Shoes only- wtf

[Josquius]

So, watching the Inbetweeners. Brings to mind similar incidents in my life.
Some nightclubs' fixation on 'shoes only'. Normally rather low class places too.
In the show the lad tries to get into a club, he's wearing some very expensive over £100 designer trainers of some sort but they're still trainers so its a blank fuck you. He then goes and buys the crap, pee stained shoes of a homeless man, puts them on and is allowed in.
Just WTF?
What is the thing against trainers? From what logic do they derive this? Black shoes can be just as crap as trainers. Anyone have any clue?

[Habsburg]

Persons of a certain station would never be caught in "trainers" or whatever it is you people call them.   

[saskganesh]

gang wear is banned in many clubs. shoes, caps, bandanas; no excuses, no exceptions.

[The Brain]

Few dress codes are about price tags.

[Neil]

What the fuck are trainers?  Aren't they shoes?

[Ed Anger]

What the fuck are trainers?  Aren't they shoes?

I'm still trying to decipher the message.

[jimmy olsen]

What the fuck are trainers?  Aren't they shoes?

I'm still trying to decipher the message.

I think he means sneakers.

[Josquius]

What the fuck are trainers?  Aren't they shoes?

True.
Shoes covers all footwear but shoes also covers more specifically just 'shoes', i.e. black more dressy things. Damn English language.  The same problem exists with trousers- it covers all trousers but also dress trousers...and I guess shirt to a lesser extent has the same problem.

[Razgovory]

Tyr isn't making an sense.

[Neil]

What the fuck are trainers?  Aren't they shoes?

True.
Shoes covers all footwear but shoes also covers more specifically just 'shoes', i.e. black more dressy things. Damn English language.  The same problem exists with trousers- it covers all trousers but also dress trousers...and I guess shirt to a lesser extent has the same problem.

OK.  Here's the proper way to address this in English:  What you call 'trainers' are actually 'sneakers', which are a subset of the larger group 'shoes'.  What you call 'trousers' are actually 'pants', and only the dressier versions are 'trousers'.

[Josquius]

OK.  Here's the proper way to address this in English:  What you call 'trainers' are actually 'sneakers', which are a subset of the larger group 'shoes'.  What you call 'trousers' are actually 'pants', and only the dressier versions are 'trousers'.

Then what do Americans (continental, not USian) call shoes? (not the broad category, the sub group of more 'dressy' footwear)

And I'm sorry. Trainers as sneakers...meh. Typical well known American stuff, semi-acceptable. Trousers as pants though is just too silly to ever get through despite it being fairly well known through US TV.

But anyway.
My point stands. What is with this silly door policy?
Not dressing like a scum bag- fine. But why are the best of trainers merit for instantly being turned away whilst the worst of shoes are acceptable?

[ulmont]

Then what do Americans (continental, not USian) call shoes? (not the broad category, the sub group of more 'dressy' footwear)

USians call them "dress shoes."

[Neil]

Then what do Americans (continental, not USian) call shoes? (not the broad category, the sub group of more 'dressy' footwear)

Dress shoes.

My point stands. What is with this silly door policy?
Not dressing like a scum bag- fine. But why are the best of trainers merit for instantly being turned away whilst the worst of shoes are acceptable?

Because adults wearing sneakers are generally scum.

[Razgovory]

Because adults wearing sneakers are generally scum.

What if they want to sneak?

[Neil]

Because adults wearing sneakers are generally scum.

What if they want to sneak?

You can actually sneak in any kind of footwear.  Don't like the sneaker barons control you.