Millets wellington boots

I recently purchase a pair of 'Hunter Lowther' unisex wellies from Millets online store, for my wife. She has genuine Hunters for riding her horse (and obviously to keep her feet dry) but they cost more than double these Hunter Lowthers.
The boots arrived within a few days, so full marks for delivery, but they aren't suitable for riding. Riders need their boots to come up above the saddle flaps to be safe, these boots were too short and would catch under the flaps with disastrous consequences in the event of a fall.
I wrote a review for Millets, which explained exactly why they weren't suitable for riding and also commented that my wife found the boots a bit tight and inflexible. It's strange that the official Hunter boot website has no reference to these 'Hunters'.
My remarks were rejected by Millets, because they breech their 'guidelines'. They obviously don't want people to be able to make an informed purchasing decision.

Rip off

My local paper, like many, is running a photographic competition. There are 6 prizes, £50 for winners in each of the categories, and £25 for 2 runners-up in each category.
The rip-off is that the terms of the competition state that the newspaper can publish any of the photographs, even those that haven't won a prize. Photos may also be used in advertising literature, by the sponsors.
It's about time that competitions recognised that photographs are valuable assets and photographers should be rewarded for their efforts.
If a photograph is good enough to use, it's worth paying for it. This article gives a good explanation why it's better to pay for a decent photograph than to use a free, or cheap.