at9

It's common enough for female politicans to wear high heels. Less common for men. Sarkozy in France is said to wear elevator shoes but this was a picture I didn't expect. Scroll down to item 4 on this BBC election report:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32516848

Good to see a little bit of colour in an otherwise generally drab UK election campaign**

I should warn that the link on the BBC website to this guy's own website will take you to material that some may find offensive.

**Not entirely drab. Al Murray standing against Nigel Farage in Thanet South has to be the best joke of the whole campaign. Personally I lament the passing of Bill Boaks and Screaming Lord Sutch. If you haven't heard of them I'm sure google will help.

I don't think this article on the BBC website has been mentioned before in HHP.

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20140124-sex-on-legs-the-stiletto

In the same series of articles and of possible interest here. No mention of shoes:

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150331-womens-clothes-for-men

I think you'll find that that sort of posting record applies to virtually all online forums, regardless of subject. There will be a few who post heavily, a larger number who post occasionally and a long tail of those who don't post or hardly post at all. Some forum admins cull accounts that haven't been used for a period of time.

Here at HHP I'm in the category of those who look regularly and post from time to time. But I've been a member for quite a few years and so have racked up a fair total.

Outside of kink/BDSM circles where anything goes I wear quite conservative heels when out and about. I don't wear heels all the time, just when I feel like it. One of my favourites is the Doc Martens "Una" clog which has an approx 4" heel and 1" platform. http://images2.confidentielles.fr/dl/base_photos/4/0/0/2/22/224002.jpg My GF likes them. Her 20something year old daughter loves them and wants a pair herself. Recently I wore them to a fairly posh 70th birthday party along with leather trousers, a colourful shirt and tie and a smart jacket. GF's daughter thought I looked great and took this photo which unfortunately doesn't show the shoes very well. They were fully visible when I was sitting. Nobody said anything at the party but I thought I saw a few people sneaking glances at both trousers and shoes.

Other pairs I wear out and about are black Next ankle boots with 2.75" heel. Also a pair of Hush Puppies ankle boots with 2.75" wedge heel. This last pair is utterly stealth, you'd really have to take a careful look to realise that these are heels. I also have a vintage pair of patent high ankle/low calf boots with just under 2" heel. These are genuine men's boots from the 1970s, I've had them since new. They're feeling a little fragile now so I don't wear them very often.

I've not worn my avatar shoes out and about and am unlikely to do so. One somewhat rough and ready rule about my wearing heels out and about is that if a woman wearing them would get noticed as wearing exceptional heels then I probably wouldn't. I have no wish to wear high stiletto pumps out and about (or any pumps for that matter, just doesn't interest me) nor thigh high boots though if that's what you like to wear then that's great.

I've heard of "gravity boots" which are not really boots at all. They are used to safely hang upside down from a bar as part of an exercise regime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_boots

As usual google is your friend. Seems that "gravity heels" is an alternative name for  heel-less heels. An example: http://www.amiclubwear.com/gravity-shoes.html

There are 2 classes of such heels. The common type simply looks like they are defying gravity but are designed so that the heel of the foot is actually supported. Some of these cheat slightly by having a metal plate protruding from the rear of the sole. There are also genuinely heel-less boots sold as fetish item. I've actually tried on a pair, you certainly need strong ankles and calves to stand in them for more than a very short time.

Normal double rainbows are quite common as Megan said.

What's very rare and not properly understood are double rainbows where both are in the same sequence.  I saw this once, last year in a London suburb, and could't believe what I was seeing. Took a photo too. What I saw was very much like this: http://www.atoptics.co.uk/rainbows/twin1.htmIn principle this implies 2 suns, at different angles. Obviously impossible but conceivably caused by 2 strong reflections of the sun. Both the Wembley arch and Welsh Harp reservoir were fairly close, between my back and the sun, so I speculated that the bows could have been caused by some kind of reflections off one or the other.

All you wanted to know about rainbows etc: http://www.atoptics.co.uk/bows.htm

I think the points go to at9.

 

As The Adjudicator do I get to wear an outfit with a big A on the front?  What are my super powers?

What do points mean?

The good doctor has made a very significant move. In full accordance with both Woodger's Rule and and Naysmith's Congruence. Which means, after suitable computations I can say......

Mornington Cresecent!

Oh dear. Megan, you have committed an unpardonable sin. The rules of Mornington Crescent must NEVER be disclosed to the general public.

Avast is blocking a threat when I look at this page. Says it's in the images in the OP. Possibly a false alarm, possibly not.

While I agree with almost everything Dr Shoe says, there is a small technical error. The NHS is paid for out of general taxation. The NI contribution is just another tax, it isn't reserved for any specific purpose. If you are a UK resident (or, in mast cases, visiting from an EU or EEA country) you get free healthcare at the point of need. You don't have to be paying NI.

The NHS certainly has many problems but overall it's remarkable value for money. I haven't looked up the figures recently but I think the US spends over all about 4x as much per capita on healthcare as we do in the UK without significantly better outcomes. I'll try and find some references for that.

I don't wish to take sides in this disagreement but would note that the Skyscrapers website appears to be in breach of the UK/EU Distance Selling Regulations.

http://www.sky-scrapers.co.uk/index.php/terms_conditions

Notably in the "Returns" and "Cancellations" sections. An admin charge is clearly not allowed in the DSR.It is also a requirement to clearly identify the business before payment is made. This means an address or other details (such as company registration number) that will identify the place of business.

Here is a useful guide to the DSR: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft913.pdf

and another: https://www.gov.uk/online-and-distance-selling-for-businesses

Another useful guide: http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/distance-selling-regulations

The DSR apply throughout the EU, not just in the UK.

For goods sold in the UK the Sale of Goods Act also applies to all consumer purchases. There may of course be some disagreement between the buyer and seller as to what consittutes "merchantable quality" and "fit for purpose". If agreement cannot be reached then the final stage can be a small claim in the County Court, something that is both easy and simple for a claim for a fixed amount of money. https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome This is one of the reasons why the company must be identifiable in an online sale. The buyer must be able, in the unfortuante case where this is necessary, be able to serve a legal notice. Unlike buying in a shop where the place of business is, by definition, known to the customer.

Other countries such as the USA wil have their own laws which are likely to differ from the UK and EU.

The title was given in the original post. Googling it gives this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Sex-Life-Foot-Shoe/dp/0894645730 Or http://www.amazon.com/The-Sex-Life-Foot-Shoe/dp/0894645730 if you're in the USA. Many of the cheaper secondhand options are in the US.

Another snag walking down stairs in heels is hitting your head on the corner above the stairs. The clearance on many domestic staircases isn't too great for a tall guy even without heels.

I saw some fakes at a market in East London and they were very good.

The good doctor was able to look, feel and try before choosing to buy or not. You don't get that when buying online except as noted below.

If you are buying online  within the EU from an EU based supplier you have the protection of the Distance Selling Regulations which give an (almost) absolute right to retun goods for any reason within 7 days. If the supplier is dodgy you might find it hard to enforce. In the UK you also have possible protection under the law governing transactions made with credit cards. If either party is outside the EU then it's pot luck.

Replica = FAKE. You may be lucky and get something halfways decent, most likely you won't. And forget about any form of warranty. And if a heel fails and you break and ankle? Would you knowingly buy other products that are pirated fakes? Perhaps if the amount of money is trivial and the consequences of a failure are harmless. Perhaps if you could see, feel and try the product in person before handing over the dosh? Neither of those applies here.

Recently my GF bought a fake designer watch whole on holiday in Turkey. Advertised with refreshing honesty as "genuine fake". It wasn't too much money and the consequences of failure are harmless. Anyway the movement will be a cheap generic quartz one which should be OK. I had to sort out a rough bit of manufacturing on the bracelet which left a sharp edge.

Some might take a more moral view and say that buying fakes knowingly is always wrong. Buying without knowing can be dangerous, as some "Apple" branded chargers have shown.: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2406185/Fake-Apple-Cheap-phone-chargers-burn-house.html

I too would like to try a pair Louboutin boots but I've got EU43 feet and I'm not prepared to throw even $200 at a fake, let alone several times that on the real thing. Even it was available in EU43.

Professor Giorgio Riello has studied the history of footwear and written books on the subject. In this youtube video he talks about the history of shoes:

For those not in the UK, Northampton is a medium sized town in the English Midlands which used to be a major centre of footwear production.

In US parlance I think a trolley is also called a streetcar. What in the UK we call a tram. I've travelled on the ones in downtown Portland, Oregon where travel is (or at least used to be) free in the downtown area.

There are a few circumstances in the UK where you can be fired immediately but that cannot possibly apply here. There must have been "Gross Misconduct", usually violence towards a colleague, customer or property.

Kitty, if you've been working for them for more than 2 years you have definite rights as regards redundancy under UK law. It sounds like they have not done the whole thing correctly and legally in which case it's time to take them to an employment tribunal. Consult the CAB or a lawyer. If you've been with them less than 2 years you have fewer rights. It's not entirely clear whether they are sacking you or making you redundant. Either way, you can ask them to put it in writing with reasons otherwise they are in breach of UK employment law. I am not an expert in this field, you definitely need professional advice.

These links may be useful:

https://www.gov.uk/redundant-your-rights

https://www.gov.uk/dismissal

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunals

I knew you would get the gerund reference :-)

"Let's say their doing splendidly."

Megan, I do hope you were deliberately leaving that howler around to keep the rest of us on our toes*. Otherwise The Grand Punctuator General may need to find you an appropriate punishment. Perhaps an encounter with a militant gerund on a dark night.

*Deliberate usage for HHP :-)

"Being honest.. roughly 80-90% of the Jews on the planet were *exterminated*."

Don't know where you're getting your figures from. According to this site http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html it's a little under 40%. There's no need to exaggerate, that's still terrifying enough.

"Theres no difference in what modern media does and what Hitler did. Exploiting people is wrong regardless of which side its on."

I'm not sure what to say about such a breathtaking claim. Comparisons with the nazis are widely invoked.for many reasons, most of which are spurious. I would ask HHP members to reflect on the claim that media exploitation is no different to waging large scale war and planning and executing mass murder.

I thought 150 million seemed a bit high.

There were many Jews who fought with honour for the Kaiser in the Great War. They managed to hang on to some privileges in nazi Germany for a little longer but ultimately they were still systematically killed. German Jews were probably the most assimilated Jewish community in the world. Very much thinking themselves German first, Jewish second. Much as many of us would define ourselves by nationality before religion. This was in contrast to the Jews of Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe who very much defined themselves by their religion. The German Jews widely thought that Hitler and his henchmen were just yet another little local difficulty to be overcome. After all, they occupied many important positions and hadn't they served the fatherland in WW1? Even after Kristalnacht there were still some who couldn't believe that mass murder was the future for them. Even the nazis hadn't quite got that far in 1938, the "final solution" was only finalised at the Wannsee conference in 1942.

Some German Jews escaped to France, holland or other European countries which were subsequently invaded by the nazis. Many did not survive. Although many Jews escaped to the US and UK there was a lot of pressure against such immigration within those countries.

The nazis forged some strange alliances too. Some arabs, who must have been untermenschen in nazi eyes, were brought in as allies because they hated the Jews. If Germany had won the war I wonder what would have become of them.

As for the Roma and Sinti peoples that were systematically murdered they were perenial outsiders, even more than the Jews. They had few communities to which they might escape., few people outside Germany who might speak of their plight.

I recently heard in the media that Hitler put more than 150 million to death. So why are we so focused on the Jews if they were only 6 million?

First, as dww has said, it's not a numbers game. I think the 150 million figure may be the total number of lives lost on all sides and for all reasons due to WW2. Including soldiers killed in combat, civilians killed by bombing etc as well as those Jews, Sinta, Roma and others murdered in cold blood by the nazis.War is a nasty business, even when neither side resorts to deliberate mass murder.