This taboo recently came up in a discussion, and I’ve decided that the majority’s view that "it’s sometimes a good idea" is completely and utterly wrong.
Any venue, whether it be a pub or a club, that makes you wear shoes or they won't let you in, is somewhere I really don't want to be. If you ever see me in one, you'll know I have been arguing the point about not going in, accidently worn shoes out for some bizarre reason, am with work, or I am somewhere that has absolutely no where else that serves alcohol and I am in need of a drink (like Milton Keynes)
I think the point (and correct me if I’m wrong) about having to wear shoes into a place is to keep out people who might cause trouble. This is a massive fucking mistake, with many glaring omissions.
Let’s think about this logically. You're a trouble maker, you like going out at the weekend and getting boozed up and fighting. You go out one night and find you can't get in anywhere wearing your trainers, so either
a) You go home and put some shoes on
b) You remember that going out and not getting a drink because you're not wearing shoes sucks, and put shoes on the next night, or the next weekend, or whenever,
- This means you are now in shoes, and you can get in anywhere because you're wearing shoes, and you can drink, so you can now fight.
How does not wearing shoes stop (even the minority) of people who want to cause trouble? Not one iota. I mean, its not even like we live in a place where prior knowledge doesn’t exists, a friend, colleague, family member will probably tell you that you should wear shoes if you are going to certain places, its not rocket science.
Then, there's the other thing that people will say when you come up flawless argument that "wearing shoes doesn’t ensure you're not going to cause trouble" or something a bit more eloquent, bitter, or knowing dependent on your mood and who you're talking too.
They tell you it makes the place classier. They say it makes it a better standard of place. What? Really? It means it’s a better standard of place, because everyone is wearing shoes? When has this theory ever worked? In posh bars and clubs, maybe somewhere like Claridges, but in Kingston, I very much doubt that wearing shoes would make any of those places classier. Oceana in Milton Keynes, you have to wear shoes in there, doesn’t make it classy. There will just be people in jeans, t-shirts and shoes running around drunk and fighting, as they would do if they were in trainers.
Two things that annoy me even more about ‘shoe only’ venues are that the only places you can't get in if they have a no shoe rule and you're wearing converse or keds or something,
1) Are places where there are always fights, or regularly fights, or occasionally fights, which is why they bought in their stupid motherfucking rule
2) Have Bouncers,
Any venue, whether it be a pub or a club, that makes you wear shoes or they won't let you in, is somewhere I really don't want to be. If you ever see me in one, you'll know I have been arguing the point about not going in, accidently worn shoes out for some bizarre reason, am with work, or I am somewhere that has absolutely no where else that serves alcohol and I am in need of a drink (like Milton Keynes)
I think the point (and correct me if I’m wrong) about having to wear shoes into a place is to keep out people who might cause trouble. This is a massive fucking mistake, with many glaring omissions.
Let’s think about this logically. You're a trouble maker, you like going out at the weekend and getting boozed up and fighting. You go out one night and find you can't get in anywhere wearing your trainers, so either
a) You go home and put some shoes on
b) You remember that going out and not getting a drink because you're not wearing shoes sucks, and put shoes on the next night, or the next weekend, or whenever,
- This means you are now in shoes, and you can get in anywhere because you're wearing shoes, and you can drink, so you can now fight.
How does not wearing shoes stop (even the minority) of people who want to cause trouble? Not one iota. I mean, its not even like we live in a place where prior knowledge doesn’t exists, a friend, colleague, family member will probably tell you that you should wear shoes if you are going to certain places, its not rocket science.
Then, there's the other thing that people will say when you come up flawless argument that "wearing shoes doesn’t ensure you're not going to cause trouble" or something a bit more eloquent, bitter, or knowing dependent on your mood and who you're talking too.
They tell you it makes the place classier. They say it makes it a better standard of place. What? Really? It means it’s a better standard of place, because everyone is wearing shoes? When has this theory ever worked? In posh bars and clubs, maybe somewhere like Claridges, but in Kingston, I very much doubt that wearing shoes would make any of those places classier. Oceana in Milton Keynes, you have to wear shoes in there, doesn’t make it classy. There will just be people in jeans, t-shirts and shoes running around drunk and fighting, as they would do if they were in trainers.
Two things that annoy me even more about ‘shoe only’ venues are that the only places you can't get in if they have a no shoe rule and you're wearing converse or keds or something,
1) Are places where there are always fights, or regularly fights, or occasionally fights, which is why they bought in their stupid motherfucking rule
2) Have Bouncers,

The bouncer’s one really pisses me off. Really, them telling you that "no shoes allowed" is just the same as them telling you "not tonight son" because they don't like the look of you. The whole point with bouncers is they can let in and turn away who the hell they want. If you look like trouble, they shouldn’t let you in, if you look like trouble in trainers, you're gonna look like trouble in shoes. I'm pretty sure a bouncer will know the score but they hide behind their shoe policy. It’s a fucking joke.
Big Bouncer = Scary


