Rebekah Brooks's hair has been talking to us again, according to the media and other Brooks observers. Last time, at the Leveson inquiry, the hair was contradicting its owner, as in: "Brooks wore a demure dress and revealed little of any import, but the wild, rebellious, red hair said it all." This time, she turned up to face charges in court in four-inch-high Louboutin shoes, while her slightly straighter-than-usual hair shouted out its determination to be taken seriously, apparently. Ms Brooks is at a disadvantage here, because nobody else at the Leveson inquiry seems to have hair that leaks. For instance, nobody checked whether Jeremy Hunt's hair was signalling secretly to James Murdoch, and Gordon Brown's hair was not cross-examined under oath. Clearly, Lord Justice Leveson is missing a trick: if he wants to know who's lying and who is telling the truth, he doesn't need to look them in the eyes when he questions them, but a little bit higher.
Shocking revelations in last week's news about Kate Middleton wearing the same pair of shoes at least 12 times! We all know that William didn't blow the family budget on that slightly used engagement ring of doom, so what can explain the Duchess's desperation to get the wear out of her £185 pair of LK Bennett nude patent courts? Perhaps she is just like many normal people, who, once they have found a decent pair of shoes that fit them, can be walked in, and don't make them look like a little girl in her mother's heels, will wear them and wear them until they are mostly holes. Scientifically, a lack of shoe obsession does not make Kate less of a woman. Next week: Queen-wears-same-square-coat-dress-and-tan-tights-combo-for-billionth-time-in-a-row shocker.