Archive for the ‘Fashion’ Category

Where Are You?

I’m behind you!

No, I’m over here. Mostly rabbiting on about fashion, etc and promoting the store — so I’d give it a miss if I were you.

Read Full Post »

Is Katy Price Too Old?

Is Katy Price Too Old?

The above photograph was one of a number to feature in a piece in the Daily Mail, in which the reporter posed this question: Aren’t you too old to STILL be stripping off in public, Katie Price?

Katy Price is 30. She was modelling her new lingerie range.

So, is this (unnamed) reporter suggesting that women over the age of 29 shouldn’t model underwear? Whatever you think of Katy  —  tacky/should go blond again/money obsessed/cruel to poor Peter/better without the fake boobs, etc — there’s still something a bit weird about the idea of the under thirty cut-off point.

Read Full Post »


Just a little reminder that the £100 for One Hundred Words competition is still running over at Larkin & Catcher. The competition is poetry-related but even if you’re not a budding poet it’s worth having a go, as the prize is £100 worth of items from the Larkin & Catcher store. I know I’m biased but there really are some lovely things there and you could either keep them for yourself or store them up as gifts for birthdays or even Christmas (I’d just keep them).

The image above is nothing to do with the competition or Larkin & Catcher but it’s one I found on a CD of clipart I just bought. Is it just me or does the one on the right have some sort of creepy extra eye? The ‘rabbit’ on the left just looks evil. No wonder kids have nightmares — and come to think of it — the L&C logo does have those freaky little rabbit-type creatures on it…

Read Full Post »


You know how I said that I would never leave you — even if you kicked and screamed and begged until your throat was red and raw and you’d near enough run out of every very last bit of energy? Well it’s true as that welt on your face and those crazy red eyes you’ve got from beating yourself up over this.  But a girl’s got to do what a girls gotta do and I’m over at the opposition for a while. NOW QUIT THAT! A promise is a promise and I’ll be back here in no time at all — say a month or two.

In the meantime you can catch me over at Larkin & Catcher’s Very Best Things. Don’t go there unless you don’t mind reading about fashion and you don’t have a problem about me promoting my day job. Welcome to the jungle…

Read Full Post »

I’ve just found this Victorian Travel Coat at J. Peterman  — which fits in quite well with my current obsession with all things Steampunk. It’s on sale just now for $129.00 — if I wasn’t such as short-arse I think I’d go for it.


Read Full Post »

Wee Birdy is a blog devoted  to ‘shopping, style, beauty and more’. The blogger is an Australian-born freelance journalist, now living in London — and seems to know what she’s talking about when it comes to fashion.

There are some great posts (and photos) on her recent trip to Paris — where she does a nice round-up of all the best places to shop (why didn’t I think of that? All I came back with was a toothache…).

The blog looks to be relatively new but I reckon it’s going to be a winner. Despite some exhaustive research (a quick scan over the profile page) I’ve not discovered the *name of this blogger yet but I’m on the case.

*I’ve just noticed that she signs herself  Top Bird on her posts — so that will do for now.

Read Full Post »

_38040325_baggytrousers.jpg   So the mayor of Delcambre in Louisiana is about to sign a law making it a criminal offence to wear baggy trousers which expose the wearers undergarments. When I first heard about that, I thought it had to be some sort of a joke – criminalising people because of a fashion choice. In the Land of the Free.

Seemingly, the rationale for the ban is that some people find it offensive for others to have their underwear on display in public. And there may be some support for the ban among Delcambre residents, as a recent online poll revealed that a majority of respondents were in favour of the ban — though it may be the case that any potential trouser-criminals were too busy enjoying life to take any notice the poll. I can understand that some people are not too keen on the sight of other people underwear being on display but I can’t see how that ‘dislike’ can be stretched to a situation where one group’s disapproval of a fashion preference is enough to criminalize another group of people.

There seems to be a distinct trend for this form social interference in recent years: one group of people take a dislike to a particular activity and then seek ways justifying sanctions aimed at eliminating the targeted behaviour. The number one tactic (which has recently overtaken the ‘it’s-for-your own-good’ approach) is to bleat on about how detrimental someone’s lifestyle choices are to the controlling group. In the case of baggy trousers, the law is ‘justified’ because it is supposedly offensive to the eye and moral sensibilities of onlookers (the ‘because something can be perceived by one of my senses, I have the right to outlaw your behaviour and impose my will on you’ phenomenon). Live and let live doesn’t come into it.

If the Fashion Police hit the UK shores, I’m going to jump on the bandwagon and lobby against the various fashion disasters that insult my eye on a daily basis.  Middle-aged men in over-tight jeans will be the first on my hit-list. I know there’s not that many of them out there and I that don’t have to look — and that I invaribly avert my gaze from their offensive ancient trouser-packets – but that’s not the point. They’re out there and they have to be stopped – six months in the slammer may well put a stop to their tight-slacks shenanigans.

nose-hair.jpg   Nose hair, too. Not strictly fashion-related but highly offensive to my sensibilities and there’s no excuse for it, as every man of a certain age has surely been presented with at least one nose/ear hair trimmer device during each and every festive season. I know it is my present of choice for every male acquaintance over the age of thirty.

I want cropped trousers banned too, not only because they only look good on an infinitesimal percentage of the world’s population but because some moral deviants insist on wearing them with socks (dirty beggars) and I’m offended by the sight of other people’s socks (socks should be private, socks pollute the air, socks howl at the moon…).

purdey.jpg   I can see how this Banning Everything can get to be addictive. I’m becoming quite power-crazed just pondering on what I could ban next. I think I’ll make a start on hairstyles that don’t meet with my approval. Yesterday, for instance, I had to put up with standing in a supermarket queue behind a little old lady who was sporting a hideously inappropriate Pageboy haircut, no doubt a leftover from her heyday in the1960’s.

This latter-day Purdey had also omitted to fasten the top two buttons of her blouse, thus exposing me to the sight of her underwear (a thermal vest, if I’m not mistaken). I could also detect a slight whiff of lavender fragrance emulating from her. I detest lavender, yet the Jezebel had the nerve to inflict it on me – it near-enough drowned-out my own delightful Gaultier scent. That woman’s days are numbered in more ways than she can imagine.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »