Puffer

All too true, it seems! If you look at almost any Chinese shoe seller's website, it will usually quote Eu sizes but also give the intended foot length. Generally, the Eu size is overstated by several numbers in comparison with the stated length, so it is safer to go by the length if ordering - assuming that the length has been stated accurately of course. So, likely to be somewhat of a gamble! I don't speak from much experience in ordering from China, but my one recent purchase proved the above. A pair of flat sandals I bought (through Amazon) only had lengths quoted up to UK11 (said to be 11.4" - a good 0.6" too short for a true UK11) but the size increments suggested that the Eu52 (the largest size available!) would be about 12.1" and this proved correct and an almost perfect fit for length, if still a tad narrow. On the same point, why is it that often a supplier will say that a particular shoe '... comes up small, so please order one size larger'? Honest and helpful, but surely it would make more sense for the outlet to re-size the shoes, in its adverts at least, if not also on the shoe itself?

I'd never heard of 'Yours' but, as I normally wear a UK11, I was encouraged to have a browse there online. Alas, I found nothing at all to consider: every style was, to a greater or lesser extent, too frumpy, too clumpy or too flat. And nothing exactly cheap either, given the apparent quality. Rather similar to 'Evans' - but perhaps that is to be expected, given the intended market. Since the demise of Big Shoe Boutique/Priceless (part of Barratts), there seems to be very little for those with larger feet. ASOS is a happy exception, but its UK10 offerings are not very generously sized, even in wide fit.

I came across this pic of Sophie Turner (who I understand appears in Game of Thrones) at an awards ceremony. Nice sandals (Louboutin?) with what look like 5" heels - but surely at least one size too big for her.

The Howdie boots are on the Topshop website but the tan, at least, was shown as sold out online in all sizes. But there is a facility to find stock of a particular size instore - if you're lucky. I see the heel height is quoted as 'approx 2"'. Obviously more than that - probably close to 4".

I can see the appeal but I'm not too keen on them - they haven't decided if they are boots, shoes or sandals! I think you would look good in these: 'Howdie' from Topshop. In several colours but rather pricey at £89 - and these tan ones are rapidly going out of stock. (If they did them in UK11, I would be tempted!)

Absolutely! Transgender surely implies a physical (surgical) transition to resemble (in some views 'achieve') the other gender. Anything else is some degree of cross-dressing or transvestism to adopt alternative-gender clothing and/or appearance, whether to pass as that other gender or not. (I am not looking to start a debate here on terminology or behaviour - merely to emphasise that motive, desire and sexuality cannot be determined solely on the basis of appearance and clothing.)

I have an immediate mental image of Grouch Marx loping along. I wonder how he would have proceeded if he had been wearing heels?

I would be very wary of putting them in the oven, regardless of temperature. If it really is suede leather (and not an imitation), then it should stretch reasonably well if gently warmed (e.g. with a hair drier). But soaking in water and then wearing them (e.g. with thick socks) should give some stretch. Or you could apply a stretching solution (ideally one intended for suede) or a mixture of water and isoproply alcohol ('rubbing alcohol'). Some caution is needed if staining is to be avoided and glued joints are not to be weakened. Good luck!

At the risk of starting a competition, I would just mention that when I was in the Army Cadets at school in 1962, I was issued with boots made in 1943 - which lasted well beyond my cadet service into the late-70s. And I'm sure my greatcoat had previously belonged to some Tommy in the trenches c1918 ... I quite like flip-flops - but definitely not the rubber variety. (Why is it that the cheapest-looking rubber ones are usually the dearest to buy, and usually the least comfortable?)

I'm thinking that this is really the joke posting! (We could go round in circles for ever now!!) Yes, old boy, we British chaps do understand 'winding up' and being given a 'poke [or dig] in the ribs'. Other suitable expressions we use are: 'taking the mickey', 'taking the piss', 'having one's leg pulled' and 'making a monkey of', amongst others. If the concept is more akin to being thoroughly misled, the expression is 'being led up the garden path'.

I don't think that you have anything to apologise for! Your posts are invariably literate, interesting and informative. And, if (when!) they become tangential, I for one usually enjoy the meandering. My comment above was primarily aimed at those with rambling tales (especially without proper paragraphing and punctuation) or who fail to carry out any reasonable proof-reading. Oh for the days when everything was inscribed by hand on vellum by patient monks! And then along came Mr Caxton ... and whoever lays claim to the (not-so) smartphone.

Please appreciate that not all of us are sufficiently competent or knowledgeable to be able to reduce picture sizes successfully. I entirely understand the need to do so but it ain't always easy! A related point is the frequency with which a whole string of pics (of any size) or a lengthy chunk of text is fully repeated by any number of respondents when adding their two-euros-worth. As long as there is a clear link to the original - not always apparent, especially when posts leapfrog - we really don't need to see it all over again.

I have only just chanced on this thread and have to say that I am surprised that it was started. Where is the harm in describing someone as 'accepting' in this context, if that is the case - and indeed welcome? It is not a negative term unless one is unduly sensitive to the potential of the opposite situation, i.e. one of disapproval if not condemnation. OK, maybe a better and more positive concept would be 'approving', but there is a valid difference between tolerance and appreciation - and we must respect that in the minds of our 'audience' - wives and girlfriends included. As I grow older (and I hope a little wiser), I find myself increasingly concerned at the growing importance that the world (and his wife!) gives to words, ascribing pejorative if not downright offensive motives to almost anything said or written. I do not condone overt racist, sexist or other discriminatory or offensive conduct, but I do despair when use of the 'wrong' word is considered a greater crime (literally) than would be a physical attack on someone, or an action which deprived someone of a job, or property, or money. And am I allowed to wince (let alone object) when I see the hi-jacked word' gay' used, and seemingly only now used, to relate to the homosexual community, rather than in any traditional way to mean 'bright, cheerful, jolly ...' etc etc? Or long-established words such as 'mankind', 'black', 'queer', 'chink' regarded as beyond the pale because some consider that they can only be offensive? The English language is rich in words and expressions and is a sharp and versatile tool that can be used to create and enhance much in life. To be sure, like any tool it requires careful handling if its users are not to injure themselves, or others, but that is not to say that it should be so hedged around with taboos or other restrictions that no-one is willing to handle it. Sticks and stones ... Perhaps it would be better if we concentrated on improving the accuracy and clarity of our writing and speech, in terms of presentation, vocabulary, spelling and grammar. Poor communication, if not miscommunication, so often undermines what is otherwise something worth reading or hearing - and that is as true of this board as it is of anything else.

Oh dear! I think you have now lost all credibility, and much of your undoubted honesty and integrity too!

I entirely agree that the goal is 'acceptance', and that 'labelling' male heel-wearing with terms such as hobby, pastime or whatever might be considered perjorative and unhelpful to the cause. Equally, to describe it as one's everyday conduct or lifestyle might not encourage non-believers to accept it. This debate took place because of the original suggestion that it was a 'hobby', subsequently countered or supported by others. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion (and why not?) and no definitive answer. Any participant can, and does, decide for himself the importance and 'normality' (if you will forgive that somewhat loaded term) of his activity, and thus regard and describe it, if necessary, as being an integral part of his lifestyle and character or as something else - more casual and essentially a leisure pursuit. One's categorisation and terminology are unimportant and a matter of personal choice.