Personally, I don’t mind a bit of a tie because I haven’t had to wear one professionally.

As Steve Biddulph says in his book Manhood: “A tie symbolises something very profound - a willingness to fit in or to submit.”

He uses the example of people who turn up at court appearances in a tie and look as silly as if they were wearing a red latex g-string or a space suit.

“No-one is fooled by this. Everyone knows that this is a requirement to ‘look’ like you are trying to be a respectable person. To do otherwise would be to invoke the wrath of the system,” writes Biddulph, “but the symbolism is clear. It says, ’ See, I am willing to go through the motions. I will be a good boy’.”

“A tie at work says ‘I am willing to put up with this discomfort’ and therefore ‘I am willing to put up with other indignities and constraints to get and keep this job.’ It’s important to see a tie for what it is. It’s a slave collar,” says Biddulph.

Obviously there are now many offices where ties are not required - but I can’t imagine there’s too many big accountancy or law firms, investment banks or media organisations where executives can get away with the no tie look.

Some would argue that’s because the further you go up the corporate ladder, the narrower the margins for acceptable behaviour and the tighter the slave collar settles on a man’s neck.

By the second week of not wearing a tie, you’d either be called in to someone’s office and reminded about the “dress code” or people would be whispering you were “getting sloppy” or “setting a bad example”.

Again this may not be the case in all offices, but when ties are expected in a workplace, they’re expected: there’s little room for compromise.