Three Australian news outlets report that a dress-code rule has a loophole, but the person involved is still ticketed or “collared,” indicating enforcement proceeds despite the gap. The common thread across reports is that the individual attempts to rely on the wording or application of the dress policy, yet authorities or venue staff still take action.
The outlets emphasize the same underlying incident, with their shared framing centered on the discovery or exposure of the loophole rather than on broader policy changes. However, with only brief provided text, details such as where the incident occurs, who is involved, the specific dress-code language at issue, and what form of enforcement is used are not stated here. The repeated “but he still got collared” phrasing suggests outcomes differ from the expectation created by the loophole—namely, that enforcement continues.
Overall, all sources converge on the idea that even if a dress-code provision can be read in a way that appears permissive, enforcement still results in consequences for the person attempting to benefit from it.
