether aluminium washer or unconventional switch use - wins the day.

By 'standard size', I was referring to the common sizes offered for most ready-made doors in the trade. There are several, but by far the most common is the 78" x 30" (with 27" a close second). Same with ready-machined liners or frames. Some suppliers now offer the metric equivalent of the 78" x 30" etc; there is very little difference and I suspect they only exist because there is a growing trend for metric measurements in building. I agree that many doors/doorways do not conform - my Victorian house is a good example with hardly any two the same, and most wider than 30" (which is a bonus). I am doubtful that speculative housebuilders go out of their way to make doors/doorways in most locations to (strange) non-standard sizes; it is simpler/cheaper to stick to stock sizes even for a big estate unless there is good reason otherwise (such as saving 50p per house, maybe!). Having a background involving liability insurance (amongst other things), I well recognise the long-standing asbestos problems. That said, the precautions for small-scale usage and exposure are somewhat overdone; a common-sense approach when finding it or removing it in the average domestic setting is enough. It gets particularly silly when stable compounds such as asbestos-cement (roofing etc) have to be removed and disposed of. I still have some 'Philplug' screw-fixing compound (a mixture of asbestos wool and plaster) which I may use occasionally; it is mixed and applied damp so of little concern in the typically small quantity required. (But I wouldn't intentionally inhale the dust!) I do wonder whether your Belfast sink was really designed for the waste you are using, washer or not. A wider basket-type waste would do away with the need for a washer and, as it all comes below the sink, the sink overflow arrangement is irrelevant. But, if yours works OK for the required period ...

You may be right about door sizes on newer properties, although the most common 'standard' size remains the 30", which is often the cheapest when other sizes are also available for a given style. And the trend nowadays is to improve access (for the disabled etc) so narrower doorways and passages are avoided, if not actually outlawed. In my case, I have no difficulty buying and transporting a door of this size (or even larger) and in fact it would have been easier to pick one up from B&Q or TP than to get it delivered - with the potential for a missed delivery or a damaged item. I got it delivered to me because my son would not normally be at home to receive it - but I now have to take it 35 miles to his abode! Needle files are useful, but easily broken or clogged to the point of being useless. I have many, collected over years, but the cheapest ones get used the most as they are dispensable. Diamond files are however handy for 'special occasions'. And, if you haven't got any, I recommend a cheap set of riffler files too - very useful on occasions for removing a small amount of metal from awkward spots. I have on a couple of lazy occasions ordered from TS or SF for free delivery here even though both are little more than one mile away and had what I wanted in stock. But I did save about 40p in diesel, plus other running costs! Funnily enough, I shall need a cheapish sink mixer tap in a month or two. Unless the first car boot of the season comes up trumps, I shall be scouring the online sellers - including TP. Did you sort out your Belfast sink OK?

Changing the subject somewhat, I have occasionally used Travis Perkins for selected timber and bulk sand etc. There are two branches close to me but prices (even with so-called 'trade discount') are rarely competitive. However, TP has an online site which is open to all and shows clear prices, with free delivery for a purchase of £20+ (Exc VAT). I need a lightweight moulded door of a particular type for use (as a sliding door) at my son's abode. B&Q does do them (£28 for a single at present, with 10% off for me on Wednesdays) but they are not stocked locally or widely, at least in the 30" width (although the 27" are more readily available - strange). Other sources are significantly dearer and/or inconvenient. By chance, I found the exact item in TP - and on 'special offer' too - at £25.14 delivered (£20.95 + VAT) - so a whole 6p cheaper than best potential B&Q deal. I ordered one yesterday evening and was called by the local branch at 9.30 this morning to arrange delivery: any time Friday or next week. I'm quite impressed; if TP can offer this service, it is likely to get some more business from me. (TP owns Wickes, Toolstation, Benchmarx etc - often with the same items sold by each at wildly differing prices; the door I wanted was stocked at Benchmarx at treble the TP price, and that for 'trade'!)

You are doubtless right on all counts, Freddy. And here on eBay is another essential item for your bedroom activity: 400985284487 The Shetland stilettos stand at £41.00 with less than two hours to go.

The seller is in Shetland. Well, I suppose that (apart from sheep-sh*****g) there isn't much else to do in the dark winter nights apart from a surreptitious walkabout in stilettos. In theory, they would fit me - but I'm doubtful that (given the heel height) they would be a good fit, let alone comfortable to wear. And probably impossible to walk in - so I'll give them a miss! They don't look as though they are of superb quality- and appear to be slightly marked (or is it the light?). Around 8 bidders and at £26.00 as I write. It will be interesting to see what they go for.

I agree that there is nothing to labour here but I do have distinct memories (mid-1950s) of the Oxford style (with modest cuban heel) being the 'sturdy' shoe of choice for uniformed or other women with little interest in high fashion but who nevertheless wanted to wear a heel. Their younger/more fashionable contemporaries usually wore fairly plain court shoes of various styles, including stilettos as they became fashionable. Prior to that (1930s/40s), the Oxford shoe would have been a very common choice for women of all ages as an all-purpose day shoe. And many women continued to wear them into old age simply because they were what they were used to, and comfortable. Hence the view that the clumpier Oxford style is (or was) essentially an old ladies' shoe, although rarely seen these days. We mustn't forget too that clothes rationing and shortages continued well into the 1950s and a sturdy lace-up Oxford, repaired as necessary, might have been all that many women owned (or could afford) for everyday wear.

Yes, I was aware of your unhealthy interest in the Office red courts, Freddy. I think that K's black Office courts were the same model but the heel was no more than 4.5" on her size 37 or 38 (I forget which). I may be in for a long wait to see them worn; K is pregnant with my son's first child and may not venture out in such high heels 'for the duration'. And she went off to work in ballet flats on Friday - but that may have been because she was driving.

I was at my elder son's flat for a couple of days, doing some DIY for him (yet again!), which included work in their bedroom. His partner is a good deal shorter than him and invariably wears heels when out with him. She has a fair collection of heels, some of which were on open show in the bedroom. (They included some Office patent courts with a slender 4.5" stiletto, although I have not yet seen her wearing them.) I could not help noticing a pair of boots very similar to these, with a 3.5" heel and nicely tapered toe, which she wore outside later when we all went out for a curry. To my mind, a very nice boot for male wear in public, with a minimum of concealment; I was jealous!

Russ referred just to 'block heeled Oxfords' (without saying anything about the heel height) and his wife referred to them as 'old women's shoes', implying that they were of a type actually worn by older women. My comments related purely to that style of shoe as being often seen on 'matronly' women in the 1950s, with a very modest heel height (2.5" - 3" typically). Indeed, I can't recall seeing Oxfords with a higher heel than that until they allegedly became a fashion item again in more recent times. I do agree that, being essentially a very male (and ultra conservative) style of shoe, it would attract little or no attention when worn by a man, if the heel was largely hidden. I would not want to wear them as a fashion item - simply because I dislike the Oxford style of shoe (regardless of heel) - but I can understand anyone wearing them for the heel height alone. I will go further: my wife rarely wears heels of any significance nowadays (much to my regret) but I would not want to see her in a pair of 5" Oxfords, and especially not with a block heel and/or rounded toe.

Sorry, but I would have to agree with her. Apart from being worn by grannies, that type of shoe was a favourite with 1950s hospital matrons, schoolteachers, librarians and dowdy spinsters generally.

All things are comparative, and these sandals may indeed not be the acme of comfort; my comment primarily related to the wide straps which would likely be easier on the feet than a plethora of narrow ones.

I am pretty sure that is exactly the one I saw; I couldn't find a pic online. Rather nice I think; they look both elegant and comfy. Are you interested?

I agree that the model does not exactly inspire confidence in the look and fitting of the first boots but, having read that the non-patent material was stretchy and that narrow legs could be catered for, I thought that this might be what you wanted (assuming getting correct foot size was not going to be a spoiler). Maybe too many 'variables'? I can't see the point of the stiff knee boots and I don't like the look of them, or of the booties. A heel that high, even if wearable at all, is just too extreme imho. But each to his own.

Freddy: I've just come across these on eBay: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/12cm-Stiletto-Heel-Fetish-Dominatrix-Exotic-Pole-Dance-Knee-Thigh-Crotch-Boot-/111717870206?var=&hash=item1a02e76a7e:m:m0aX8PeVFs5RcusW82IuW1g which might possibly be of interest to you. I realise they are synthetic, but the supplier offers to make them to size for 'super skinny' legs etc and they can be got crotch high. OK, they are from Taiwan and will probably attract VAT etc, but still a possibility for you? (I could get a pair in Eu46 - but I doubt I would wear them!)

No - very different. I can't find an exact match but they were more like these http://cdn.yournextshoes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Jimmy-Choo-Gold-India-Glitter-Crisscross-Slingback.jpg but (from memory) with wider front straps, in bright untextured gold and with a higher heel. Very much a traditional unfussy but elegant sandal.

I was in Topshop at Tunbridge Wells today and saw some rather nice gold sandals (crossover straps at toe), no platform and a stiletto heel that must have been close to 5". They were size 9 and reduced to £10; I think there was an 8 also. I can't find a pic online. There were other very acceptable keenly-priced 'sale' shoes, boots and sandals in size 8 too.

I came across these shoes by chance: http://www.tkmaxx.com/heeled-shoes/brown-leather-platform-brogues/invt/25218290 They look positively orthopaedic to me and I can't imagine who would want to wear them. Does anyone consider them attractive?

Not the nicest of jobs. Been there, done that - and found my 9" angle grinder essential. At least, when you take the cast iron to the scrappy, you will get a bit extra if you leave the c**p inside.

We can't really tell in video if the spigot/bolt reached the threaded insert, at least enough to engage. It may be that it merely went to one side during the demo. I have found that the standard sink strainer wastes tend to have a long spigot (which wastes my time doing it up!) so maybe you would be lucky with a thicker Belfast sink. And it did look rather as though a standard sink waste was being used, hence the unnecessary overflow outlet capped off. Worth a try if you are not abandoning the Belfast.

You may be right about the wastes I identified being (more) suitable for a thin-bottom sink; I'm not sure as the specs do not say. A 'How to fit' video on Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssNbc9iNzyQ suggests that the sink thickness isn't relevant (although maybe the demo sink is thin) as the waste body is all below the sink. And I can say that the McAlpine W3 looks as though it would cope with a thick bottom; it is unslotted but, being plastic, allows you to cut the necessary slot at the height you want it. The issue you have with that height is understandable and I'm not convinced that the waste you mention will prove suitable. McAlpine is helpful with technical queries - you could call and discuss. Alternatively, fitting a strainer waste (as video) would surely get round the problem; these are not dissimilar to shower tray wastes but look a little smaller than ordinary sink wastes. I know it doesn't help you but I've always been wary of Butler/Belfast sinks. Quite apart from looking dated, heavy and sometimes ugly (although maybe now trendy!), anything porcelain in the kitchen is prone to chipping etc. For that reason, I've no practical experience of installing/servicing one. The sink-hole does seem over-large and the need for a sizeable washer underneath is a pain - but, if nothing suitable is available off-the-shelf (for pennies), I would expect to make one out of (say) a piece of semi-rigid plastic sheet, as did your predecessor. Do let us know of progress - or lack of it.