Puffer

You are right in that a brogue shoe can have various types of closure, including that of a derby (quarters and eylet tabs on top) or an oxford (eylets underneath). But your son's shoes appear to have no visible eyelets, so are they truly derby-brogue shoes? Maybe they are a combination of styles that defies precise categorisation - or perhaps they could be called a 'coventry' as that city is midway between Oxford and Derby! (Incidentally, despite Derby being an English city, in the UK we generally call the derby shoe a 'Gibson'. Don't ask!)

Frankenstein footwear again! Yuk.

I don't think the shoes are the 'Derby' style, and certainly not 'Oxford'. The punched overlay on the toecap indicates that they of the 'brogue' style, generally referred to in the UK as a 'full brogue' and in the US as a 'wingtip'.

Similar general appearance, but not the same person, surely? Apart from anything else, our NZ friend favours mostly higher pointed stiletto courts.

Rather reminded me of a Christmas turkey - before plucking.

Very nice, very acceptable boots for the discerning man. (Far better than those monstrosities from the 1970s just above!)

I understand that, shortly after God devised a whole series of commandments, He offered them to several religious leaders. Buddha wasn't interested and Mohammed didn't like them either, but Moses expressed an interest and asked how much they would cost. When God told Moses that the commandments were free-of-charge, Moses promptly responded: 'In that case, I'll take ten!'

I expect that this collection, or at least a number of the pics in it, have been seen by many of you before, but they show an interesting variety of 'men in heels'. From the sublime to the ridiculous - you decide. https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/736338607808561454/ Merry Christmas to all!

I'm no fashion expert - nor do I have anything but admiration for Jeff's invariably stylistic and well-co-ordinated efforts. But I have to agree that the look in the first pic slightly jarred - albeit quite 'armlessly'. Upon reflection, I think that the grey dress looked too plain (boring almost) by itself - but the addition of the jacket made an 'outfit', and a smart one too . I do consider that a simple sweater dress by itself is not so flattering as a separate skirt and top or jacket, whether on Jeff or anyone else.

The companion model could perhaps be called 'Platsolde'.

No more from me either!

But not taught that a split infinitive is a capital offence? (Another 'rule' that is rightly ignored by most literate people, but not always to the advantage of what they write or speak.) I do tend to agree that the Oxford comma has merit and should be used discerningly. I don't recall ever being told of its existence when I was at school, which now surprises me as our English tuition was of a high standard - and I hope I still do it credit. Effective communication is at the heart of our society (and indeed this board), so I'm sure that Jeff - an effective communicator himself - will forgive these digressions.

I don't want to hijack this thread either*. Suffice it to say: (a) we don't usually address people as 'bloke', but we can (and should) refer to them thus. So, I might address a casual acquaintance of similar status (such as a work colleague) as 'mate' but refer to him as 'a bloke I work with' etc. You would not go wrong if working in the UK or with a British 'bloke' by using these terms; indeed, you would demonstrate friendly integration. (b) I cringe a little on seeing '... calling a British male a "bloke" to their face ...'. A male requires 'his' here (and mutatis mutandis if of another gender). A good example of PC displacing both accuracy and common-sense. (No offence intended to you, 'mate'; I see this all the time.) (c) I don't eschew the Oxford comma when a complex list benefits from one, but don't consider it mandatory. (I don't much like Oxford shoes however.) * Maybe there should be a new topic for such academic and pedantic intercourse?

Yes, indeed. I do quite often have to remind those who try to address me or refer to me as a 'guy' that I am neither an American (or a Yank!) nor a bonfire effigy. A little more attention at school would have been beneficial. The point about language is that sloppiness breeds misunderstanding, and that can lead to a lot more than inconvenience. You are right to question why we are apparently ill-advised to used familiar terms when referring to people from other places. In my book, that is a friendly informality and very rarely causes offence (except to the unrelated officious bystander - and we have, alas, all too many of them). I have yet to meet the man from elsewhere in the UK who objects to being called Jock, Taffy or Mick, for example.

My point was really that the British are very good at using the subtlety and richness of their language to express themselves - and that is particularly evident in their humourous writing and speaking. In that sense I consider that they perform better than Americans - but I am naturally biased in that I cannot closely identify with what is native to (or preferred by) a typical Yank. I don't regard Shakespeare (or Chaucer) as providing a sound benchmark for the English language. What they used, or were familiar with, has necessarily evolved over several centuries and will continue to do so - but not as swiftly as some would wish or attempt to achieve. We must be careful here not to confuse writing (and indeed speaking) in what is generally considered to be good grammatical English with local variations of a dialectical or accented nature. Within the UK, there are of course many distinct areas where the indiginous population shows variation in the way it speaks or writes, whilst generally adopting the same English language with all its usual 'rules'. Each area will have words or expressions that may be quite alien to others brought up only a few miles away, or an accent which is 'different' and not always easy to understand. Add in the people who have come to Britain from all over the world, very often not having English as their first language, and there is indeed great variety and an element of evolution in the language as a whole. We have for centuries willingly imported words from other languages and cultures when it suits us - all part of our rich linguistic tapestry. But the fundamental rules of grammar, spelling, punctuation etc do not change overnight and nor should they; otherwise communication will break down. I have little doubt that the position in the US is very similar. The 'standard' English used in the two countries is of course essentially the same but exhibits some distinct differences, especially in construction and spelling. Neither is totally 'right' or 'wrong' and each has borrowed from the other over time, but not always to advantage. As to the (allegedly) Cockney bloke (he was never a 'guy' - we don't have them!), I have little doubt that he would find the typical Yank's use of language equally strange and quite possibly impenetrable at times. And he might have been exaggerating just a little as a 'wind-up' - another thing we are very good at when 'foreigners' are around! When in Rome ...