Application of the "No Trainers" Policy

If they think it will help they are entitled to do it. People who cannot afford new shoes can simply not go to that pub? They don't have any sort of right to be able to go to that pub, its up to the owner to decide who can and cannot enter.

So what if the owner suddenly turns around and says "Asians and Blacks can't come here"? The owner can apply his discretion, but the reasons for him turning people away should be fair and reasonable, which is what is being discussed here.

So you shouldn't really say "It's his pub so play by his rules or get out"

As you are bringing in the ridiculous, I take it you would be against a "no guns" policy in your local pub?

They are banning an item of footwear, not a physical trait. It doesn't stop anyone of any colour, creed, nationality, hair colour, height, religion or anything else entering the pub so cannot be called segregation...

I live in the reasonably small town of Newbury, where from time to time, the small ruffian sector of our society take it upon themselves to brawl inside pubs and nightclubs. To counter this sort of behaviour, the local Wetherspoons has introduced a "no trainers" policy - not due to dress-code, purely on the basis of stereotypes. Supposedly, no trainers will ensure that no ruffians enter the premises, as ruffians would of course be expected to possess such footwear.

My personal opinion is that this is obscene. My objections to such a policy would be as follows:

1.) Clearly, if "the wrong sort" realise this is the policy, they will simply turn up without trainers on - so it is totally ineffective.

2.) In reality, some people in society may not be able to afford many other varieties of shoe than trainers - it wouldn't be fair to expect the less well-to-do members of society to wear plimsolls or flip-flops!

3.) Pure and simply, it is wrong to base a policy on stereotypes. The question has to be asked: What next?! "No tattoos"? "No piercings"? "No facial hair"? Whatever one decides classifies a certain "type of person" will never be factually accurate and will always be prejudiced.

Weatherspoon's should spend their time focusing on monitoring the situation within their pubs, and maintaining security in that respect. A system whereby people are catagorised is akin to segregation in my eyes, and should not be tolerated in society - particularly in a down-to-earth bar, in a small town, where 90% of the population will cause no issue with security staff whatsoever.

It unnecessarily and unfairly prevents those who can't afford "proper" shoes entering and accessing the pub's facilities.

1.) Clearly, if "the wrong sort" realise this is the policy, they will simply turn up without trainers on - so it is totally ineffective.

2.) In reality, some people in society may not be able to afford many other varieties of shoe than trainers - it wouldn't be fair to expect the less well-to-do members of society to wear plimsolls or flip-flops!

3.) Pure and simply, it is wrong to base a policy on stereotypes. The question has to be asked: What next?! "No tattoos"? "No piercings"? "No facial hair"? Whatever one decides classifies a certain "type of person" will never be factually accurate and will always be prejudiced.

So what if the owner suddenly turns around and says "Asians and Blacks can't come here"? The owner can apply his discretion, but the reasons for him turning people away should be fair and reasonable, which is what is being discussed here.

So you shouldn't really say "It's his pub so play by his rules or get out"

Just go to a different pub, one where your right to comfortable footwear is respected?

Wetherspoons is too noisy anyway, if you're just going for a drink and to socialise it's pretty crap. Better for pre-drinking / meeting before a night out

It depends on the 'spoons. Although, obviously they are fairly identikit, different branches in different areas have different clientele and totally different atmospheres. A lot of city centre 'spoons are crowded and have discos on Fri and sat nights and are more like a bar than a pub yet you get suburban ones that are more like big locals.

Ah that's interesting, the one in my home town is fairly disco-y, and the one in my uni town is basically a huge bar adjoined to the cinema, now I want to visit a 'big local' one!

As you are bringing in the ridiculous, I take it you would be against a "no guns" policy in your local pub?

They are banning an item of footwear, not a physical trait. It doesn't stop anyone of any colour, creed, nationality, hair colour, height, religion or anything else entering the pub so cannot be called segregation...

Not true.

You can get some plimsolls for the price of two drinks.. and because they're in a pub or club, they can easily afford that.

You get rid of a lot of swords who are literally too much of a muppet to jump to a conclusion as simple as that. Even if they do, the door can still turn them away for being ****ers who they don't like the look of.



That's just silly; trainers aren't necessarily the cheapest type of shoe.



It is a dress code; there is no prejudice on people who wear trainers - they are just saying you have to be one iota smarter than that to get it.

In reality, when pubs say things like this - they are just making a little statement about smarting the place up. I think you are looking at it in the wrong way - it is just a little technique to change the attitude in the place and get rid of messers. In a way, it is a bit like in New York when they fervently persecuted fare dodgers and graffiti on the subways - it wasn't because those things really mattered; it was just a case of tackle a little thing and the general atmosphere and wider crime problems are reduced.

So what exactly is your definition of segregation - since I would say it is anything that separates groups of people on the basis of prejudiced (and thus unreasonable) labels. Obviously all of the above would be such examples of segregation, but why not shoe preference? Personally, I only possess trainers (outside of sixth form clothing) and I most certainly would not wish to start a fight in Weatherspoons. In a casual atmosphere, it shouldn't matter one bit what one is wearing so long as it is not offensive, yet seemingly Weatherspoons has decided that 'we trainer-wearing lot are no longer welcome'. That would seem to me to be a clear example of a prejudiced stereotype/label, and although is not perhaps extreme segregation (in the case of race or religion) but is still, nonetheless, segregation within society.

It would be illegal for him to say no Asians and Blacks, and that is different because they cannot change their skin colour but people can go out and buy some cheap shoes. If you cannot afford a pair of cheap shoes (of which there are plenty) then why are you spending money at a pub/club?