Puffer

Yes it is a shame, but their target customer changed. Thgey used toi sell classic high heels but they moved with the style changes and lost their way. It was one of the few places you could get shoes like http://www.orientvisual.com/6inchforever/shoepage.php?querytype=id&searchstring=C10

Yes, Janner, I think you are right. Regardless of its attempt to sell a wider, more trendy range of shoes (many of which were and are five-minute fashion wonders), Faith did seem to be a reliable source of the more classic styles - but they virtually all disappeared some 10 years ago.

I recall, for example, a very smart court called 'Tina' with an almond toe and slender 'proper' stiletto of 4.5" - much like your pic but a higher heel. It was readily available in black leather, black patent and black suede and sometimes in other colours in leather and suede. A timeless and very smart shoe - so why did it get withdrawn in about 2000? (Barratts had an almost identical shoe too - and that was discontinued about the same time.) Anyone else remember these?

... Sunday night I went to another of the in house concerts I have been attending. I wore a long sleeved blue dress shirt, jeans, and my blue boots. Many of the same eclectic group of people that were at previous concerts were at this one and they all recognized me (most did by name). Many of them commented on my wearing different boots and asked how many different pair I owned. ...

I guess you mean that they know your real name and addressed you accordingly. But, when I read this, I had visions of the group greeting you in unison with 'Hi, Thighbootguy' or similar - which makes you sound like some sort of superhero ... but then again I think you are not far off being one to many of your admirers! How about adding a suitably coloured cloak to your outfit, and perhaps a mask too? Can I buy the rights to the comic strip?

The current position appears to be: (a) No online sales, but branches/concessions still trading with discount on non-sale items; ( Disputes with certain suppliers might result in withdrawal of some stock (but this action is being resisted by administrator); © Debenhams allegedly interested in acquiring the business (but probably not the stores). [What that would mean in terms of survival/availability of the range is open to question.] I can't think of any other chain of UK shoe shops which offered as good a range of stylish and relatively affordable well-made shoes. The business may not have been managed well but surely the demand and market is still there and someone will wish to fill it? Let us hope so.

... I just immediately continued "You seem like an objective person, a girl who doesn't wear her sleeve on her shoulder, who keeps calm, cool, and objective when making a decision." ...

If that's not a typo, kh, can you explain the saying, please? I've never heard it; does it mean the same as 'wear her heart on her sleeve' (i.e. have obvious, open feelings or emotions that all can see)? Or did you mean something else?

When one thinks about it, it is difficult not to wear a sleeve on the shoulder!

These boots from Priceless/Big Shoe Boutique (3.5” stiletto heel) have been mentioned before: http://www.bigshoeboutique.co.uk/wcsstore/ConsumerDirectStorefrontAssetStore/images/products/x_large/04_320_0405_01.jpg They are still available up to UK11 at £15.00. The customer reviews are generally very good; the only adverse comments concern the rather wide shafts and that the heel might be a little flimsy. But the interesting thing is that at least two of the buyers are male; I will not give their names but I wonder if they are members here? These are their comments (unedited for typos etc):

"I am a guy who loves wearing heels, i'm not a CD or a TV i just like heels. My partner (Female) encouraged me to buy them and wear them out in town on a Saturday night with my jeans and a shirt. She dressed the same and we had a great night. The boots look and feel incredible and i was given a lot of compliments on not only my choiceof footwear but having the nerve to wer them especially by women who thought they looked great on a man. If it wasn't for your site i would have to pay considerably more for shoes that look as though they belong in an adult film. These boots are immense and a good fit. i am 6' 3'' and weight 16 stonnes and i have no problems walking in them.

Heels are fantastic fun.

Thanks....."

"Bought these for a fancy dress do, not fully expecting them to fit (am 6' tall and big, with size 12 feet) but they fit perfectly, can even get my jeans inside them. Still looking for an excuse to wear them out, but the missus seems happy for me to wear them about the house, although they take a bit of getting used to!"

An easy way around all that is to designate the higher heels as mens shoes and the VAT won't apply.

Precisely - or at least not in terms that would suggest that any relevant high heels are exclusively for women. I will lobby for this to be done.

Given the deal just worked out between the US and Swiss Govts., Zurich mithn't be the right place.....Better Rio for non-extradition purposes....

I'm not too bothered, Bubba as (a) I'm not an Amercian citizen; ( any trip to Zurich would be merely to access a Swiss account rather than to avoid arrest - not, of course, that I have done anything wrong!

Good one and it was getting publicity on the search engines.

Wasn't too sure myself and searching with some views into the tax criteria regarding clothing was of marginal interest.

5 gold stars

Al

Thank you, Al. But no more gold stars, please - I have had a phonecall from the Treasury accusing me of unlicensed bullion dealing, or money-laundering, or something ...

Now, what time is that flight to Zurich?

Of course it was an April fools joke. What's more it was a conspiracy too, hatched between Puffer and myself. His professional expertise in legal small print made what would otherwise have been a fairly lame and obvious joke into something rather better.

As Ben Franklin (who was wise enough to have been an Englishman) might well have said: 'In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes and April Fools' Day'.

Or was it all a joke and pure invention? There could be more than a grain of truth in the underlying ideas and maybe we shall hear more. And I can assure Yozz (and any other doubters) that none of the 'technical difficulties' that the lay taxpayer might identify as making such a tax impossible to devise and implement would pose the slightest deterrent to either the present government or our permanent army of civil servants. If you don't believe me, set aside several hours to look at the history of the application of VAT to 'food' - including hot food, sweets, snacks, chocolate (whether sold retail for direct consumption or put up in catering packs, including ... but excepting ... unless ... provided that ... ) ... and so on.

I wouldn't have thought that the sales would be sufficient to even make it worth bothering TBH. ... It will cost more to administer and enforce!

Not true, Doc; the extra costs will be minimal. The beauty (or otherwise) of VAT is that, once the legislation is in place, most of the admin is done by and at the expense of the trader. Enforcement has to take place anyway across the whole range of taxable 'outputs' and the only extra task will be determining the precise application of the new rate(s) to particular items - which could, I accept, involve some debate!

I've just realised that VAT was introduced in the UK precisely 37 years ago today (1.4.73). The rule books then were about 1.5" thick in total; they are several times that nowadays, worse luck.

Well spotted, at9! I too had recently seen an oblique reference to the proposals you mention and was following them up via a contact in HMRC – yes, even the taxman can have a friend or two!

The picture is as yet incomplete but this is what I have gleaned so far. I gather the intention is indeed to impose Value Added Tax (‘VAT’) at one or more rates higher than the current standard rate (17.5%) on women’s ‘footwear’ with heels higher than 50mm, presumably on some sort of incremental basis with a further cut-off point or two. But there will be certain reliefs and exemptions. Any footwear wholly meeting what will undoubtedly be stringent design criteria in ‘replicating a recognised historical, religious or ethnic design’ will continue to be standard-rated. And high-heeled footwear ‘designed, produced and provided for bona fide medical reasons’ will now be zero-rated if the purchaser can give the appropriate declaration of personal need and eligibility (as at present with hearing aids, etc.).

There is to be no special relief for shoes purchased for ‘professional use’ (whatever that might actually mean!) on the basis that such a user would be (or should be) VAT-registered and therefore able to reclaim the tax at whatever rate it is charged, as at present. But, for us, the most surprising potential concession is that the new measures have been clearly stated (so far) to apply only to women’s footwear, i.e. ‘any item of footwear of a type or style intended to be worn exclusively by a female person’. That must exclude anything intended to be worn by a male – and (most usefully) anything remotely unisex! This must surely open the door to a range of high-heeled shoes that could be worn by men (as presumably evidenced by their corresponding availability in larger sizes) and which will be promoted as such, thus giving both sexes the opportunity to buy their heels without the extra tax. We live in interesting times!

Quite how this will all pan-out and what extra revenue it will produce remains to be seen. The Chancellor clearly has his mind set on ‘high-heeled shoes’ becoming ‘high-yield shoes’.

I like Bubba's blonde story; it has a certain perverse logic.

Almost the same situation occurred in real life some years ago when a business colleague with me was talking to a customer on the phone. The customer was commenting that he would do more business with us if only we were not so far away. George's immediate response was that it was the customer who was far away, not us. There was a moment's silence - and the customer then apologised and said that George was, of course, correct. And we did, as I recall, get a greater amount of business from him afterwards!

... This forum currently (at the time I am typing this) has 6,661 members. Of that number, not all are men and not all of the male members desire or wear heels. There is a large number that are content to admire females that wearer heels to enhance their God given female attributes. ...

Gosh, 6,661! The number of the beast tenfold and one for luck! There must be some sort of message there. But I guess it is now academic as the complement of the 'extended coven' will since have changed.

Alas, there are still many of the unenlightened who would regard females in heels (let alone males) as having anything but God-given attributes.

Let us now pray for their souls (and soles) ...

Why exactly do you think the other 2 are not visible? Possibly something to do with the ban? I'd say you maybe answered your own question buddy...

Yes, I did wonder - but I ain't a mod or a mindreader so I could see no tangible reason. Isn't there usually a comment when someone is banned - and if posts are deleted, doesn't the total number change? And I for one am curious as to what went wrong.

Welcome, brian26, and what a great story! I'm sure many of us can identify with that scenario; a memory like that never fades, does it? Can you be more specific about the period during which you saw Mrs D - I guess around 1960? And did you try on her heels, with or without your friend's knowledge?

I see that Androgynous has only just joined (or re-joined) but is listed as a 'banned user'. And, although showing as having made 4 posts, only 2 are viewable, it seems, and neither seems to be offensive. So, what has gone wrong, please? Or do we wait with bated breath for a visiting lawyer in a man's suit and stilettos to start issuing writs? (Sorry, Lord Woolf - must learn to call them 'claim forms' now.)

When are people going to quit with these "Expectations of a forum owner/leader"???? Just because I happen to look after the website, and, like others, do some of the moderating, does that mean I'm not allowed to have my own opinion or express things in my own way?

I have to suddenly conform to some un-written code that doesnt exist?

Garbage, I'm free to express myself and say what I think within the confines of our community rules as much as any member here...

... I have no idea why your speaking in that "la-dee-da" language. Speak proper English, say what YOU mean, dont spit out the kind of phrases made up by somebody else...

I hesitate to add to this but a little more plain speaking is in order (which Tech is, of course, mature enough to recognise as constructively meant and will take at face value):

1. Blunt 'as I see it' comment and opinion is fine but it can be misunderstood, particularly if not clearly expressed. Sorry, Tech, but I don't think that you are in much of a position to tell a member (particularly one who is demonstrably literate) to 'speak proper English' when your own postings are often clouded by poor construction, punctuation and spelling that does not do justice to what may well be a good message.

2. You do of course have every right to participate fully here, quite independently of your status as 'owner/manager'. But I do wonder whether any ordinary member expressing himself as forcefully as you sometimes do will so readily escape censure, editing or thread closure? That has happened. If anything, proprietorship involves an obligation to conform to a higher standard than the 'common herd' (as every UK MP has recently had cause to realise).

3. You may have a thick skin, but that is something found on very few people - and I doubt that you are truly one of them. A few moments of thought before composing and delivering your broadside (however justified and heartfelt it might be) will pay dividends.

And, in case anyone wonders, (a) Tech is not the only member who imho might ponder on the above; ( I am not myself incapable of fault, here or elsewhere, but I did consider point 3 above before posting this.

Well you know, you're right! But why are you so bothered about the 'TGI Friday' where I live??!!

We are the 'C' next to Bournemouth, and my best friend told me last night that the 'TGI Friday' here closed down about 4 years ago!! It just shows how often me and my husband go into town of an evening these days!

Mind you, that has a lot to do with the streets being chock full of drunken, night-clubbing teenagers most weekdays and weekends. Bournemouth is now the nation's Number 2 'trouble hotspot' according to Police statistics, and we have the one of the highest percentages of under-18 ASBO's in the Country.

Thanks, Pussy! I had identified your C as one of two possibles (the other being Chichester) but neither has a TGI. And Chichester has two McDs, one being in the town. I haven't the slightest interest in your TGI, or any other (and don't think I've ever been to one) but it was easy to find which towns in England have one, or do not.

But I have been to McDonalds in Christchurch for a snack whilst shopping locally ('In Excess') en route to a short break in Bomo last June. You are probably right about Bomo being a troublespot in the evenings (my younger son was at Uni there and was not impressed with the social scene, compared with his hometown of Brighton) but I have a soft spot for it, certainly in the daytime. Westbourne with the chines and pines is a very restful area and (back on topic) some pleasant restaurants serving a wide range of food that even fussy and obese Americans might benefit from.

Priceless is my favorite shop as it has a good selection of heels in size 9. I've only had one bad pair - the Fabulous Ankle Boot. The heel came off the first time I wore them outside and I could not get them re heeled as they were not standard.

I hope you returned them with a suitable complaint for a refund. Regardless of price, that should not happen on a first wearing.

Nice boots, daniel. Wish I could find some here in UK11!

... I'm partial to the simple design of the classic stiletto court shoe portrayed by my avatar. By the way, my avatar is unigue in that it is showing an A-Line vamp instead of the common round or oval vamp cut. These type of vamps were more common in the late 50's and early 60's. I sure wish they would return to the marketplace. ...

... IMHO that design is the perfect style for a court shoe. Elegant, stylish and sexy. I agree that the fashions of the '50's and early 60's had more class ...

I certainly remember with pleasure the shoe (and other) fashions of the 1955 - 65 period (the 'rock-n-roll era') and wish they would return, properly and permanently. I'm not absolutely clear, however, on what Histiletto means by an A-line vamp. Is this where the rear of the toe-box is cut straight across, so probably showing less toe cleavage, rather than being rounded or vee-shaped? Or is there more to it than that? A picture would speak a thousand words ... !

I'm finding it hard to visualise anything special about the vamp shape of the typical late 50s court shoe - low-cut and with progressively more pointed toes is what rings a bell with me. And open-sided court shoes - i.e. with a cut out on each side, as distinct from Dorsay - were briefly popular in the early 60s, and remained so with some styles of slingback. They invariably had a pointed toebox showing a fair amount of cleavage.

The two pairs of boots I bought from Priceless are good-looking, comfortable and quite generously sized (if rather wide in the shaft). The soft PU material is fine (if a bit smelly initially - like creosote!) and they seem quite sturdy although I doubt the plastic heel tips will last long. The customer feedback seems positive too, with just a few concerns about heel strength. All in all, a useful and economical source of footwear, especially in larger sizes - more please! If Priceless would stock a semi-pointed ankle boot with a not-too-chunky block or cuban heel 3 - 3.5" high in sizes up to 11UK, I reckon it would be a winner - none of the range quite meets that spec at present.

No....'C', and the Civic Pride is VERY high, which is why ALL the major fast food chains are in out-of-town locations. The only ones actually in the high street are the Fish and Chips shop and one Chinese Take-Away....all the rest are cafes and restaurants.

Something does not gell here, Pussy! You said a south coast town, medium-sized and beginning with 'C'. Even going a little inland, there are very few 'C' towns (of any size) between Margate and Weymouth (or even further west) and none of them appears to have a TGI Friday in or near it. So, I am stumped for the moment - any more clues you care to give?

... (I live in a medium sized tourist town on the South Coast of the UK) ... in our small town we have a MacDonalds (out of town), THREE KFC's, a Burger King, a Domino's Pizza, a 'Subway', two 'Pizza Hut's' and a 'TGI Friday' - as well as dozens of locally owned Chinese Takeaways, Indian Takeaways - and Chicken and Chips and Fish and Chips shops).

It's competition time: which town is that, then? One clue must be in the 'out of town MacDonalds' (which suggests the retention of a meagre element of civic pride) rather than one in the town. Now, where's my Yellow Pages ...? But, wait a minute, TGI Fridays are rather thin on the South Coast ... does the town start with an 'F'?

I notice from the info on the KG website that the heel heights quoted are measured 'inside'. Not our usual convention and not very informative. But, if Rob's example is a good one, the true (back) heel height is around 1cm greater than the quoted 'inside' measurement.

As a matter of interest, Jinx, what cruise line and ship were you on? And did you go into dinner in the jacket/jeans shown in the pics? (I ask because most cruise ships expect at least 'smart casual' wear at dinner - and specifically no jeans. I'm not criticising your look at all, merely wondering what dress code you were supposed to follow.)