Browsing Category


Crimes of Fashion, Trousers/Pants

Where would you wear it? Foil jumpsuit

isabel marant jumpsuit

Some items of clothing become fashion crimes purely because they’re ugly, while others are just totally impractical. (And some, of course, are both ugly AND impractical: those are the biggest criminals of all…)

This one, however… well, ugliness is subjective, and we GUESS you could it practical, depending on what you were wearing it for. It’s probably reasonably warm, for instance – although it’s possible we’re just thinking that because of the fabric’s resemblance to a foil blanket. It doesn’t look too tight or restrictive, and you wouldn’t have to worry about it blowing up in a stiff breeze, the way you would with a skirt or dress. So, OK, let’s say it’s practical: that just leaves us with the third category of fashion crime – or what we in the force refer to as “a category 3”:

Where on earth would you wear it?

The thing is, we’ve been looking at it for a while now, and we just can’t imagine a single situation in our entire lives when we’ve been in need of a £700 foil jumpsuit. Not ever. What’s more, unless we suddenly find ourselves living in some kind of sci-fi sitcom, we can’t imagine there ever BEING a situation where we’d need to wear a £900 foil tinfoil, either. This actually makes us a bit sad: because just imagine how fun your life would be if you were the kind of person who regularly found yourself in need of a foil jumpsuit? Exactly.

We’re not, though, and chances are, YOU’RE probably not either. Just think about it: have you ever been getting dressed for something, and found yourself thinking, “You know what this calls for? A tinfoil jumpsuit. If only I owned such an item, or knew where to buy one!”

If you answered “yes” to that question, the good news is you DO know where to buy one: you can buy this one at Net-a-Porter.

If you answered “no”, on the other hand, well, at least you just saved yourself £925. So it’s good news for YOU, too, isn’t it?


Crimes of Fashion, Trousers/Pants

Get Knotted

It’ll soon be shorts season, folks, but we’re not quite there yet, which means many of us are in search of the perfect transitional pieces, to wear now AND wear later in the season:

William Okpo knotted pants

William Okpo knotted pants, $210

Er, these pants aren’t it, by the way: these are just perfect for people who can’t make their minds up whether to wear shorts or pants. Or who really, really like their thighs, and want the world to know it.

destroyed denim jacket

Faustine Steinmetz destroyed denim jacket, $1,320

The more destroyed something is, and the less wearable it is, the more expensive it is. So, if a denim jacket, say, looks like a denim jacket, and performs the basic functions of a denim jacket (i.e providing light coverage), it’ll be much cheaper than a jacket that looks like it’s been ruthlessly hacked at with a pair of blunt scissors, and then tossed in the trash. Funny how that works, huh?

Faustine Steinmetz  pleated denim pants

Faustine Steinmetz pleated denim pants, $775

You know when you throw a delicate fabric in the dryer by mistake, and it comes out creased beyond all recognition, forcing you to spend the next two hours painstakingly trying to iron it back to normal, before finally admitting defeat, and accepting that you’ve just ruined your favourite item of clothing? Some people will pay $775 for that effect. Then they’ll cough up an extra $820 for the matching jacket:

pleated denim jacket

Don’t think the odd “belly top” this model is wearing has escaped our attention either, by the way. We’re not totally opposed to crop tops – they can actually be pretty awesome with high-waisted skirts or trousers – but the asymmetric nature of this one reminds us of a “body suit gone wrong”. If you’ve ever tried to wear a body suit that was slightly too small, or too high cut, you’ll probably know what we’re talking about here. This does seem to be a bodysuit of some description, and while we have to assume it’s not actually as uncomfortable as it looks, the fact that it LOOKS uncomfortable is enough to put us off, even although it’s by far the nicest part of this outfit. Not that that’s saying much, mind you…

Crimes of Fashion, Trousers/Pants

The Ball of Fire Shorts

Ball of fire shorts

Ball of Fire Shorts, $535

For once, we’re speechless.

It’s… a pair of sports shorts with what appears to be some long, white hair attached to the crotch.

And it’s $535.

We’ve seen a lot of truly inexplicable items of clothing in our time at The Fashion Police, but this is up there with the strangest of them. The designer, Bernard Willhelm, calls this piece, ” a perfect failure”. We’d say at least one of those words is true: it’s up to you to decide which one.

Before we  finish this post, let’s just take a few moments to remember this skirt:

ripped denim skirt

Ripped denim skirt, £96

Poor thing. It used to be just an ordinary denim skirt – one you’d wear back in 2002, say – until the Clothes Ripper attacked. Now look at it! You can even see the pocket interior hanging sadly into the gaping hole in the thigh, and if the model moves the wrong way, we just might get a flash of her underwear, too! (Even if that’s not technically possible, you just know everyone will be looking and hoping for a wardrobe malfunction, don’t you?)

Seriously, though: this whole ‘distressed denim’ thing has been going on forever now, and it seems we’re the only ones who are “distressed” by it. It just looks so fake and silly to us – and the exact opposite of what “distressed denim” should be. When we think of ripped jeans, we think of ones that look like they’ve been worn and loved – and have faded and torn naturally. We’re not saying we love the look, but we do, at least, understand it. This, on the other, hand, is the opposite of effortless – it’s so obvious that someone just took a pair of scissors to this skirt and hacked a couple of holes into it, for the express purpose of being “fashionable”. Curious.

Crimes of Fashion, Trousers/Pants

Eddie Vedder has a lot to answer for

Vedder shorts

[The Vedder Shorts: Buy them here for $495]

We should probably begin this post by issuing a public apology to Eddie Vedder, who, of course, had absolutely nothing to do with these shorts. (Because, yes, those are shorts: the model isn’t just wearing a flannel shirt tied around her waist. Why would she do that, when she can pay almost $500 instead to just LOOK like she’s wearing a shirt tied around her waist?) He does seem to have in some way inspired them, however – at least, that’s what we’re assuming from the name (They’e called ‘The Vedder Shorts’), and the fact that they appear to be some kind of homage to the grunge scene of the 90s, of which Vedder himself was a huge part. Not, of course, that grunge was ever about buying $500 shorts. Or even $425 shorts, for that matter:

ripped denim shorts

These definitely wouldn’t pass the eBay test, would they? Not for the first – or last – time, we find ourselves wondering how rich and divorced from reality we’d have to be for something like this to seem like a good use of $400 +. Or to think these were a good idea AT ALL.

You know what else doesn’t seem like a great idea to us? This unitard:


Unitards have always confused us, because, unless you happen to be a gymnast, there doesn’t really seem to be a logical place to wear them. Seriously, what would this be considered appropriate attire for? Work? Date night? Family dinner? We can possibly see it being worn to a club, but we mostly see it as what new recruits might wear to Clown School, and once you’ve seen it as a clown suit, there’s just no way to un-see it. Unfortunately. Oh, and the addition of a psychedelic lace curtain thrown over the top doesn’t make it any better, just in case you were wondering:

fashion crime unitard

Crimes of Fashion, Trousers/Pants


70s-inspired flares

70s-inspired flares

1  /  2

We’ve talked a lot this year so far about the ongoing 70s revival in fashion, and our fears for where this trend might take us.

Every time we’ve contemplated the 70s comeback, we’ve crossed our fingers and hoped it might just be OK. We’ve been hoping for an ‘Ali McGraw in Lovestory’ version of the 70s, or a Bianca Jagger-inspired one, say. It’ll never be our favourite fashion era, for sure, but that doesn’t mean it can’t work, if it’s done right: many of our issues with 70s style, after all, are purely questions of personal taste, which is, of course, entirely subjective. We may not like all of the styles that are resulting from this trend, but they’re not necessarily crimes of fashion either.

Well, not ALL of them.

The flared trousers above?

They’re almost certainly crimes of fashion. What’s more, they’re exactly the kind of thing we were afraid of. Psychadelic flares? Neon animal print? It’s not even 70s-inspired, necessarily – it’s just plain ugly: and just in case you have any doubts about that, check out the Birkenstocks in the second photo. This is what happens when people decide ugly shoes are the very height of style – don’t say we didn’t warn you.

Will this look catch on, we wonder? Well, possibly: policing the world of fashion has led us to have low expectations. We’d never have predicted that the aforementioned Birkesntocks would become fashionable, but here we are, seeing them on every retail website, from ASOS to Net-a-Porter. And now that the terrible flares have returned to the fashion fold, we guess all we can do is hope that gigantic platform boots don’t follow suit… oh no, wait, that’s already happened, hasn’t it? Crocheted jumpsuits, then? Farrah Fawcett hair? Anything is possible in the world of high fashion…

Crimes of Fashion, Jeans, Trousers/Pants

Please make it stop.

badly ripped jeans

This is a joke, right? Please, someone tell us this is a joke: we’re not sure we can handle the idea of a world in which people will willingly hand over £116 in order to wear jeans that look like they’re only just managing to hold themselves together. Seriously, if you really MUST make yourself look like this, at least rip up an old pair of jeans you no longer have any use for: it still won’t look good, but at least it won’t feel like taking your money and throwing it down the drain.

In comparison to the above, that whole ’70s-revival’ we’ve been talking about is actually starting to sound pretty good.

trousers or pyjamas?

Oh no, sorry, our mistake: it’s NOT starting to sound good. This girl, for instance, looks like she’s out in her pyjamas. If we saw her in the street, we’d wonder if we should perhaps stop her and ask if we could call someone to come pick her up. On the plus side, at least she won’t need to get changed when she gets home – she can just go straight to bed. (That’s not a ‘plus side’, just in case you were wondering: if your outdoor clothes could easily pass for pyjamas, they’re probably a crime of fashion…)

Also triggering our ‘probably a crime of fashion’ radar this week is this:

lovehearts outfit

Any day now, we’ll be getting a press release informing us that this is “the perfect Valentine’s Day look!”Because it has hearts on it, and people wear clothes with hearts on Valentine’s Day. ANY hearts, that is: it doesn’t matter if it looks good, or looks like something you’d only wear for a bet (and maybe not even then): if it has hearts, or is pink, it’s “perfect”. Any day now: just you wait and see…

Crimes of Fashion, Trousers/Pants

Three pairs of pants you couldn’t pay us to wear

black mesh joggers


As far as we can tell, the sole purpose of these jogging pants (and drop-crotch jogging pants, too! All our least-favourite things, together in one garment!) is to provide a support-system for the two giant pockets which are clearly visible through the mesh fabric. We have no idea why the people who buy these wouldn’t just attach a couple of pockets to a long piece of string and drape it around their necks: it would create more or less the same effect, after all.

crime of fashion


This outfit breaks two of our most fundamental laws of style:

1. Buy clothes that fit you: or have them tailored, if they don’t.


OK, the rule is actually to iron anything that needs it, but in this case, it’s trousers that are the culprits. It actually makes us itchy to look at this. We want to hold her down and… iron her. Then take up the sleeves in her jacket. She needs looking after, poor girl! Maybe it’s her first time away from home?

harem jumper


The less said about this one the better, really, but we don’t think we’ll ever stop being amazed that people voluntarily do this to themselves. We suspect the defence is probably the old “But it’s so comfy!” chestnut, but as we’ve said before, that’s how people tried to justify Crocs, and look how that ended up. People, you don’t have to wear clothing with the crotch at your knees in order to be comfortable, we promise you. If you genuinely think clothes like this are the only possible way to be “comfy” then you’re either shopping in the wrong stores or wearing the wrong size. Either way, The Fashion Police are here to help you… we’re just going to need you to step away from the harem jumpsuits first…

Crimes of Fashion, Trousers/Pants

Shorts + Dungarees = Crime of Fashion

dungaree shorts

[Buy them here]

It’s hard to imagine the thought process that goes into creating something like this. By that, we mean, it’s hard not to imagine it going something like this:


“Hmmm, I think I’ll design a pair of dungarees. Dungarees have never been cool, so, in making them, I’ll enable people to brag about wearing a “difficult” piece of clothing, and that will make them seem really hip and experimental, because they’ll be eschewing the usual “rules” of flattering your figure etc, and wearing something that indicates they don’t give a crap about how they look. Which will make them look even MORE hip and edgy. Then I will be the designer who made dungarees fashionable, and my name will be made! Yes, I will make a pair of dungarees!”


“Hmmm. Dungarees really ARE horrible. Also not particularly hip or experimental. Someone who was really into having fun with fashion, and being all wild and keerrazzeee and suchlike, wouldn’t wear an ORDINARY pair of dungarees, would they? They’d wear… dungarees with one leg missing! I will cut off one leg of the dungarees!”


“Loving the one-legged dungaree look, but there’s still something missing. It’s still not quite unexpected enough, is it? I know! I’ll slash it to the waist, front and back! Finally, my masterpiece is finished!”

OK, so it probably didn’t go anything like that at all. Seriously, what would we know? We buy our clothes on the high street, and one of our basic rules is that if it has legs, it must have two of them, or its no deal. But, of course, we’re not hip or trendy, and we definitely couldn’t be described as “experimental” (wouldn’t really want to be, either…), so this item is presumably not aimed at the likes of us. But there are people out there who are paying £123 for one-legged dungarees, and then they’re going out and they’re totally ROCKING that look.

More power to them.

Crimes of Fashion, Trousers/Pants

Help fight these terrible trouser crimes

Please note, Fashion Force: this is not a drill. These are not simply expensive Halloween costumes – even although they look like they are. These are actual fashion items, designed to be worn in your day-to-day life. Tell us, though: would you wear these?

sheer trousers

[Buy them here for £432]

It’s testament to the length of time we’ve been in the fashion crime-fighting business that our first thought upon seeing these wasn’t, “OMG, see-through pants!” but “Well, at least they’re not TOTALLY sheer…” And they’re not. There are some embroidered sections to, er, protect your modesty. Just make sure you wear your best undies with them: we’ll know if you don’t.

ugly ripped drop crotch jeans

[Buy them here for £165]

We’ve been fighting the good fight against dropped crotches and heavily distressed denim for many years now: these drop crotch capri jeans combine both of those crimes, in an appalling double-whammy. In related news, we’re also thinking of issuing an amnesty on Birkenstocks. If you wear them for non fashion-related reasons, you can feel free to keep at it, but if you bought a pair of Birkenstocks just because they were “trendy”, and you can’t stand the thought of not being “bang on trend”, surely you must be wondering if you’ve been the victim of a long-running practical joke by now? We’ll set up a safe place, you can all bring your ironic Birkenstocks (“But they’re so comfy!” you will cry, just as people did with Crocs and Adult Onesies…) and we’ll say no more about it: deal?


ugly trousers

[Buy them here for £55]

If these were pyjamas, we’d wonder who on earth would buy them, given that there are so many other, cuter, options out there.

They’re not pyjamas.

Our question still stands.

What do you think of these crimes of fashion? Are there any you’d wear? 

Style On Trial, Trousers/Pants

Trends on Trial | Baggy Trousers

This season, ZARA is carrying a lot of stuff like this:

ZARA autumn 2014 trouaers

ZARA autumn 2014 trouaers

ZARA autumn 2014 trouaers

ZARA autumn 2014 trouaers

All items: ZARA

And, OK, they’re not all “baggy”. Not exactly. Some are just stretchy. And have obviously been victimized by our old enemy, The Foot Snatcher.  Others, meanwhile, look a lot like sleepwear, or yoga pants, or some other kind of “not necessarily intended to be worn as a fashion statement… or as outdoor clothes” garments.

These ARE meant to be worn out of doors, and they’re quite a departure from the usual round of super-skinny jeans and leggings-as-pants which have reigned supreme over the fashion world for years now, so we naturally want to know what you think of them. To take the case for the defence first, we guess you could argue that:

♦  They look REALLY comfortable.

♦  Er, that’s pretty much it, really.

So, does the comfort factor make you want to don a 70s-inspired turtleneck-n-flares combo? Will foot-snatcher-style palazzo pants be replacing the skinny jeans in your wardrobe this season? One thing we can tell you is that, whether you like it or not, you probably haven’t seen the last of these styles: flares in particular seem to be making something of a comeback this season, and while all of the trousers shown above were found at Zara, they’re far from the only culprit, and we’ve been noticing a growing trend for baggy trousers at many of our other usual haunts too.

What do you think, Fashion Police jurors? Are you so grateful to have an alternative to skinnies that you don’t mind looking like your feet have been snatched, or are these outfits a step too far in the opposite direction? Leave us a comment and let us know if you think these are crimes of fashion, or innocent of all charges…

Crimes of Fashion, Trousers/Pants

Fashion Crimes: The ‘That Can’t Be Comfortable’ Edition

There are two types of fashion crime in the word: the clothes we wouldn’t want to wear because of the way they LOOK, and the clothes we wouldn’t want to wear because we just can’t imagine ever feeling comfortable in them.

Sometimes the discomfort is the literal kind:

leather harem shorts

Leather square gusset shorts, $510

Leather shorts don’t strike us as particularly comfortable at the best of times (IS there a “best time” for leather shorts, we wonder? ), but leather SQUARE GUSSET shorts? Nuh-uh? Even if that leather is the buttery-soft variety, can you imagine walking around with all that bunched-up leather between your legs? (Sorry, there just wasn’t a non-vulgar-sounding way of putting that…) Even worse that these are shorts, so presumably intended to be worn on warm days. We haven’t tried them, so there’s every chance they’re super-comfortable, of course, but, well, we’re probably not going to spend $510 to find out, are you?

As well as the apparent physical discomfort of certain items, however, there’s also the discomfort that comes from knowing that the slightest of movements could easily result in a wardrobe malfunction of the “here’s my underwear!” kind:

ASOS sheer stripe dress

ASOS sheer stripe dress, £22

Yes, you could always wear a slip or something under it, but that would defeat the “edgy” purpose of wearing a dress like this in the first place, wouldn’t it?

We get a similar vibe from this dress:

rick owens dress

Rick Owens dress, £208

The way it draws the eye directly to the crotch is almost uncanny, isn’t it? The only thing that would MORE effectively let people know that your crotch was almost on show would be a giant arrow pointing to it, and saying, “Hey, folks! If I make one wrong move, or there’s the slightest gust of wind, you’ll get to see my underwear!”

Our final example, meanwhile, DOESN’T carry a risk of arrest for indecent exposure: well, not unless you consider the back of the thighs to be “indecent”:

tie dye trousers

[from here]

To be fair, these are probably more… unusual… than anything else, but imagine the backs of your thighs constantly coming into contact with every cold or potentially dirty surface you might sit on or lean against. Now do you get why we think they’d be uncomfortable?

Crimes of Fashion, Trousers/Pants

The Emperor’s New Fendi Trousers

Well, whaddya know: it looks like our old friend The Emperor got himself some new trousers!

tights with attached skirt

[Buy them here for £136]

It’s hard to be sure just from the evidence before us, but we THINK what we’re looking at here is a pair of tights, with a useless, totally sheer skirt attached to them. Which is awesome, because how many times have you been getting dressed in the morning and thought to yourself, “If only these tights had a flo0r-length, almost-invisible skirt attached!” SO many times. But actually, no, no times at all. We can’t even IMAGINE thinking that. We’re not sure why anyone would?

Oh, and we also think what we’re looking at here is the model’s bare ass. It’s possible she’s wearing a thong – we really don’t care enough for a close-up examination here – but if you really MUST wear reasonably sheer tights, with a reasonably sheer skirt over them, we’d suggest NOT going for the triple fashion crime score by adding a pair of sheer knickers. Maybe just keep that kind of thing for the privacy of your own home, yes?

Just to add to the fun that is this garment (And what do you call a tights/skirt hybrid anyway? a “skirght”, perhaps?), these tights sort of resemble a skin disease, don’t they? We’re not convinced they’d even look good worn AS TIGHTS, let alone as “skirghts”, but if you feel differently, and think you could make them work, the good news is that they’re currently on sale at, for “just” £136, down from the original price of £341.

The BAD news, meanwhile, is that there’s just one pair left, which means there are probably more of them out there, walking around in public. Let’s just hope whoever bought them was mindful of the “just add knickers” rule outlined above…

Style On Trial, Trousers/Pants

Even ASOS think these trousers are an awkward length: would you wear them?

ASOS awkward length trousers

ASOS awkward length trousers, £35

When these trousers first appeared on the ASOS website yesterday, the product description called them “awkward length trousers”: in fact, they’re still described that way in the Google search:



Since then, however, they’ve changed the description, and now simply describe them as “cropped trousers in tropical Hawaiian print”. Which is a little less… awkward. Well, we guess it doesn’t make great business sense to describe your own products as “awkward”, although there’s no doubt that this is a length many people would agree is, indeed, somewhat difficult to wear. Why? Well, it’s a length that hits right at the widest part of the calf, thus drawing the eye straight to it: if you have short legs already, they’ll look even shorter, and if you’re at all self-conscious about your calves, then having all eyes on them might not make you feel exactly comfortable.

Are these reasons not to wear this length, though? Not at all. It may be “awakward”, but it’s no less awkward than the midi skirt, which has been enjoying huge popularity for a while now, and we reckon the same basic “rules” of engagement apply. If you want to make a mid-calf skirt look less awkward, you make sure to wear something fitted on top (we recommend crop tops: not the type that show acres of belly, but the type which sit right on the waistband), and to avoid very clumpy, leg-shortening shoes. The same principles apply to the “awkward length” pant: it may require a bit more thought than you’d give to a regular length, but it’s by no means a lost cause.

That doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll want to actually wear these awkward-length trousers that are currently “on trend” (or so the internet informs us) however. While the loose cut of these makes them very culotte-like, and suggests they might look more or less like a skirt when worn (which we like: all the style of a full skirt, without the worry of weather-related wardrobe malfunctions), the elasticated waist and floral print also suggests that they COULD look a little like harem pants. Which we DON’T like.

What do you think of awkward-length trousers? Crime of fashion, or gold star material?

(Oh, and while ASOS may have changed the product description on this one, they are still selling “awkward” pants in their Tall section, here!)


Daylight Robbery? Manish Aurora’s £500 sequined leggings

sequinned leggings

Sequinned leggings, £541 at Louisa Via Roma

First up, these aren’t actually £500: phew!

Nope, they#re £540. D’OH. (For the benefit of our US readers, that’s somewhere in the region of $900. Yes.)

Also: these aren’t actually leggings. Louisa Via Roma have, for reasons best known to the themselves, neglected to provide a full-length photo of the suspect (Because we don’t know about you, but when we’re spending £500+ on a pair of leggings, we totally don’t feel the need to actually see what we’ll be getting for our money. No way, we’ll just hand over that credit card, and trust in the designer fashion Gods to make everything OK…), but from what our detectives can gather, they appear to be a very fancy pair of sheer tights, with sequins attached from the thigh down. So, they’re not so much “leggings” as they are “Nylons-Pretending-to-Be-Sequinned-Legwarmers”. Just what the world was crying out for, in other words.

Is this an act of daylight robbery, we wonder?

In the suspect’s defence, these probably weren’t the easiest things in the world to make. If those sequins were hand-sewn then we really don’t envy the person who was given that particular task. On the other hand, we don’t particularly envy the person who buys them either, because, aside from the fact that there are so many other things we could imagine spending that £500 / $900 on, what we CAN’T imagine is getting these on or off without shredding the sheer section and thus ruining our £500 leggings. And how would you wash them?

So many questions come to mind with this suspect (One important one being the small matter of where on earth you’d actually WEAR them), but the one we’re most concerned with today is figuring out whether you consider this to be an act of Daylight Robbery.

Do you?

Crimes of Fashion, Trousers/Pants

Fashion Crime Friday |Ugly pants, under arrest

This week’s Fashion Crime roundup has a ‘Terrible Trousers’ theme. “Terrible in what way, Fashion Police?” we hear you ask. Well, let’s take a look…

Suspect # 1 | The ‘2 Become 1’ Pants

2 become 1 pants

[Buy them here]

You all know by now how we feel about Stuck Together Clothes Crimes, but we don’t think it gets much worse than when a pair of drop-crotch sweatpants (At least, we THINK they’re drop-crotch. It’s hard to tell when they’re designed to look like they’re permanently falling down…) is stuck to a pair of acid-wash jeans. The only thing worse than that would be if… nope, actually, we were right the first time: there’s NOTHING worse than that. And while SOME Stuck-Together-Clothes Crimes have at least a little bit of logic behind them (We’re not saying we’d ever want to stick a cardigan to a tank top, for instance, but we can at least imagine wearing those two items together, and thus understand why the stuck-togther-ness might have seemed like a good idea at the time.), this item makes the model look like she’s wearing sweatpants OVER THE TOP OF JEANS. Because people do that now, apparently. Do people do that now? Is this a thing, the sweatpants-over-jeans? Because we may need to call in some reinforcements, if so.

Then there’s these:

crushed polyester pants

[buy them here]

Suspect #2 | Crushed polyester pants

“Crushed polyester”: if ever there were two words to make us NOT want to wear something, those would be the two words. These pants could only be IMPROVED by attaching them to something else: ideally something that would cover them completely, because as they are, they just look like sad clown pants. The good news is that these WERE £500, but have now been reduced to £100. We know it’s hard to understand why they didn’t rush off the  shelves at the original price, but that’s one of the great mysteries of fashion, isn’t it?

Suspect #3 | Chilling Maxing & Relaxing Cover Up Pants

cover up pants

[Buy them here]

‘Chilling Maxing & Relaxing Cover Up Pants’ isn’t our description of these trousers: it’s their actual name. It fairly trips off the tongue, too, doesn’t it? “Oh,” you’d say, after a hard day at work, “I think I’m going to go cange into my Chilling Maxing & Relaxing Cover Up Pants!” In their defence, the fact that these trousers have the word “cover up” in their lengthy name suggests that they’re designed to be worn as a swimwear cover-up, (Either that, or they’re “covering up” some other kind of fashion crime…) and not as street wear. This, however, raises another question that’s troubled us for a while now, namely: why are cover-ups always so ugly? Is there some kind of law about this that we’re not aware of? Seriously people, it’s a beach, not an ugly pants party – these may well cover you up, but that doesn’t mean they’ll look good while they’re doing it.


pink patent pants

[Buy them here]

Suspect # 4 | The pink patent pants

Oh, fabulous: pink patent pants with an attached skirt – it’s like a Matrix costume for My Little Pony. And it’s $1,200, too!

We guess the only questions remaining now are whether you consider these items to be crimes of fashion? And if so, which is the worst of them?

Crimes of Fashion, Trousers/Pants

Just when we thought leggings-as-pants couldn’t get any worse…

sheer leggings

Murmur stretch leggings, £117

And they’re £117, too. That seems reasonable for a pair of glorified tights, no? No?

In fairness, there’s really nothing to suggest that these leggings will ever be worn as pants. Well, nothing other than the small fact that leggings ALWAYS seem to end up being worn as pants these days, don’t they? And also the fact that if you were shopping from this brand, you might find yourself tempted to wear them with this:


Murmur t-shirt, £91

Awesome: a t-shirt that’ll make everyone briefly think that someone’s reaching up to play with your… peaches. Or whatever that’s supposed to be in the disembodied hand.

Want to take a closer look? Here you go:

jersey skirt

Murmur jersey skirt, £104

Yup, it’s a “Look At My Crotch” skirt! And if you really want to see what those hands are supposed to be doing, well, just be thankful this is a photo you’re looking at, because in real life it’s generally not considered good manners to stare at someone’s crotch. Which brings us right back to the leggings-as-pants issue, and the question: would you wear them? Would you wear any of the items on this page? Or do you want us to arrest them and have them charged with committing crimes of fashion?

Crimes of Fashion, Trousers/Pants

The Ugliest Trousers of 2013

The Ugliest Trousers of 2013 from

Happy Friday, everyone!

We hope you had a good Christmas if you were celebrating, and that you’re enjoying the holiday season. Our officers are currently responding to fashion emergencies only, so today we’re continuing our look back at the fashion crimes of 2013, with a roundup of some truly terrible trousers.

Trousers account for a large section of the Fashion Police jail, and rather than attempting to sort them into their various categories, we’ve decided simply to lump them all together: ugly pants, united in crimes. Trousers, leggings, shorts, jumpsuits – if it has two legs, basically, and we arrested it in the past year, you’ll find it here.

Oh, except for jeans. Jeans have their own section of the jail, and we’ll be visiting it shortly. For now, here are some of the ugliest trousers of 2013!

Gallery: The Ugliest Trousers of 2013

Crimes of Fashion, Trousers/Pants

“Tail Trousers” by Doriane Van Overeem: exactly what they sound like

tail trousers

“Tail Trousers” by Doriane Van Overeem, $585

We were going to keep these for our regularly scheduled “Fashion Crime Friday” post, but they’re just so mind-blowingly awesome we thought they deserved a Fashion Police Crime File all to themselves.

These suspects go by the name of “tail pants”. They’re pants with… tails. But you got that, didn’t you? The “tails” in question are simply the legs of the pants themselves, which have been extended far (far, far…) below the ankle, or even the foot, and which continue on, trailing along the floor behind you in what Opening Ceremony describe as a “regal” fashion. Which is certainly ONE way to describe these, we have to give them that.

Our first concern when viewing these was that they were simply extra, extra long pants, which would therefore be impossible to walk in. Upon closer inspection, however, you can see that they do, in fact, have little slits cut in the fabric, through which the foot can protrude, making movement possible, if not exactly easy. We’re going to assume these aren’t really designed for outdoor wear: not only do we shudder to think what kind of state those “tails” would be in after even a short stroll along the average city street, just imagine how many times people would stand on them? That really rules out parties, concerts and any other event at which you could reasonably expect to encounter other people, which leaves us wondering where you’d actually wear these $585 pants? At home? To work? Where?

If you know the answer to these questions, then:

a) Good for you

b) Please share

c) They’re available at Opening Ceremony, where you can take your pick of three different colours: red, pink or floral print.

 Get them here

Fashion Trends, Trousers/Pants

Fancy Pants | Trousers get all dressed up

fancy pants: evening trousers

L-R: ASOS trousers in floral jacquard | Banana Republic Camden fit gold skinny ankle pants | J Crew Collection cafe capri pants

Something strange is going on in the world of trousers. And it’s probably J Crew’s fault.

It’s been happening for a while, actually. It’s almost as if trousers are tired of being the boring old backbone of many an outfit: now they want to be the STAR. They don’t want to be black, or grey, or navy, or any other dull, block colour. No, trousers want to shine: literally. Brocade. Jacquard. High-shine gold and silver. Tile print. Embroidery. You name it, trousers are ON IT – or ITS on THEM, rather.

This new breed of trouser is bold, colourful, and nothing like your standard black pants. Dressy enough to work as evening wear (Goodbye, little black dress!), shiny cigarette pants have a very luxurious, almost decadent feel to them, but they CAN also look just a little bit like expensive pyjama pants if you’re not careful. Despite this, they’ve become increasingly popular in recent months, and that popularity seems set to increase as the upcoming Christmas party season creates more of a demand for shiny gold (and silver, and pink…) things.

Well, these trousers are certainly shiny: much dressier than we’ve come to expect trousers to be, some of the fabrics are almost reminiscent of Christmas wrapping paper, which could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your point of view. So, what IS your point if view on this trend? Do you think it’s about time trousers stepped out of the shadows of some of the more “interesting” items out there, and started making a statement all of their own? Or are you looking at these photos and thinking they’re nice looking pyjama pants, but not something you’d wear in public?

Are fancy pants a crime of fashion?

Crimes of Fashion, Trousers/Pants

Fashion Crime Files | Terrible Trousers

Trousers. So easy to get right. But also, apparently, so easy to get catastrophically WRONG. This week our officers have been policing the world of pants, and here are a few of the suspects they’ve brought in to our trouser unit for questioning:

JeanPaul Gaultier trousers with one sheer leg


Jean Paul Gaultier, £877

Ah, the Half-Pant! Part totally sheer legging, part baggy combat trouser! Well, some morning’s you just can’t decide, and thanks to this ingenious item, you don’t half to! The only thing that would make this better would be if the model was wearing two different shoes, to match the two different legs of her trousers. Heroes in a Half-Pant!



Comme des Garcons, £672

Is that a growth on the leg of these trousers? Because you might want to get that checked out, if so…

Rick Owens harem pants

Rick Owens harem pants, £319

This suspect appears to be wearing some kind of strange cross between an adult diaper and a pair of men’s underpants. The saggy ass and sheer fabric would’ve made this an automatic arrest for us, but if you look closely, you’ll see that the legs of this… garment… are unhemmed, which makes the £319 price tag even harder to understand. We’re charging this one with Daylight Robbery as well as crimes of fashion.

fur legged trousersYeti-leg trousers, £150

We’re pretty sure we’ve arrested either these, or something very like them, before, but darn it, if those prisoners don’t keep escaping our clutches! These “Yeti Legs”, as we call them, are now back on the market, for the bargain price of £150. They look… like they’d be very warm in the winter. That’s really the most we can say about them, though.

This is obviously just a small selection of the terrible trousers that are out there right now, so please, Fashion Police officers-in-training: stay vigilant, keep an eye out for potential fashion infringements, and if you think you’ve spotted one, don’t forget to call The Fashion Police!