Caligula's been at it again! ("It" being prostitutes.) From the Guardian:

Berlusconi criticised for 'use of policewomen's outfits in villa striptease shows'
According to prosecution documents delivered to parliament, so-called "bunga bunga" sessions at Berlusconi's villa near Milan involved female guests putting on — and then gradually taking off — skimpy nurses' outfits and police uniforms.

Giorgio Innocenzi, the secretary general of the independent police trades union confederation, said that, if the accounts were borne out, "it would be a very serious development that impugns the high levels of professionalism guaranteed by women in the police".

Yes, Silvio Berlusconi is incorrigibly horny, treats his Third World First World country as a stripperlicious fiefdom, and so on. What gets me here is* the characteristic frustrating vagueness and sloppy copy conventions of British newspaper writing. (Which I guess aren't surprising when your entire print-media culture has been tabloidized and you have like five serious journalists left on all of Knifecrime Island.) First, let us assume "bunga bunga" is an onomatope** for 200 pounds of septuagenarian prime-ministerial flesh slapping up against against about half as much 17-year-old Moroccan belly-dancer flesh. BUT HERE IS THE QUESTION: Does "skimpy" apply to "nurses' outfits" alone or also to "police uniforms"? The nurse getups, clearly, were sexy Halloween outfits. But were the "police uniforms" real Carabinieri uniforms or just costume-shop cheese? Because there is a big difference in terms of impugnment! Sexy party nonsense vs. theft or misuse of state property. Does Sig. Innocenzi have a legitimate complaint? Unclear!

*Don't even start with me, "What . . . are" crowd.
**Don't even start with me, uh, "onomatopoeia" crowd.