Puffer

I acquired and read a copy of the 'High Heel - Object Lessons' book Shyheels mentions. I can't say I found it particularly inspiring or enlightening as it is clearly one woman's take on 'high heel' matters rather than any type of scientific study, but her opinions and experiences are quite interesting. But worth reading for the insight, such as it is.

Those thigh boots look almost identical to (fishing) waders in all but material. Waders are 'acceptable' male wear - in the right place - so perhaps these new boots could follow in their footsteps (pun intended)? The question is - what is the right place?

I don't know whether your 3,000 sq ft is the house footprint or its total floor area. My house (in an urban area) has a building footprint of about 1,100 sq ft and a total floor area of about 4,300 sq ft; no outbuildings and modest gardens, I pay £3,200 (say $4,000) per annum in council tax, with a 5% increase almost inevitable in April. And our local council and county council services are being steadily cut back as they run out of cash, with some councils elsewhere becoming bankrupt. The future is not looking good. Although smoke detectors are not yet compulsory in owner-occupied homes in England, they are certainly advisable - ideally at least one on each floor. The cost is small and the safety element large. The more so if one lives in a house of mainly timber construction, which is very rare here.

I assume you mean headroom - floor to ceiling? (Still usable without head-banging - unless in very high heels!). Are you intending your new house's basement to be similarly restricted, to save tax, or to potentially provide a normal living space? Council tax in England is assessed on a fairly crude basis - the notional historic selling price in 1991, divided into eight bands. In theory, a cellar or basement would be included according to its perceived 'added value'; in practice, many would be unknown or ignored as the overall appraisal is almost always superficial (e.g. a 'drive-by') and sometimes quite unrealistic.

In the UK, any storey of a building that is constructed mostly or wholly below the immediately prevailing ground level is its 'basement' or 'cellar'. The two terms are often treated as synonymous but are generally regarded as having distinct application in that: (i) a basement is a part of the building that is or could be readily used for most domestic purposes as it usually has easy access (e.g. via an internal staircase), is typically divided into separate rooms (usually with normal windows), and possibly has a separate doorway to the outside. In many buildings, such a basement constitutes a separate dwelling, in which case there is typically no stairway connection from above. (ii) a cellar is not intended for normal domestic purposes and may be one open area or divided by simple supporting pillars or walls. The internal wall surfaces, floor and ceiling are often unfinished. There will only be windows (usually small and high up) if the surrounding ground does not fully cover the outside walls. Access may be via a trapdoor or staircase from above, with possibly a separate doorway (or hatch) to the outside. The essential difference is that a basement is a normally usable part of the building but a cellar is primarily for storage or to accommodate services. But the distinction is often blurred, especially where enterprising occupants have 'converted' a cellar into living space. In my house, the basement has an internal staircase, an external door, two living rooms, a utility room/kitchen and a bathroom (shower/basin/WC), all with windows. My neighbour's house (a different design) has a cellar, used only for storage and reached through a trapdoor and without external access or windows. When my house was built (1886), the basement was intended to accommodate the servants' quarters and the kitchen. In due course, live-in servants disappeared and the kitchen was then moved to the ground floor to occupy what had probably been a study; the original kitchen remaining as primarily a utility room and store.

Thanks to all for the clarification of what the 'Victorian' style means outside the UK. I suppose that the British should feel flattered that the label has been exported, albeit often to describe a house whose age is often anything but 19th century and possibly with features not found on the typical British Victorian house. Just for possible interest and illustration, I attach a pic of the front elevation of my house. (Yes, I know that the pointing needs some attention!) The depth is almost twice the width shown. Quite typical of its age; very similar houses (detached, semi-detached or terraced) are found everywhere, although the number of storeys and overall size varies. Indeed, this semi is unique in our road; all others of similar age, although mostly semis, have different configurations, sometimes with a cellar but very few with a basement.

You don't say when your house was built. But, if 'Victorian' in the US is a description of style rather than age, I suppose it could be almost any age. In the UK, we would tend to describe a large house with features like yours as 'neo-Gothic'; it would only be (also) called 'Victorian' if it was built during the reign of Victoria (1837-1901) or in the same style shortly afterwards. The typical 'Edwardian' house that followed (roughly 1901 - 1920) was typically smaller and less ornate, but solidly built to last. Alas, the shortage of seasoned timber resulting from WW1 means that many UK houses built after c1920 show the effects of poor materials and, in some cases, inexperienced or shoddy workmanship - and this remains true today, especially in estates of similar houses constructed by the major housebuilding companies. But, as you say, there are both good and bad of all types, sizes and ages.

Interesting that you refer to your house in the US as 'Victorian'. Is such reference to British monarchs (Georgian, Victorian, Edwardian) common to describe the age of a house in the US? That said, I'm not sure what the alternatives could be, other than a straight date-reference, e.g. '1890s'. I live in a 'genuine' Victorian house (c1886) in England, semi-detached with a fully-usable basement and three storeys above. It is solid, quite spacious with high ceilings and airy (aka 'draughty'!), and its construction and decorative features have stood the test of time, albeit that insulation could be better. The inside of the perimeter (brick) walls is of lath-and-plaster construction (rather than plaster directly on brick) and the small air gap (about 2") gives a measure of insulation, but we could certainly do with more - a totally impractical task to install except at a very localised level. And fixing shelves, radiators etc to those walls requires a bit more thought and work if to withstand the loading. All that said, I would not wish to live elsewhere!

I agree (he said, whilst grovelling and fawning at his superior's superbly-booted feet). 🙊

I think that is a good summary of what is often a difficult situation. If someone presents here his latest footwear for 'approval', it is easy to say 'nice' but potentially awkward (or worse) to say, honestly, 'not for me' - let alone 'ugh!'. I sometimes wonder about theatre critics; they can be absolutely scathing about a production or performance but their opinion, good or bad, is expected and generally welcomed, albeit not perhaps by the promoters and actors.

A thought-provoking observation. I agree that it is not so easy to criticise (even if constructively) someone here with whom one has a relationship, albeit only online and remote. However, that can lead to an individual assuming that his activity or opinions are more acceptable than is truly the case, which is not altogether fair to him and indeed could result in some danger to him. It is difficult to strike a balance between fair and well-meant criticism (using that word in its proper sense of appraisal) and simply being 'nice', friendly, supportive, accepting or whatever. Needless to say, my comments here are not aimed at mlroseplant personally. I think he knows me well enough to realise that anything I might say about him or his posts is not intended to be unfair, let alone offensive!

Yes indeed, and very little variety in his boot styles too. Perusal of his other Youtube videos suggests that wearing women's swimsuits etc is also an 'interest', somewhat devaluing his representation of 'our cause'.

If much or all of a punitive damages award is withhheld from the successful claimant (although I prefer the old term 'plaintiff') and treated as a fine and kept by the government, it would be on all fours with a fine awarded in criminal proceedings. As to alternative (charitable) destinations, much would depend upon the nature of the wrong and the damage caused. An obvious example, if the victims of smoking brought a claim, would be to fund a cancer charity. Likewise for damage caused by drugs or other toxic substances. Just a suggestion; I agree that the mechanism would need very careful thought. It does not follow that lawyers would (still) receive a significant percentage of a total award; they are not necessarily retained on that basis; e.g. 'no win, no fee' - and super fee if they do win. The 'floodgates' argument advanced by Cardozo in Ultramares is well-known and respected as dicta in the UK. Although that case related to the effects of negligence, not defamation, the concept of limiting liability is a valid one in relation to most tortious action. I am not a student of US law and have no special understanding of US actions in defamation, although I am surprised at the outcome you suggest - which appears to be that the subject would become more exposed to reputational harm by bringing an action, which anyway is unlikely to succeed. As to the reputations of the US and the UK, I hear what you say and agree that both tend to be exaggerated. But, regardless of the extent to which civil actions in the US actually get to trial, it seems very clear that there is a much greater willingness in the US to 'get a lawyer', if only for advice and a warning of probable failure. I accept too that the UK has quite steadily evolved into what one might call a 'nanny state' - unfortunately driven (since 1973) by the worst excesses of EU legislation that we are now not easily able or willing to disapply.

I suggest that this is simply an example of supination, where when walking the foot tends to lean outwards, thus giving the 'bow-legged' effect. A high thin heel will amplify if not cause this, as it introduces an element of instability that is scarcely present when walking nearly flat-footed. I experience this myself, especially if walking in a heel that is thin and/or higher than about 4". But even in 'normal' footwear, my shoe heels wear more on the outsides. My understanding is that a degree of supination is very common; its opposite (pronation) much less so. Our legs part much more readily than they move together (as any woman is aware!).

Despite what I have said earlier, I agree in principle with the concept of punitive damages being awarded in the circumstances you suggest, essentially where big business has profited hugely from its deliberate and damaging act. Such act being tortious rather than criminal and therefore normally meriting a civil remedy (typically monetary damages equal to a measurable loss) rather than a fine or imprisonment. As I stated before, defamation by a (newspaper) publisher provides the main UK example of such a civil wrong giving rise to punitive damages intended to wipe-out the profit made. There are other situations in the UK where punitive damages might be awarded (and occasionally have been) but the Courts here are reluctant to open the door too widely. (Although the context and jurisdiction is not the same, we remain mindful of the well-known statement by Cardozo, C. J that the law should not admit 'to a liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class.' [Ultramares Corporation v. Touche, 174 N.E. 441 (1932)]) I also agree that the destiny of punitive damages poses a conundrum as they could easily enrich the successful claimant well beyond any reasonably measurable loss or damage suffered, but the deterrent aspect needs to be maintained. Maybe, in many cases, excess damages should be treated like a fine and go to the government - or perhaps to benefit some good cause that is relevant to the mischief done. All that said, I remain glad that I am not subject to the extremes of US litigation, where it seems any tortious act (however trivial) is likely to give rise to proceedings brought by one's aggrieved neighbour. The 'compensation culture' in the UK is bad enough as it is.

I will let your commentary on the US legal system speak for itself. I am just glad not to be subject to it.

As you raise a defence of punitive damage awards in the US, I feel obliged to respond - primarily from a commonsense viewpoint rather than that of a UK citizen. To take your example, it is clear that no meaningful damage has flowed from the police entry without a warrant. Nominal damages for trespass, minor inconvenience or hurt feelings might be reasonable, but 'benefitting' to the tune of $100,000 (or whatever) is absurd, and would be regarded as unjust enrichment in the UK. Moreover, the suggested deterrent effect on the police (or the government) must be balanced against the cost to the taxpayer. I have little doubt that US citizens often welcome (or indeed engineer) situations where they may, and often do, end up financially enriched at the cost of minor inconvenience. I can see that, in the context of wrongdoing by a business, the potential award of punitive damages has a useful deterrent effect, but the size and frequency of such awards tends imho to devalue their purpose. In the UK, damages are primarily awarded as and limited to compensation for measurable loss. Awards of punitive or exemplary damages are very rare and almost always confined to those situations where the person at fault has derived a benefit out of all proportion to the measurable harm done to the victim. The most obvious example is in defamation (primarily libel) where a publisher makes large profits from its wrongdoing, far more than the measurable harm done to the person defamed. In such a situation, it is right that the profits are effectively confiscated and given to the victim; otherwise, defamation would be a very common and profitable exercise. Another, less common, reason to award punitive damages would arise from a truly serious breach of office by a public servant.

My latest 'discovery' is these: Apparently designed by one Chris Donovan and described as 'First collection for Polimoda named Devotion was based on the Jewish Tefillin, the prayer box worn by orthodox Jewish men during prayer, 2013.' I make no further comment, other than the obvious 'ouch!'.

Nice-looking shoes; I would scarcely call them 'outlandish'. Indeed, they are imho less extreme than some of your other footwear, and in a colour that you appear to favour. I expect you will soon picture them as part of a co-ordinated outfit!

We need to be more careful with references to terminology and law, CrushedVamp. We are dealing here with a trademark, not a patent. And the varying attitude of courts in different jurisdictions is hardly surprising, even if it does lead to some inconsistency. Moreover, in the UK there is (mercifully) scant recognition of the concept of punitive or exemplary damages - which seemingly are an everyday award in the litigious realm of the US! All that apart, I tend to agree with you and mlroseplant that CL does not merit or need the 'protection' of a trade-marked red sole.

The short answer is that CL has successfully obtained trademark recognition for red shoe soles (of a specific shade - an important factor), and has taken (or defended) court action relating to alleged breaches. See here for the history: https://studentorgs.kentlaw.iit.edu/ckjip/the-worldwide-trademark-battle-over-the-iconic-red-bottom-shoe/

No, it seems quite clear that Mr Friske was wishing to make toe caps (not heel taps) similar to those on the blue shoes. SMDave's solution is worth considering, although I question whether direct nickel plating is the usual process; starting with copper seems more normal, then nickel or brass depending upon the chosen appearance. As to the concept of increasing the height of a heel by adding an extension, this is very likely to upset both the balance and the appearance of the shoe as the higher heel will naturally tend to lean, which in turn will threaten its strength and attachment. But it can be done for a small increase (say up to 0.5") especially on a thicker heel. I have added 0.25" composition heel 'pads' to the existing (and almost impossible to replace) plastic top pieces on a couple of pairs of boots, mainly to improve the durability of the heel rather than to add height. That sort of increase does not harm the balance or boot structure. See here for details: https://hhplace.org/topic/25644-asos-chelsea-boots/

Interesting, CrushedVamp. I'm not sure what we can make of the statistic that '47% of men have tried on what is considered feminine clothing at least once in their life'; that seems low. It very much depends upon what type of clothing, in what situation and for how long. Briefly popping on a woman's hat or coat for fun or masquerade is not the same as donning underwear or a skirt or dress - or shoes. If you include the 'pantomime' aspect, I suspect the trial percentage is much nearer 100. Your wife loves heel and you admit to trying them too. Was she aware of this and would she approve if you wore them, in public or not?

Tom Rolt (who was an inspiration behind saving and using Britain's canals for leisure) originally had a petrol engine (ex-Model T Ford!) in his narrowboat Cressy in 1936. And he was not alone in using such an engine, although they were never common - horsepower generally gave way to diesel. Some shorter narrowboats are powered by a petrol outboard motor because a diesel engine would take up too much space. Whilst a 'marine' diesel engine is obviously ideal, there are many engines of the road vehicle type; my brother's narrowboat uses a British Leyland engine of the type fitted to a light van. Yes, the 'pop pop' of a Lister (or similar) diesel is quite distinct and certainly reminiscent of the African Queen. A Btitish 'narrowboat' is so called (and built) so as to be able to cruise on the narrowest canals, a nominal 7'0" wide, with the boats a couple of inches less. The canals were made narrow at the locks, bridges etc to save cost and water, but obviously had to be wide enough in most open stretches to allow vessels to pass. By no means all of British canals are 'narrow'; many are 'broad' - wide enough to take quite large barges and similar craft, although of course such commercial traffic has largely declined. Yes, the usual narrowboat drive is by a directly-driven prop shaft with a simple speed/reverse lever control. Simple but effective.

There are also a few (very few) historic narrowboats that have steam engines, and some with petrol (gasoline) engines. In fact, any sort of power can be found, although I have yet to come across rubber-band drive! As Shyheels says, diesel is the norm, with the typical engine being identical to that used in a motor car. When travelling on (or alongside) a canal, one sometimes hears an approaching boat with a strange engine sound - usually indicative of a non-diesel.