Puffer

I have a couple of pairs of men's 'Beatle' boots with 2.5" cuban heels and pointed toes that I can and do wear quite often in a normal social situation. They may be noticed but there is nothing about them that is weird and I have had compliments from both men and women - a simple 'I like your boots' is always encouraging. I am going to wear a pair later today when I go to have Christmas drinks at a friend's house. As I am retired, I no longer have an office or other workplace in which to wear them, but I would expect them to be accepted by colleagues even if they are rather too informal for some businesses. As Freddy suggests, it depends on the type of work and how you dress otherwise. Good luck anyway - a few years ago I would have been reluctant to go out anywhere in such boots but now it is no big deal.

Yes, I rather agree. Most of what it sells (for either sex) is rather boring and solid, and generally expensive. Librarians and geography teachers must love Brantano!

I'm no expert on leather but am aware that there are many types, at least in their processing/finishing, which sometimes involves coating. Nubuck, for example, is very smooth and matt, rather like a 'non-hairy suede' or buckskin and quite often used for shoes in less formal styles. I agree it can be more difficult to keep clean, although of course it doesn't need normal polishing. So-called patent leather is, traditionally, a true leather with coatings (I suppose a type of lacquer) and reasonably flexible but nowadays is more likely to be PVC and far less flexible. (Beware of any footwear just described as 'patent'.) But both types can crack under strain, as was often found in (men's) dance shoes which of course get a lot of flexing and other punishment. I think that women's shoes give much less of a problem in PVC etc as they are much more cut away and inherently less stiff. I have a pair of patent men's dress shoes, definitely synthetic leather and bought very much reduced (from Office) because they were ex-display and the surface of one shoe had started to 'bubble' or wrinkle (i.e. slightly delaminate) - which hardly shows when they are being worn as one's foot, and movement, tends to 'fill out' the shoe and disguise any surface imperfection.

Toolstation also has plastic CUs at a discount 'currently'. And so do other merchants. I imagine they will all be shipped off to Africa or somewhere very early in 2016. Perhaps Shyheels has a secret mission?

I too like suede, if only because it makes a change from (black) leather. Two pairs of women's boots I have are faux suede, simply because that was all that was available, but the softness (in material as well as look) is helpful. Before (say) 1960, a man wearing suede shoes (at least in any business or formal situation) was traditionally regarded as 'fast' or a cad, or at least untrustworthy. Think salesman, bookmaker, spiv, lothario, gigolo etc.

I was aware of the regulation deferment. What didn't (and doesn't) make sense was the sparky's refusal to fit a plastic unit after July. I now have the Wylex 15-way CU not now being used by my son. Pity to waste it although all the MCBs, RCDs etc are valuable.

Several years ago, Brantano sold women's shoes up to size 11. They were then discontinued (presumably through perceived low demand) but I happened to be in a branch during a sale period and found a rather nice pair of size 11 purple velvety leather sandals with a 4.25" oval blade heel in moc-croc pattern and ankle ties. The best thing was that they were reduced from £45 to £3! The cashier smiled broadly when I took them to the counter, but I'm sure she believed me when I said they were for a 'vicars and tarts' party. They fit me quite well, although a little narrow, but they have never been out of the bedroom and I will probably dispose of them. Brantano now only goes to size 10; pity.

Clearly a good-natured fun day all round! I am almost envious of the bloke standing in heels that were too big for him; I am unlikely to have that problem! Kate is a lovely lady and a credit to us all. My eldest stepson is in the RAF and has met William and Kate more than once; both are very friendly and natural, on duty or off.

I'm not sure where Shyheels is in Africa (is it Kenya?) but it is perhaps a little unfair to tar the whole continent with the same brush (not that he is). That said, I acknowledge the dangers (human and otherwise) that, where they exist at all, are particularly frightening. I have been to SA once for about 10 days, just after Christmas, with my wife, her three sons and half a dozen other English people. (We were supporting a UK charity which promotes health education in third world countries and for which my wife does some admin here; my role was essentially as a driver. Our expenses were paid and we had some free time for sightseeing etc.) The highlight was an overnight stay (with guides) in Kruger National Park; we saw all the 'big five' beasts and the whole experience was fantastic. The rest of the trip was memorable too (and mostly very enjoyable); the country is one of many contrasts. Standing on a deserted hilltop near Rorke's Drift to see the New Year in was memorable; the completely velvety-black night punctuated only by the rockets we let off at midnight. But the dangers (including hippos and crocs) were clear and we had to be wary, especially in Jo'burg and Pretoria with its high security around hotels etc. From other African trips made by my wife, I am aware that real danger is never far away - including a shoot-out in her hotel grounds. And bribery, corruption and police persecution is endemic in certain quarters. It is difficult to pigeon-hole the people; there are good and bad in each race or class but many of the whites remain oppressive and arrogant: apartheid lives. It is perhaps unsurprising that innocent Europeans can easily become the victims of crime.

... but my 115mm is closer! As to bunions, I have slight protrusions on both feet, a little larger on the right. They give no trouble (apart from making some shoes a little tight for width) and are probably hereditary, although some experts discount that as a cause. My father did have a very enlarged joint on one of his very large feet; all his shoes had to be stretched.

Bad luck, Freddy, but if you've cancelled the card all will be well. Not a lot of point in finding it now. Don't keep anything of value in a back pocket!

??????????

You don't say what shoes/boots you were wearing, Freddy.

Can you tell what the thickest part of the platform (probably under the ball) measures? I expect it is 20-25mm, giving a true arch of around 115mm (4.5").

Well, quite an eyeful! I don't like all of the shoes but some (especially Pixie's sandals) were very feminine and sexy. What pains me is the almost universal sloppiness of the 'young men' also appearing. Is it really the accepted fashion to wear tight, shapeless clothes and (yuk!) canvas boots or trainers with laces undone? An insult to the girls, the hosts and the public imho - but then I am an old fart.

Yes, I've heard that the knockouts are often a problem. If your sparky wants an easier life, he should agree to fit a plastic CU this month; he can't have it both ways! I don't think the earthing issue is anything to do with the new CU but, presumably, your current earthing may not be up to standard. I gather that the new metal CUs are themselves part of the earth and the individual circuits are thus connected directly to the casing, which slightly simplifies matters.

I'm sure you are right about the safari 'evening wear', Shyheels. But as it was the custom to wear full evening dress during dinner in camp (silver service by native waiters under canvas and all that!), I wonder what the boots looked like with such an ensemble? I was in South Africa briefly some years ago and could certainly have done with the boots to ward off the mozzies in the evenings - and that was largely indoors. I recall a cartoon with one such chinless wonder starting to change for dinner sharp at 6pm even though he was wading across a crocodile-infested river at that moment!

As I said, the boots are in the museum at Norwich for all to see - although possibly the displays get altered. As I recall, they were described as thigh-boots and certainly came above the knee, but not to the nurse's crotch (ahem!). To that extent, they would not be the same as the dispatch-rider's style (as I understand it) but I can see the similarity. On the subject of WW1, it is noteworthy that rubber thigh boots (waders) were eventually issued to men in the trenches, to help combat the ghastly muddy conditions they endured. They were effectively the same waders as we are now familiar with for fishing, ditching etc. I believe that thigh boots pre-WW1 worn by fishermen etc were leather (no doubt greased or otherwise waterproofed) and it was only during WW1 that the rubber version was introduced, by the Northern Rubber Co (now the well-known 'Hunter' company) at the behest of the War Office. These boots continued as a Services issue for many years (and probably still do) but gradually became available to industry and the public as conditions (including the supply of rationed rubber) permitted, bolstered by the release of 'ex-Gov' surplus. Nowadays, most thigh boots seem to be neoprene or other pseudo-rubber and made in Eastern Europe or China. (No, I'm not a rubber boot fetishist - although there is plenty of material around on that subject!)

1. I suppose your sparky is given a particular spec on the new-builds, which requires a 3rd Amendment CU, so he has 'forgotten' how to fit any others, but I really can't see why he should (apparently) refuse to do so whilst the existing regs permit. 2. If you have the horizontal space, I would suggest it is better to fit a 10-way CU, even if only 6 ways needed at the moment. Screwfix does list two 6-way CUs to new spec, but the cost saving (compared to MK 10-way previously mentioned) is zero on the MK 6-way and £10.00 on the BG 6-way. And, if you get the bigger MK CU, you have potentially four 'free' MCBs for use somewhere else - or merely to gloat over in your bulging workshop store! (The Wylex 16-way unit not now being used by my son will yield a number of MCBs and two RCDs that can be used elsewhere and in total are worth much more than the unit cost me.) I may not have mentioned before that existing 'plastic' type CUs will remain legal for non-domestic installations. Quite why a smallish shop (with all sorts of staff and customers, many of whom are pretty stupid) should be regarded as a safer risk than one's own home (ruled by pater with a rod of iron) is beyond me. (But then a lot of the regs are baffling; which is safer: (a) newly added circuits using cable in the 'old' colour codes which match what was already present; or (b) new circuits in new cable colours and a notice warning you that there are now two codes in use ...? That said, I don't think the use of the new cable is actually mandatory - and most of us still have good stocks of the old stuff.)

Shyheels: I too wish you well overseas and look forward to hearing from you on your safe return. Last summer, I was in Norwich and visited the local museum at the Bridewell (recommended). As one might expect from a (former) shoemaking city, there were displays of shoes and the tools used to make them, etc. One display item was interesting - a brown leather high-laced boot, flat heel but coming well above the knee. It was made specially for female nursing staff posted during WW2 to jungle locations, the intention being to give them stout footwear proof against snakes and other nasties. Sounds like a reasonable excuse for some mild indulgence in some of your more 'dodgy environments'? (No - I'm not expecting you to dress in a 'nurse's outfit' too!)

Well, if 'he only fits metal ones' (I wonder why?), you don't need to worry about the 31 Dec deadline, but I guess you want the job done anyway asap. As for reaching fuses 2.1m from the floor - what do you have 5" heels for?

Next time you attend for correction, Freddy, you will leave with glowing testimonials. I assume you refer to one 'Kym Marsh' (not 'March')? I had no knowledge of her (carnal or otherwise) before your introduction and am content to preserve that status quo.

I don't recall a 'grammatical faux par' (sic) - perhaps I was tired too (and/or under the influence of some prescription drugs for muscle pain - ouch!) but I thank you for correcting it. But, alas, you now have further need of the 'ethereal Tipp-ex' to amend another (see supra). And see me in my study after prayers, Master Freddy, for suitable punishment. (Secreting your Latin Primer down the back of your trousers may be beneficial.) [Forgive my ignorance - but are either of the girls known to the world (apart from me)?]

Hmmm. Of the two, I think I prefer James; her sandals are certainly the better pair (and Eamonn's are dreadful: fussy and clumpy).

Well, my guess is a 5.0 - 5.25" heel and a platform (albeit cunningly concealed) of 0.5 - 0.75" - which will almost certainly be at its full thickness just under the ball of the foot. And that is on the size 8 or 9 shoes which appear to be the purchase here. If it is a much smaller size pictured and the heel height is the same, that would explain the illusion of extra height.