Yet clothing has never been only practical. If it were, why do schools have uniforms? Why do employers expect interview clothes? Why do weddings have dress codes? Why do courts, hospitals, places of worship and sports clubs all expect people to dress differently?

Drawing on research surrounding respectability politics, migration, consumer culture and social identity, this article explores how clothing becomes internally policed within ethnic minority and diasporic communities, where dress is often interpreted as evidence of moral character, family reputation and social mobility.

The immediate picture might be someone who has been poor for a long time. Someone unemployed, homeless or already receiving support. Someone whose need appears obvious. The evidence offers a more complicated picture.

By Zöe Rucker From September 2026, new rules will limit how many branded uniform items a school in England can insist pupils have. But what counts as branded? Does PE kit count? Can schools still make you use a particular supplier? And what help is available if you cannot afford the uniform? Here are answers to 10 of the most frequently asked questions that apply to England. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own school-uniform rules. What do you need to know? T

100% POLYESTER. Hidden away on the inside of a T-shirt on a tiny tag, written in even tinier text. Increasingly, polyester has found a place in our daily lives – becoming a part of our clothes, hats, bed linens, towels, curtains, furniture upholstery, and more.

Look closely at these shoes. This photograph was shown to several people without any context. Before you read any further, ask yourself a simple question. What story do these shoes tell? Here’s the truth.

Fashion is often described as a universal language of identity, creativity, status and belonging. In reality, the meanings attached to clothing are neither fixed nor applied equally. The same garment, hairstyle or aesthetic can be celebrated on one person while provoking suspicion, ridicule or exclusion on another. This inconsistency reveals an important sociological reality: clothing is not judged solely by what it is, but by who is wearing it.

Rather than asking why people cannot afford clothes, perhaps we should ask what pressures on the household budget came first.

Since 11 June, all eyes have been on the 2026 FIFA World Cup, with knockout games currently in full swing across the United States, Canada and Mexico. But the frenzy which surrounds the competition has not been without controversy, as allegations of corruption towards FIFA reach an all-time high. The London School of Economics (LSE) has branded the 2026 tournament “a classic example of monopolistic power monetising against fan loyalty.”¹ With ticket prices stretching into the

In the last two decades, clothes shopping for plus-sized customers has improved significantly because of the body positive movement of the 2010s and the rise of social media. However, shopping whilst remaining ethical and on a budget is still increasingly difficult. Most clothing garments are made from cotton-blend polyester, which contains plastics that harm the environment over time, not to mention the unethical conditions such fast-fashion garments are being made in. For

A child may need shoes, wellies, sun hats, school uniform, outdoor clothing or enough clean clothes to last through the week. However, if that need does not fit a referral route, a grant scheme, a school policy or a safeguarding threshold, it can remain largely unseen.

If clothing sustainability policy were improving everyday life, what would we expect to see? Fewer people unable to replace worn-out essentials? Less reliance on emergency clothing provision? Better access to adequate clothing for work, school, weather and daily life?