Puffer

I await further reports with bated breath, Freddy. Sorry that the pipe bending failed; I have done it successfully but it does require a little care. Just a thought - have you been breathing in active flux fumes whilst soldering? If so, that might be the cause of flu-like symptoms as the mucus lining of one's hooter can be irritated thusly. Been there, got the tee-shirt (and hanky) ...

Maybe we need a new 'Brighton & Hove' thread! I loved Brighton when I lived there (although wary of its worst excesses). I missed much that was there when moving to Kent, but now actually dislike returning there because of the traffic and driving/parking restrictions and especially the parking costs. That was a real burden when I visited my elderly and housebound mother (now deceased) in Hove regularly and, if I now visit my elder son there, I have to pay to park outside 7 days a week and can only use a phone to do so - with a surcharge plus call cost as well. This is just not acceptable. OK, I could go to a local shop and pay there - but not just a few yards' walk away and with a risk of being booked before I complete transaction. I was wrong when I said before that I had never worn heels in the city. True of Brighton (I think), but I did try out a couple of pairs of heels around Hove Park at dusk following a visit to Mum. I can see the attractions of the city for retirement but I will show my old fart colours and say that I would be more at home now in Bournemouth! (I do own a seaside flat elewhere in Kent, so do have the advantages of an easily-reached retreat for a bit of relaxation. The town in question is quiet and friendly, with discreet evening heeling quite possible.)

The Wickes situation is interesting; I will watch out in case this display change occurs at any branch I visit. I agree that B&Q website navigation and accuracy of info is pretty hopeless; the Trade site is even worse (and you can't check stock)! I note that the 'conversion bend' you refer to, although clearly solvent weld, is desribed as 'Suitable for most standard size waste pipes (excluding solvent weld waste)'!! The price differences on the fitting you quote are unusual; the SF 'bulk' price (and B&Q Trade price) are both £3.68, so less than the SF single or B&Q price. TS does not list an equivalent. I cannot help with the solvent weld 'street elbow/spigot bend' you want; I think the unusual angle is the problem. But have you considered this (or an equivalent - other lengths and makes are available): http://www.toolstation.com/shop/Plumbing/d20/Plastic+Solvent+Weld/sd2885/Magicflex+Solvent+Weld+Elbow/p20923 There is absolutely no reason why 40mm SW fittings from different makers should not be mixed - often a particular fitting will be usefully different in length etc and a better fit. Another source of a huge range of plumbing stuff is BES in Birmingham. A quick look there reveals nothing obviously helpful; this is an equivalent bend to what you tried: https://www.bes.co.uk/product/129~PL~2446~-Adjustable-Seal-Waste-Bends-.html You would find that it any good local plumber's merchant too. If the SW pipe you wish to align is not on show, you could tweak it slightly by gentle heating and bending. Best to do this before cutting to length, so any errors can be chopped off. Just apply heat from hot air gun (or even a gas flame) and introduce a slight bend so it aligns with nearest-match angled elbow (or whatever). The pipe will likely distort and discolour slightly but won't break or leak if care is taken.

I lived in Brighton 1973-2000 and still visit regularly so can claim close knowledge of the area. Yes, Hove had its significant share of 'wrinklies' (as too did Brighton) but its very varied property and other perceived advantages - wider roads, few parking restrictions, quieter areas - have long appealed as much to young people (particularly with families) as to the older ones. The merger of the two towns, whilst very sensible in many respects and already recognised in practice for many years by most residents, did destroy much of Hove's character (especially easy parking!) and there is not a lot to choose between them these days, apart from geographical differences. Property prices have certainly risen steeply over the years - more than 30-fold in 35 years in my experience. Strangely enough, I have never been outside in heels there and saw very few possible male heelers around the area. The exceptions were obvious trannies. There were (and are) enough wierdos of all types in the area, by day and by night, so I am sure that heel wearers of various persuasions do exist there.

Hove is not a good example - Bexhill might be a better one. The People's Republican Green City of Brighton & Hove has a very varied population, including a lot of fashion-conscious young girls with growing feet. Last time I looked in NL there, it had a large range of shoes, including 9s and wide fitting. I have relatives in the City and visit regularly - despite absurd traffic and parking restrictions. I can't say that I participate in the (often sleazy) nightlife or see too many of the more appealing heels in the daytime streets, but I'm sure the business is there for the likes of NL and Primark.

I no longer have a Wickes nearby, but still buy there when I need certain heavier materials etc. But not for screws, plumbing or electrical stuff etc as it is invariably significantly more expensive. I've never found a situation in Wickes where items could not be inspected 'on the shelf' and had to be 'requisitioned' (à la SF/TS) but I gather that certain branches also have a TS facility within them, which doubtless operates that way. (Both are part of the Travis Perkins empire - which begs the question as to why the same item sold in TP, W and/or TS is invariably priced differently.) Maybe you were actually trying to buy at a TS within W? I never have the 'prepayment-then-return' problem at TS as I can always ask to see something before it is invoiced - although one does not abuse the facility when the queue or shopping list is lengthy - which is one reason why I like shopping there as the staff are helpful. With SF (just around the corner), one does not usually get the same degree of help or friendliness. As B&Q and SF are both Kingfisher-owned, there are some products in common, but B&Q usually dearer and (assuming no pricing error) never cheaper in my experience. I have B&Q Trade card and this sometimes (but not always) gives a small saving on normal price, but again would not be less than SF. (The B&Q Diamond card for over-60s may give a better result if used on a Wednesday with 10% off.) A saving of a pound or two is always welcome, although of course not at the expense of an extra journey or wasted time. I usually know what I want (even if detail needs inspection at the counter) and check online before I go to establish price and availability - easy at SF and TS; usually OK at Wickes but somewhat unreliable at B&Q. Another advantage of TS is the 'free delivery' on an order of £10+ - which actually makes it easier and cheaper to buy online for next-day delivery to home than to drive 1.5 miles to the branch! But I do usually collect in person. And anything not in stock at TS or SF can be sent to a branch FOC for collection next day.

I was in New Look briefly yesterday and there were size 9s on show, including a specific area of 'sale' shoes in that size. Whether there are now more or fewer than in the recent past I cannot say.

Would these from Matalan be of any use to you, Freddy: http://www.matalan.co.uk/womens/footwear/s2604927/over-the-knee-boots From the pic I saw in a mag, they looked fairly close fitting on the model. The heel is not very exciting but the price is right. Worth a try-on?

On your last point, Freddy, I have used Toolstation (and Screwfix) for years and find TS slightly better on price and service where there is compatibility between products, although I accept TS has a smaller range. Until recently, TS did not sell copper in 3m lengths (only 2m) but now does, and its current price is a little less than SF. You might find a trip to your local scrap merchant useful - I can buy 'virgin' 3m lengths there at a significant saving over normal trade sources. (You can only speculate as to why anyone would sell unused lengths of pipe for scrap, or unused fittings for that matter. My scrappy usually has both for the choosing.) Hard water here too - and everywhere else I have worked at! Yes, some limescale does build up but never found it an issue in waste/soil pipes. And I use one or other descaling devices on incoming mains.

Interesting pics, Freddy - thanks. You seem to have all in hand, so just a few follow-up points (same numbering): 3. The differences in dimensions between soil makes is rather surprising and can indeed lead to problems. The BS probably covers little more than pipe diameter! (Not so many years ago, almost every drainpipe/gutter maker had different ideas and little was compatible in the way that the standard roundline stuff, at least, now is.) The boss sizes are a particular problem, although many are the same and take the Floplast (Screwfix) or Kalsi (Toolstation) adaptors. The Kalsi range is about the cheapest for soil that is readily available. 4. Yes, it is still necessary for the sewer to be vented regularly; I think BC normally requires it once per three adjoining dwellings with stink pipe above roof level. Are you saying that you have two vertical soil pipes and intend to terminate just one at AAV? (Not a problem if so, as far as I can see, but two pipes in normal house not common.) It is now possible to get and install an AAV externally - risk of jamming from frost used to be the problem. 5. I agree about flexi conns. They do have their uses, however; I have had to use them, pretty well compressed, to join an old earthenware soil pipe under a floor to a vertical WC pan connector when replacing a WC - not an 'official' use but totally effective. With ordinary flanged plain pipe/fittings/pan connectors, I rarely find any significant 'dirt' build-up when dismantling. Indeed, it is surprising how generally clean and sweet (relatively) most systems remain - given 24hrs for the last curry to flush away. 8. An awkward set-up indeed. Not sure why you need any floor under the bath (assuming it is panelled) and that thin ply doesn't achieve much anyway! I have sometimes removed all the boards under a bath and let its feet rest on just the joists (or a stout board across them). That way, the trap depth/access is optimised and the bath may be able to sit a little lower - avoiding the need to wear high heels whilst climbing into it . I wouldn't worry about the cable; mechanical or water damage is unlikely but, if worried, enclose it in a piece of square trunking with a snap-on lid through the danger area. One very small point. When I have to leave a soil pipe 'open' during work, I invariably plug it with a carrier bag stuffed with newspaper and handles tied to make a 'ball' - simple but effective smell-eliminator and won't get lost in pipe. Today is your last chance for a free carrier bag - 5p charge from tomorrow!

Good luck with the soil pipe, Freddy. I assume that, although 50 years old (did you bake a cake?), it is 110mm plastic and therefore susceptible to easy alteration with push-fit or solvent-weld fittings of current manufacture. A few observations: 1. With a 40mm waste, a very gradual gradient will usually be fine unless the run is longer than about 3m (which is far from ideal anyway). 25mm/m will be perfectly OK - anything greater can lead to the flow being too rapid with an increased danger of 'pulling' the trap. For 32mm, increase to 40mm/m or more if the run is greater than about 1.7m - or run in 40mm pipe. 2. Whilst bath and basin wastes are best connected to stack separately, it is not essential and they can join before stack - helpful if space is tight or to avoid duplicating pipe runs (especially if basin run would be long). Using an anti-vac trap will avoid the flow in one pipe pulling the other trap. 3. I see your concern about WC connections being better below waste pipe connections, although WC waste most unlikely to block any lower waste inlet, but the latter should be at least 200mm lower. Do however avoid two waste connections at same level being opposite one another - but they can be at 90 degrees. A short boss pipe [http://www.toolstation.com/search?searchstr=32314 24326] is a handy and compact means of connecting wastes if the WC branch does not have bosses suitably located. Make sure you get the right rubber adaptor to fit each boss you use - not all makes of boss are the same internal diameter, and also pipe may be 32 or 40mm of course. 4. I assume that, although internal, your soil pipe goes on through the ceiling/wall/roof to vent above the eaves. (Unusual to do otherwise 50 years ago.) Have you considered fitting an internal air admittance valve instead (above overflow level of highest appliance connected - probably a basin): [http://www.toolstation.com/search?searchstr=45005 77893] ? This can save space and eliminate unsightly higher pipework but of course will need old exit holes etc to be blocked/made good. 5. I'm sure your WC connection will be OK. The connectors have a fair amount of give in them and you could always use a flexible connector if really necessary, although they are not pretty. 6. If you don't have a rodding access conveniently below the WC connection(s), it may be worthy adding one - ideally where you need to join pipe anyway: [http://www.toolstation.com/search?searchstr=69732 72361] 7. Don't forget to allow for small expansion of waste pipes, especially with solvent weld, e.g. if pipe runs vertically through a hole in floor and may get pushed against side. 8. The common shallow bath trap has, strictly, insufficient seal depth when connected to soil pipe and can get pulled (so smells get into bathroom thru plug'ole). A 3" seal is preferable if space below bath allows - cut a hole in floor if necessary to take trap bend. 9. However tempting/convenient/pleasurable it may be, do NOT wear stilettos when standing in a bath to do work above. Wear wedges instead.

Interesting comments, Freddy, and I would say much the same. Although I have had a couple of pairs of heels for many years, they were never worn except behind closed doors, and then only occasionally. I then (with much trepidation) bought a pair of men's cuban-heeled boots and plucked up the courage to wear them outside - armed with a few Acrow props in case the sky fell in (which it didn't). Subsequently, I bought a few pairs of women's boots with heels 3.5 - 4" and have worn them outside (largely hidden under suitable trousers) occasionally with growing confidence. Likewise a pair of made-to-measure boots from Miguel Jones with 5" heels. Although discretion is still called for and I must choose my moment carefully, I am now far less worried about convention or reaction. Indeed, I almost relish being 'sussed' (as I undoubtedly am) and the time must come when I will wear my heels outside without bothering about concealment. My clothing otherwise is pretty conventional (i.e. boringly middle-aged - no skirts and frilly tops for me) but many of the YSL looks would be fairly readily achievable - essentially narrowish.skinny trousers and ankle boots with a tapered toe and a 4" slim block heel. That is how I would like to dress and look - but whether I will get there before I become totally decrepit remains to be seen. As to convention, I am primarily a conventional person in most respects (because I agree with most conventions I am aware of!) but there is enough rebel in me to resist or disclaim those views or modes of conduct to which I take exception - and they are growing as I get older, wiser and grumpier.

My abject apologies for the humour. My tail would now be firmly between my legs if it wasn't for the skinny jeans I'm wearing. IMy parents laughed when I told them I wanted to be a comedian - they're not laughing now.

My acquaintance owning the YSL boots (with 95mm heels) tells me that he has worn them several times in public and clearly likes them - as indeed does his wife, who apparently tolerates his liking for heels but has definite ideas on acceptable styles and makes. (I think the YSL cachet and the high price tip the balance in his favour; she would probably not approve of a High Street equivalent at one-tenth the price!) He has also sent me this very interesting link, which shows nearly 50 'looks', all (except apparently 41) featuring the men's boots (which have the slightly lower 85mm heel): http://lustercatcher.com/2015/05/25/saint-laurent-fallwinter-2015-lookbook-catalogue-preview/ I have to say that I am impressed - most of those 'looks' seem to me quite acceptable for smart, stylish wear and (as one would expect) the boots look perfectly 'right' with them. One might feel somewhat alienated by the models - mostly emaciated teenagers (pervy priests look away now!) - but I think that much of what they are wearing would translate into something 'smart casual' for even old farts like me. I might just find the courage to venture forth in such garb - but, alas, not the cash. I wonder how popular 'the look' will be, perhaps with similar but cheaper boots if anyone copies them.

Perhaps you would tell us which store was involved, Freddy. I will then proceed to set up 'Damaged Heels R Us' as a claims management company and seek suitable compensation for all-comers - including of course that for mental anguish, loss of consortium, loss of amenity etc. It should produce a 'high yield' result. Our motto will be 'All claims escalated without delay'. Must go now - I have to disconnect my car's brake lights so some unsuspecting innocent can run into the back of it.

If the boot fits ... or doesn't! 'Try these for 'thighs', sir.' Not having had the doubtful pleasure of inspecting/measuring your shapely pins, Freddy, I must accept that you know what suits them and what doesn't. I had assumed that the stretchy boots would probably have enough 'give' in them to be wearable. But you might find something else that does and is more affordable; there seem to be several on eBay, albeit many with platforms or too-high heels.

There seem to be several much cheaper skinny/stretchy thigh boots on Ebay, Freddy. These for example: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Womens-Over-The-Knee-Thigh-High-Stiletto-Heel-Ladies-Stretch-Calf-Boots-Size-3-8-/271692925404?var=&hash=item3f422909dc http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Ladys-Boots-High-Heel-Faux-Suede-Thigh-High-Zip-Stiletto-Navy-UK4-37-UK12-45-/151137177825?var=&hash=item23307a50e1 A better heel shape too. I quite like suede; I have several pairs of black suede boots!

I agree with your sentiments, Freddy - especially as I have been around through the whole of EIIR's reign (and have my Coronation 5/- piece to prove it!). I was thinking of sending HM a box of finest Kentish plums as a 'thank you'. After all, it instructs us in the National Anthem to 'Send her Victorias'.

Your comments understood, Tech - thanks. I just wanted you to keep the 'date presentation' in mind for a tweak. I do notice that there now seems to be no mechanism for seeing/checking a posting in draft before clicking 'Submit Reply'. Is that no longer possible, please?

Still getting used to 'new look' but I notice dates in the 'images' banner across the top (and maybe elsewhere?) are shown as month/day/year. Can we please revert to proper British dates, my dear fellow, i.e. day/month/year. Thanks awfully.

Is it an illusion, or perhaps the way you are standing, but that asymmetric cut of the uppers makes it look as though your foot is twisted inwards. I can't say that I like the (apparent) appearance - but then I cringe when I see a woman wearing a dress that hangs on one shoulder only!

Interesting experiences, Freddy. My two-pennorth, for what it's worth: 1. I do like those M&S boots (having looked back to your earlier posting about them) and I did then say that I thought they had a good side profile. I don't think I ever said that they were not obvious, but I certainly feel that they are appropriate for male public wearing. It is probably the thinness of the heel (from the rear) rather than the height that makes them rather obviously not a male boot. I can't say I'm surprised that they got noticed (despite, presumably, being partially concealed under trousers) but as most of the onlookers weee neanderthals, their reactions can be largely discounted. 2. I'm in Kent, so Bluewater is more accessible to me although I have rarely been there. If going to Lakeside, I have the comparable Dartford problem. Although I share your dislike of the crossing (traffic and cost) and don't often need to use it, I have opened an account, which reduces the charge to £1.67 and avoids the aggravation of remembering to pay each time. My wife's car is on the same account. 3. Yesterday apart, do you find Bluewater a good place for heeling generally? I imagine it is large enough and anonymous enough to 'get lost', barring the chances of meeting an acquaintance. 4. I sympathise regarding the 'abduction' episode; it is very difficult to know what to do for the best. I have seen or been involved in a couple of similar situations over the years and it is easy to feel (or be accused of being) in the wrong if intervening. And I remember on one occasion a naughty little boy running away from his mum inside a shop and literally falling over my feet as he dashed outside. What else to do but help him up, winded - and then to be accused by the emerging mother of interfering with him in some way. Fortunately, the whole thing was witnessed by another pedestrian, who immediately made it very clear to mum - and suggested that her lack of control was disgraceful! As a father of two and stepfather to three (all boys), I find the suggestion that I might be interfering with kids very offensive - but I suppose understandable in this over-sensitive and over-protective world. 5. On a general point not immediately obvious to me, although implicit from your various posts, is it the case that your wife understands/tolerates/supports your liking for heels? As she appears to be aware of your collection and sometimes accompanies you when you wear them (and buy them?), I suppose she must be at least tolerant - in which case I envy you.

Thanks, Freddy. Your immediate reaction is completely understandable and I share it. I would hesitate - but probably not withdraw - at one-tenth of that price. (But the men's boots were dearer still.)

An acquaintance of mine (not a member here – yet) has a few pairs of HH boots and has recently bought some from YSL, which is offering several similar unisex styles for both men and women with heels of a nominal 30,60 or 85mm. In fact, the comparable boots for men and women are almost identical, as shown here: The women’s boots (on left) have a heel that is very slightly thinner and higher and the shaft appears a little taller too. When he went to try and buy at the YSL shop, he was shown the boots for both sexes without any suggestion that they were sex-specific. As he wears a UK8, he was able to buy the women’s model in a python leather, which he preferred, and which was a little cheaper than the men’s equivalent – if one can use the word ‘cheap’ in relation to something costing £760! I am told that the heel on these in UK8 is actually 95mm (3.75”). I have seen a pic of him wearing them (fully exposed below normal length narrow trousers) and they look great, and totally acceptable for a man to wear in public. It is interesting that YSL should introduce these unisex styles and I wonder how popular they will be, regardless of the high price? But it seems that several sizes are already sold out, which suggests there is some demand. Could we hope for some affordable high street copies? (Of course, one could get Miguel Jones to make a made-to-measure boot of very similar style for something in the region of £120.) Here is a better pic link to the women’s boots: http://www.mytheresa.com/en-gb/embossed-leather-ankle-boots-458700.html The other men’s/women’s styles can also be found online, e.g. http://www.farfetch.com/uk/shopping/men/saint-laurent-french-85-boots-item-11101784.aspx And here is a YSL pic of a male wearer: http://mesuive.tumblr.com/post/115224070462/saint-laurent-85-french-zipped-boot-in-black

Yes, I found the long wait and inability to do anything about it both annoying and frustrating. I had begun to assume that there was either a fault or (for undisclosed reasons) I was not welcome in what was presumably a very select club. That is history but appears to repeat itself for others.