Puffer

Without getting into too much technical or legal detail, please bear in mind that:

1. The issues here are almost entirely civil, not criminal; 'prosecution' is the wrong concept outside the narrow field of breaching health and safety legislation (which is essentially a matter for the operator).

2. The park could impose certain clothing rules as a condition of entry, e.g. no high heels on children (and/or adults!). Failure to comply = breach of contract = no entry or no ride.

3. A child suffering injury through his/her own misadventure will have to bear the consequences; the park operator will not be liable unless negligent (e.g. providing unsafe rides). The park does have a duty of care, hence its safety checks, warnings and height/clothing restrictions etc which should demonstrate that the duty is met to the appropriate standard.

4. A child causing injury to another through negligence will be personally liable (for damages). (Fancy suing a fourteen year old with few assets beyond pocket money?) The parents or others will not be liable merely because of their position; they would have to actively encourage or otherwise participate in the wrongdoing (but failing to control or restrain a child when that was clearly necessary might lead to parental liability). Criminal liability will only arise if harm is done intentionally or through gross negligence, e.g. action for manslaughter (culpable homicide).

Best to forbid the child from going to the park at all but leave the entrance money handy on the table!

Personally, I think that a handful of deaths or serious injuries from leisure activities generally is totally acceptable: it not only serves as a warning but keeps things in proportion. No activity is 100% safe and we spend (waste) far too much time and money trying to achieve the impossible, and stifling freedom and pleasure in the process. The best analogy I know is the mail order company which has 3% of its shipments damaged in transit: anything more is unacceptable (bad service); anything less indicates that the packing is overdone.

I've come to this thread rather late but read with interest all that's been said. Let me express a few thoughts: 1. I'm doubtful that because a male friend is known to be a 'women in heels admirer' (and few will not be, if probed, even though they may rarely/never mention it), he will be more receptive to the idea of men wearing heels; there is really no connection. (After all, I might openly lust after redheads, or women with long nails, but that scarcely suggests that I would want to display either myself.) 2. The 'secretive' element has been mentioned and is surely the biggest barrier to discussion of male heel wearing, even between close friends. Ask yourselves these questions honestly: (a) how many really close male friends do you have? ( of these, with how many could you have a discussion about something really personal (such as marital or sex problems)? © of these latter, to how many could you reveal an interest in male heel wearing without fear of some sort of adverse reaction? My guess is that most of us will will lucky if we can think of ONE male friend (fellow board members aside) with whom the subject could be discussed reasonably easily. Most men do not even discuss clothes/fashion in the most general sense with their mates to any great extent, beyond saying 'You look good in that' or similar. In my own case, I can think of only two or three men within ( above and I am doubtful that the subject could be discussed with any of them. One (commenting on the modest heels his daughter was wearing one day) said that he wore higher heels than hers in the 1970s - but what was fashionable for a 30 year-old then would scarcely be 'expected' wear for someone of 50 - 60 today. Another, who has a designer background and can be a sharp and quite flamboyant dresser, has never worn any shoes remotely 'feminine' in my presence and I doubt he would (although both he and his wife have admired my pointed shoes and boots, albeit with heels barely higher than normal). Quite frankly, I would not expect the subject to come up without some awkwardness unless it was prompted by a third party action, e.g. seeing a male stranger in heels, or some news item mentioning male heels in a fashion, entertainment or medical context. Any of them might give the excuse to sound out the friend's opinion - maybe approaching the subject from a negative viewpoint, e.g. 'I don't think much of that look, do you?'. But, once the ice is broken ... Perhaps perversely, I would find it easier to wear (modest) heels in a natural way in company than to initiate talk about them in any depth with friends or family. Maybe doing that, by providing an opening for comment, is the best way to break the ice?

Mine was first used many years ago for professional purposes; it was the convention to hide behind an alias when providing answers to technical questions in a couple of publications. I adopted it because I had an interest in railways (still do) and smoked a pipe (gave up 4 years ago). Another board member who met me once was expecting an old git with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth and a perpetual cough! Yes to the first characteristic, no to the second and third!

Those who didn't see it on the UK news yesterday may be amused by clips of Boris Johnson (the somewhat buffoonish Mayor of London) enjoying himself wading in thighboots. Whilst helping to clear rubbish from a polluted stream, Boris apparently stepped into unexpectedly deeper water and lost his footing, as did his similarly-booted lady companion when she tried to rescue him. He told reporters afterwards that he found the experience refreshing and recommended it - which presumably was a reference to the ducking rather than to wearing thighboots.

There are several clips; the first is probably the best:

http://zebrambizi.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/boris-johnson-stumbles-into-river/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/5444512/Boris-Johnson-rescued-after-falling-into-river.html

Perhaps they do that so the people listening and watching understand what organization they are talking about? After all, ANC can stand for several different things (Just Google ANC if you don't think so).

Quite right, Bubba - maybe that is why ANC (the parcel carrier) is now rebranded FedEx in the UK.

If a motorist in the UK had an accident whilst 'under the influence' it might be confusing if he said he was an AA member: 'Which one, mate - Automobile Association or Alcoholics Anonymous?'

[Pedantic note: ANC is, strictly, an abbreviation, not an acronym: an acronym is a group of initials or parts of words which together are treated as a pronounceable word, such as NATO or Radar. ANC, IBM, AA etc are not treated as words. (And I do realise, Bubba, that some definitions of acronym do recognise a set of initials alone as being one.)]

I hate it when people can't make up their own mind whether to buy something or not...

Hmmm. I can't decide whether I agree with you on that.

Anybody who asks to borrow any of my tools, they are my livelihood and I have bought and paid for them with my hard earned money besides why would I want to lend someone the tools to do a job themselves which they could be paying to do with my tools...Duh

I understand your position, but it might be thought not very charitable, depending upon circumstances. Anything borrowed has (presumably) been bought by its owner out of earnings and that needs to be respected. Just because it is a tool of the trade shouldn't make it out-of-bounds to someone who needs to do a small job himself. I have borrowed specialist tools from a couple of builder friends on occasions and often lend mine to a select few others. Not quite the same as asking my windowcleaner if I can borrow his ladders and chamois to clean my own!

People who should clearly not be driving cars on the highway.

I had a customer in today who asked a staff member to check her tyre pressures as she could not "see" the gauge....she then stated that she was driving herself to hospital for an eye operation....Keep death off the roads!!

To say her driving skills were frightening would be putting it mildly.

Reminds me of when I had an interest in a retail business which was next door to an opticians. An old lady came in one morning and told us that she was there for her eye test. I politely advised her that she certainly needed one, but not at our shop!

... What about people citing quotations without knowing where the quotation came from. I'm sure that's not the case here, but I must admit I've been guilty of it in the past myself, unwittingly.

I don't think that it is particularly important to know the origin of a quotation before using it. Quite a lot of well-known quotations have a doubtful or disputed origin anyway. Moreover, it would be rather pretentious to name the source as a matter of course. And, if not stated, how would the reader/listener know whether or not the user did know the origin?

The worse sin, in my view, is to misquote or to use a quotation in a totally wrong context - unless of course (in either case) for humorous or ironic effect.

As you might have said, Fog, (and Churchill allegedly did): 'This is something up with which I will not put.'

No, actually it is the value thats hard to demonstrate, he had it right the first time. But I fail to see why it annoys him, thats just business and how things work. ...

If someone says: 'This costs x at shop A, but I can get something similar for y at B and only z at C, so I won't pay more than z', then he demonstrates that he knows the price of everything but has not necessarily considered the variations in value because the items are not precisely the same. But that is the opposite of having a preconceived idea of the value (to him) of an item or service but no real knowledge of the market price, often leading to a haggle with the supplier. The latter is really what Bad_Robot was describing when his customer thought the price too high when he was told it.

... its quite often that the price can change during a job as its only half way through a job you find out how bad the problem really is and how much the customer under-estimated what the problem was, but I always make it crystal clear that any initial estimates are based on what the customer has told me and is subject to change based upon complete diagnosis or repairs being started.

Yes, indeed, Tech - and this demonstrates the important difference between an estimate (nothing more than an indication of likely cost on current info) and a quotation (a firm price which will be the essence of the contract and cannot be varied). My car is about to have a new clutch fitted and I have a firm quotation for the work as the car now stands - but if the flywheel proves to be knackered on dismantling, the ballgame will change and I shall have to pay rather more . [Fingers crossed for me, please! ]

Another pet hate of mine is customers of mine who "know the cost of everything but the value of nothing" also who after asking you for a price proceed to haggle. Don't they understand that the price is as I have told them....I am not running an auction....you don't do your weekly shop in store and get to the checkout and start bartering so don't try it with me!!

Surely the other way round? Your customers think they know the value of what they wish to buy but don't like the price you quote. (But I do sympathise with you, although it depends somewhat on what business you are in - there is always room for some negotiation before making a commitment if you are providing a service rather than selling consumer goods such as groceries.)

You're evidently a tradesman then. I hate this too especially when you have agreed the price before you start and then after you finish they want to pay you less than the price you shook hands on. In my mind this is fraud and should be illegal, even if it isn't.

Another thing I hate is where the tradesman increases the price half way through a job without any special reason...

Yes, Dr Shoe, this age-old problem pervades any situation where something is supplied on credit. It is not illegal to attempt to pay less or demand more than the agreed price, nor is it a fraud unless the whole arrangement was entered into with an intention to deceive. But a failure by either party to carry out all the agreed obligations is, quite simply, a breach of contract giving rise to a right of civil enforcement action - but then you knew that! The problem, of course, is that the trouble and cost of enforcement is often greater than the remedy obtained, especially if one is the unpaid creditor. I'm an old-fashioned bloke: I do my best to carry out all my obligations and I certainly expect the other party to fulfill his, in full and on time.

Using the word "get" instead of "have" as in the sentence "Can I get a medium latte" which is a totally meaningless sentence in a coffee shop.

And one should of course say 'May I ...' rather than 'Can I ...'. (When I hear a request framed in the latter manner, I always feel tempted to reply 'You can, but you may not.')

People who sit in the middle lane at 62mph and those who do it in the outside lane at 70mph. Ok ok thats the limit but hell theres nothing in the other lanes. Its 1am and i wanna get home so " Getta outta the way!" OMG i'm turning into " White van man "

Speed limits aside, I am always puzzled why so many drivers fail to 'move left' when the inside lane is clear ahead and other traffic is behind them. Some roads seem particularly prone to this: I have never been on the A12 (dual carriageway, east from London towards Ipswich) without thinking that the inside lane might as well be cordoned-off or grassed over and then a new lane built to the right of the present outside lane! And why do drivers using urban roads with bus lanes rarely move left when the lane restrictions don't apply, even if oncoming traffic poses a threat (e.g. because of an obstruction on the other side of the road)?

We can all be thoughtless or selfish drivers sometimes, albeit not always intentionally, but I can never see the point of obstructing someone else's progress without any personal gain. (And one can say the same about most other aspects of life ...!)

... As for the actual events the other night, I never dreamed that another guy would force his way into an intimate situation between another couple. I know I would never do that at least. Part of having some scruples is also being a bit naive, I think. Also, in retrospect, if her head could be turned that quickly, why would I be interested in her anyway. A lot of it brings back memories of junior high school dances, and I just choose to be a bit more evolved than that. ...

Yes, HF, in retrospect it is perhaps a little naive to think that unwanted interventions like this do not happen. But I think you put your finger on it in concluding that a woman who allows herself to be diverted in this way (influenced by alcohol or not) is not worth fighting over. (Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt!) Sometimes they see the error of their ways and return contritely to the fold, but not always. And you certainly needn't feel bad about behaving like a gentleman - even if you don't dress like one! There will be other chances before long, I have no doubt; good luck.

... I went to the Nine West outlet. The manager wasn't in, and the sole clerk in the store was busy stocking their weekly delivery. ...

That's interesting ... does Nine West employ 'heel clerks' too?

Another great account, HF. I think you've progressed rapidly from courage through confidence to comfort!

Could you post some pics of what you wear to illustrate your tastes and preferences?

I only wear sandals in Girl Mode anyway as I consider them to be a bit too girly. In my mind boots are more masculine.

I agee Dr. Shoe, that boots are more masculine. When in girly mode, I prefer a great looking and great fitting pump myself.

I take the point, but since when did sandals (which are generally accepted as menswear) become more girly than boots or shoes with high heels? Yes, a pair of boots will invariably look masculine, but not so much if they have a heel. And a pair of flat or nearly flat sandals will only look obviously feminine if they are delicate in style or colour.

I too like to wear sandals in the summer but dislike most of the heavy, clumpy styles available in men's sizes. Women are really spoiled for choice when it comes to light, open styles, whether flat or otherwise - I do wish they could be found in larger sizes. Last year, I bought a pair of these Birkenstock Madrid style in size 45 (UK11) from Amazon (about the only source in the UK above size 9) and find them really comfortable: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/418549wKKxL._AA280_.jpg.

I don't think anyone would regard them as other than a simple unisex style, totally acceptable for men. But, because they are listed by Amazon in the women's section and available in a wide range of feminine colours (although only in black in the sizes above 9), one woman reviewing them took exception to a couple of male customers who had bought and recommended them. How sexist is that? As one of the reviewers has now pointed out, wellies are unisex footwear and their availability in pink or multi-colours for the girls does not stop them being traditional rugged male wear in black!

... I guess we really must remember that language is a fluid medium. Constantly changing each year in community, county, state, region, and country. I always thought the dialects spoken in the various regions of the United States was confusing until I spend some time in the U.K. It's a wonder that anyone can understand some of the agriculture engineers in Cornwall.

Agreed, Bubba, but the universal problem is that the rate of change varies across territories and between individuals, so communication may often be on different wavelengths. Alas, as one grows older (albeit wiser), the pace tends to be forced by the youngsters and the rest of us (who probably deprecate the change anyway) may get left behind.

Yes, the UK has a number of distinct dialects, although you may have been thinking more of regional 'accents'. No matter, both can trip up the unwary. The Cornish accent is easy compared with, say, the Geordie (Tyneside, N. E. England) or the Highland Scot - and the latter two have many dialect words or phrases which can be impenetrable. But at least accents and dialects provide a firm foundation for a rich seam of humour - or did so before the PC brigade started to condemn anything of that type as racist, which is palbable nonsense.

Puffer, forever the English and Americans will be divided by differences in our common language. However, given the pretty safe assumption that the Language "English" originated in the UK, it's a safe bet that the definitions written in English "English" dictionaries would be the default meaning (or, should be in any case).

Indeed so, Bubba, and I don't need to remind you of the origin of the 'two nations divided ...' statement!

Thinking about it, it seems clear that the original concept of 'more than perfect' really indicated that the action addressed by the pluperfect tense was 'earlier than' or 'longer ago than' one properly addressed by the perfect tense, as distinct from being 'better than' the underlying action. But, at some time, the 'more than' concept has been taken as connoting 'superiority', with the resultant usage you mentioned, possibly erroneous but not illogical. The OED and SOED do rather grudgingly give the ‘more than perfect’ meanings but, aside from a specific musical usage, indicate that it is archaic (and was also once wrongly used to mean ‘superfluous’) but is seemingly gaining currency as slang, especially in the more dubious sense of ‘complete’ or ‘thorough’. I can only conclude that, however acceptable in the US, the word is best avoided in the UK as its meaning is unlikely to be understood.

My brief researches also revealed this little tale, which may amuse you as it does me:

A businessman arriving in Boston for a convention found that his first evening was free, and he decided to go find a good seafood restaurant that served 'scrod', a Massachusetts speciality. Getting into a taxi, he asked the driver, "Do you know where I can get scrod around here?" "Sure," said the cabdriver. "I know a few places... but I can tell you it's not often I hear someone use the third-person pluperfect indicative!"

Very interesting, Bubba; thank you.

In the UK, the first meaning (i.e. relating to the past perfect tense) is the only one I can find in any home-grown dictionary (although I have not yet been able to consult the 'big' Oxford English Dictionary). Certainly, I have never come across the second meaning in 'English English', although the word is derived from the Latin plus quam perfectum (tempus), meaning 'more than [the] perfect (tense)', i.e. before (in time) the perfect tense.

If, as your citation suggests, the second meaning is admitted in the US (and I have found the same example of its use quoted in other US sources), then I must withdraw my original objection to its appearance in the story.

There are, of course, many English words that are given a different slant or even a very different meaning in US usage. My favourite (albeit alarming at the time) was to be told on a plane in Florida to 'Fasten your seatbeat, as we are taking-off momentarily.' I had visions of hedge-hopping rather than a smooth flight; in the UK, 'momentarily' means 'for a moment' rather than (as I understand the US usage) 'in a moment'!

I know what "pluperfect" means...

Thank goodness! I have been concerned about that since before Christmas.

I don't think it's a particularly bad thing that some of the least interesting shops on the High Streets of England are closing down.

...

I do feel sorry for the people that lost their jobs, but don't mourn the loss of the shops.

Many of the businesses that have closed or are threatened will be sorely missed, Benno, by those whose aspirations and pockets do not stretch to the likes of Office and Waitrose (or most of the trendy retailers in Brighton's Lanes for that matter). You may look down your nose at some long-term 'family favourites' in the High Street but cheap does not necessarily equate with poor quality in material terms. (And I can think of half a dozen small but useful items I often need that will now be difficult to find, almost regardless of price, with Woolies gone.)

OK, if you are talking purely from a high-fashion viewpoint, Barratts has never sold the most stylish or original shoes, but it was certainly a place to get something smart and reasonably hard wearing, male or female. I doubt that many teenagers have ever cut their teeth on Kurt Geiger, Bally or Russell & Bromley but have still managed to look good and (even more importantly) feel good in something bought out of hard-earned cash from Barratts, Dolcis, New Look and the like. And anything that helps to make stilettos available to the masses is to be encouraged in my book!

No disrespect to the organiser(s) but why do I get the impression that the event was somewhat shambolic, quite apart from the no-shows? (I hope however that I am wrong and that a good time was had by all - and no doubt we shall hear more of what happened before, during and after.)

Would it not have made sense for all attendees to have been asked to 'sign in' to record who did actually get there? At the moment, it seems that various individuals are trying to produce a fragmented and possibly incomplete list from memory.

Why wasn't I there? Three reasons: (a) Some doubts about a general get-together of this sort; ( Probability of domestic suspicion and inquisition chèz Puffer; © An inconvenient date - although the venue would have been fine.

It's worth reading the full article and the on-line comments, so far women mostly either condemning high heels or reluctantly admitting that they are not so easy to wear at 50+.

Interesting that the on-line piece is slightly different from that printed in the paper. Especially that the former used metric heights and suggested that women start with 2.5cm at 12 and peak with 13.5cm at 23; the paper said 1" (same) and 5" (= 12.5cm, so lower). Loose writing and probable exaggeration yet again!

The spokesman for Debenhams quoted in the on-line article said that the company is '... certain that there are still many elderly women who still insist in stepping out in super high heels, defying age to trip them up. If so, we'd love to hear from them. Finding out what all of our customers want to wear, regardless of age, is the secret of success in retail.' Perhaps its potential male heel-wearing customers should hold him to that last thought!

One of my greatest annoyances is being phoned by people who want to

sell you things that you are absolutely not interested in.

I usually tell them immediately that I don't buy anything by telephone but

a significant fraction is so stupid as to not understand that.

One reaction is: "Just a moment please" and then I put the phone down

and go do something else.

I also think it is rather ironic that I have to explain to a woman the meaning

of the word "no". (that was the most recent one).

The worst I encountered recently was a call center that rings your phone

and when you pick it up, you get to hear: "One moment please, you are

being connected with your referent". And when you just hang up, they keep

doing this every day till you don't.

Y.

I totally agree! Despite my numbers being registered as unavailable for cold-calls, I still get them - usually from overseas with wierdly-accented goons trying to interest me in very doubtful investments. The best tack is usually to put the phone down after a short, sharp indication of extreme apathy. But sometimes a pithy remark about the meaning of 'no', or a counter-question of a personal nature, will get rid of the intrusion. When asked as an opener 'How are you today?' (as is common), I will invariably explain at a little length about my various aches and pains and add ' But I was feeling much improved until you called'.

I am now waiting to experience yozz's call with a reference to a 'referent'. Such an abuse of the English language will merit stern action; 'referent' means 'an object of reference or discussion', not the person who wants to have a discussion with you.

Back to the barricades ... I can see some junk mail coming up the path ...