You see this dress, readers? We were pleased when we found this dress. It’s almost identical to one from Zara:

Which, incidentally, just goes to show that you don’t have to be a designer label to “inspire” other brands to copy you, but that’s a different post altogether. Back to the dress…

We loved the shape of the original dress, which is also available in black and camel, but, having raided Zara recently, we can confirm that these dresses are very, very short. Even on someone like the Chief of Police, who is 5″4 in her stocking soles, although considerably taller than that in her usual heels. The Zara dress was out of the question. Maybe the New Look version would be a little more reasonable?

OR MAYBE NOT.

Seriously, what is it with this whole “Let’s make dresses that could easily get you arrested for indecency” thing? And don’t get us wrong: we’re not opposed to a tastefully-done mini. In fact, we really quite like them. (Anything that makes our legs look longer is generally fine by us.) But this?

THIS IS A TOP. A tunic top, sure, but still: A TOP. This model is 5″8, but even so, there is no way an adult female could wear this without fear of serious exposure. (And if you’re thinking it may be OK on someone shorter, well, maybe not: last month the Chief of Police ordered a dress from the Topshop ‘Tall’ range, thinking that, as she is not tall, a dress which was mid-thigh length on the model would surely be at least knee-length on someone several inches shorter. But no, when it arrived it was mid-thigh length on her, too. Go figure.) Wearing it in public would be like having one of those nightmares where you realise you’re out without your pants. Which is a shame, because it’s a nice dress.

Please, fashion brands: stop ruining great designs by making them virtually indecent. Or at least make a slightly longer version for those of who don’t want our knickers on show every time we step out the door: there are still some of us around, you know.

What do you think, readers? Dress or top?