Scotland the brave

You can't have failed to notice the recent furor over events in Scotland concerning the Lockerbie bombing and the subsequent fallout. Part of this including people calling on others to boycott Scotland and products associated with them.

Harris Tweed, the famous clothing brand, was reportedly going to tone down its Scottishness, in order to avoid any adverse business arising from this boycott. However, Betty Davies, the Edinburgh-based designer and fashion consultant, said that any strategy downplaying the origins of the fabric would be a “serious mistake” and maintained that the claims could instead be motivated by an attempt to harm the Scottish government, said an article by The Times.

It's an interesting point. Any company or brand that uses its country of origin as a selling point does risk the (admittedly rare) chance the brand could become devalued in the eyes of the population. The Boycott Scotland movement doesn't seem like it will go far, and it would be harsh to subject hard-working people to a boycott over a decision they had no involvement in, but it's been enough of an issue that the company has become involved in the news in this way.

Fashionable first lady

Apologies for the missing blogs over the last two day - we were in Birmingham - so access to internet was minimal to non-existant. Never fear though we're back and it's Friday and it's now British Summer Time.

Our first blog for today (we'll do two because we know how upset you would have been at missing out for two days) concerns that inspiring woman, Michelle Obama. Not content with delievering moving, passionate speeches to school children, she is also enthralling the fashion commentators (who are a tough bunch to please) with her stylish clothing choices for high-end functions, without ever losing the personnal touch that makes her so respected.

Tune in latter for our tips for the Grand National...

Behind every great man...

So despite what we all thought, that Obama was a snappy dresser and so forth, it turns out, from his wife of all people that, 'he knows nothing about fashion'.

This is a wonderful extract from the story, from Michelle Obama: "He's always asking: 'Is that new? I haven't seen that before,'" she said, revealing that she replies: "Why don't you mind your own business? Solve world hunger. Get out of my closet."

The idea of Obama mooching in a closet, idly running his hands down some clothes, wondering if something is new, before being admonished to 'solve world hunger', is a bizarre one, but it's nice to know the Obama's have their cute domestic moments too.

American Idol

Brown met Obama yesterday and had a right old chinwag...for 20 minutes. The Guardian have today written a short piece on the choice of suits for the occasion and have come across as a big old (blue) meanie having the temerity to suggest Brown can't carry off a suit compared to the President. Not very patriotic is it?

Little gold men

So the Oscars have come and gone, in a triumph of red carpets, gowns and awards, and thankfully no tears from Kate Winslet. Incidentally, did any papers go for "Kate Wins-it"? It's what we would use if we covered such events.

The Best Costumer Design went to the The Duchess - that period drama with Keira Knightley - but Slumdog Millionaire was the biggest triumph of the night - they must be raking it in...

Some nice frocks and gowns and so forth where on display too - a gallery of some of them here - we've yet to spot anything resembling a disaster, but no doubt they happened - if you saw any, or have any opinions on what was on show - dresses or films - let us know using the comments button below!

All change

Unless you've been living under a rock for the last year you'll know there's a new guy at the White House, and he's rather popular. As the 'new guy' everything Obama is doing is undergoing close scrutiny, particularly in reference to how Dubya did it before.

This is a fascinating article from the New York Times looking at how dress codes have changed in the space of a few days. Where once jackets and ties were a must in the Oval Office, now a more laid-back, casual approach is allowed - partly because the Hawaiian-born Obama has the heat turned up higher than Bush did.

Not only that, it's now a casual Saturday at the White House too. It must be strange for the staff, having to suddenly reconsider their wardrobe. Where once a suit was the one and only, now there is suddenly a choice - or change if you will - in what they can wear.

Would you want that? If a new boss suddenly said you could wear what you like? Or does the staple suit-and-tie mean you can get up safe in the knowledge you don't have to think about what to wear - beyond what will match and what won't? Let us know below.

Changing colours

Fabrics that change colour - sounds pretty cool eh? One American company has moved into this market with aplomb and four years from their inception are starting to make waves with their garments.

Their catalogue includes T-shirts that glow for up to eight hours, hoodies that sprout designs when exposed to cold, and could add bikinis that change color in water - the mind boggles.

The company made the jump from glowing necklaces to color-changing fabrics and they now work with a variety of clients, including Sears, Kmart, and Honda, according to Clayton, vice president.

'People have a big fascination with things they don't comprehend.' Karl Clayton said. 'Touching a piece of fabric that instantly changes color always results in a "wow."'

2 cents worth

So yesterday was pretty historic then. What little opinion we would add merely concerns the clothing on display, which understandably, was smart, upstanding, and very respectable - which is as it should be. Doesn't Obama look good though in his suits. Our statesmen, while never looking bad, rarely look good in them like he does. But perhaps we're all just peering through a haze of misty-eyed optimism that will soon dry up.

For a fantastic satellite image of the crowds from yesterday, click here. Trust us, it's worth it.

No pants on the underground

Would you go outside and use public transport not wearing any trousers? No? Of course not. At any time that would be ludicrous but especially at the moment considering the cold out there!

But consider the fact that this weekend hundreds of people across the globe, from New York to Warsaw to Sydney, spent the weekend travelling on underground systems not wearing any trousers - or 'pants' to explain the Americanisation of our headline.

Why? Well, just for a laugh really. Some laugh! The rules say you can't acknowledge you are taking part in an official event and that you have to make up an excuse as to why you have no trousers on - 'no clean pair', 'laundry day' - if anyone asks. All very strange.

Still, it does underline the fact people love to experiment with clothing and society's expected codes by subverting the norm for their own amusement...well a bit of philosophising on a Monday afternoon never hurt anyone.

On the streets

Louis Theroux in Philadelphia was on BBC2 on Sunday night and those who watched it will have noticed our intrepid journalist (aren't they all) wearing a flak jacket to give him protection on the mean streets he was investigating.

Here he's written an article on the BBC about the experience of filming the show, and with quite a few mentions of what the body armour did, why they had it, and what it felt like to wear it. It's quite an interesting read.

A bit tasteless

America is often the source of some of the more bizarre stories that crop up from time to time. This one is no different. High heels for babies. Yeah, we're not so keen either.

The US designers said they had 'fun, hilarity and glamour' in mind when creating the shoes. Are fun, hilarity and glamour a well known trio? Surely glamour goes with style and grace?

Dressed to shame?

Sir Ian Blair has brought a debate back to the fore that's been bubbling away for many years. He called for criminals on community service to wear uniforms so that, "people can see those people (offenders) have been sentenced to a community project."

However, as long-time readers of Company Clothing will know, this is not a new topic. In 2005 Hazel Blears called for a similar scheme and much backlash ensued, from MP Ann Widdecombe ("it might be worn as a badge of honour") to civil rights group Liberty ("degradation is no way of engendering a culture of respect").

In America this type of activity already exists, in a predictably bizarre way, with people being made to wear chicken suits to be shamed for their crimes. While it is obvious the UK would never take things to this extreme the question is still yet be resolved around uniforms for offenders on community service.

What do you think? Is this something that should be brought in or is it a step too far? What if the uniform was made to be tasteful and smart rather than designed to be bold and make them standout for the wrong reasons? Would that make it more acceptable?

Protesting the badge

As some of you may remember we recently blogged about the resentment that many war veterans and their partners had felt by news that the American army insignias for the 1st Infantry Division was to be used on clothing.

The story continues to make the headlines with the news yesterday, on the 90th anniversary of the Armistice of WWI, that many veterans had been out actively protesting against the clothing now on sale with these insignias, with that famous American brand, Sears, the recipients of their protest.

It is doubtful the US Army ever thought their decision to license the insignia for commercial clothing would cause such debate but it underlines the emotional strength such insignias and clothing can have and that to open them up for anyone to wear dilutes what makes them special.
What do you think about this?

Election day

So today is the day. The American Election is upon us. What the outcome will be seems decided (if the polls are correct), what the will hold though is unknown. But even among all this there are stories about clothing tucked away behind the more heavy-hitting articles on foreign policy and economic policies.

The story concerns a woman who went to vote and was told she couldn't because she was wearing 'a campaign t-shirt'. Except the t-shirt was only a souvenir t-shirt she had bought when on holiday in Alaska. American voting law, in some states, forbids the wearing of clothing that is of a direct campaigning nature or shows the candidate images, and a polling official believed the reference to Alaska to be of a serious enough level to ban her from voting.

Eventually she got to cast her vote after some good conflict management resolution by the polling officer in overall charge, which is the main thing.

The devil wears a $150,000 wardrobe

It’s far to say whatever the outcome of the American presidential elections the name Sarah Palin will live on long after the party is over and the banners have been taken down at either the Democrat’s or Republican’s victory parades.

Certainly for the shopkeepers of America she will be remembered – after the news on the BBC website that a staggering $150,000 (£92,000) has been spent by the Republican National Committee on fitting the Alaskan governor out with a new wardrobe – some wardrobe!

More used to being dressed in furs and hunting gear, one imagines, she was given the makeover after she was announced as John McCain’s running mate and they thought she needed some new outfits.

Is this right? In an economic climate as unsure as ours, should politicians be fitted out in such a lavish amount of clothing? Does it really make a difference anyway towards the final vote? What do you think?