Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

High Heels making the news

Discussion in 'General Issues and Discussion Forum' started by Phil3600, May 11, 2016.

  1. Phil3600

    Phil3600 Active Member


    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    BBC News have this feature on bosses in the city (of London) forcing their female staff to wear high heels. As a London based pod I have to say we hear this quite frequently. Anyone else experience this in London or anywhere else?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36265545
     
  2. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
  3. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Yes, I'm in Australia (Sydney)... & I've been concerned about this for a long time; I even have two posters on my clinic wall highlighting the problems high heels can cause. Being a male (yes, I know that goes against me) I wasn't all that familiar with the problems of high heels & how mandatory it is within the female (corporate) dress code. Then when I became a Podiatrist I quickly realised the problems women were going through... but I just couldn't understand why they were doing it (I'm a male remember)... but I quickly realised the WHY... & I thought, "how archaic; surely women can't be forced to wear something that is not only painful but evidently harmful to their body" (young & naive I was... & a male). I also realised strong influential elements - the fashion element, the lower leg contour (i.e. the calf & ankle 'sexy' ratio) element (I won't touch on the lower back/Gluteal contour element) & the peer element... which apparently are all strong enough elements to withstand the evident pain & problems these footwear are causing on a daily basis... which baffled me (I'm male remember)... but I came to understand it & subsequently worked at accommodating (reluctantly) the issue within my treatment regime. In fact, I'm working with a patient at the moment on this. She is a medical rep... & has to wear high heels. Her boss questions her when she doesn't (when she is in pain) & she feels judged by doctors when she doesn't. It is not only a physical problem but an emotional (i.e. self-esteem) one as well.

    Anyway, the above cited article/story has made its way into Australian news. In fact, it is making quite a wave on social media - & so it should - it is well overdue. The Australian article is here: Receptionist 'sent home from PwC for not wearing high heels' (http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world...-heels/ar-BBsVkFP?li=AAgfLCP&ocid=mailsignout).

    Now there is another reason why I'm also passionate about this. There was a thread on Podiatry Arena (yes, that's right... this forum; yep - a Podiatrist forum) which addressed this issue. It was a while ago now, not sure if it was the subject of the thread or a linked topic within it. Being a Podiatrist interested in the topic (on this Podiatry forum mind you) I cited the biomechanical/medical problems with high heels. Then something odd happened... someone posted something along the lines that those (males) who oppose high heels (i.e. the likes of me) are "misogynists" :)eek: yes, I thought that as well)... from memory, it may have been made about male Orthopaedic surgeons - but still... it was an outlandish statement to make (particularly in light of the medical/biomechanical issues just discussed... I mentioned it was a Podiatry forum didn't I). I naturally spoke out against making such (sexist/discriminatory) claims amongst the mountains of evidence outlining the extent of pathological problems which arise from wearing high heels... & (male) Orthopaedic surgeons & Podiatrists have a right to express such (medical) concerns without falling victim to such accusations ("misogynist"). Boy, did the sh!t hit the fan in that thread :butcher:. Anyhow, I won't elaborate further on that bankrupt thread... but here's one worth looking at. The following thread is a discussion about the problems with high heels; it mainly comprises or research papers on the various issues within this topic (i.e. types of injuries, changes in gait patterns, types of forces directed to certain tissues etc...) - Effect of shoe heel height (http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showthread.php?t=7073). In fact, Nicola Thorp could get a lot out of this thread to further her cause (& lawsuit if needed).

    Speaking of Nicola Thorp... there are quite a few videos about her case on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nicola thorp i.e. this one...



    It appears it was a senior female staff person who personally forced this high heel dress code issue with Nicola (albeit, it has no doubt been in place for quite a while... & evidently not just at this company). Despite the tone of that "misogynist" innuendo thread... it is interesting that Nicola (& those supporting her) state that she (& women) are being discriminated against (i.e. sexist dress code) for having to wear such footwear (& not those who oppose the use of high heels). Like I said, I feel this high heel dress code is archaic... & in the future, maybe high heels will be seen in a similar light to corsets :eek:.

    Nicola Thorp isn't the only one making waves on this topic. There is another Nicola, Nicola Gavins... who posted pictures of her friend's feet, a waitress in Canada - who worked a full shift in high heels (part of the company's dress code) which caused her feet to bleed & lose a toenail. Nicola posted the pictures & views on Facebook, where it has now been shared more than 11,000 times... become "viral"... which has also lead to a news article...

    Image of Canadian Waitress? Bloodied Feet Goes Viral, Prompts Outrage Over Alleged Heel Requirement (http://ktla.com/2016/05/11/image-of...rompts-outrage-over-alleged-heel-requirement/)...

    [​IMG]

    Let's stand up for women's feet (after all, we are the profession that deals with them)! The majority of my patients are female... & I feel it has little to do with the XX chromosome per se... it just might be the shoes at play :rolleyes:. Having said that though, I'm also developing some passion towards the education of women to wear the likes of OTC orthotics to protect their feet during pregnancy... the amount of women who have problems with their feet during those months seems high to me... & there have been many who have told me that their foot problems started since pregnancy (i.e. Plantar fasciitis, Neuromas, Bunions, increase in foot length & width etc...). However, women aren't informed of such potential issues (at least not in Australia) within the likes of i.e. Neonatal classes.

    [Maybe as a male, I could be of some use after all]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  4. Let's stand up for women being able to make decisions about their shoes themselves! Just like we should stand up for old fat blokes that want to smoke and drink beer and fart loudly - it's an individual choice. Why the opposition to heels anyway? Sure they can be "bad" for some some feet, especially if they are worn excessively, but for many other women, they are a top priority and they add to the attraction (or so it's claimed). Even when they do cause harm - we benefit. In many cases they do no harm whatsoever - and probably quite a lot of "good" - for both sexes!

    Please Matt, no more!
     
  5. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Oh boo hoo Mark :boohoo:. Yes, humans can do whatever stupid thing they like to do to their own bodies - it's their choice right? Some would say - "as long as it doesn't affect me or others". Yet it doesn't always; there are sometimes ramifications of such choices. Their families (who love them) may not agree with such choices, surgeons (& the like, who frequently treat such) may not agree with such choices etc... I might not agree with such choices - but hey, it's their body, their choice. It really is none of my business if there are... (quote you) "old fat blokes that want to smoke and drink beer and fart loudly" exist (however, it likely affects my health insurance premiums though... we all pay higher for it).

    BUT you Mark have missed the point of this issue (i.e. the cited articles where women have no choice in footwear)... where women are forced to wear certain shoes which are detrimental to their health. Hence the choice has been made for them... & if they don't like this imposed footwear dress code - they lose their jobs. If they don't want to lose their jobs (which many wouldn't) they just have to put up with it... & we then see cases like I cited in my post i.e. painful bleeding feet... not to mention numerous other cases with varying pathologies (as cited in this thread - http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showthread.php?t=7073).

    That's the point Mark! The issue here is that the women in this scenario aren't able to make such "decisions about their shoes themselves"... which is leading them to wear such "excessively"... which is causing problems - OK?

    Yep... that's their decision, if they want to wear high heels (i.e. for social events) then so be it. I suppose it helps keep me in business doesn't it?
    "Good - for both sexes". Really? Hmmm... some may see that this attitude is one of the underlying issues here (i.e. the sexuality element).

    So please Mark, no more!
     
  6. Everybody has a choice, Matt. We have an infamous nightclub in Blackpool called "Funny Girls" run and populated by a group local trannies and transgenders. Occasionally they might advertise for dancers/waitresses - and there is a strict dress code and high heels are not optional. I had a few dancers as patients over the years and I wouldn't like to think about the reaction I might have got if I tried your philosophy out on them. Might not have been able to use my saddle seat for a few days..

    If you are an employer and wish to have a dress code including shoe type, then that is entirely your choice, providing it poses no substantive risk through H&S for the employee. If a prospective employee doesn't fancy the terms and conditions, they don't need to accept. It's quite simple really - it's called tolerance and it usually works fairly well unless you have a tendency for being controlling.

    Not suggesting that you have, of course. ;)
     
  7. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Ok, what is this "philosophy" of mine Mark which would cause "trannies and transgenders" (or anybody for that matter) to react in such a fashion? Where is it... what have I written which would (possibly in your view) incite such a reaction (& if so, not very "tolerant" of a medical opinion)? I think you are reading more into this (my views) which are evidently not there... & this possibly could be based around a bias preconception you have. It is excusable that you misinterpreted my intentions within my first post (it happens within this writing medium; potentially due to ambiguity of intentions, potentially when there is a bias preconception present from previous dialogue). However, I quite clearly outlined my intentions within my second post as a result of your response.

    I've already stated I advise patients of the problems associated with high heels (this is my duty of care as a Podiatrist)... particularly when I see direct correlation between pathology & footwear. I have also stated that I work with such situations where patients feel they have no choice (option) within their work environment to work in flatter shoes - hence I accommodate my treatment to fit in with high heels. Any problems so far? I have also stated that everyone should be free to exercise choice... including medically proven bad choices (i.e. it's their body, despite the potential ramifications it can have on people associated with them). Advising what is best for my patient's health some would deem as appropriate duty of care... accommodating for their choices despite my advice & what is best for them some may term "tolerance" Mark... which I work to do... however, some would see such "tolerance" as something else... & I have known practitioners choose not to continue to treat such cases.

    NOW - the crux of this article is the choice of footwear within the corporate world for women (of which men are not normally subjected to). The original case is of a receptionist; I have highlighted one personal case of a medical rep as well as cite a case of a waitress (in a family restaurant) in Canada. As I have clearly stated, if these women want to retain their jobs (as they have a right to do & many need to do due to financial burdens) then apparently they have no choice but wear high heels due to this impractical, evidently archaic view that women in these jobs must wear footwear where the heel is higher than a certain height due to a subjective conditioned world view that such heel heights are perceived to provide (i.e. due to status, social conformity, sexuality elements - see this article: What High Heels Tell Us About The Desire For Status). Such heel heights should not be mandatory for such jobs as they don't play a pivotal role in carrying out such jobs... in fact, they evidently impede in many cases women's ability to perform their jobs effectively, healthfully & safely. Also, why should women refrain from working in certain jobs (which are historically dominated by women i.e. receptionist) because there is a habitual/cultural/social trend that these jobs demand certain footwear with higher heels. Should women have their choices of employment (considerably) restricted due to this archaic footwear dress code issue... which evidently is not tolerant of reasonable choice (based on comfort, health & safety concerns)? Nicola Thorp (the woman in the original article) wore smart, stylish black dress shoes... except they had a lower heel.

    Highlighting some obscure example in the form of some... "infamous nightclub in Blackpool called "Funny Girls" run and populated by a group local trannies and transgenders" is not a common job example to use to substantiate high heel use... where a certain look is expected (meeting sexuality & cultural expectations), where a particular individual/employee would gravitate towards & where a particular clientele would be attracted to... in a select & small group within the community. It is simply not the same situation as the large & versatile corporate world where there are numerous companies (i.e. PricewaterhouseCoopers') employing large numbers of female staff for such roles as receptionists... who shouldn't be subjected to the same expectations (i.e. sexuality) of your "trannies and transgenders" ("infamous") nightclub example.


    Yes, I see the purpose for steel cap boots for some work environments for safety reasons (well, then again... they could cause more harm in some cases - but the reasoning is there); as well as shoes with high grip factors or limited grip factors for functional/safety purposes etc... I remember once climbing a glacier in New Zealand in running shoes - a ranger working on the glacier (who was wearing ice cleats - no doubt a rational & practical job requirement) saw me & advised me it wasn't a good idea (I saw his footwear, saw his point & carefully climbed back down). Yet the reasoning behind high heels are primarily serving a frivolous subjective element; reasons outlined previously by the women in question (i.e. a sexuality element)... not the likes of an objective safety element. You stated words such as "choice", "controlling" & "tolerance"... ironically in the above cited cases, the receptionist, medical rep & waitress have no choice... because their employers are controlling of an impractical footwear dress code (a desired look) & not tolerant of the comfort, health & safety of their employees... subsequently not only potentially affecting their ability to perform their job effectively... but evidently adversely affecting their comfort & health.
     
  8. Philip Clayton

    Philip Clayton Active Member

    :deadhorse:
    415_500_csupload_57445109.jpg

    Not a lot worth discussing really - most people are just Sheeple and think it great to look like who they're are told are famous or fashionable. I am afraid its just like the people cheering whilst one voice reminds us that the "King's not wearing any clothes".
    What have we come to? Bring on David Icke at least he talks sense!
     
  9. Greg Fyfe

    Greg Fyfe Active Member

    This is essentially ,institutionalised, workplace gender based, discrimination.

    Irrespective of what's good for feet.

    No practical work related reason, in the majority of workplaces, for a high heel to be the only option for footwear.

    Regards
    Greg
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2016
  10. Greg Fyfe

    Greg Fyfe Active Member

    Perhaps providing our patients with information around their employment rights could be worth considering.

    from a July- Dec 2010 ruling

    https://www.humanrights.gov.au/complaints/conciliation-register/sex-discrimination-act-1984-complaints-conciliated-and-finalised-0

    Grounds

    Pregnancy - direct


    Areas

    Employment


    Terms of Settlement

    Financial compensation
    Policy - anti-discrimination/EEO policy reviewed/revised


    Compensation

    Equivalent to three weeks salary


    Complaint Summary

    The complainant was engaged by a labour hire company to provide temporary administrative services for up to three weeks for the respondent large transport company. The complainant said on her first day of work she wore flat shoes rather than high heels because she was six months pregnant. The complainant claimed the respondent told her not to return because her dress was not 'corporate enough'.

    On being advised of the complaint the respondents indicated a willingness to try to resolve the matter through conciliation.

    The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondents pay the complainant a sum equivalent to three weeks salary.

    Associated links

    https://www.humanrights.gov.au/


    http://www.smh.com.au/action/printArticle?id=1009147782


    Cheers
    Greg
     
  11. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
  12. Boots n all

    Boots n all Well-Known Member

    As for that picture, l think you will find the only bleeding was the colour from the forefoot lining of the shoe, thats why its so even. But hey lets not let facts get in the way of a good story.

    Isnt this easily solved? Just tell those in power of the possible workcover claims.

    l have had lots of ladies in here with similar concerns and issues with sore feet, especial since the new extension opened at the airport terminal.

    Many of the Ladies working for airlines at the terminal, come in with sore feet with hard soled high heels, we change them over to more appropriate shoe for their work activity, write a brief letter that states work related injury have caused this client to need appropriate footwear, game over.
     
  13. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    What picture are you referring to?
     
  14. Boots n all

    Boots n all Well-Known Member

    The one with the girls feet stained red at the forefoot
     
  15. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Oh, do you mean... that picture in post #3? Is this the picture you're referring to?...

    Is this the picture you think the colour (red, blood-like colour) is coming from the "forefoot lining of the shoe"... with the following reasoning... "thats why its so even"[sic]???

     
  16. Boots n all

    Boots n all Well-Known Member

    Thats right, common practise to use a less expensive and more suppl, thinner material for the toe lining. Making it easier for the Toe Lasting, keeps the bulk down especially on those pointy toe shoes.
     
  17. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    What? This hardly answers the questions.

    Ok, so it appears you were referring to the above cited picture in post 3... in which you made the following statement...

    Whereby you question the integrity of the photo (picture of a woman's bleeding feet) & the claim made that the shoes were responsible for causing such trauma & subsequent bleeding. You apparently think that such staining of feet, hosiery & shoes are caused by dye leakage from "lining of the shoe". I disagree... hence the questioning... & points made...

    [​IMG]

    You then made the following statement...

    Yes, & what "facts" are they?
    I suggest you don't let your warped view of 'facts' deter from a legitimate account!
     
  18. Och Matt don't be a woos. Face it - sometimes we do the most stupid things to attract the attention of the opposite sex. But usually for good reason. Sorry, but you're at the back of the line with this one, despite any good intentions..
     
  19. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Oh, boo hoo again Mark :boohoo: I really couldn't care less what you or anybody else does to attract the opposite sex... but hey, I agree with you, people do "the most stupid things to attract the attention of the opposite sex" - but that's not the issue here.

    The issue here (yes, go ahead & read the original post) is that some woman (i.e. probably a high percentage) find it difficult & painful to work hours on end in high heel shoes... whilst not having the choice to wear more appropriate footwear. It's a workplace issue perspective (not a sex, attraction or personal choice issue) that is being discussed. I'm just stating a medical opinion on this Podiatry forum to support such (medically) legitimate concerns... & I really couldn't care less about whatever metaphoric "line" :wacko: you have me positioned in... :empathy:
     
  20. Boots n all

    Boots n all Well-Known Member

    Matt, we are all guessing, but l will suggest you have never seen a client walk in to your place with a shoe that has leather dye bleed?

    But l am sure you and many others here have had clients in with bleeding feet.

    So have you ever seen that much blood and exactly the same amount for both feet?

    And why is there so little if any blood on the inlay?

    Or the blood so evenly spread over the foot like that, both feet the exactly the same?

    l understand your passion for the subject, but look again from a new perspective.
     
  21. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Guessing? Guessing? I posted the following account in relation to the picture in question at post #3...

    So you think it's a lie? Why would she lie? Is it some conspiracy plot against high heel shoes or bosses who impose a high heel dress code?

    Nicola Gavins simply posted pictures of her friend's feet after a full shift at work as a waitress... due to her concern i.e. bleeding feet & loss of toenail. Despite the evidence, why is this so darn hard to understand or believe? Crickey :deadhorse: I wonder how many other people out there thought this story was an apparent hoax?

    But if we are to refer to such opinions on this a "guessing" - fair enough... I'll claim my opinion as an educated guess.

    Yes I have... & on numerous occasions (particularly if shoe is new & on the cheaper scale) & it is usually black or blue in colour (not the type of colour that runs through some or our veins i.e. RED)... & is usually a more uniform pattern i.e. no darkened coloured (pooling) areas where certain potential trauma points could be in association with wearing high heel, narrowed toe box shoes e.g. between toes & at toe nail area (yes, dye tends to come off in higher rubbing/friction areas). Also, shoe dye would not pool in a specific area (as noted in green on picture at post #17) which just so happens to correspond to the same location on foot & shoe... & dorsal aspect of shoe for that matter. The pattern made in the picture is more that of a liquid consistency (like blood) than that of dye rubbing off from shoe lining. Not to mention (or have I) that is just so happens to be the same colour as blood.

    Yes... hence I'm familiar with the characteristic pattern... varying degrees of course due to the amount of bleeding present. I've also noticed such bleeding with my own feet over the years (I run a lot).

    Yes... & hosiery makes the blood run/leach (excuse the pun i.e. there are blood sucking leaches in Australia) in that fashion/pattern. It also depends on the amount of trauma present & subsequent bleeding (i.e. if patient on blood thinners). Speaking of leaches... this was my last blood in shoe experience... just two of the suckers were in one shoe & one in the other... forefoot area of both socks covered in blood (due anticoagulation affect)... looks worse than it actually is due to the running/leaching effect of blood on hosiery (socks or stockings).


    There is enough blood on inlay to substantiate the incident (more so than what shoe dye would cause as there usually isn't enough of the dye to reach the plantar area). Besides most of the blood would be taken up by hosiery & as stated above, hosiery makes the blood leach that way... & in the case of the photo, accumulate more at the seams of hosiery... & if enough pooling present, may even reach dorsal aspect of shoe (as seen in picture).

    I have... & considered alternative perspectives... & the facts are overwhelming that this is a case of bleeding within a pair of high heeled narrow toe box shoes (after a long shift of waitressing in this instance); I don't see why Nicola Gavins wouldn't be lying on this issue (for what reason anyway) & the evidence already highlighted above & in picture at post #17 points overwhelmingly to a causal agent of blood as opposed to dye from shoe lining.
     
  22. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    I became curious. So I thought I check up on the make of shoe involved here... to see if it is a cheap shoe. The picture I've used above cuts through the name... but the following image doesn't...

    [​IMG]

    It seems to be a "Karl Lagerfeld" shoe. Now I'm not well versed in women's shoe brands but it would seem to me that this wouldn't be a cheap shoe (where the colour of the shoe lining would cause such considerable staining). The following is run down on the designer...

    Karl Lagerfeld

    Karl Otto Lagerfeld[6] (born 10 September 1933) is a German creative director, artist, and photographer based in Paris. He is the head creative director of the fashion house Chanel as well as the Italian house Fendi and his own eponymous fashion label. Over the decades, he has collaborated on a variety of fashion and art-related projects. He is well recognized around the world for his white hair, black sunglasses, and high starched collars.[7]

    1. ^ a b "Karl Lagerfeld – Biografie WHO'S WHO". Whoswho.de. 10 September 1938. Retrieved 26 April 2012. 
    2. ^ "Karl Lagerfeld: Der "Strichjunge von Chanel" – Lifestyle". Stern.De. 3 May 2005. Retrieved 26 April 2012. 
    3. ^ "Fendi – Fashion – Modedesigner – 2010". Modedesigner.jimdo.com. Archived from the original on 12 September 2012. Retrieved 26 April 2012. 
    4. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 3 October 2016. Retrieved 2015-04-19. 
    5. ^ http://www.falabella.com.co/falabella-co/page/karl-lagerfeld?staticPageId=2800001&&kid=208252674
    6. ^ Cite error: The named reference welt-birth was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    7. ^ Lagerfeld Confidential, 2007.


    But even expensive shoes can be inappropriate for an individual's foot... & cause pain, trauma... & maybe, maybe some bleeding :eek: ... yet, unlikely poorly made to contribute to such dye leakage (also the shoe is black... not red, or unlikely to have red lining I would think).

    But hey... if people want to believe that the red staining of hosiery, feet/nails, upper of shoe & shoe inlay is due to the leaching of dye from the forefoot lining of this apparent designer shoe... then that's their prerogative.

    It's a long weekend... I'm heading up to the mountains for a few days... leach territory... & if the little suckers get me... I'll be sure to post some pics of the ordeal ;) . Then we can all study (guess) the possible cause behind my red sock :rolleyes: .

    Have a good long weekend Dave.
     
  23. Boots n all

    Boots n all Well-Known Member

    No one said it was a cheap shoe to my knowledge anywhere in the posts?

    My prerogative and l will have a good weekend thank you Matt, you make sure you have a good one too.
     
  24. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    No leach attack to report on... but still a good long weekend.

    Well, like I said in my previous post... I got "curious" as to the quality of shoe in question here... so I looked into it deeper. I would assume "less expensive" (or cheaper) shoes would have more of a tendency to leak dye from the "shoe lining" whereby potentially contributing to such claimed (believed) foot & hosiery stains... which would appear to be your reasoning going by the following post... where you used the term "less expensive"...

    The evidence just doesn't seem to support your belief that the photo in question was the result of red shoe lining dye.

    The evidence appears to support more in the favour of the causative agent being blood... which is why I was puzzled by your initial post... i.e. "lets not let facts get in the way of a good story".

    Yes, let's allow facts to get in the way of unsubstantiated claims.
     
  25. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    As required by law the Govt has responded:
    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/129823
     
  26. Mike Plank

    Mike Plank Active Member

  27. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Well, Podiatrists will either get more business from treating women suffering from the evident occupation health & safety (i.e. structural/biomechanical, musculoskeletal, dermatological) issues arising from wearing high heels (particularly in city regions)... &/or... they can get more business associated from the potential legal cases stemming from such occupation health & safety issues associated with wearing high heels (that's the Podiatrists who have the understanding & courage to see the association). There's at least a few of my patients who are having to tolerate the frequent problems associated with high heels... & one who has left her job (i.e. medical rep) because of such health related problems. My guess is, when one women decides to take it further down the legal path in relation to pathology associated with high heels... more will follow... then there may be a change.

    [​IMG]
     
  28. raun

    raun Active Member

    Well i see it as a torture, with forceful obligation in many cases. There should be at liberty to choose what comforts them
     
  29. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Out of the "High Heel" threads, this seems the more appropriate to post the following (without resorting to another thread)...

    Have You Ever Wondered Why Celebrities Always Wear Too-Big Shoes? (http://www.msn.com/en-au/lifestyle/...-shoes/ar-BBB7RG5?li=AAgfYrC&ocid=mailsignout)...

    A... "very sensible answer"?! :confused:
    For a moment there I thought I was incapable of nutting out "sensible" answers... on this topic o_O.
     
Loading...

Share This Page