Puffer

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.

8 hours ago, Shyheels said:

I was 30 years younger once...

I was 30 years' younger twice ...

On 11/23/2015, 11:37:39, FastFreddy2 said:

In principle, I agree everything, though snakes aren't the only low-level wild-life we all need to care with ....  There was a pair of jack-boots seen in From Russia With Love, that had an accessory I would like to see offered in a speciality boot somewhere. If only?

In reality (horrible place) how would you wear a man's knee boot? I'm not just asking to be a little 'testy', (devils advocate) but ask because I might consider wearing such a device if I could think of a way for it to be indulged. It's why I suggested 'fashion' (since this can lead to all sorts of abstract ensembles,) including OTK boots with open toes?  And I'm not enough of a showman to do it for theatrical reasons. Though maybe when I'm a tad more senile?

To wear leg coverings inside a boot, they've got to be fairly close fitting. Quite trendy to wear this style at the moment with treggings/jeggings/leggings being the 'must have' item, so available everywhere. But doesn't wearing them, then remove the prospect of any thermal advantage at a time when a long boot might be justifiable for practical reasons, like keeping warm? I still have some rubber riding boots (leather was too expensive) from the days I used to go to fetish clubs. I could wear those out in the real world, but what with? Jodhpurs?    

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

22 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

...

One of the two electricians lined up will only use his own 'supplied' CU, because he's used to them. ...

I'm not jealous of your kitchen re-use plan, though it's both commendable from the 'green' aspect of reuse, and the commercial benefit. ...

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.) 

7 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

...

You obviously haven't spent enough time, learning to mimic the girls on the Victoria's Secret catwalk....  The secret (if you'll excuse the lazy pun) is to walk with one foot overstepping the other. To explain another way; Imagine your line of direction with two parallel lines perhaps 3 inches apart. The line on the right is for your left foot, the line on the left for your right foot. As you walk, left over-steps right, then right over-steps left. Bow-leggedness is hidden. I've not mastered it myself, and I expect too look like I need two new hips if ever I do, but it works for very highly paid models.   

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).

10 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

...

I've no intention of connecting a gas supply to the boiler, as 'the deal' I have on the table is that I'm to do everything except the purge and final commission. That is someone elses job. 

...   

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.

12 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Exactly - why not? I've enjoyed the tangents and learned something about the idea of canal boat holidays.

On the subject of unisex boots - the original topic of the thread and one of interest to me - I do not know much specifically about the offerings of YSL, but I am certainly pleased to see more interesting offerings along these lines. I think it would be nice to see barriers broken in both of the areas that limit men's choices in boots - heels and boot height, and preferably both. I quite like tall boots as a fashionable item (heels optional). But the wearing of tall boots by men - unless they are actually going horseback riding - seems to be off limits, regardless of heel height. There is no logic to it. I've dug into the history of boots and fashion, even contacted some prominent museum curators and history-of-fashion experts asking about this curious phenomenon and they can't explain it either and similarly see no logic.  'Boots are theatre', as one put it to me, and men foreswore the notion of theatrical dressing and fashion in the 18th century as part of the Great Male Renunciation, as it became know. While boots remained practical wear in horse and buggy days, and thus legitimately still worn, when the automobile came to the fore in the early 20th century they were no longer worn by men - except perhaps those on motorcycles.

And when fashion designers made tall boots part of the sleek new look for women in the early 60s, what had been a neutral item became feminised and therefore no longer wearable by men except under the most traditional of circumstances - on horseback.  A belated act of renunciation that has its roots in the mid-18th century and the so-called Age of Enlightenment. Isn't irony wonderful?

   

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 ...

8 hours ago, Shyheels said:

The actual topic of the thread is unisex boots fromYSL

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.

22 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

...

With annual holiday costs typically sitting at £1200-£1500 for us two on a 'budget' holiday anywhere abroad, I would be very disappointed if the annual cost of ownership of a narrow boat was as high as that. Plus, provided insurance costs weren't prohibitive, I wouldn't be adverse to hiring it out. I priced up weekend hire while looking at purchase prices, and weekend/week long lets were staggeringly expensive. I think one 'modest' venue in the West country somewhere wanted £800 for a Friday to Monday let.  No heated swimming pool, no jacuzzi, no maid (ahemm) service either. £800!  

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.

22 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

...

I have a couple of friends who did the Med during a cruise, and they have friend that cruise regularly. By coincidence they all met each other on the same ship last year ...

The ship was/is owned by an American outfit, and tipping was required everywhere on everything (as best I can make out).  It was possible to have 'tipping packages' included in the holiday price, but the couple I know were still compelled to tip their waiting staff at the end of the cruise anyway. I think the holiday cost them the better part of £1800 each and lasted a week I think. (Might have been 10 days, I can't remember exactly). It didn't compare well to a 2 week stay on land, even with food included, and the food wasn't that great given the price.

In hindsight the couple now know they paid more than they should, and even fell out with the travel agent over lies/mis-selling of the cruise. (ie. "Your tipping package of £200 each will be included."  It wasn't, even though they were told TWICE on separate occasions by two different people that it was,) They did have a great time though, not least due to the lovely couple they met who repeatedly treated them to champagne. Apparently the 'ol fella' was keen to spend the inheritance money before the ungrateful children got to it.  Their bar bill ran into thousands ...  

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.

12 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

My international linguistic skills ended when I chose not to take French in the third year. Didn't actually do any in the second year, but I'd learned enough in my first year to get a decent pass in the end of the second year exams, much to the astonishment of myself and the French teacher.   At junior school I used the little French we had been taught to ask if a fellow pupil could use the loo. Teacher was impressed. While on a motorcycle in France, and ever-so-slightly-lost, I asked one of the locals in French, where the big white mountain was. Impressed with my question, she gave me directions in the fastest French I've ever heard. I think I made out 3 of the 50 words spoken. Since I obviously had impressive skills with French ladies, it's one of my life's regrets I didn't learn a second language. ...

 

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.

The 'travelling' comments above are interesting and, yet again, have parallels with my own experiences.   I do not claim to be widely travelled and, until fairly recently, was unlikely to have a foreign holiday of any substance as I (i) I had better things to waste money on; (ii) could easily get bored with most sun-worshipping/sightseeing activity; (iii) have no sporting interests whatsoever; (iv) resented the time and effort spent in getting to an airport at some unearthly hour, going through increasingly tiresome formalities and then flying over my own house some hours after leaving it.   My wife, however, has always been quite adventurous and had travelled widely overseas (as well as living and working elsewhere in Europe) before I met her.   

Something I did greatly enjoy and did almost annually in the 80s/90s was to spend a week on the English canals in a narrowboat, as one of a group of like-minded friends.   Relaxing, yet active, convivial and never boring, I found it an ideal way to unwind.   Alas, growing family and other commitments within the group effectively put paid to this annual treat, although the participants do remain in touch for other occasional social events.

Recent years have however resulted in some changes, largely due to increased leisure time and less concern over finances.   In particular, we discovered cruising (on a ship, that is!) and now have an annual cruise with several further ones in mind.   It isn't our only holiday or outside activity but it is proving an enjoyable one with a very acceptable blend of relaxation and change of scene - not to speak of good food and, usually, good company.

There are certainly some areas of the world that I would not wish to visit, for cultural or political reasons.   High on the list is anywhere connected with current or recent terrorism, for obvious reasons.   As I write, I have a stepson serving with the RAF 'somewhere in the Middle East', whose role is (I understand) not unconnected with some long-overdue and welcome news breaking today; draw your own conclusions.   Fortunately, his work does not involve front-line personal exposure.

I am reasonably widely travelled within the UK.   An interest in railways and a need for business travel in a former life both saw to that.   But nowadays I do not so often stray from my home area; travelling costs (whether by car or public transport) and traffic jams are no encouragement to exploration as distinct from necessary forays.   And so many so-called 'attractions' prove either mediocre or a rip-off that I am wary of them.

I am not ashamed to say that I miss C&A.   I always found its trousers, jumpers and shirts to be a good fit, hard-wearing and reasonably priced.   But Primark has more or less filled the gap and probably has more variety in casual clothes.   That said, I now buy very few clothes as I have more than enough already - including some very nice cast-offs (mainly shirts and jeans) from my two sons (now 37 and 34), who seem to get bored with good-quality stuff and are glad to ditch it.   (Although we are all the same shoe size, we don't seem to share footwear; I don't think our tastes really coincide and the boys certainly don't wear heels - as far as I know!)