Horse 3346 - THE PEOPLE V JOHN LE FEVRE [2024] - Judgement

THE PEOPLE V JOHN LE FEVRE [2024] - Judgement

The Fake Internet Court of Australia

H3346/1

We have learned of a dispute which has arisen and which rattled though the internuts until it finally made its way to this court until it found this fake internet court's attention:

https://twitter.com/JohnLeFevre/status/178492926559250034

Someone who has decided to give themselves the title of "Entrepreneur", a Mr John Le Fevre, has decided to write 40 laws for men's fashion. It might have been acceptable had they been sensible laws which genuinely address how one should put one's attire together, but instead Mr Le Fevre has not just gone off piste but has gone troppo, berko, nutso, and whacko. 

In realms such as language, fashion, literature, films, art, et cetera, as all of these things are subjective, making objective laws is ill-advised. Style guides should be descriptive rather than prescriptive, save for instances where you want there to be a unified style across the family of thigns you are producing. So when Mr Le Fevre produces 40 "laws" and this Fake Internet Court gets tagged for comment, we take notice. 

On first viewing the laws are as daft as they are bad. They are daft because they dip into the realm of shenanigannery and not very good and jovial shenanigannery either. They are bad because it isn't exactly clear who these laws should apply to, if in fact anyone. A useful axiom here is that Law is Bad Law if it is unenforceable; it is More Badder Law if it is internally contradictory and nonsensical. 

This Fake Internet Court's task therefore, is to evaluate the 40 laws in turn and see what kind of merit, if any, exists. It should go without saying that one who sits in judgement should be aware of their own failings and shortcomings before bringing someone else into judgement; so of course this Fake Internet Court readily admits that there is not a speck in our eye, not a plank in our eye, but an entire 95-gun three-deck all-wood ship-of-the-line in our eye. We not only sail the high seas of Hypocrisy, we know its waters very well. Hypocrisy, ho!

These are the facts as this court sees them:

Speaking as someone who looks at episodes of Doctor Who and Poirot not as mere television programs but as fashion options, I am not exactly the person speak about what the latest trends in fashion are. If I were to compile any laws for fashion, they would be thus:

1. Wear clothes.

2. Wear clothes that are appropriate (this also involves safety gear).

3. That's about it.

Personally I don't wear very many t-shirts because I don't particularly like them and I also I don't wear very many shorts because I don't particularly like them either. People like what they like and don't like what they don't like. Obviously don't wear a death metal t-shirt to court or church, and don't wear a top hat and a greatcoat to the beach (for the simple reason that I do not like the beach and I do not want to get sand in either my top hat or greatcoat).

So when I get tagged on a Tweet about laws for fashion, two things happen. Firstly I wonder why I should care. Secondly, I get out my pointing finger of judgement and point point point and wag wag wag because that's funny. Most of the time, wear what you like; it's fine. Thirdly, I take notes about all the various points about the laws. Fourthly, I start writing day and night like I am running out of time. Fifthly, I realise that I said that only two things would happen but only after it is too late. Oh well. 

I have nothing personally against John Le Fevre. I have no idea who John Le Fevre is. He might be a saint or a sinner, a knave or a knight; I know not. His 40 laws for fashion, which are all don'ts, give away that he lives in a world which is not populated by ordinary people and is populated by the kind of people who have a lot of money. If this is true, then as I work in the Sydney suburb of Mosman which is full of more money than even John Le Fevre lives in, then I can tell you that the very rich also mostly don't care what you wear. It is only the great middling classes who want to aspire upwards who care for things like fashion, and manners. The very rich and the very poor care not.

I shall mist John Le Fevre's 40 laws because they are as I see it, very strange indeed. 

Below is the link to his tweet and the 40 laws follow:

https://twitter.com/JohnLeFevre/status/1784929265592500345

Here are 40 things a man should never wear:

1. Flips flops unless you’re near a pool or beach.

Mr Le Fevre has never been to Australia, has he? Wearing flip-flops, or thongs, is not only acceptable and normal, it is practically part of the national dress code. Except if you want to go to a pub, where the wearing of flip-flops is generally banned because of the combination of glass and alcohol (and is therefore an OH&S issue because the pub does not want to conduct triage on people's cut feet), you should be able to wear flip-flops in the supermarket, in court, in church, in fact everywhere that isn't High Church of England and even then, Jesus himself likely wore sandals; so who does Mr Le Fevre think he is? Does he think he's better than Jesus?

2. Flamboyant pocket squares. All it says is you pay $1,200 a month for a car you can’t afford.

The people who have a pocket square already have the suit jacket. How much they pay for their car, is not even remotely connected here. Secondly, a bank or other lending institution isn't going to extend a line of credit to people if they can not afford to pay. That is a bad business risk. $1200 per month over seven years is only about $100K; which means that the person has bought a nice car but not overly nice. On top of this, a pocket square can be had for about $50 at a high end shop like Zara or Boss. This does not seem like a ridiculous extravagance.

3. Statement socks. They don’t give you personality or style.

No they do not. They also do not detract from it either. 

The best socks that I have ever had, were a pair of Adelaide Crows socks made by Sekem. They were lovely because they were so warm and I tend to have cold ankles and cold feet. I wore those socks with Doc Martens boots, as a Court Recorder on the floor of the High Court Of Australia on multiple occasions. So, Ha!

4. Cargo shorts.

I do not like the look of cargo shorts because I think that they look daft. However just because I do not like them is not enough reason for someone who does, to like them.

Having said that, Cargo shorts have a utility which normal trousers and jeans do not. I would expect that someone who likes cargo shorts also likes to do things outside; in which case the fashion statement here is one of rugged outdoorsmanship. "Bravo" and "Hurrah" to the person who likes cargo shorts. Fair play to you.

5. Turtlenecks. Circumcise that sweater.

Again, this is a matter of what people like and do not like. I think that Mr Le Fevre seems to think that as he is the self-confessed arbiter of what fashion is, that he gets to be the final judge. Of course as the self-appointed judge of the Fake Internet Court of Australia, I stand in absolute hypocrisy here. 

6. The guilt of your ancestors’ sins.

I can almost guarantee that Mr Le Fevre is likely to be a white person. I can almost guarantee that Mr Le Fevre is likely to be the kind white person who tries to excuse his veiled racism with the phrase "I was only just pointing out that..." was if he did it with any other motive than to harm people and cause offence. 

7. A pro sports jersey with another man’s name on the back of it.

S-Y-D N-E-Y,

I am Sydney 'til I die.

With a knick-knack, paddy-whack, give a dog a bone,

Mr Le Fevre, GO ON HOME!

Of all the least important things in the world, football is the most important. Precisely because it does not matter, the world inside a ball is bigger and better than grown-up things live love, taxes, wars, and politics. 

If you can not instantly recall line for line, some piece of sport's commentary, then quite frankly, you know nothing about passion, about skipped heartbeats, about watching everything all fall apart in an instant, or occasionally watching as time stands still and we get as close to glory and perfection as we possibly can.

No.

DO Put another man’s name on the back of it:

Yorke - 19

Skrtel - 37

Gerrard - 8

Dalglish - 7

Cantona - 7 

Also, DO Put another woman’s name on the back of it:

Kerr - 20

Vine - 5 

Earps - 1

Arnold - 18

Catley - 7

Ignore Mr Le Fevre's Rule No.33. Do wear your heart on your sleeve and on your back.

8. Facial hair that doesn’t look intentional.

How about no? Why? I appoint myself as the ur-example.

Even though I am a 45 year old man who is going grey disgracefully, I still have an amazing ability to look as though I was 17 years old and with my finger up my nose. Mrs R likes me to sport a little bit of fuzz so that she doesn't have to walk around with someone looking like a teenager. I do not know whether to take this as a complement or not. 

9. Jewelry (other than watches and wedding rings). The only thing more disappointing for a woman than seeing a desirable man with a wedding band on, is seeing a ring on any other finger.

Oh, so Mr Le Fevre is speaking for women now as well, is he? Mr Le Fevre appears to have some kind of personal vendetta against people having nice things. Just who does he think he is to speak not only on behalf of but for women? How does he get to appoint himself as the arbiter of what woman find desirable in a man. That's incredibly presumptive and horribly rude.

10. Backwards or flat brim baseball caps. Or any hat inside.

This is 2024. Who is wearing a cap backwards these days? Is Mr Le Fevre complaining against imagined teenagers who have time-travelled from the 1990s or something? And also, wearing a hat inside is fine. I do not know why this point of manners was invented in the first place. It is dafter than a nine dollar note.

As I write this on the train (inside), there is a lady with a Manchester United beanie, a man with an old school New York Yankees hat, a chap in a black Trilby, and I myself are sat sitting with a Cheesecutter. We are all in open defiance of this Law 10.

11. Pleated or cuffed pants.

I have to wonder what world Mr Le Fevre thinks that he lives in. Surely Pleated or cuffed pants haven't existed since the beginning of machine made trousers in the 1840s. Does Mr Le Fevre think that people have pantaloons and chaps or something? I know that we have just exited an Elizabethan Age but that was Elizabeth II not Elizabeth I.

12. Sneakers with a suit. It’s a good look for 1% of men, but you’re not David Beckham.

NO. DO IT.

Especially go for the classics like Chuck Taylor All Stars or Nike Dunk-Hi. It's cool.

13. Fashion watches - Chanel, Hermes, Gucci, and even Cartier.

My guess is that if someone has a Chanel, Hermes, Gucci, or even Cartier watch, it is because they like watches. I can't come at spending that much money on a watch when a Seiko will do the job reliably for years and years. Quite frankly a watch is one of those things which is so personal and hangs around for so long, that fashion is not exactly a concern here. 

14. Hoodies after the age of 40, unless the weather requires it.

There are two very good cases for wearing a hoodie and age has nothing to do with it.

Firstly that it is cold. My biggest problem with hoodies is that they are not warm enough. They are not thick enough; the are not fleecy enough. They look as though they should be able to give you a nice warm hug but always consistently fail to do so. Secondly, a hoodie is the universal uniform for people with ASBOs or people who want ASBOs. Hoodies tell the world they they should "go away" and "leave  me alone". 

Taken together, old people who tend to feel the cold more, have more of a physical reason to want a hoodie. Young people who want to brood in a world of angst, want everyone to go away. This the Hoodie is arguably the most democratic and universal piece of kit by strange default.

15. Double-breasted suits. The vast majority of men can’t pull it off.

The vast majority of men don't have a double-breasted suit. If you have bought one, then it is because you like the look of it. Some people like the look of having two sets of buttons. 

Here's the thing about why No.15 is daft. The statement that "The vast majority of men can’t pull it off" is an outright lie. To wit, I like wearing hats. I have been told that some people think that they can’t pull it off wearing a hat which is obviously a lie because if I can, and I am just a random person, then anyone can. If you do a thing more than about three times, people think it is normal; because it is.

I personally wouldn't wear a double-breasted suit because I like the look of a waistcoat and tie. That reverts back to the statement that people like what they like and don't like what they don't like; not because there needs to be a rule about it.

16. Any shorts longer than the knees.

Oh I wish I could find shorts longer than the knees. Unless it is very hot, I do not want air going up... to Georgia, looking for a soul to steal (BAM BAM). I live in a country where it appears that shorts are always inadequate and made all the worse by the existence of Stubbies. Shorts below the knees would be the answer to hopes and prayers for years.

17. Skinny or ripped jeans.

Ripped jeans? Skin is showing...

Where'dya think you're going, baby?

Hey, I just met you, and this is crazy.

But here's my number; so call me, maybe?

I am basically as noodly as Kermit The Frog. Finding ANY jeans that fit is already a task in itself. I wouldn't but someone else might.

18. Vineyard Vines.

What the sweet Johnny Major are you talking about? Vineyard Vines? Is that a footy team? Look, I wouldn't even tell people not to wear a Manchester United, Collingwood, or Western Sydney Wanderers shirt. Vineyard Vines? Hooray, boo? Go, Riverstone Rivers!

19. Country club logo golf shirts where you’re not a member. I don’t care if you played Pebble once, it’s a conversation-starter for losers.

Again, who does Mr Le Fevre know who does this? Is he mistaking Gant, Ralph Lauren, Polo, or Hugo Boss for something else? 

To that end statement "it’s a conversation-starter for losers", well is it? This sounds to me that someone went somewhere because they like golf. This person has a passion which was enough to drive them to go somewhere. Such a person is likely to be interesting. Please, do tell me about how you went to the Royal and Ancient St Andrews, or Augusta, or Torrey Pines, or Canoostie. I don't even play golf and I want to know how you approach a shot which requires backspin with an undercut 9-iron.

20. Short-sleeve button-down shirts.

I am sorry if Mr Le Fevre has added ignorance to his list of crimes but Short-sleeve button-down shirts are ace. Perhaps the greatest exponent of Short-sleeve button-down shirts was Gene Kranz who worked as Flight Director on several Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions. In Mission Control he often wore Short-sleeve button-down shirts with a waistcoat and tie. 

Short-sleeve button-down shirts are the uniform of someone who wants to get serious stuff done and look serious while doing it. They likely work in an environment which is warm; which was certainly the case in Mission Control where there were banks of 1960s computers everywhere. Short-sleeve button-down shirts are cool; they are also cool in a warm environment.

21. Identifiably-designer belts.

I'm sorry but Mr Le Fevre seems rather a bit pre-occupied with looking at other people's butts here. Unless someone was wearing a brass belt buckle in the shape of Texas, or with the Great Seal of some armed force, then I wouldn't have a clue if someone was wearing a designer belt or not, much less being able to Identify what the designer was.

22. Dirty sneakers in the office. Even with a relaxed dress code, you should take care of sneakers in the same manner as dress shoes.

Counterpoint:

If someone walked into an office with a pair of obviously dirty Dunlop Volleys with the traditional blowout hole (as they all develop), then it would take about five minutes for that not to be weird. Further to this, if someone walked into an office with a pair of obviously dirty Dunlop Volleys with the traditional blowout hole, then they would instantly be cooler than Steve McQueen because they do not give an iota about what you think.

23. Oxford collars.

Given that an Oxford collar is just a collar with buttons to hold it in place, what exactly is the objection here? 

24. A backpack.

Why? I might need useful things which are in there; such as a laptop, sandwiches, a coat in case it gets cold, something to drink, a longneck of Extra Special Bitter, groceries, a football, Christmas presents. A backpack is fine.

25. Tevas, Crocs, Birkenstocks, or Uggs.

Mr Le Fevre has never been to Penrith, has he? The kinds of people who are going to wear Crocs or Uggs in public are also the same kinds of people who are really into things like doing do-eys in the carpark and hangin' around Sennalink. The kinds of people who are going to wear Birkenstocks in public are also the same kinds of people who are really into things like pilates, and wearing activewear despite never actually doing anything active but isn't it fabulous. Both of these kinds of people who are likely to take their dogs to the supermarket; though there is a distinct differnece between a Toy Pekingese and a Rottweiler.

26. Bowties without a tuxedo.

As the Doctor once said: "I wear a Bowtie now. Bowties are cool." Argument. End of.

27. Monk straps, tassels, or square-toed shoes.

Why?

28. Deep V-neck t-shirts.

Why again?

29. A fake watch.

Que? Who does this?

I'll take "Things that never happened" for $400, please.

30. Dress shirts with a pocket.

Has Mr Le Fevre seen shirts since the 1880s? Even in 2024, the idea that a dress shirts has a pocket is incredibly useful. One might need to keep a USB stick there, or a business card. One might walk into a club where you will be issued with a ticket as a temporary member. One might have bought a raffle ticket for a meat tray, or some kind of lucky door prize, or a 1969 Holden Monaro 327 GTS. Yes to the pocket.

31. Baggy clothes. Get the essentials, even jeans, tailored.

This isn't the 1990s. That kind of thing has gone out of style.

Besides which, some people are just self-conscious about how their bodies look. This isn't helped at all by people with attitudes like Mr Le Fevre's.

Besides which again, if you are complaining that people shouldn't have flamboyant pocket squares because they don't have the money, then where are they magically getying the money to have jeans tailored? 

32. Anything with big logos.

What is this supposed to mean? Does this mean something like the Adidas trefoil? Or the big Nike swoosh? Or how about the Jack Daniel's Old No.7 label? What about the logos for Metallica, Nirvana, or the Ramones? What about Castrol, Shell, Red Bull, M&Ms, Halford's, or any other motorsport sponsor? 

33. Your heart on your sleeve.

HUR-HUR-HUR... This is not even a very good dad joke. Please see me after class. You need better material.

34. Sports sunglasses. Quality shades serve an important function; they let women know you appreciate nice things and are responsible enough not to lose them.

I hate to tell you but Sports sunglasses serve an even more important function; they shield your eyes from the brightness outside and protect your eyes from UV rays. A cheap pair of Sports sunglasses which are polarised and have UV filtering, from a petrol station for $20, will do they job just as efficiently as "Quality shades", whatever that means.

35. Noticeable cologne. Men generally have a weak sense of smell and get desensitized to their own scent, so it’s worse than you realize.

NO. QUITE THE OPPOSITE.

Granted that men and especially teenage boys can smell like a thousand gorillas jammed into shipping crate (and let's be honest, that is what the back of the 173X bus does smell like on sports day), this does not mean that men should not smell of Noticeable cologne. I would rather the smell of Lynx Africa (which is the universal smell of "I have not had a shower yet") than the absolute horrorshow of the 173X bus.

36. Graphic t-shirts.

Congratulations, No.36 is just No.32 rebanged. 

The best graphic t-shirt that I have seen someone wear recently was of the retro throwback design for Brad Keslowski's Castrol Mustang. Quite frankly it kicked butt, took names, rolled around the top like a mad thing, and won all the kudos and all the marbles. 

37. Pajama pants in public.

Mr Le Fevre has never been to Melbourne, has he? The kinds of people who are going to wear Pajama pants in public are also the same kinds of people who are really into things like crystals, reiki, pilates, eastern medicine, om, going vegan, hemp clothing, et cetera. They are also the same kinds of people who will also tell you chapter and verse about where their coffee comes from, or how they found themselves in Thailand, or at the other extreme end how they were doing nangs in Frankston last week.

38. Windsor tie knots.

This is just called a 'tie'. Does Mr Le Fevre not know how to tie one? 

In a sea of black and white office attire, the tie was the last domain of colour in the office. From the classic striped club tie, to the uniform tie, or ties with The Phantom or Scooby-Doo on them, the tie was sometimes the only place of individuality in an otherwise funless office environment. Some time around about 2010, the sea of black and white office attire sort of expired and business people tend to not wear a tie at all. 

39. A “going out” shirt.

After literally saying that men should not wear graphic t-shirts, V-neck t-shirts, and short-sleeve button-down shirts, what's left?

People literally used to have a set of clothes which they called their "Sunday Best" for “going out”. After spending 40 laws on what people should and should not wear, then what in blue blazes is Mr Le Fevre going on about here? 

I bought my sister an "eating" shirt last Christmas; which was also inadvertently good enough for "going out". 

40. Women’s clothing.

I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay. I sleep all night and I work all day. 

Final Judgement:

After reading through Mr Le Fevre's insane 40 laws, then I would like to amend my own list:

1. Wear clothes.

2. Wear clothes that are appropriate (this also involves safety gear).

3. That's about it.

4. Ignore Mr Le Favre at all costs. He is a will-o-the-wisp, a flibitty-jibbet, a clown, a knave, and worst of all a flog.

Mr Le Fevre, you are guilty of both eejitation and nutwittery. You have brought hateration and holleration into this fake internet court and as you have no sensible business by inventing laws in a discipline in which you have no jurisdiction, we order you to desist and stop this egregious pretense. 

If we ever see you back before this court, the penalties will be severe. Get out; lest you make a mockery of my courtroom. We are already perfectly capable of making a mockery of this fake internet courtroom as it is. You are malevolent and have now ensnared others in your villainy. Can you not see what trouble thou hast wrought? 

- ROLLO75 J

(this case will be reported in FILR as H3346/1 - Ed)

Addenda:

Upon being ratio'd into the Shadow Realm by this very post as a reply (1173 likes to his 19) John Le Fevre either removed his Tweet in an act of cowardice, shame, or sensibility. This post remains intact though.