| | Monthly Archives: April 2009Dress of the Day: Tropical flower print dress from Oasis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Tweet | 9 |
These shoes were brought to our attention by Shoeperwoman – if you haven’t seen her new shoe blog yet, go check it out here.
They’re by Pierre Hardy, are 463 euros at Louisa Viaroma, and that curvy shape, high stiletto and peep toe says two words to us: SHOE PORN. In fact, this is surely one of the most serious cases of Shoe Porn The Fashion Police have come across this year so far, and as such, we’re sorry, but we’re going to have to confiscate them. If anyone needs us, we’ll be prancing around in our new shoes, er, we mean filing a case report on this very serious, er, incident.
| Tweet |
Today Stella McCartney has been found guilty of contravening The Fashion Police Law under point 6:1 -”Creation of Clothes-That-Are-Stuck-Together”. Stella tried to get this piece under our radar by describing it as a “jumpsuit”, but we weren’t fooled: it’s a tuxedo jacket attacked to a pair of pants, and that’s a sight we hoped we’d never have to see.
Evidence submitted in Ms McCartney’s trial included the oft-quoted, “If it can make even a mannequin look a bit ‘hippy’, it’ll do exactly the same for us humans, and is therefore a crime of fashion.” The Fashion Police hold this truth to be self-evidence: the jumpsuit is hereby remanded in custody. Bail is set at £945, payable to FarFetch.com.
| Tweet |
The Fashion Police have just received confirmation that a deadly new fashion criminal, known only as The Clothes Ripper, is on the loose.
The confirmation comes in the shape of this top from Topshop, and we don't know what frightens us most: the fact that the top in question had to go through such a painful and humiliating ordeal to get into the state, or the fact that we know people will actually wear it like this, rather than as a layering piece, as Topshop suggest.
All that remains for us to ask now is: who – or what – will be the next victim of THE CLOTHES RIPPER?
| Tweet |
![Spl95170 003[1] Peaches Geldofs leggings shredded by wild animals, Fashion Police investigating](http://www.thefashionpolice.net/images/6a00d8341c873353ef01156f66e3d0970c.jpg "Spl95170_003[1]")
Peaches Geldof is a "celebrity" we tend to see rather a lot of these days, and now we're seeing even more of her, after her leggings were apparently mauled by a pack of wild animals as Peaches walked through central London, yesterday.
"This was a horrific attack on an innocent pair of black leggings," said a Fashion Police officer. "It left poor Peaches flashing rather more thigh than would generally be considered decent, and we'd hate to see the tan-lines she would've been left with if the sun had been out. Lovers of fashion should rest assured that the Force is pulling out all the stops to bring these depraved animals to justice – and we'll also be supplying Peaches with a proper pair of pants, pronto."
Sadly, these "legging shredding" crimes appear to be on the increase, which leaves us wondering if wild animals are REALLY to blame after all? Could there be a new fashion criminal in our midst: one even more dangerous than the evil Foot Snatcher? Stay tuned, readers…
| Tweet |
Grey and black wouldn’t have been our first choice for a summery dress, and we’d probably have gotten round to making this one our Dress of the Day much sooner if it had been available in a more vibrant colour. That aside, we love the shape, particularly the bodice, and we love the price even more – this is just £25, and you can buy it at New Look.
| Tweet |
Just in case you thought that whole drop-crotch thing had finally died the painful death it deserves, here’s the evidence to the contrary, courtesy of Maria Kaya, and a model who looks like she’s desperately trying to hold on until the next bathroom stop.
Don’t worry, sweetie, there are facilities at the Fashion Police Jail. Which, by coincidence, is exactly where you’re headed…
| Tweet |
We had originally bypassed this bikini when we spotted it at Net-a-Porter this morinhg, thinking that although it wasn't to our taste, it was probably only a minor fashion offence, if that.
Then Fashion Police reader Matthew wrote to us to point out what had been staring us in the face all along: the fact that this "ruffle bikini" is, in fact, exactly that. It's a gigantic ruffle, with no visible means of support, or, indeed, anythinhg to stop it flying up in an ocean breeze, leaving you flashing the girls to the world.
And you know what? We think he's right:
Going by the evidence in front of us, we'd say this is, as charged, just a giant ruffle. We see no evidence of any "bikini" underneath. And really, it's so skimpy that if there was one, we're sure we'd see it. Let's examine Exhibit B:
We're sill not seeing much evidence of "bikini" here. And we ARE seeing some suggestion of "mannequin boob". So, now we're leaning towards the opinion that even if there IS something resembling "clothes" under that ruffle, the fact that it's designed to LOOK like it could fly up at any second, leaving us naked as the day we were born, is enough to qualify it for a caution, at the very least.
What do you think, jurors?
| Tweet |
