Puffer

I too have noticed a recent tendency for some discomfort in otherwise comfortable footwear, with or without heels. In my case it is a couple of sore toe tips on my right foot and a tendency for the skin there to be slow to heal - almost certainly the result of poorer circulation in my legs as one element of increasing age and declining health. The good news is that the condition has been improving and heels are again practicable, despite the obvious tendency for toes to be pushed forward into a boot or shoe. Thicker socks do help too.

I imagine that any heel of at least modest height (say 2.5"+), not just a stiletto, would be at risk of catching on a stool or chair crossbar. After all, cowboy boots traditionally have high heels for just this reason - to keep one's boots anchored behind the stirrup crossbar. (No doubt more than a few cowboys have failed to allow for that when on a bar stool after a couple of whiskies!)

Apologies for going back to car talk, but I'm impressed with the Oldsmobile and its swift resurrection. Is it necessary/obligatory to have an old or rebuilt car officially tested as being 'roadworthy' in Iowa (or elsewhere in the US), as with the annual UK MoT test (for anything over three years old)?

'Indemnity' is certainly a legal term and a key one in many insurance contracts (such as fire or liability), the concept of indemnity being to put the insured back into the position he enjoyed before suffering some tangible (measurable) loss or damage. And, for that reason, as mlroseplant says, insurance against personal injury or death cannot be 'indemnity' insurance as the sums insured are purely arbitrary - the chosen and pre-agreed 'scale benefits' set out in a schedule to the policy. In the film, the scheduled death benefit sum was doubled if the death occurred as a result of accident, but it cannot be described as '(double) indemnity'. I didn't know about the Chandler appearance - and will look out for it next time I (re)watch Double Indemnity.

One of my favourite films, superbly cast. My only grouse is a purely technical one: a life insurance contract is not a contract of 'indemnity' as the sums ('benefits') offered are purely arbitrary, on a scale according to the cause of death (or injury etc) - so dying from an accident (as plotted in the film) that would attract a doubled 'death' payout should be 'double scale benefits', not 'double indemnity'. Doesn't sound so snappy for a film title, however!

Available new or used from several sources, usually discounted, e.g. World of Books (used but VGC £6.71 post free). I find WoB very reliable for good used books. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/396313657449?mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=710-53481-19255-0&campid=5337390723&toolid=10001&customid=nl_used_bestbookpricecouk_bestbookpricecouk

The word 'merde' comes to mind!

I think that says it all.

I could perhaps be forgiven for suggesting that the words 'the rest of' are inappropriate in the present context. (Your personal apology appreciated.) I was at a family friend's wedding a couple of years ago, in church in a modest country town. The bridegroom's father, with the general appearance of an artisan or farmer, was tidily dressed (in a suit!) but wore a 'flat cap' both in church and at the reception afterwards (in a fairly grand country house). Frankly, I thought that disrespectful to both venues and to those present, and the bride's father (whom I know well) did not seem pleased, although too polite to comment.

Are they really? Because of the 'Hunter' label or because they are expensive? The quality is not what it used to be when they were UK-made and there are better wellies available at a much lower price. Maybe the man you saw was wearing 'old' Hunters (from the 1970s?) which have lasted well, as they normally did? My wellies cost me about £4, bought from a builders merchant some 25 years ago, and remain fine for walking in wet and muddy conditions - including canal towpaths. Even now, an equivalent pair can be found for £20 or less.

Attitudes do vary in the UK. As a general rule, people in the south tend not to engage in casual geetings or conversation with strangers unless there is a good reason which turns them into temporary allies or conspirators. For example, their bus or train is involved in an accident or is severely delayed, or they witness some remarkable event nearby. I understand (and have experienced) a different situation in the north, where complete strangers will converse on meeting or passing - but sometimes this is an unwelcome or inappropriate breach of privacy. There are exceptions (as Shyheels says) in that people meeting briefly on a country walk or similar will very often exchange at least a greeting and may engage in conversation, however brief or trivial. But this is more a politeness than a wish to have any type of meaningful discussion.

I have made the point before that women in the northern part of England and in Scotland are often rather shorter than their southern sisters and heels help to add the extra height they seem to desire. Moreover, there seems to be a different attitude to the desirable 'look' in the north, whereby women make much more of an effort to 'dress up', almost regardless of the occasion. There is a 'bravery' element too - typically seen in Newcastle etc - where bare feet in high-heeled sandals, skimpy dresses and no coat is considered the way to dress for an evening out, even in bitterly cold or snowy weather. What is worn by either sex in a given situation has long been inluenced by dress codes, explicit or otherwise. But, as the world moves to a more casual way of doing things, at work and at play, dress codes have been eroded if not entirely dismantled. Although, in the UK, the suit and tie is still 'expected' of men in most white-collar environments, it is increasingly the case that women are no longer obliged to wear the skirt-suit and heels that would have been regarded as obligatory in many occupations, particularly those considered 'professional'. The result is a plethora of increasingly-casual 'middle of the road' dressing - but people forget that those staying in the middle of the road tend to get run over. From observation, the position in the US appears to be more polarised - either fairly strict formality in dress codes in many situations or 'anything goes' - but correct me if I'm wrong. I can't but help referring to the shocking Trump/Zelensky meeting last week, when Mr Z was roundly criticised for daring to enter the White House in other than a suit (for reasons well-known whilst his country is at war) - his primed journalist attacker being apparently attired in a bright blue blazer! A cheap shot from cheap people. Would they have dared to challenge an Arabian or African leader wearing tradional robes - or a Scotsman in a kilt for that matter?

I have never heard the term 'runners' in England, although I believe that what we usually call 'trainers' (or, more formally, running shoes) are sometimes called 'runners' in Scotland and Ireland. We don't say 'sneakers' either (although the term is understood) but a canvas 'sports' shoe would be generally called a tennis shoe, gym shoe or plimsoll. I digress but can't understand why (bright) white plimsolls have been so popular with both sexes in recent years - even worn with formal clothing or in a formal setting - but surely the very essence of casualness? When I was young, any child wearing them other than for a school or sports activity would almost always be from a poor family, as plimsolls (most commonly black) could be bought for a few shillings from Woolworths and would last for a few months before being worn out or outgrown. Rubber Wellington boots were the alternative if the weather was poor - equally cheap and quite durable but not good for the feet when worn constantly for days or even weeks, usually without socks.

Like these? I think you are correct; the Hunter 'wellies' with high heels are seemingly discontinued. But be aware that Hunter boots now all seem to be made in China and quality may be variable, whilst the price tends to be very high. (Alas, Hunter also discontinued making rubber thigh waders several years ago - much missed and no readily-available (and affordable) substitutes.) This range from Sweden may interest you, but again expensive: https://acquoofsweden.com/shop/

In principle, I would prefer to do without a car. I live in an urban area with good public transport and within walking distance of the town centre and principal amenitites. But the preferred supermarkets are a little out of walking range and even a modest grocery shop is too heavy to carry in one go, so the car is needed for that and anything else bought on the (just) out-of-town trading estates. Also, although retired, I am often doing 'advanced DIY' at various family properties, for which my estate car is essential for carrying tools and materials. My nearest family (two sons) both live an easy 55 minute drive away - but almost two hours on the bus, excluding onward transit from their town centre - and no direct train service either. My wife has a car too, and I do foresee the time when we will share a single car - but I doubt she will want the same type as me! Meanwhile, we carry on, using the cars as sparingly as possible and endeavouring to avoid the ever-increasing parking charges and the draconian penalties for straying into a bus lane or low-traffic area, or for exceeding 20mph urban speed limits - all of which have removed any pleasure one might have had from driving in the past.