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?