Commuting and the '40% tax bracket'

1356

Comments

  • suzyb
    suzyb Posts: 3,449
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    OK maybe I'm over analysing the whole cycling thing. But I've had my far share of criticism for doing so.
    Over analysing or cycling :wink:
    Whippet
  • wgwarburton
    wgwarburton Posts: 1,863
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    OK maybe I'm over analysing the whole cycling thing. .....!

    Are you sure you need to restrict that to cycling? :-)

    Cheers,
    W.
  • Agent57
    Agent57 Posts: 2,300
    WGWarburton wrote:
    Mark Elvin wrote:
    What the hell does it matter what others think? If they look down on you due to you riding a bike, stuff em.

    It matters if their view of you results in your being less effective in your job. It's hard to lead/manage/inspire/etc people who think you are a fool. Whether they are right or wrong is, in practice, irrelevant.

    Well, I wouldn't stop commuting by bike just because someone else thought I shouldn't. But then again, I'd have more respect for a manager (or similar) who cycled to work, rather than less. Especially compared to one who roars around in a single-occupancy gas guzzler status symbol of a company car. =)
    MTB commuter / 531c commuter / CR1 Team 2009 / RockHopper Pro Disc / 10 mile PB: 25:52 (Jun 2014)
  • greg66_tri_v2.0
    greg66_tri_v2.0 Posts: 7,172
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    For god's sake man. Do you actually think I said 'we're getting a new temp because you barely fit behind the desk, fatty'? For starters, do you have any clue just how against the law that would be? Evidently not.

    Quite. The equivocation in that statement ("barely") would have left you wide open in an industrial tribunal. Any fuhl would realise that you can only have said "We're getting a new temp because you don't fit behind the desk, fatty."

    I bet you threw in the "And we have you on video stealing biscuits and cake". Pilfering is just he most awesome banker in the tribunal...
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • Clever Pun
    Clever Pun Posts: 6,778
    Greg66 wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    For god's sake man. Do you actually think I said 'we're getting a new temp because you barely fit behind the desk, fatty'? For starters, do you have any clue just how against the law that would be? Evidently not.

    Quite. The equivocation in that statement ("barely") would have left you wide open in an industrial tribunal. Any fuhl would realise that you can only have said "We're getting a new temp because you don't fit behind the desk, fatty."

    I bet you threw in the "And we have you on video stealing biscuits and cake". Pilfering is just he most awesome banker in the tribunal...

    her reply?

    nomnomnomwhat?
    Purveyor of sonic doom

    Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
    Fixed Pista- FCN 5
    Beared Bromptonite - FCN 14
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    Greg66 wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    For god's sake man. Do you actually think I said 'we're getting a new temp because you barely fit behind the desk, fatty'? For starters, do you have any clue just how against the law that would be? Evidently not.

    Quite. The equivocation in that statement ("barely") would have left you wide open in an industrial tribunal. Any fuhl would realise that you can only have said "We're getting a new temp because you don't fit behind the desk, fatty."

    I bet you threw in the "And we have you on video stealing biscuits and cake". Pilfering is just he most awesome banker in the tribunal...

    Oh don't tell me I'd have actually got away with it? Damn it. Would have saved me a whole lot of hassle and 'we need someone who fits in with our corporate image'-ing.

    I could have just moved the desk further back. How would the tribunal have felt about that?
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • greg66_tri_v2.0
    greg66_tri_v2.0 Posts: 7,172
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    Greg66 wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    For god's sake man. Do you actually think I said 'we're getting a new temp because you barely fit behind the desk, fatty'? For starters, do you have any clue just how against the law that would be? Evidently not.

    Quite. The equivocation in that statement ("barely") would have left you wide open in an industrial tribunal. Any fuhl would realise that you can only have said "We're getting a new temp because you don't fit behind the desk, fatty."

    I bet you threw in the "And we have you on video stealing biscuits and cake". Pilfering is just he most awesome banker in the tribunal...

    Oh don't tell me I'd have actually got away with it? Damn it. Would have saved me a whole lot of hassle and 'we need someone who fits in with our corporate image'-ing.

    I could have just moved the desk further back. How would the tribunal have felt about that?

    See, it's a false economy not to take legal advice before you act.

    However, had you implemented that solution, the tribunal would have found you had discriminated against her short (fat) arms.

    They can be real apologists sometimes.
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • jonginge
    jonginge Posts: 5,945
    Clever Pun wrote:
    Greg66 wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    For god's sake man. Do you actually think I said 'we're getting a new temp because you barely fit behind the desk, fatty'? For starters, do you have any clue just how against the law that would be? Evidently not.

    Quite. The equivocation in that statement ("barely") would have left you wide open in an industrial tribunal. Any fuhl would realise that you can only have said "We're getting a new temp because you don't fit behind the desk, fatty."

    I bet you threw in the "And we have you on video stealing biscuits and cake". Pilfering is just he most awesome banker in the tribunal...

    her reply?

    nomnomnomwhat?
    I know I shouldn't but :lol::lol::lol:
    FCN 2-4 "Shut up legs", Jens Voigt
    Planet-x Scott
    Rides
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    Greg66 wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    Greg66 wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    For god's sake man. Do you actually think I said 'we're getting a new temp because you barely fit behind the desk, fatty'? For starters, do you have any clue just how against the law that would be? Evidently not.

    Quite. The equivocation in that statement ("barely") would have left you wide open in an industrial tribunal. Any fuhl would realise that you can only have said "We're getting a new temp because you don't fit behind the desk, fatty."

    I bet you threw in the "And we have you on video stealing biscuits and cake". Pilfering is just he most awesome banker in the tribunal...

    Oh don't tell me I'd have actually got away with it? Damn it. Would have saved me a whole lot of hassle and 'we need someone who fits in with our corporate image'-ing.

    I could have just moved the desk further back. How would the tribunal have felt about that?

    They would have found you had discriminated against her short (fat) arms.

    By 'further back' I meant 'closer'.

    Hilarious joke bold-ed for prosperity. :P
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • jonginge
    jonginge Posts: 5,945
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    Greg66 wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    Greg66 wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    For god's sake man. Do you actually think I said 'we're getting a new temp because you barely fit behind the desk, fatty'? For starters, do you have any clue just how against the law that would be? Evidently not.

    Quite. The equivocation in that statement ("barely") would have left you wide open in an industrial tribunal. Any fuhl would realise that you can only have said "We're getting a new temp because you don't fit behind the desk, fatty."

    I bet you threw in the "And we have you on video stealing biscuits and cake". Pilfering is just he most awesome banker in the tribunal...

    Oh don't tell me I'd have actually got away with it? Damn it. Would have saved me a whole lot of hassle and 'we need someone who fits in with our corporate image'-ing.

    I could have just moved the desk further back. How would the tribunal have felt about that?

    They would have found you had discriminated against her short (fat) arms.

    By 'further back' I meant 'closer'.

    Hilarious joke bold-ed for prosperity. :P
    :? You selling your jokes to the highest bidder? #pedant
    FCN 2-4 "Shut up legs", Jens Voigt
    Planet-x Scott
    Rides
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    JonGinge wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    Greg66 wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    Greg66 wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    For god's sake man. Do you actually think I said 'we're getting a new temp because you barely fit behind the desk, fatty'? For starters, do you have any clue just how against the law that would be? Evidently not.

    Quite. The equivocation in that statement ("barely") would have left you wide open in an industrial tribunal. Any fuhl would realise that you can only have said "We're getting a new temp because you don't fit behind the desk, fatty."

    I bet you threw in the "And we have you on video stealing biscuits and cake". Pilfering is just he most awesome banker in the tribunal...

    Oh don't tell me I'd have actually got away with it? Damn it. Would have saved me a whole lot of hassle and 'we need someone who fits in with our corporate image'-ing.

    I could have just moved the desk further back. How would the tribunal have felt about that?

    They would have found you had discriminated against her short (fat) arms.

    By 'further back' I meant 'closer'.

    Hilarious joke bold-ed for prosperity. :P
    :? You selling your jokes to the highest bidder? #pedant

    I've always used 'for prosperity' as an idiom that has nothing to do with wealth... but can't find evidence online, only in my idiom english-german dictionary! Dammit, google, you've let me down.
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • jonginge
    jonginge Posts: 5,945
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    JonGinge wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    Greg66 wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    Greg66 wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    For god's sake man. Do you actually think I said 'we're getting a new temp because you barely fit behind the desk, fatty'? For starters, do you have any clue just how against the law that would be? Evidently not.

    Quite. The equivocation in that statement ("barely") would have left you wide open in an industrial tribunal. Any fuhl would realise that you can only have said "We're getting a new temp because you don't fit behind the desk, fatty."

    I bet you threw in the "And we have you on video stealing biscuits and cake". Pilfering is just he most awesome banker in the tribunal...

    Oh don't tell me I'd have actually got away with it? Damn it. Would have saved me a whole lot of hassle and 'we need someone who fits in with our corporate image'-ing.

    I could have just moved the desk further back. How would the tribunal have felt about that?

    They would have found you had discriminated against her short (fat) arms.

    By 'further back' I meant 'closer'.

    Hilarious joke bold-ed for prosperity. :P
    :? You selling your jokes to the highest bidder? #pedant

    I've always used 'for prosperity' as an idiom that has nothing to do with wealth... but can't find evidence online, only in my idiom english-german dictionary! Dammit, google, you've let me down.
    Ok, interesting. Just assumed you meant posterity and had a momentary typing fail
    FCN 2-4 "Shut up legs", Jens Voigt
    Planet-x Scott
    Rides
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    edited June 2010
    JonGinge wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    JonGinge wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    Greg66 wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    Greg66 wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    For god's sake man. Do you actually think I said 'we're getting a new temp because you barely fit behind the desk, fatty'? For starters, do you have any clue just how against the law that would be? Evidently not.

    Quite. The equivocation in that statement ("barely") would have left you wide open in an industrial tribunal. Any fuhl would realise that you can only have said "We're getting a new temp because you don't fit behind the desk, fatty."

    I bet you threw in the "And we have you on video stealing biscuits and cake". Pilfering is just he most awesome banker in the tribunal...

    Oh don't tell me I'd have actually got away with it? Damn it. Would have saved me a whole lot of hassle and 'we need someone who fits in with our corporate image'-ing.

    I could have just moved the desk further back. How would the tribunal have felt about that?

    They would have found you had discriminated against her short (fat) arms.

    By 'further back' I meant 'closer'.

    Hilarious joke bold-ed for prosperity. :P
    :? You selling your jokes to the highest bidder? #pedant

    I've always used 'for prosperity' as an idiom that has nothing to do with wealth... but can't find evidence online, only in my idiom english-german dictionary! Dammit, google, you've let me down.
    Ok, interesting. Just assumed you meant posterity and had a momentary typing fail

    Hahaha! It's also entirely possible that I've always said it wrong, and the german dictionary people made the same error... it is odd that I can't find it on the google.

    ETA: Having consulted 2 other idiom dictionaries, it would seem that this is may in fact be the case...
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • wgwarburton
    wgwarburton Posts: 1,863
    Agent57 wrote:
    WGWarburton wrote:
    Mark Elvin wrote:
    What the hell does it matter what others think? If they look down on you due to you riding a bike, stuff em.

    It matters if their view of you results in your being less effective in your job. It's hard to lead/manage/inspire/etc people who think you are a fool. Whether they are right or wrong is, in practice, irrelevant.

    Well, I wouldn't stop commuting by bike just because someone else thought I shouldn't. But then again, I'd have more respect for a manager (or similar) who cycled to work, rather than less. Especially compared to one who roars around in a single-occupancy gas guzzler status symbol of a company car. =)

    *sigh*, Yes, you would. What if you are trying to tell a bunch of guys who spend their weekends hooning around in modded Hondas that you need them to turn up sharp on Monday, 'cos there's a big job starting and the company needs them on-time and on top of their game, and they start sniggering at the back of the room that you would be better at getting the job done if you "wern' worn out from ridin' your effin' bike in ev'ry day!"...
    Turn up, instead, in a supercharged Jaguar, looking trim in your snazzy suit and these guys can see straightaway that you must be doing something right.

    Cheers,
    W.
  • Agent57
    Agent57 Posts: 2,300
    *sigh* :roll:
    MTB commuter / 531c commuter / CR1 Team 2009 / RockHopper Pro Disc / 10 mile PB: 25:52 (Jun 2014)
  • jonginge
    jonginge Posts: 5,945
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    JonGinge wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    JonGinge wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:

    By 'further back' I meant 'closer'.

    Hilarious joke bold-ed for prosperity. :P
    :? You selling your jokes to the highest bidder? #pedant

    I've always used 'for prosperity' as an idiom that has nothing to do with wealth... but can't find evidence online, only in my idiom english-german dictionary! Dammit, google, you've let me down.
    Ok, interesting. Just assumed you meant posterity and had a momentary typing fail

    Hahaha! It's also entirely possible that I've always said it wrong, and the german dictionary people made the same error... it is odd that I can't find it on the google.
    You're normally right, though (dagnabbit). Remember the "You've got another thin(g|k) coming" discussion? Although, there would have been great allusions to be had with posterity in the above discussion ;)

    Edit: Ah, you were misled
    FCN 2-4 "Shut up legs", Jens Voigt
    Planet-x Scott
    Rides
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    JonGinge wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    JonGinge wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    JonGinge wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:

    By 'further back' I meant 'closer'.

    Hilarious joke bold-ed for prosperity. :P
    :? You selling your jokes to the highest bidder? #pedant

    I've always used 'for prosperity' as an idiom that has nothing to do with wealth... but can't find evidence online, only in my idiom english-german dictionary! Dammit, google, you've let me down.
    Ok, interesting. Just assumed you meant posterity and had a momentary typing fail

    Hahaha! It's also entirely possible that I've always said it wrong, and the german dictionary people made the same error... it is odd that I can't find it on the google.
    You're normally right, though (dagnabbit). Remember the "You've got another thin(g|k) coming" discussion? Although, there would have been great allusions to be had with posterity in the above discussion ;)

    Edit: Ah, you were misled

    Misled, perhaps, but also mistaken!
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • greg66_tri_v2.0
    greg66_tri_v2.0 Posts: 7,172
    JonGinge wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    JonGinge wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    JonGinge wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:

    By 'further back' I meant 'closer'.

    Hilarious joke bold-ed for prosperity. :P
    :? You selling your jokes to the highest bidder? #pedant

    I've always used 'for prosperity' as an idiom that has nothing to do with wealth... but can't find evidence online, only in my idiom english-german dictionary! Dammit, google, you've let me down.
    Ok, interesting. Just assumed you meant posterity and had a momentary typing fail

    Hahaha! It's also entirely possible that I've always said it wrong, and the german dictionary people made the same error... it is odd that I can't find it on the google.
    You're normally right, though (dagnabbit). Remember the "You've got another thin(g|k) coming" discussion? Although, there would have been great allusions to be had with posterity in the above discussion ;)

    Edit: Ah, you were misled

    As umpire, I'm going to call JG as correct on this one.

    Because he is.
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • jonginge
    jonginge Posts: 5,945
    Greg66 wrote:
    JonGinge wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    JonGinge wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    JonGinge wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:

    By 'further back' I meant 'closer'.

    Hilarious joke bold-ed for prosperity. :P
    :? You selling your jokes to the highest bidder? #pedant

    I've always used 'for prosperity' as an idiom that has nothing to do with wealth... but can't find evidence online, only in my idiom english-german dictionary! Dammit, google, you've let me down.
    Ok, interesting. Just assumed you meant posterity and had a momentary typing fail

    Hahaha! It's also entirely possible that I've always said it wrong, and the german dictionary people made the same error... it is odd that I can't find it on the google.
    You're normally right, though (dagnabbit). Remember the "You've got another thin(g|k) coming" discussion? Although, there would have been great allusions to be had with posterity in the above discussion ;)

    Edit: Ah, you were misled

    As umpire, I'm going to call JG as correct on this one.

    Because he is.
    Cheque is in the post


    It may bounce
    FCN 2-4 "Shut up legs", Jens Voigt
    Planet-x Scott
    Rides
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    Greg66 wrote:

    As umpire, I'm going to call JG as correct on this one.

    Because he is.

    Too right! I stand corrected and my vocab is duly edited.

    See, Lozza, that's how you do it.
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    lost_in_thought wrote:

    Olivia,

    In answer to your questions:

    Laurence spelt with a 'u'. Carries weight, yes.

    :wink:

    Also

    I do have a full and proper understanding of equal opportunities and discrimination. So there sticking-out-tongue-emoticon.gif

    As I said before it is entirely reasonable and appropriate for an organisation to operate a dresscode. However, insisting that women wear heels when it is not a requirement of the job and such a rule or similar is not imposed on men, could be argued as sexual discrimination. It is the same as insisting women wear pencil skirts (MMMMmmmmm) as part of their suits.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    As I said before it is entirely reasonable and appropriate for an organisation to operate a dresscode. However, insisting that women wear heels when it is not a requirement of the job and such a rule or similar is not imposed on men, could be argued as sexual discrimination. It is the same as insisting women wear pencil skirts (MMMMmmmmm) as part of their suits.

    Men also had to wear work shoes which were considered smart. Several men were politely asked to get smarter shoes.
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    edited June 2010
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    As I said before it is entirely reasonable and appropriate for an organisation to operate a dresscode. However, insisting that women wear heels when it is not a requirement of the job and such a rule or similar is not imposed on men, could be argued as sexual discrimination. It is the same as insisting women wear pencil skirts (MMMMmmmmm) as part of their suits.

    Men also had to wear work shoes which were considered smart. Several men were politely asked to get smarter shoes.

    Yes but you're not getting the point.

    The point is that the men were asked to wear smarter shoes. However you, a woman, was asked specifically to wear heels.

    Its like saying men can wear any suit they want but women can only wear ones with skirts.

    Anyway, this is going off the point. The more and more I think about it, the more I may not cycle in until I've established myself in the role and amongst staff properly.

    I'm not happy about all this tax, that sucks. Aren't the Conservatives supposed to be making me richer?
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    As I said before it is entirely reasonable and appropriate for an organisation to operate a dresscode. However, insisting that women wear heels when it is not a requirement of the job and such a rule or similar is not imposed on men, could be argued as sexual discrimination. It is the same as insisting women wear pencil skirts (MMMMmmmmm) as part of their suits.

    Men also had to wear work shoes which were considered smart. Several men were politely asked to get smarter shoes.

    Yes but you're not getting the point.

    The point is that the men were asked to wear smarter shoes. However you, a woman, was asked specifically to wear heels.

    Its like saying men can wear any suit they want but women can only wear ones with skirts.

    You try showing up in a skirt :twisted:
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • alfablue
    alfablue Posts: 8,497
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    As I said before it is entirely reasonable and appropriate for an organisation to operate a dresscode. However, insisting that women wear heels when it is not a requirement of the job and such a rule or similar is not imposed on men, could be argued as sexual discrimination. It is the same as insisting women wear pencil skirts (MMMMmmmmm) as part of their suits.

    Men also had to wear work shoes which were considered smart. Several men were politely asked to get smarter shoes.

    Yes but you're not getting the point.

    The point is that the men were asked to wear smarter shoes. However you, a woman, was asked specifically to wear heels.

    Its like saying men can wear any suit they want but women can only wear ones with skirts.
    sex discrimination, plain and simple. Sad that it is still so prevalent and (at least) tacitly supported :cry:
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    I do have a full and proper understanding of equal opportunities and discrimination.

    So, why did you think the temp was in counselling? Hmmmmmmmmmm?

    Also, see my post at the top of this page.

    A similar rule is imposed on men. See above, I can explain again if you like. With pictures, if that helps.

    What's more, men had to wear a tie and jacket. Women didn't. Men were also told to wear a t-shirt style undershirt, women weren't.

    Everyone understood how much their image mattered. And personally I wouldn't wear flats if I wanted to look smart.
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • suzyb
    suzyb Posts: 3,449
    Well LiT and I will never end up working for the same company. Any employer asks me to wear high heels when a pair of flatter shoes can look just as smart will get told where to stick their job.
    Whippet
  • greg66_tri_v2.0
    greg66_tri_v2.0 Posts: 7,172
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    Men were also told to wear a t-shirt style undershirt

    That is v poor style.

    Whatever next? Slip on shoes? Jackets (coats, in fact) with no vents?

    Surely not belt loops <shudder> and belts, with balckberries clipped to waistbands <bigger shudder>...
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • rhext
    rhext Posts: 1,639
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    I do have a full and proper understanding of equal opportunities and discrimination.

    So, why did you think the temp was in counselling? Hmmmmmmmmmm?

    Also, see my post at the top of this page.

    A similar rule is imposed on men. See above, I can explain again if you like. With pictures, if that helps.

    What's more, men had to wear a tie and jacket. Women didn't. Men were also told to wear a t-shirt style undershirt, women weren't.

    Everyone understood how much their image mattered. And personally I wouldn't wear flats if I wanted to look smart.

    Pictures please. Definitely pictures. I've got the 'men' bit, so you don't need to worry about that, but I'm really struggling with the rest. Honest!
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    Greg66 wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    Men were also told to wear a t-shirt style undershirt

    That is v poor style.

    Whatever next? Slip on shoes? Jackets (coats, in fact) with no vents?

    Surely not belt loops <shudder> and belts, with balckberries clipped to waistbands <bigger shudder>...

    :lol::lol:

    It was to prevent pit-stains (to borrow an americanism).
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.

Categories