A pint costs more than a half. A 12in pizza costs more than a 9in one. Curry and large chips costs more than a cone on it’s own. That’s common. That’s normal. People are used to that. Even though commercial hospitality is largely the cost of serving bums on seats, we’re happy to pay more for larger sizes.

Clothing is different. Even to suggest that larger sizes should cost more incurs the wrath of the few (or maybe many) claiming #fatshaming or discrimination.

For it is clear – clothing is a socialist construct. Priced and made for the many, not just the few. All our sizes of trouser, shirt, jacket and belts, are the same price. As are most places – this isn’t something we’ve carved a niche for. As clothing retailers we carry the cost of that extra fabric over the smaller sizes, the cost of the lower stock turn for those larger sizes. We could sustain a reasonable living selling only 36/32 trousers and size 10 boots, but as well as those items sell (they make up the majority of our sales), we’re unaware of any brand that has successfully pushed one-size-fits-all in mainstream clothing.

Shorts are another problem. Clearly “half a trouser” they should cost half as much? And we do indeed sell our shorts for a chunk less than our trousers. The fact is that the of course, the difference in cloth use between shorts and trousers is less than the difference between a 30in and 44in waist, but we’re able to make savings because we don’t have to carry four leg lengths.

The cost is all “balls up” as our factory pointed out. The waistband, pockets, belt loops, fly, it’s all balls up. Or above the knee if you’re being polite. Having a trouser that’s a bit shorter than normal saves a few quid in cloth, and that’s about it. But we love our shorts. So we make them, and charge a bit less.

We have year round trousers and jeans – whatever the weather, whatever your waist size – we’ve something for you. And they’re all a common price, how ever you measure up.