Puffer

I agree with you, Benno, that Countdown is a shadow of its former self. Rachel is a lightweight and Jeff Stelling is often cringe-making - he should stick to sports reporting (where I would be sure to avoid seeing him). Richard Whitely was excellent but I thought that both Des O'Connor and Des Lynam were noble successors. Still, Countdown keeps my mum (91 and a regular viewer) mentally active, so I should be grateful for that. It's always good to see Carol V; she has looks and brains and a personality too (albeit sometimes a little conceited).

Yes and no, Bubba. I’m sure that most presenters get help with choosing clothes (whether they want it or not!) but I don’t think they are denied significant input, let alone forced to wear something they dislike. Some (such as newsreaders) generally get an allowance towards their overall clothing budget. They wear their own clothes, with the expectation that they will look smart and keep up appearances. And those presenters whose clothes are bought for them will often buy (or steal!) their favourite cast-off TV outfits and keep them for personal wear later, if suitable.

This article in the Daily Mail reveals a little of Rachel’s background: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1314363/Rachel-Riley-I-good-figures-Im-rubbish-making-wardrobe-add-up.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#ixzz10WKxvJBe

If you cannot download it, these two statements are of interest:

‘With a lot of help from the show's stylist, I now stick to smart, simple and feminine dresses. About twice a year, the stylist and I go shopping on Regent Street, as I get a clothing allowance for Countdown.’

‘I have about 20 pairs of my own [shoes] and 20 in my Countdown wardrobe, and my rule is never to buy anything that I can’t walk in. I love shoes with a quirky edge and heels for work. I really like Kurt Geiger and Zara shoes, and I’ve just bought a great pair of patent animal print heels from Russell & Bromley.’

Personally, I think that Rachel can look very attractive but her skirts can be too short and some of her shoes are somewhat clumpy. She has said (as above and elsewhere) that she likes high heels and has no problems wearing them on set. However, she does sometimes look a little unbalanced – but possibly that is because she does not do much other than stand or move a couple of paces whilst presenting. She may well be more graceful if walking around normally, which we don’t really get to see (a pity!).

Rachel’s predecessor, Carol Vordermann, was pictured recently with her pretty daughter at a function. Both were in glamorous outfits and shoes and looked great.

Took it as a little exercise to try to figure it out.

...

I'm going to go with 6.5"/1.25" heights, as both the platform looks higher than 1", and the heel more than a 5.x" height.

Then I decided to do a search for "J Lo American Idol shoes", and after piecing together some results, discovered that they appear to be the Christian Louboutin Lady Peep pumps. That has specs of 150mm heel, 50mm platform, which equates to 6"/2". A 4" heigh difference isn't that bad, so I'm sure despite a 6" heel, they were still walkable.

Here's a link for more info:

http://us.christianlouboutin.com/lady-peep-150mm-13936#product-detailed-view

A neat bit of homework, jw, and I'm sure your maths teacher will give you good marks! I agree with you that the heel looks to be more than 6" but the platform is certainly at least 1.25". Has the J Lo picture been stretched to give the illusion of greater height?

I don't believe the Louboutin statistics. If the heel is indeed 6" (and I don't think it is quite that high from the Loubi pic), then, by simple scaling of that picture on screen, the platform is scarcely more than 1.5" at the thickest point. The arch therefore is a more acceptable but still wearable 4.5". Perhaps there is some variation according to shoe size.

These are some new boots I've just bought on eBay in size Eu45/UK10.5. Nothing very daring but they should be acceptable street wear for me. What do others think?

Another pic and more details at http://www.hhplace.org/high_heels_wanted/16683-block_chunky_heels_size_11_12_a-2.html#post260315

Make that a 5" heel. or a 2" platform.

Here you go.

http://www.newlook.com/shop/womens/boots/buckled-shoe-boot_203423024

Thank you. A pity they aren't good quality, I really like the look.

So, a 1.25" visible platform (with no obvious internal platform in addition) and heel that looks about 5.5", but will probably vary with shoe size as most New Look shoes seem to.

As to quality, I hope Secret Simon is not judging them purely on the price or source - most N L shoes seem quite well made.

Not a bad looking warm winter shoe imho - and at least they haven't got a silly peep toe to negate the concept of a fleecy-lined boot!

... Sunday, I treated myself to a new set of guitar strings. You shouldn’t be able to really notice much difference when you change strings (if you do it often enough) but the change was dramatic and an absolute delight.

...

Towards the end of the meeting the teacher and one of the guards were talking about the problems they have with some of the docents (a tourist guide working in some museums). ...

A silly question, perhaps, Tbg, but what do you do with discarded or broken guitar strings? I expect you throw them away (makes sense!) but I ask because they have a number of uses in model making and the like, especially in the finer gauges, e.g. 0.011" or thereabouts. I know modellers who have to buy new guitar strings just to acquire the fine, high quality wire they need. No, I'm not asking you to send me a packet of discards but I suspect someone local would make use of them!

I had never heard the term 'docent' and had to look it up. In most of continental Europe, it means an 'assistant professor' or an ordinary lecturer; that application does not seem to be in use in the UK (or US) but is possibly understood by academics in both countries. The US variation in use you cite is, as you say, that of a museum guide or 'educator'. Here again, I am not aware of its use in the UK - but doubtless the transatlantic invasion of our language will continue until we have 'gotten' it here too. (I quite like 'gotten' - a useful distinction from 'got' and in fact an old UK English word which fell out of use here and is almost unknown here now.)

Oh well - that's enough deviation from topic but sometimes the obiter dicta can be as interesting as our various footwear.

Puffer: He's bumping his story back to the top of the page.

Oh, I see! Just in case anyone has not read it yet, I suppose? (Reminds me of the greengrocer putting the tired old vegetables at the front of the display so they are sold first.)

Damnation - by posting this I've just done it for him again!

again

???????????????

I did the BBC test. That suggests an average female score of -50 and an average male score of +50. I scored +25, which to me suggests I am halfway between being neuter and male - probably about right! (But I still don't know which shoes I should wear )

Rachel was wearing a greater variety of shoes recently, mostly high and stylish courts and sandals, with or without platforms. On at least one occasion, Jeff Stelling has commented on her shoes at the end of the programme - actually rather chunky sandals with a big platform (not really to my taste). We were treated to a close-up, with Rachel saying that they were comfortable. But I recall that Rachel has commented elsewhere that she is happy to wear such high shoes for the duration of the programme (and has some sitting-down time during it), which implies that she would not necessarily be at ease wearing such heels in her normal activities, at least for any length of time. Countdown is now on a summer break and it will be interesting to see what Rachel wears when she returns - not kitten heels, one hopes.

The info from at9 is essentially correct. The relevant UK notice states this:

'Supplies of goods for export from the European Union (EU) or for dispatch to VAT-registered customers in other EU countries are eligible to be zero-rated for VAT if certain conditions are met.'

As Norway is not within the EU, anything sold from the UK or another EU territory to a customer in Norway should be zero-rated. Neither the status of the customer (i.e. business or consumer) nor Norway's membership of EFTA is relevant. (However, exports to a VAT-registered business customer within another EU territory can also be zero-rated, although that does not concern us here.)

There are however some important administrative rules to be followed where an export is to be zero-rated. They are certainly a nuisance to any (small) trader and do not exactly encourage export business to non-EU consumers. The trader may be reluctant to supply, at least VAT-free, but jonvindar should be able to establish this before ordering. Remember, however, that a small business or private seller that is not VAT-registered will not be able to reduce the selling price as there is no separately-accountable VAT element within that price.

Whatever 'export price' is declared by the seller will, in theory, trigger the relevant VAT or other tax or duty to be charged by Norway (or other destination country) upon importation. But there may be concessions for small value purchases.

... These i will keep an eye out for now, i have seen in passing these by Schuh:

http://www.schuh.co.uk/womens-black-schuh-lois-point-court-patent/1119087040/

But i have a small feeling their size 8's are going to be tighter on me, especially these being pointed toe. Will try them tomorrow, apparently the Oxford Street store has them in stock.

These 'Lois' courts are very attractive shoes, almost a traditional stiletto court style; the heel is placed just a little too far back, however. The buyers' reviews are generally very favourable. Did you try them, ace?

I inspected them in two branches recently. They look rather narrow (but not particularly pointed) so may be a poor fit for some people. The display models in UK5 had a 4.75" heel, so the larger sizes could well be a little higher.

These shoes are however man-made and rather expensive for the quality offered. Priceless has a comparable court with a true stlietto heel (again 4.75" on the size 5 I inspected) at £13 which looks interesting, albeit probably not fantastic quality.

For what it's worth, I have normally worn a UK11 male shoe for the last 45 years; my feet are 'average' width but with slight (hereditary) bunions which cause me no trouble.

Sometimes I find that I need to buy a UK12, but that is usually because I am the victim of inexact conversion. A true Eu45 is slightly smaller than UK11 and Eu46 is about UK11.5 but they are usually sold as 11 and 12 respectively, so an Eu46/UK12 may fit me better than Eu45. In my limited experience, the US male sizes run about half a size smaller, so UK11 = USM11.5, and the US women's sizes 2 or 2.5 sizes smaller, so UK11 = USW13 or 13.5.

Could I make a general plea that we all state shoe sizes with the country/sex clearly indicated, e.g. UK11 or USM11 or USW11 - it will save confusion!

I've only just seen this thread and listened to the recording. There is a lot of speculation above, perhaps understandable from those who do not know of Hardeep and his background. The comments by at9 do however point clearly to the truth.

Hardeep is a TV 'reporter' who has also done some comedy work. He usually brings a tongue-in-cheek and light-hearted touch to his reports and certainly has a more risque side to his nature. He was banned by the BBC for some months until quite recently after an alleged incident involving remarks made to a female colleague (which were probably blown out of all proportion in these PC times). He certainly has a shoe fetish; see http://www.hhplace.org/everybody/11882-man_heels_one_show.html for example.

I was surprised and disappointed by the programme and certainly by Hardeep's apparent attitude. 'Brothel creepers' are not high heels and there seemed to be little recognition of any true male heel styles, let alone support for them. I very much doubt that Hardeep was being honest in his stated preferences - and a shoe with an internal lift is not really what it's all about, either.

As to the remarks about male fashion and good quality shoes, there seemed to be a preference for the ugly and boring traditional English oxford or brogue, with a dismissive remark about 'old fashioned pointed shoes'. Maybe I am out of touch, but surely pointed shoes are currently fashionable for men and (in my book) introduce a very welcome note of stylishness to the achingly dull world of male footwear?

Apart from introducing a talking point (which is never a bad thing), I cannot see that this programme achieved anything positive. It simply seemed to me to dismiss any idea of true heel wearing by men as being uncomfortable, unfashionable or just 'unmanly'.

One here for our American friends,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDK2uSeNJQo&feature=related

This is the famous film, Kes made in Barnsley in 1969, about 30 miles from where I live.

I'ts an accurate portrait of life in South Yorkshire from the period.

I bet you'll need subtitles for it !!!!

There's also this .....

http://www.doncasterpct.nhs.uk/documents/GlossaryofYorkshireMedicalTerms-2.pdf

Issued to non "dee dahs" (slang term for someone from South Yorkshire) doctors to help them understand the locals

Nice finds, Womer. But I would suggest that it won't only be our transatlantic friends who will need subtitles for Kes! By contrast, very few of the 'medical' terms are not familiar to those in the south - although I have to say that the concept of Barnsley/Rotherham [playing] at home is not one I have heard before - laydees here tend to refer to being 'indisposed'.

Probably the best way of picking up how British people talk is to use this slang dictionary

http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/a.htm

A good find! An invaluable guide to speaking proper; should be compulsory reading for all furriners (including all Brits north of the Trent).

One small good news story from Faith closing down. A branch not far from me is opening up again through the initiative of former staff - rebranded it "Hope", which I thought was nice.

Have a look here:

http://store.hopefootwear.co.uk/

Good luck to them! Better than letting the shop lie empty or get used as another 'Charity' outlet!

(I wonder what happened to all the unsold Faith stock nationally? I don't think any of the shops remain open, although some of the in-store concessions were still trading recently. I imagine the administrators did a deal with someone and that we shall see Faith shoes trickling out through market stalls and the like. Anyone seen anything yet?)

... I grumbled a bit then brought the boots back home and drilled the stuck piece of metal out with a drill press. ...

After Sam's I stopped in the cobblers shop, wearing boots and my new skirt, with my boots that needed the heel tips. He was surprised that I had managed to get the pin out (but not by my appearance) and asked me how I had done it. He said he just couldn’t afford to get that kind of machinery in his shop. ...

I understand how you did the drilling, Tbg, but I imagine that it was not too easy to hold a thighboot in position with sufficient firmness under the drill without either damaging the boot or the drill bit wandering. How did you clamp it?

Your cobbler's comments surprised me. Given the fairly sophisticated and expensive machinery most of them seem to use, a simple drill press would be chicken-feed. I have two at home; nothing special but perfectly capable of doing this type of work and more - and neither cost me more than £60 (say $100).

Miley Cyrus struggling in Louboutins:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1282918/Miley-Cyruss-seven-inch-heels-Hannah-Montana-star-struggles-stay-upright.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Which inspired this late night phone-in section on BBC Radio Five Live. It has it's moments

http://rapidshare.com/files/394538569/Tony_Livesey_-_01_06_2010.mp3.html

Mods - I think the link is okay but I could be wrong, and I have no idea where to put an audio file. If I've committed a faux pas, please forgive me and do whatever needs doing...

Thanks

Big

The usual journalistic exaggeration in the Miley Cyrus article; those boots had heels no more than 6" high and a platform of around 1.25" - not exactly skyscrapers. The readers' comments so far are almost universally critical of both the shoes and the trend; nothing new there either.

The radio programme is quite interesting (ignoring the diversion when the main caller starts talking about a car) but there are some surprising remarks, e.g. that few men neither look at nor show interest in women's shoes. And one of the women clearly has only a vague idea of the true height of the heels she wears and probably exaggerates it, albeit innocently. A good opportunity for some sensible discussion was lost.

Thank you, Lee. That information is interesting and you make some fair points - much as I expected. If I can get men's heels replaced properly by a cobbler for £8 or £9, I will probably use him - £12 is just too much. You are right about the quality of the heels put on by most manufacturers (almost regardless of the price of the shoes) - too thin and with a short life. But re-heeling after a short time can easily eliminate the cost saving on that bargain pair of shoes! I am aware that a lot of shoe repair items sold for DIY are of inferior quality but believe that I can get proper professional-quality heels without difficulty or undue expense. And suitable nails, glue etc are a trivial extra cost and already in my workshop. So, for straightforward re-heeling, DIY remains an option - I have done it before and the saving is not an illusion. My question about the boots in my avatar was a separate issue. I simply wanted to know wheher the solid rubber heel requires special treatment so that, if I go to a cobbler for re-heeling, I will not get any nasty surprises about what is necessary or the cost. Can you enlighten me, please?

Miranda Hart is very talented and very funny....her BBC Series was an absolute scream.

Yes indeed. Her timing is always good and, despite her size, she can 'fall over' with the best of them - I think there must be two Norman Wisdoms inside her skin somewhere.

The first or second prog from her recent series showed her buying clothes from what she did not realise was a tranny shop - and (because of her size) being assumed by the camp proprietor to be a convincing male TV. Hilarious - and the more so because the proprietor was a dead ringer for my near-neighbour here in both looks and manner.

Since my local traditional cobbler retired, I have been somewhat at a loss for getting shoe repairs done at a reasonable price - I'm primarily referring to new rubber heels on men's shoes. The other cobbler in the area quoted a price for this 'starting at' almost £12, which seems to me excessive and may be more than the shoes are worth! I haven't dared ask at Timpsons; I guess it would be even more there and I always get the impression that Timpson's work is done with limited care. So, what is a fair price for this straightforward task? As I can buy rubber heels for £3 a pair or less, maybe a spot of DIY is in order; I certainly have the skill and facilities to do the job (although I do accept that precise shaping of the curved back of a rubber heel is not quite so easy as it might look). The boots in my avatar have a solid rubber cuban heel. I assume that a slice of 4 or 5mm would have to be taken off the whole heel to eliminate the worn portion (at one side) and a new rubber heel then stuck on and shaped. Am I right? Is there anything about this type or shape of heel that is unusual or requires special attention?

Two comments on the posts above: 1. Although a prospective employer may, understandably, refuse to give any reasons for rejection of an unsuccessful candidate, it is all to easy nowadays for someone with a perceived grievance to require the reasons to be revealed in legal proceedings. It only takes one element of being somehow 'different' to pave the way for a discrimination claim, however unsuccessful it might ultimately be. It seems almost impossible now for an employer to reject someone because it is genuinely thought that he or she will not 'fit in' (e.g. for reasons of appearance, sexuality, beliefs etc) even though nominally qualified for the work. Why should we have to go out of our way to accommodate those with whom we cannot identify and might feel uncomfortable? 2. What has happened to our sense of humour? If it is also now almost impossible to make any personal remark, joking or otherwise, about a fellow worker, we have come to a sad situation in the world. There is a difference between positive discrimination or intentional antagonism and friendly banter. And I am sure that most receipients of such comments take it in good part and most of the mischief is prompted or initiated by those who merely overhear or witness the 'insulting' remark or action and feel obliged to blow a whistle, primarily for reasons of self-importance rather than because they are themselves truly offended. Ronnie Barker (the late and much-loved British comedy actor) was right when he stated that the only group about whom it was still safe to make personal comments was that of the country bumpkin (aka yokel, hillbilly, etc). This was simply because they had no effective representation and, in any event, no-one would admit to being one! Is it so naiive to think that 'human rights' should be a two-way concept?

My house too has suffered some modest damage to a parquet floor caused by a visitor carelessly (not deliberately) wearing worn-down stilettos at a social gathering.

There is, however, another side to this particular coin. Some visitors automatically remove their footwear (whatever the type) when coming into the house - a common habit with certain people and one my wife encourages but does not insist on. Personally, I dislike removal unless the shoes are clearly dirty or damaging - why go around half-dressed? I see no point at all in people making the effort to dress for an invited occasion and then walking around without shoes. I was once prompted to ask an attractive female visitor not to take her stilettos off, telling her that she would spoil her look if she did; she seemed grateful and complied with a smile.

It is even worse when people remove their shoes at an outside function such as a dance or wedding reception. Often, one sees otherwise smartly-dressed women padding about in nylons or bare feet without a trace of elegance, complaining about the shoes that are (allegedly) killing them but which are rarely extreme in shape or heel height.

at last i got some picshope you all like them load more into a galery these are my 6 inch patent black pleaser multistrap i love them im wearing a black latex catsuit have a look in the gallery their be lots more

Are they a true 6", Ppj? They don't look higher than 5" to me. What size are they, please?