Quelle honte!
The French president, Francois Hollande, has a personal problem. It's been noted that his tie has been crooked on two-thirds of the public events he's attended since his election last May. Even more embarrassing for a Socialist president, it's been seen to stray to the right.
So hot a potato has this issue become, thanks to a website called "Francois, ta cravate" (Francois, your tie), that he's now appointed a spin doctor to keep him on the straight and narrow. People are saying that their leader's (blue) tie is a visual metaphor for his indecision, and have suggested that he should drop wearing it altogether. Doing so would put him one step apart from his predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy, with US President Obama, and PM David Cameron and First Minister Alex Salmond, all of whom regularly, though not always, choose not to wear one.
The debate about whether men who work in office, or any office come to that, should still feel obliged to wear a tie has been rumbling on for decades. For a time it seemed that no tie equalled no barriers, and that the tie-less man was cooler than cool.
But as far as I can tell, this is the first time the outcome has not been so predictable. Take Tim Davie, the acting director-general of the BBC. He had his collar thoroughly felt, so to speak, by sartorial commentators for not wearing a tie with his navy suit and white shirt on his first day in post. He was even accused of looking "silly" and warned that he would not be taken seriously. Eschewing the tie reflects an obsession with presentation over substance, said critics, and just looks insincere.
So which way will Francois go? It does appear he's caught between a knot and a hard place.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article