In an era when discrimination is such a hot issue, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that sizeism could eventually be added to the list of causes of action.

The question then is who is the underclass - the tall or the short? If the result of a recent debate in the north-east is anything to go by, employment tribunals could soon be full of claimants asking for higher chairs to enable them to see over the table.

Held by the Young Professionals Forum in Newcastle, the evening somehow ended up with David Bawn (left), all 5'4" of solicitor from Crutes Mounseys in Carlisle, arguing the case for tall people after a series of similar debates, such as dogs v cats, and Newcastle v Liverpool.

Mr Bawn is clearly an advocate to be feared, because he managed to speak against himself so convincingly that he won the debate.

'My main argument was that tall men were seen in the light of the classic "tall, dark and handsome", and that they were able to reach things from shelves,' he tells Obiter.

Here he is pictured 'seeing eye to eye' (we don't write this stuff, honestly) with 6'4" Crutes partner Tim Smith, who didn't take part in the debate but is considerably taller than the chap who actually argued for small people and so made for a better picture.

Confused? Blame it on small people while you can.