Should images of movement use blur to prove it, and how much unintentional blur you can pass off as 'intentional to show the movement' before someone rumbles you is one of my preoccupations...

One of the tell-tale signs that it's unintentional is that both the moving subject and the stationery background are fuzzy. Another is when it looks like it's been artificially sharpened to hell on the computer later.

Well, this shot suffers from a little bit of both of those syndromes, but I like the composition enough to let it pass. Namely, the placement of the feet is great, the shoes are striking against the grey, the little stone slabs lead you wonderfully into the shot, in the direction she's going too, and there's nothing else to distract you like other people's feet or cigarette butts to get in the way - oops, having said that I can see some now (!) but they kinda meld in and possibly add to the, umm, how can I say... promiscuity which bright red shoes sometimes suggest...