FastFreddy2

What does "Android phone browsers" mean? Do they have a name? I use Chrome. My first (obvious) and only choice. No problems experienced, so not sure why you might be having any issues. It's my first Android phone too. I vaguely remember you having trouble reading emails or some other issue before? Again, something I don't have as a problem, yet I'm new at this "smart phone" malarky. I also setup Mrs Freddy's new phone. She's a great FB user, and more recently I've added Whatsapp to her phone. Again, no issues with anything? If I understand how Google Play Store works, all "Apps" are checked by them for compatibility and suitability for Android. After that, it's down to memory allocation/CPU overhead on your phone. We have all our photo's kept on mini sd cards, so phone memory is maximised. I have asked her to keep any open apps to a minimum, though FB is never off unless you force a shutdown. Which oddly, is the same with Win 8 and 10. The only thing I have noticed that is different to a Win OS, is that Android won't let me use You Tube, and do anything else at the same time. If I'm using YT and the phone rings, YT is paused, which is understandable. But why can't I text, or browse? I surmise it's down to resources, in that YT wants them all. Which is not a big deal really, as I tend to use the phone more as a media player anyway. It being a phone is a bonus. So in answer to your original question: Chrome.

While in London's West End browsing the sales with empty pockets, I finally got to 'try on' a pair of Jimmy Choo Anouk in what I might describe as dark green suede. The concession is in Selfridges, and it was bursting full, standing room only. There were two pairs of heels in the 41/41½ range I wanted to try, and I almost didn't find the nerve to try one before leaving. (Mrs Freddy didn't want me to try them either, as there was about 20 people in the gaff and 5 of those were assistants, two of whom were there just to watch the customers I think.) After 5 minutes of hesitation looking at the girlie/sparkly 41½ we decided to leave. Close to the entrance/exit, I found a 41, and a slightly less busy corner. Slipped my heeled shoe off, slipped the Anouk on. Fitted, if snug, but no more snug than the UK8's from Office. I would like a pair of Anouks in red patent, or black leather (though I'm not sure they have ever been made in leather as I've only ever seen them in anything but ....) Black patent seem more readily available than the red. At £375 a pair and £5 delivery .... I have put a kidney up for sale. Looking at buying a similar shoe from Office at a modest £65 as an alternative, the red patent ones I keep pointing out to Mrs Freddy as a potential 'pressie' are as usual, 'sold out' in my size. Tonight I also found out why Office had/has two versions of the same shoe on offer: one is leather patent, the other PU patent. Had I realised this was the case, I would have bought the leather patent version some time ago, because I'm reluctant to spend £65 on a PU shoe. (Though I will if needs be.) Obviously, I'll be keeping a watchful eye on the auctions.

Pictures!!!! Good news. "All comes to he who waits" ....

The only experience I have of using a phone to browse the site, is with using Android (v.5.0) Lollipop. I'm not aware of any problems, though I haven't used a phone to post or edit. What problems are you experiencing?

Weight, owner of. If you haven't done it recently, have a look of some film of people going about their business in the 1950's, or a period some would describe as pre-fast-food. (And until 1953 for sugar, until 1954 for meat, subject to rationing.) You will notice, possibly if you are inclined to look hard, there are few or no-one that appears overweight. Women and their feet were naturally smaller, and a 4" heel in a size 4 or 5, is a fair achievement, especially if worn for extended periods. These days, women are taller (better fed) and heavier (better fed and bad diet). "Comfort", care of the 'grunge' of 1990's fashion, has produced a generation of females unwilling (perhaps wisely) less keen to 'suffer' for fashion? Supposing of course, they have the skills for a heel.... As long as proportions stay identical, the arc relates to distance in degrees (though doubtless you will tell me otherwise). Going back up the thread, it was the Eureka moment when I realised what was wrong with my original theory. I had looked at distance the sole travelled, once the heel tip was landed, and why 'same height' heels had differing effects on heel height 'feel'. The answer was "arc", with set-back heel producing a much larger arc (greater distance travelled). Take a round cake with a 9 inch diameter, cut it into 8 pieces and sit one piece plated, on it's side. Take a round cake with a 12 in diameter, cut it into 8 pieces and sit one piece plated, on it's side. The height of the cake pieces, are not the same. The centre of the cake (lowest point of the wedge slice) is the pivot point of the heel tip. The heights of the cake, distance the sole must travel to land. The set-back heel produces a longer arc, even though the 'degrees' of movement are the same (if they are). This will also apply to a larger shoe too of course, even if proportions remain identical, because of the length of the arc. Longer shoe, longer arc. Further away the pivot, longer arc the toe has to make. Longer arc, more difficult to walk, greater 'felt' height? First "copy" (from elsewhere) the URL address from the link you want to include. Then find the text in your post you want to use the link with, and highlight that as if you were going to copy it (but don't) ..... I usually use the words >> here << or >> clicky << and identify them with chevrons. (Not compulsory.) It can be any phrase in the body of text you choose. Sometimes I will use an organisation name, or a celebrity, or a product. It can be anything. Then click on the 'link' icon An option box will appear, where you insert the link. Use 'paste' to insert the previously copied link, and then select "Insert into post" as shown by the dark box here: Although the box titled "line text" doesn't show it, when I use this function that box will have the word I have used shown, which is usually "here" or "clicky". That is it. You should find the phrase or word you used as the link anchor, will indicate it's no longer plain unformatted text. That's an indicator you have done what you intended. If you are unsure, test your own links after you publish, and if it hasn't worked, just edit and try again.

Warning: I have not watched every second of these video's. Viewer discretion advised. Must float someone's boat ...... >> clicky << who would have thought? And this is just ..... Well ...... Unbelievable! >> clicky2 << Finally, the jackpot ..... >> clicky3 << Who knew? I put the search criteria "girl in wet leggings" to get a picture, for a follow-up comment.

I don't know where we are regarding uploads/lowlands, but we are circa 8 miles from the nearest river, and a good mile or more from the nearest pond. There was an episode of Grand Designs that I missed, (twice apparently) that featured a home owner with a property on the banks of the Thames (I think) who had experienced flooding a number of times. The 'solution' was to put his house on mechanised stilts. From the clip I saw, I would guess the work got flooded while in progress. (Nature getting in the last hurrah.) I'm looking forward to seeing it, as I'm sure it will come around again, and I'm very interested in the idea. ......... While searching for a clip ..... I found the episode I want to watch!! >> here << Turns out the fella bought a plot on an island with the intention of having his new home built so it will tolerate flooding. (It floats.) I'm looking forward to watching the programme! Sooooo pertinent!!

Position of the heel is not significant until motion (walking) is involved. As long as the shoe does not flex while motionless of course. I suspect the shape or rate of the rise (lift) is more meaningful in your analysis. For example: I had a pair of ALDO heel with a 5" heel (as near matters) that had a lengthy slope (rise/lift) that pretty much produced what I would describe as a 'lazy L' foot shape. Another pair, Schuh Lois with 5" heel but a shorter shoe, that was achieved by compressing the rise (lift) using more of a flattened S shape. The compression on the shoe profile, produced the need for the instep to more arched than in the uncompressed style. For me, it made the heel feel higher and made walking more difficult, because my foot could not flex as much as it would like. "In theory", the S shape might be more comfortable for standing, as the heel section of the shoe might be more horizontal? But again, speaking as someone who has had to stand fairly still in a heel for well over 2 hours (when I weighed less too) I found it was agony, meaning I have my doubts there is such a thing as a comfortable heel for standing still in. For the record, I wore the same shoes for a night out with no issues at all, but standing still for the better part of 3 hours felt like someone had hammered nails into the balls of my feet. Since the only A level I studied was Maths, I'd go for Geometry homework, regarding shape. Then, Applied Mechanics when the shoe is used for walking, as that would include a working (human) foot, where there are pivots and axes involved. Since we are not concerned with motion as an expender of energy, nor need to provide comparisons against absolutes, perhaps we can send Physics home early for today? I can not agree with Russ on the 'apparent' height of the set-back heel. Unless I'm completely wrong (it's been known, ) the raison d'etre of the set-back heel, is to create the illusion of a higher heel by making the heel breast as high as possible without compromising the integrity of the heel on the shoe. For Russ, who may not be having the sense of déjà vu that Puffer and I are enjoying .... (Previously, on 'ebay and shopping' ) Back up the thread circa 6 months ..... >> clicky <<

Still very apt, "pleasant sailing at your end of the bay country". Though it's been raining here for hours, with some roads getting kerb deep in water. Herts isn't known for it's flooding either, generally.

Camden isn't what it used to be - which was the place to shop for Goth or Punk followers. It's MUCH more commercialised than it used to be. I think the smarter business owners have bought out the less smart business owners. If you go in one punk shop, you've seen inside them all. There is much less variety (much less independence) than there used to be, 20 years ago. It's why I suggested a visit if you were there already, rather than making a special trip. I used to see all manner of quirkiness there, no longer, sadly. I've even witnessed a guy selling 'ganja' cake, not only in front of a policemen, but it being offered to him too. (He declined.) All done in good humour, but it shocked me a little too.

What a lovely turn of phrase. I would suggest looking at "goth" rather than fetish, if you are concerned you might get caught buying from Honour. Though Ann Summers is now a high street brand of course ..... Just saying ..... I found these: from >> here << as an example. They were the first and only supplier I looked at, though Google found others. This outlet also had other types without the rings, and at lower prices too. This was used as an example, not a recommendation. "Steampunk" would be another search keyword to use too, in lieu of goth. Germany is probably awash with PVC gear, as despite Brit's being thought of as the perv's of the world, I think Germans are way out in front of us. P.S. Thinking about it, Camden Market -which of course includes more shops than stalls- would be a good place to look for PVC trousers, if ever you find yourself 'in town'. The shops are open every day, with the additional stalls only being there at the weekend. P.P.S. These: from >> here << (same retailer).

As yet, I have not tried a pair of the 20's though it's not for the lack of effort. One of the absent members here has a pair, and I have tried a number of times to meet up with him to try his on, before ordering some for myself. I am likely larger than a UK7 (US10) and smaller than UK8 (US11) with the Pleaser sizing. If I'm not walking far, the US10 is possibly the better fit. Certainly a US11 would just fall off after 5 minutes of wearing, and it may be I would choose a style that included some sort of ankle strap if I went for the larger size. At least two style are available in the 20's that have this. I've no idea what the toe-box sizing is like and that might be the critical issue. I'm happy in a 7 court as long as there is some toe room. Once my toes have compressed from standing, even a 7 gives the impression of being too long as my heel falls out of the shoe. Narrow isn't a problem, but short is. The reason the Schuh Lois collection had to go, was because the toe box was short. The new Office shoes I have fit like a 7, and are (very) narrow, but there is room for my toes so they've been kept. As for preference; the 420's look better with the higher heel of the two heel height options, and are easier to walk in than the two other pairs of courts I own with 5¼ inch heels, despite the additional height of the 420's. I was kindly 'gifted' a surplus pair from hh4evr, which I feel I can walk in for a short time. (I haven't worn them out, and at this time have no intention of doing so.) Since they are the highest shoes I own they are somewhat cherished at this time, so are kept for modelling activities. In the leggings thread, the shoes worn in the pictures are the 420's. They don't look the 5½ inches in height they are, which might explain why Pleaser have introduced the vertical heeled 20's? On a stand-alone comparison (as opposed to the side-by-side one above), it may be the 20's look higher because of the slimness of the heel? It certainly makes them feel higher because I've found them much harder to walk in without making it obvious I have a heel on. It's almost like for every mm of set back, there is a mm of extra height felt, while walking in the same height heel. "Just for fun" let's play at being shoe designers for a few minutes, and maybe pretend to be the designers of the very first stiletto heeled shoe. During our experiments, we pushed the envelope to see how high the heel could be made too. On a (then) regular ladies sized 5 (UK) foot, anything much beyond 5 inches was pointless, because the wearers heel stopped going up and started going forward. (Liken this to a 6 inch heel on a man.) The original concept heel had that 5 inches, right underneath the rear part of the heel on the foot. The wearers foot just about as vertical as it would go, while achieving a modest amount of support from the heel of the shoe. No appreciable weight on it, but it did provide some stabilisation. On walking, the arc the front part of her foot made to land once the heel had already been placed on the ground, was so long that walking -as we understand it- was in practical terms; impossible. Either the heel had to be reduced to 4 inches (which is actually, pretty much a standard) or that arc had to altered in some way. A larger foot wouldn't help, as it didn't change the ratio's of the arc much, if at all. The way to change the ratio was to change the pivot point of the arc to reduce it's size. With the heel brought inboard (forward - toward the toe box) the smaller arc produced proved to be more wearer friendly, and that 5 inch heel could then be used/worn. Once the concept of the inboard heel is accepted, it might have become a prerequisite of a higher heel? It also provides a longer base on the shoe for the heel to be attached, which might also help with some additional longevity to the heel, since a higher heel has got to be more prone to deformation through use walking? This 'theory' is somewhat borne out by my experience with a very high heel-less shoe, was was very easy to walk in, despite having a platform too. Could all be a croc of pooh, but it does seem to fit?

Not the sort of happy ending that is often used as a euphemism these days. With her up a 4.30am and minutes away from sleep that would carry her until 5am today. I'd managed to catch her practically undressed so the leggings 'try-on' caused minimum disruption. I may have mentioned this already, but during the previous 12-18 months Mrs Freddy has brought home (through her own volition) a rather attractive knee length leather pencil skirt, the sort that might catch your eye and make you wonder what else was going on.... She also arrived home with a PU dress (faux leather) that was also quite flattering.... While the mantra 'there can be no defeat' has cost me money and time aplenty, I would respectfully suggest one failed order is a long way off defeat. Get back in the saddle and order off an alternate supplier. Of course the non-delivery will get you a full refund from the original seller, and might even spur them on to resupply. There seems to be an increasing amount of offshore sellers claiming a UK supply point, when in fact they are in Hong Kong or another large city in China. Yours might be one of them possibly? I have only ever lost one piece of post in the (ahemm) 40+ years I have been using R.M. and even that may not actually have been sent, given the integrity of the sender. (A very wayward girlfriend.)

I would pay £44 for the first pair if I had somewhere to wear them, simply because of the heel height. Any more, and the price point has wandered into Pleaser territory. I have had my eye on a pair of their newer [Sexy 20] styles, with the vertical heels? The standard heel height of these in my size is 5¼ inches, and come in at around £45-£55 -ish delivered. Even though I have no venue yet to wear them, I would very much like to own some red patent courts .... To satisfy my inner floozy.

China, 2-3 weeks weeks, America 5-7 days, UK 1-5 days. Ordered from where? Tried the two newer pairs from Marks today. 14R's were stiff and short, with not much stretch in the leg. Weird. 12R's were reassuringly tight everywhere. Bit too tight around my Christmas (chocolate filled) tum. Mrs Freddy swore at me yesterday when I told her how much I'd munched through in two days. (Not very ladylike, was it? ) Anyway, the size 12 leggings are keepers. As this had always been a project for me, I hadn't previously asked herself to try on any of the leggings involved, and since the 'new' 14's were expendable, I got her to try them on. It might be worth noting; there is only one person with really skinny legs at our's .... Unfortunately on two counts, Mrs Freddy saw the label on the leggings. Firstly, it meant she knew the leggings were from Marks and they are not mean with their sizing. It also meant she knew that if they fitted, she had grown. Obviously, they were "too big" even if they weren't. They had felt small on me as they seemed to be made of a not-so-stretchy material to start with. On a woman with hips (I have none) well .... Too big? "I need a 12". And I had a pair, though not an expendable pair. I have to say, the 12's fitted much better than the 14's, and were even a tad loose on her waist, so very flattering in the numbers/sizing game. "So they going to be 'ours' then?" Was a question asked by my wife as she paraded around the bedroom in them. Looking at her lower half encased in a black shiny material did put a sparkle in my eye, so I replied; "Maybe." Which I think was rather gallant of me. I have found it never pays dividends to appear eager about anything, especially around womenfolk.

I think the first of the two pairs shown are 5 inches and likely more, given the angle of the rise and the proportion of heel to shoe length. At the moment, a 5" heel in a size 8 or 9 isn't as unusual as it was 3 or 4 years ago. I have just bought a court shoe from Office with a 5¼ inch heel. I paid a reasonable amount of money for them, but they are absolutely 'must haves' despite the price, and unlike the Schuh version, I can actually walk a bit in these. Neither pair from Just Fab are for me though, as I'm not big on straps, but realise they are very 'on trend' at the moment despite it being (ahemm) Winter. (So wintry in fact, I have been working outside for a while in a T-shirt today, and a lady neighbour was outside sweeping up leaves wearing a thin strappy top. ) The shoes from Just Fab are without doubt, PU and inexpensive. For a nice style, I would pay what looks like the compulsory £35 - if you don't sign up for discount. Some time ago I too thought twice before making a purchase, and didn't in fact make a purchase. They currently have a couple of pairs I might be tempted by, but the purchase procedure doesn't look simple or attractive ....

From >> here << I've tried to upload a video, but it's larger than the forum allows. They really do look like a 5+ inch heel too! 5th try with lower quality vid .... Read first ..... For some reason there is no option to 'embed' a video here I can find. The link below will not 'play', but download to your computer, and you will need to allow (windows) media player to run the vid by clicking on the file once it has arrived on your computer. It was hard enough to get the video isolated in a ready-to-play format, so I'm right out of enthusiasm for uploading to You Tube I'm afraid .... Each time you click on the link below, it'll be downloaded too. Odessa at Just Fab.wmv

And the reason for refreshing this thread ..... I had a look round various stores today while in Milton Keynes. Got no useful progress anywhere I looked .... Except Marks, where I found a size 12 Regular (length leg) in the shiny leggings, but with a longer leg than the 14R next to it. Not been home long, so not compared it to the 14R I already have. No apparent snapping of threads felt while stretching the waist either. Better still, now £12-50 from £25. I did find a pair of the River Island faux leggings I had tried previously, and in the right size, now down to £17. They stayed in the store, as I'm never going to make the time to put a button and loop across the waistband to prevent the zipper undoing.

Ha! Tumblr zapped the link in one of the posts above, and as I dislike dead links ... it's revealed again here, but no link this time. Lovely looking woman.

Not really the right place for this, but at least it keeps the images in the same place .... Those River Island shoes get another outing .... Full article >> here << Not that I think it worth the time the page takes to load.

No-one asked, but the mystery is solved. Was an interesting day. I found the LFM a bit flat compared to my two previous visits, though both were some years previous. If I remember, there was a film crew there too? Lovely warm day though. Cobbled roadways played hell with my ankles, but no injuries sustained. My original criticism of our laughing boy voyeur, got to one of the organisers and I was assured his behaviour was not acceptable, and a word with them would have changed the situation. It would, or should, make a great venue for a Heel Meet. Perhaps something to consider for a Spring date, March - May 2016?

I think we have a mutually agreed understanding of both uses of the term.

I've had some nice surprises in both the TK Maxx stores there, but some time ago. The store seems to have less and less shoe brands I'm familiar with, and fewer still in the larger sizes. There is the usual mix of large high street stores too, though only John Lewis is significant in size. There used to be two independent shoe shops that offered a variety of heels, but I'm sure at least one of them has closed. I once drove circa 30 miles each way, for a pair of 'must have' shoes held for me in New Look there, only to find they weren't the pair I had asked about and described (in great detail). Not sure what to expect tomorrow, other than 'busy'.

When I first read that, I laughed (once - and out loud) and prepared to write a two word reply along the line of "bloody cheek" , but then realised I too would not want to be active in a Gentleman's Club. A hundred years ago, the title and the theme of the venue would be singular in purpose and membership qualification. Less so these days. That should surprise me, but possibly it doesn't. I have read several derisive posts there about men wearing a heeled shoe, though an equal number or more in support. Since a very large proportion of the contributors there are men who wear a heel, I am surprised that anyone who would see it as unattractive, might still support the forum by making contributions. I am minded to reiterate to readers and members, of a group visit to the London Fetish Market, made by several of us men into wearing heels. While at the venue, we were seated outside enjoying light refreshments. One or more of our 3 and then 4 member party were wearing a heel. One or more people on an adjacent table, were having some amusement at our expense. It could not have been more ironic ... The chap with the biggest grin was dressed - head to toe - in leather. Plainly a reject from The Matrix, laughing boy wore black leather: shirt, waistcoat, trousers, long coat, and boots. My thought at the time was; people in glass houses .... Should folk with peculiar dress codes be less accommodating to another group with a different peculiarity? I suppose their mindset convinced them, their dress code was more normal than ours, so they could be as bigoted as they liked? Bigoted and hypocritical in my view.

That's because this place is the closest I'll ever get to having a personal <inter-active> blog. Though originally not through choice, I have kept most of my stories and experiences written up in one place. If I want people to share those, it's in my interest to help keep the place ticking over. There's no chivalry involved. I am disappointed that more don't visit from HHp obviously, but it's the difference between a 'busy' pub, and a themed one I suppose. This one is almost exclusively a men only site, and even men aren't always comfortable with that. And very very few women have the cojones (confidence) to enter an environment that looks like a 'men only' club. The notable exception is Eoneleg, who hasn't posted for some time, sadly. I'm also surprised more people from the fetish world don't appear here, although again, HHp might get most of that traffic.