Puffer

I'm horrified! If I was more than 5 miles from a Lidl, I would consider moving. (Not quite true but I do like Lidl - and Aldi is in some ways better but I don't have a branch nearby at present, although that is likely to change. I do recommend the tools from both; quality usually good and warranties are quite generous and honoured.)

Freddy: I've no idea whether these Lidl items are of interest to you but maybe so: http://www.lidl.co.uk/en/our-offers-2491.htm?action=showDetail&id=28827&ar=12 They are cheap enough to warrant a try, perhaps. As usual with Lidl 'specials', they will either sell out quickly or languish.

Yes, Ewbank was (and probably still is) a self-styled 'dandy'. I know his house in Hove and, when in the area, saw him occasionally, often dressed in rather foppish clothes which, although 'stylish' were out of place. And he used to drive around the town in a huge US tractor unit (the motive power part of an artic or 'rig') and expect to park it wherever he wished (size permitting). To complete the point, I do not see modest cuban or block heels (say 2.5" max) as out of place on any man's boot, ankle or knee. They are, after all, quite acceptable on Beatle boots and the like - and there are some of those made to a calf height but intended to be worn under trousers. I would not wear the high-buttoned boot - far too fussy - but can agree that it would pass as a man's fashion item. I'm also wary of any footwear with big chunky (cleated) soles; apart from the heaviness, they seem to shout 'I'm straight' just a little too loudly. The second Dune boots are borderline on that basis. But then I wouldn't wear lace-up workboot styles (ankle/calf boots) at all outside the workplace for similar reasons.

If your mate is a really decent bloke who genuinely dislikes these business tactics (as appears the case), perhaps he should (i) get his money (after exerting whatever pressure is necessary): and (ii) give his scamming evidence to Trading Standards (etc) regardless.

Those shoes are bound to be copied by someone soon - you must have heard of 'The Pirates of Penzance'. They do look high, but the platform (effectively hidden) is claimed as 1", which reduces the arch to a piffling 4". The heel shape/position and overall silhouette is very acceptable though. It would be interesting to have the true measurements - and to know if they vary much between (say) a 5 and a 9.

Freddy: I don't think we were/are at cross purposes regarding the style of 'long boots' or their wearability. I too was assuming a 'moderate' male boot up to the knee and of much the style you now illustrate. I can see no objection whatsoever to them - except for the existing convention that men simply do not wear boots much above ankle-high, unless for obvious protective reasons. Rubber wellies - fine; leather wellies (as the good Duke popularised them) - no! As for women wearing boots in warm weather, I was merely commenting on their perversity. Yes, it is 'fashion' (and therefore acceptable conduct in certain circles) but I cannot see the sense in it. And as for boots with open toes, or any other openings apart from at the top (in any weather) ... I see what you mean about the tight clothing above the boot top being an inefficient insulator; thanks for the clarification. A good reason to wear one's boots crotch-high! Jodhpurs may be the practical companion to knee boots, but I'm not sure that I like the look. If I recall correctly, Ewbank (the boxer) favoured such styles - a right prat he looked too imho.

I was 30 years' younger twice ...

I'm slightly puzzled by your first question, which I assume relates to a fairly plain knee boot with (at most) a modest cuban heel. If knee-high boots were accepted as ordinary male street fashion, then I could envisage wearing such a boot on any suitable casual occasion where a Chelsea boot or similar would be currently appropriate - the only difference really being in the shaft height. The long boot might be the better choice in adverse weather, although many women see such a style as acceptable even in high summer! I'm not advocating more extreme boot styles (e.g. with significantly high or slender heels, and/or embellishments) for men in any situation where they would not wear (unconcealed) low boots or shoes of a similar style. From what you have said elsewhere, Freddy, you appear to wear various 'feminine' styles (with high heels/pointed toes) in public 'discreetly', so I'm not sure why you would hesitate to wear long boots openly. Is it simply that they are fully-revealed when worn over trousers? To be honest, even if 'plain' knee boots became mainstream male fashion, I would be wary of wearing them, at least 'in company'. My wife would never accept them and would say that they were entirely inappropriate for someone of my age and character - but then she barely accepts my cuban-heeled ankle boots for the same reason. I don't understand the 'thermal advantage' point. If close-fitting leg-coverings and/or long boots are worn, they are obviously likely to be snug and of advantage in cold weather etc. The combined effect may be too much if the weather is milder (think shorts and sandals!) but that doesn't stop the fashion diehards (see above).

My understanding of what Shyheels said is that men should be able to wear, visibly in public, long boots (I assume not above knee-high), even if with flat heels. That implies that they can/should be worn over full-length trousers or leggings etc. I would tend to agree; long 'fashion' boots on men should be just as acceptable as those for protective reasons, whether worn outside or inside trousers. Boots reaching above the knee are for separate consideration - but they could also be considered as suitable for male wear, at least in a fashion context, but perhaps with less of a justifiable recent history (quite apart from unavoidable fetish overtones). Any such boots with heels is another matter; heels on any type of 'male' footwear are not generally accepted (as we well know) and boots, of any length or style, are not outside this prohibition, with the obvious exception of cowboy boots, cuban heeled 'Beatle' boots etc. I agree that wearing long boots inside trousers etc may effectively hide them and thus remove the objection. But there is no more point to doing so than there is to wearing high heels almost hidden under extra-long trousers - except to please the wearer whilst not frightening the neighbours. And, if a good reason for long boots is protection against the elements, snakes and other hazards, then putting vulnerable trousers over them is not a very good idea. Isn't a need for a modicum of such protection a valid reason for long boots on men or women - which is why we wear non-fashion wellies in the rain or mud, or functional riding boots? Long boots don't have to be extreme high-fashion to look good and also give that extra protection and warmth that may be needed.

Altho I've heard stories before about sparkies not liking to use what the customer supplies (especially CUs), although not experienced it myself on the few occasions one has followed me on a job. I can think of three possible reasons: (i) unwilling to deal with any unfamiliar product, although quite capable of doing so, because it will involve extra time/effort; (ii) incapable of dealing with any unfamiliar product (in which case I would question his competence); (iii) wants to make extra profit on supplying the item(s). If I did not salvage the (perfectly good) kitchen (inc sink, oven, hob and extractor), they would probably end up in the builder's skip and my son would be paying for both removal and disposal. And quite apart from the merits of recycling and saving expense, I put in that kitchen for mum with both love and care and I hate to see it 'vandalised' when it can easily be removed, relocated and re-used. From memory, nothing was done in the original fit-out that will make removal difficult or prejudice the re-use.

If suitable for your (future) needs, this 'compliant' CU is worth considering: http://www.screwfix.com/p/mk-sentry-16-module-10-way-metal-split-load-consumer-unit/2186g The discounted price is not likely to last forever and worth grabbing. I bought one of these a week ago for my son's forthcoming flat refurb/extension - and got an extra 10% off with a Screwfix discount code I was kindly sent; £72.00 net is pretty good, I feel. No, I'm not building the extension for my son! And not likely to be doing much of the peripheral work there either. The flat was my late mother's and I fitted a new kitchen in it some 6 years ago, which saw very little use. It now has to come out (kitchen area to be subsumed into new bedroom) and my son has offered it to me gratis if I will remove it. That I will do (with a modicum of help) and then transport it (hired van) some 75 miles to my wife's aunt's house (which my wife owns and lets) where it will be reinstalled, replacing a time-expired and rather shabby kitchen. Result (I hope): two satisfied relatives - or three in the unlikely event I please my wife too! That is the next major project and will keep me occupied; removal in early January to temporary storage near aunt's house and installation there when I feel like it, but probably early March. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, there are 'minor tasks' on my wife's list to complete (pre-Christmas, naturally) ...

My point was merely that, if a new CU is on the horizon, it would be simpler and cheaper to organise it now than to wait for the new regs and extra cost, as metal-clad CUs are dearer, quite apart from discounts on stocks of current types. If you have a quote for supplying and fitting one, it is not likely to remain valid if the cost increases under the new regs - unless your sparky is on really good terms with you. I wasn't expecting you to fit it yourself, even though you might wish to supply a CU of your choice (bought wisely). My house has some 18 circuits split between 2 CUs, both with a mixture of hard-wired fuse carriers and plug-in MCBs. Two additional circuits (one outdoor) have RCDs and subsidiary fuses. Ideally, I would like the whole set-up to be RCD protected but replacing everything right now with a new 17th edition CU is not justified in terms of work or cost; I have other priorities. I do have 'in stock' a nice Wylex CU with 2 RCDs and room for 15 MCBs (scarcely used and including some 10 MCBs, bought for a very low boot-sale price) which could be used for the main circuits, if installed before 31 Dec, but that ain't going to happen. The MCBs etc can still be used elsewhere and were well worth the outlay.

This was never intended to be a debate about what is or is not 'notifiable' work within BR. You can determine that for yourself by reference to the published BR online. But, if it is notifiable, BC should be involved and the appropriate certificates provided. You and I both know that - and also that we can (and do) of course carry out certain work by way of alteration/extension that will never be detected even if strictly notifiable. (Why do you think I have a good stock of cable in 'old' colours etc?) The problem, if any, is likely to come when a new/replacement notifiable appliance - such as boiler, gas hob, consumer unit - is installed but never notified and questions are asked on a later sale of the property, e.g. where is cert showing installation date and serial number of boiler? If you decide to have a new consumer unit fitted, you are no doubt aware of Amendment 3 to 17th Edition Regs. This requires a metal-clad CU from 1 Jan 2016. As I understand it, work which commences before that date and includes a new CU will be compliant even if completed after that date. As lots of existing (perfectly safe) CUs are now being moved at a discount, it is a good time to buy one if the rewire etc is started shortly, regardless of CU fitting date. I totally agree that BR, not being (mercifully) retrospective are demonstrably flouted on many existing properties/installations - and without any real problems. When Part P came in 2005, it rendered 'unlawful' at a stroke all sorts of basic DIY electrical work - but that did not make such work (new or existing) suddenly dangerous in fact, only (if new) in law. The new CU regs are another example; existing types do not suddenly become dangerous when the regs change. (It is much the same argument when a driver parks to cause an alleged 'obstruction' - even a blatantly physical obstruction may be lawfully caused if one has the right excuse/permission (or pays the right money); conversely, many vehicles that are clearly causing no physical obstruction are deemed obstructions in law.)

I am aware of this mode of walking, which you describe well, and have tried it briefly - and awkwardly. I can't say that it achieves anything useful. It may disguise a tendency towards a bow-legged gait, but surely it does not stop the shoe/heel from hitting the ground at an angle and thus being susceptible to distortion or uneven wear? And it must make the wearer look rather too feminine when walking, thus drawing attention that one is trying to minimise? This bloke: https://www.youtube.com/user/loveheels7inches/videos adopts freestyle clothing and wears some impressive heels, and very openly in public too. He seems to be able to walk very easily in them, with no obvious wobble or hesitation.

Yes, Freddy, if in your case it is a question of substituting the new boiler for the old (presumably in the same position or almost so), then clearly you cannot yourself lawfully disconnect the old and/or connect the new. That work needs to be done by a GasSafe engineer, along with the commissioning. But you seem to be suggesting that you could in fact do this work on the grounds of being 'competent' (albeit unqualified) - but that is not my understanding of the current regulation; the 'competent' let-out is no longer applicable. More to the point, whether the installation is a new one or not, the work has to be notified to Building Control (online) in a certified form, and such a certificate can only be given by a registered engineer. If the engineer will 'adopt' third-party installation work (after checking it) as his own and thus certify it as a whole is up to him; some are too scared of possible repercussions to do this but you and I have luckily found co-operative engineers who recognise our respective competency. The position is worse with electrical work requiring Part P certification; many electricians (e.g. NICEIC members) are prohibited by their governing body from certifying third party work, nor can they lawfully 'adopt' such work as their own . That would not stop one from doing so if he (untruthfully) stated that he had done the work himself, but it is really necessary to find a NAPIT or STROMA member who is authorised for third-party certification and get it approved that way. Strictly, one should notify BC in advance that one is doing a DIY job and then get either the Council's approved certifier (expensive!) or one's own nominee (if one can be found) to check it all out (before, during and after the installation).

The point about having the same declared value for duty/tax and for insurance etc is a good one. I did not mention it before because I was assuming low value shipments which, if insurable (or eligible for compensation for loss/damage) at all, would probably be within minimum limits anyway. But items of, say, £150 plus would be worth thinking about. There was a major legal case some years ago when the importer was estopped from claiming full compensation when he had insured for the full value but had grossly under-declared the value for duty. Whether or not (US) suppliers are really at serious risk when wrongly declaring shipments as 'gifts' is not something I can comment further on. I'm sure that the primary reason that they profess not to do this is simply to present an honest front to the authorities; in Mandy Rice-Davies';s immor(t)al words: 'Well, they would, wouldn't they?'. In the same vein, I note that many Chinese suppliers say clearly that they will send as 'gifts'. I know what you mean regarding one's walk in 5" heels - although with my bigger feet I should manage it better than you. Bow legs seem to be my problem (with consequential wear/displacement of the heel to one side).

There is a difference between 'connection' (i.e. physically positioning the gas pipework and making the various connections, other than that to the live gas supply) and 'commissioning' (i.e. making the live gas connection, purging and then initially operating/adjusting the boiler). Maybe you misunderstood me; there was no other gas appliance and the newly-installed meter had its output sealing disc still in place, so I was perfectly entitled to run the gas pipe between the meter outlet and the boiler, leaving only the 'commissioning' (including removal of the sealing disc to give a live supply) to the GasSafe engineer, who was perfectly content with this - indeed, he could not object to what I had done. I think you intend to do no more and no less than me, given the probability that your gas meter output is already 'live' and you will not yourself connect to it.

I suggest that exchanges on holidays, leggings and other subjects remain perfectly valid, and mutually interesting, but are perhaps best conducted (or continued) in a dedicated thread elsewhere. So, I propose that the next person with such a comment in mind could open that new thread accordingly. I agree with you about long boots - really anything above ankle height - on men. For something like a century they have ceased to be (in the UK at least) an accepted item of footwear for a man EXCEPT when required in a historic/uniform context (as for military or ceremonial wear) or for a purely protective purpose (such as the ubiquitous welly or for horse/motorbike riding, logging etc). And, as you rightly say, the popularity of the long boot with women over the last 50+ years has pretty well denied it to men as a fashion item (however restrained). (Perhaps we should consider ourselves lucky that ankle-high boots (such as Chelsea boots and safari boots ) became so popular with men at about the same time that they have remained accepted male footwear - and indeed that other, usually less stylish, lace-up or buckled low boots (almost a work-boot in appearance) have also become quite widely worn by men in casual mode.) I don't know what might be done to reintroduce the long boot for men, whether with a heel or not. But it does still exist in other cultures, as part of traditional dress (e.g. Eastern Europe) or by so-called 'cowboys' in the Americas. If we were not actively discouraged from celebrating British history, we might be able to recognise more tangibly the impact of people such as the Duke of Wellington, who (rumour has it) advanced the cause of boot-wearing just a tad - quite apart from defeating some undesirable foreigners who were causing us trouble (something that of course simply doesn't happen today). As to the YSL boots currently offered to men, I wonder how popular they are proving. The price is clearly a deterrent but the style might just inspire others ...

Yes indeed, and several of us have gone off at interesting tangents - and why not? But, having started this thread, I would be pleased to see further comment on the YSL boots (or similar footwear) if anyone has a view.

I identify with your typical holiday cost for two. In my case, a modest 7-day cruise plus a 7-day hotel stay afterwards costs around £1900 for the package (for two) and there is little need for further expenditure unless one goes overboard (sorry!) with drinking and excursions. Let us take £2000 as a sensible benchmark. This is a little more than I expect retention of my seaside flat to cost annually - the main expenses being council tax and buildings insurance, with occasional repairs etc. Running costs are small and partly offset by savings at home. All in all, a non-trivial but affordable (and controllable) cost of a readily available and flexible leisure facility. Yes, you might find a narrowboat can be kept afloat at a comparable figure but I don't know offhand what the typical average annual narrowboat costs are; I will ask my brother and report back. Mooring fees can be high and the licence is not exactly trivial, whilst periodic servicing (dry dock etc) is somewhat unpredictable (rather like owning a secondhand car) and does not come cheap. That said, the capital cost of a reasonable 'used' boat is likely to be somewhat lower than even a small holiday property. And both could be let out to produce a useful income; narrowboat hire charges do seem to have increased significantly in more recvent years, which is good for owners but not for hirers. Tipping is a sore point in the leisure cruise industry and attracts a lot of controversy and comment. I have tended to go on cruises which do clearly include all tipping in the price and which certainly do not require any supplementation - although a small end-of-cruise gratuity to a helpful steward or waiter is always an option. I don't quite understand your friends' dilemma without knowing all the details, but (aside from a service charge per purchase on bar drinks and things like a spa or gym), there should be no obligation to tip on top of a clearly-stated 'tips included' holiday price, or a specified extra charge for tips added to one's onboard bill. And, even then, it is normally possible to insist on the extra charge (which is typically £7 -10 pppd) being removed or reduced before it is added to the bill; some people like to vary it or to make personal gifts direct to those most deserving. Caveat emptor is the watchword, as always, and beware of US cruise lines in particular. The usual 'excuse' for compulsory tips is that the crew earn low wages and rely on tips to earn a proper income; this may well be true (although some cruise lines don't restrict wages) but it is still a distasteful process. In my book, a tip is only valid when exceptional personal service has been given (on request or by necessity) and is entirely at the giver's discretion; it is not to be expected simply because someone has done his job, whether well or badly, and I heartily dislike this difficult-to-avoid expectation.

I agree that the flat-rate 'clearance charge' is excessive and totally disproportionate when the item value is low. I don't think the country of origin is relevant as the declaration is of interest mainly to the customs authority in the destination country. That said, false 'gift' declarations may rebound and get dealt with under the local law, e.g. by the benevolent US regime in this case. No duty is payable if the goods value (exc shipping) does not exceed £135, and in any event many items are not dutiable - I think footwear from US is exempt. But VAT is chargeable if the value (goods plus shipping) exceeds £15, so you were rightly charged £5 on a £26 consignment. My MJ boots (from Mexico) were marked as a gift and escaped VAT. I believe that quite a lot of lower-value items (even if above £15) escape VAT simply because they are not detected on importation, but it must be a lottery. I've bought several trivial items for a pound or three from China etc and they go through without any problem as the value for both duty and VAT is too low. (How some of these Chinese sellers make a profit, I do not know - the postage alone is often almost as much as the purchase price.) I like your boots; they are not dissimilar to my MJs (apart from the trim strap) and good for male street wear. I hope you get them to fit better and can wear them outside as intended.

We can certainly agree that my question, if it merits anything but a rhetorical answer, has been answered. And quod non certe fits the bill, ita vero. The gas connection to the new boiler had been made by me but without removing the sealing disc from the recently-installed meter. So far, so legal. The gas connection was finalised by the registered gas engineer yesterday (with my friend present, but I was otherwise engaged) who then fired-up and tested the boiler and the rest of the system. All was in order and the installation was duly certified and will be notified to Building Control by the engineer, who in effect has adopted the work as his own. Job done. (The engineer is a friend of my friend and has certified three or four previous installations done by the pair of us. He therefore knows our work and capabilities.) Under the old regs, one merely had to be 'competent' to work on gas - and that was effectively a subjective view of the workman (or his critics!). It effectively allowed a self-confident householder to do his own gas work, or indeed to do it as a favour for another. But not to do it for money or in the capacity of (or qua, if you prefer to continue the classical trend) landlord. The new regs are stricter and effectively require a recognised qualification; the requirement to notify work to BC providing the principal check on who does what. But this does not of course prevent an unqualified but 'competent' person from meddling with gas in situations where (a) no BC record is required (which precludes a new installation or most appliance changes); and (b) no unwanted physical consequences arise. The comment by the BC officer you quote was therefore historically valid (if glib), except that the key word should be 'competent', not 'qualified', but is no longer. And the person who causes an explosion might well be demonstrably 'qualified' (and therefore considered competent) but on that occasion made a mistake which threw doubt on his continuing competence. (I am qualified in two professions but that does not of course make me incapable of making a mistake when following them, of whatever degree of seriousness.) As to the 'boiler fixing', the only way I could envisage a 'top anchor' to serve the same purpose as the impossible vertical screw would be to pre-fix a small angle bracket to the boiler case top and screw horizontally through this into the wall behind, using a good light and a long screwdriver (or socket). But I don't think that would be possible withour piercing Mr Glow-worm's lovely casing, probably invalidating every warranty as well as showing a degree of inventiveness and common-sense that Mr G would deprecate. I'm sure you are absolutely right about the tick in the box. As it stands (or hangs), we have done nothing to substitute for the screw and the commissioning engineer was quite happy with this, whilst sharing our surprise/annoyance at the design fault.

I agree with much of the above regarding the over-hyped holiday that becomes a holy grail to so many, regardless of cost, time and stress. Although cruising (and it is by no means a 'luxury' form of travel, unless one chooses such) has re-kindled my need for a relaxing change of scene, I too could cheerfully go without any significant 'away-break' as there is always something worthwhile to do at home or nearby. That said, our recently-completed seaside flat (intended for family and friends to use as a bolt-hole) does provide an enjoyable home-from-home and is pefectly viable for a day trip or a couple of nights, being an easy 48 mile car ride away (65 minutes consistently). My brother and his wife have owned a narrowboat for many years. Great fun, although I am not often invited aboard (despite various plumbing and joinery jobs done on same). The 'servicing' cost can be fairly significant, and the limitation posed by home-base location can be a damper when a trip in further parts is desired. But I guess, Freddy, that the Grand Union would be within easy reach of your home and a mooring there (if you can find one) is a pretty good place to start from - although somewhere on the BCN would be even better if not perhaps so salubrious.

I have no claims to be a linguist (cunning or otherwise! ) and did not take to learning French at grammar school, although I did pass at O level on my second attempt and can just about make myself understood if in Frogland (which is rarely). Strangely enough, my wife (who lived/worked in Brussels for some time) fancies herself as a French speaker but I don't think she is any better than me. Neither of us is qualified enough to have French letters after our names . I also studied Latin at school for three years, hated it and was glad to give it up. But I found Latin both interesting and useful when immersed in my legally-based work in later life and I then wished I was more accomplished. It was useful too, when on a narrowboat holiday, to remember in medio tutissimus ibis: 'it is better to steer a middle course'. When overseas, whilst rarely being able to understand or speak more than a smattering of any foreign tongue, I do find myself unconsciously adopting a pseudo-local accent. I think this is quite common, and applies equally when elsewhere in the UK, e.g. north of Watford or west of Reading. It's by no means hard to become a Bristolian or a Brummy, for example, without special effort.

I think I mentioned before that I was going to assist a friend to install central heating in a flat he owns (asnd is re-letting shortly). I have been doing so for much of the last fortnight and we are now almost finished, with the boiler about to be 'signed-off' by a friendly (and suitably qualified) heating engineer. The work has not gone as smoothly or as swiftly as we hoped (does it ever?), mainly due to shortcomings in the existing plumbing which we have had to overcome by a mixture of skill, subterfuge and sheer hard work. And not helped (in my case) by a return of some sciatica, thus impeding my getting into the usual awkward places and positions (which make the Kama Sutra look positively tame). We were somewhat taken aback today when lifting the boiler into position. It is a Glow-worm combi, chosen because it is one of the very few that offers a rear-exit flue and could thus fit into the confined vertical space within a kitchen cupboard. The boiler itself is, I understand, considered reliable. The boiler-area preparation and pipe-fitting was certainly more complex and time-consuming than any I have done before but went well enough. But actually locating the boiler onto its wall-mounted securing frame was not a piece of cake. The boiler is clearly stated as being OK to mount with a minimum of 20mm clear space above; we had it almost 40mm below the ceiling. But after lifting it onto its brackets (not easy when both high up and heavy, apart from limitations of any personal weakness!), we were supposed to secure it to the frame with a screw through the TOP of the boiler casing. Yes, well: where can I get an implement that will allow vertical insertion of a small self-tapping screw into an almost invisible hole at the back of a gap of less than 20mm in height? A quick call to Mr Glow-worm brought the considered response that the screw could be omitted as the boiler would not fall off the wall and connection of the pipework would improve its rigidity. Both proved true but I am not happy with the slop still apparent at the top, and even less with such a simple design fault which Glow-worm acknowledged but could not explain - and, unhelpfully, found my suggested idea of substituting a simple peg or even a bent wire that could be pushed into the location 'not a method Glow-worm could approve' as it was non-standard. Nothing 'idiot-proof' here, I fear. I will report further when the boiler is commissioned - and assuming nothing blows up or falls off.