Style icks: What would you censor in the fashion world?

When you think of 74-year-old British gardener and broadcaster Alan Titchmarsh, who helms the wholesome ITV gardening show Love Your Garden, censorship is probably not the first word that springs to mind.

Still, that hasn’t deterred North Korea’s state television Central TV, which has censored a 2010 episode of the BBC gardening programme Alan Titchmarsh's Garden Secrets (which does sound a bit filthy, come to think of it).

The reason? His jeans.

They blurred out presenter Titchmarsh's trousers, as jeans are seen as a symbol of western imperialism in the secretive state - and are therefore banned.

According to Seoul-based NK News, North Korea's rules prohibiting jeans have been in place since the 1990s. Then leader Kim Jong-il declared denim trousers to be a symbol of Western - and specifically American - imperialism, which had no place in a socialist state keen on cracking down on Western culture.

It is not clear how the regime acquired the rights to Garden Secrets to air the show, but the green-fingered presenter’s denim-clad lallies are now barred.

This got us thinking about the fashion items which irk our delicate sensibilities and which we’d like to prohibit from life.

Here are our picks for censorship - from head to toe:

Mini fisherman beanies

What is it? The mini fisherman beanie hat.

Popular with? Assorted straight men who all claim to be “creative directors” at amorphous companies while secretly living off their parents’ fortunes.

Why should it be blurred? These hats cling onto men’s heads with the same flimsy grasp they keep hold of their multiple situationships before the inevitable ghosting. Don’t want to commit fully to a person/career/aesthetic/subculture/fashion accessory? Boy, have we got the hat for you. An insult to the institution of hats, this Hackney coaster won’t keep your hair from getting wet, nor will it ever be removed when indoors. Its only perceivable purpose is to shield an owner’s bald spot with a level or precision that is only more likely to highlight a spartan scalp when it is eventually, finally, begrudgingly taken off. There is one more purpose, to identify for all those in the perimeter that the owner is someone so taken in by a supposed “alternative” Instagrammable aesthetic that they have renounced any of their own individual creativity. The irony being that these mini fishermens are most often worn by creative types (graphic designer nepo babies). Butch lesbians with stick-and-poke tats are exempt from this fashion critique. JW

Drinking-themed t-shirts

What is it? T-shirts with slogans that make drinking alcohol a personality trait.

Popular with? White middle class mums with a taste for crushed velvet furnishings and sharing Facebook memes like, “Drink responsibly means... Don't spill it!"

Why it should be blurred? Look, nobody cares if you drink alcohol. There’s nothing cute or quirky about developing a dependance on a substance to cope with yet another day of cursed consciousness on this hellish planet. So, and I'm saying this as a friend, can we please stop with the cringe drinking-themed t-shirt slogans now? Prosecco did not make you do it, “wine not” doesn’t even make any sense, and maybe we’ll “be-gin to have fun” when you get help for your crippling addiction to bad boozy puns. Or just booze. Wait, are you trying to tell us something? AB

One-huge-hole "grunge" jeans

What is it? Denim that appears to have been mauled by a tiger hellbent on creating a dispiriting festival of idiocy.

Popular with? Supposably “angst-ridden” young adults dabbling in Instagram fame – usually women trying terribly hard to look like a rebel or embracing what they believe is a lazy hobo look. They’re not rocking that grunge appeal - and Kurt Cobain did not die almost 30 years ago for this nonsense.

Why should it be blurred? There are a few legwear trends that make me want to gouge my eyes out. There’s the Berlin hipster trouser cut that shows off far too much sock and makes people look like overgrown toddlers... Or those parachute pants that just scream “Oh yah, I’m so into Eastern mysticism since my gap yaaaaah which was totes bants and soooo spiritually rewarding”... Embrace what works for you and all that, but there is one particular fashion faux pas that gets me gutterally gagging even more. You know the ones – the denims with one huge distressed hole in each leg, making it look like someone has performed a full-on autopsy on a pair of Levi’s and thrown in the butcher's apron before sew-up. These jeans – or lack thereof – are the work of designers who would be more useful in a coma. It’s not that the love-the-rip-hate-the-Sweet-Home-Alabamacore-holes defy the very purpose of trousers in the first place or expose too much flesh – it's the fact that the flaps (easy back there) depressingly droop off your legs, expose the pockets, as well as the incontrovertible fact that you could be wearing a) nothing or b) a pair of skimpy shorts, and you wouldn't look as stupid. The core of my ick though is that this particular fashion no-no takes a style I love (grunge) and cheapens it by exagerrating it to the point of no return. It's a look that gives beloved ripped and distressed jeans (which are still a damn fine look) a bad name. Plus, they make me want to join the chorus of terrible “Did you pay less for such little material?” jokes. And no one needs that. Still, you’re not rebelling against the system or honouring the 90s with this look – you're just revealing you’re about as edgy as a Babybel. DM

UGGs

What is it? The seemingly unkillable UGG boot.

Popular with? Everyone in the early 2000s – and now a whole new generation of victims.

Why should it be blurred? I would like to herby declare an official ban on wearing UGG boots as a fashion statement. Yes, I want those wooly abominations that have inexplicably clawed their back into the mainstream perished. Their time has come and gone. The hideous over-sized slippers reached the peak of their popularity in the early 2000s and were a staple of celebrities like Paris Hilton and Kate Moss. But as is the cyclical nature of fashion, they soon faded into obscurity. But regrettably, over the past year or two, they have resurfaced… Now, whenever I leave the house, everywhere I turn I’m confronted by people shuffling along the streets with their ethically questionable sheepskin-wrapped tootsies, oblivious to the fashion crimes they’re committing. While I understand the appeal of their snug comfort when worn within the confines of one's home, parading them about in public, especially when paired with jeans, is simply unacceptable behaviour. And those who wear these fuzzy monstrosities seem to have forgotten their original purpose. Created in the late 70s for surfers to slip into post-wave, UGG boots were intended for functionality, not fashion. And yet, here we are. And the worst part? Even my girlfriend has succumbed to their fluffy allure. If ever there were grounds for reconsidering our relationship, it would be this… TF

So, essentially, we here at Euronews Culture would have a collective nightmare if we encountered this person (and not just because they're mssing a head and a set of arms):

Wouldn't you?