They have beige and Grey too for the small footed blerks.
jasee
23 Dec 16#3
[quote=Roger_Irrelevant]They have beige and Grey too for the small footed blerks.[/quote
blerk, haha, I thought this was either a typo or a euphemism for a `female` bloke :smiley: Quite amusing in a chauvinist way if you actually are a bloke!. But not. Other definitions, though interesting seem even more obscure!
miggy111
24 Dec 161#4
I think the trainer style helps women move quicker with the tea tray for the workers.
somerset to miggy111
24 Dec 161#7
Wow, that's hilarious grandad.
Roger_Irrelevant
24 Dec 16#5
blerk ~= bloke
(~ means 'approximately equal to', not 'logic NOT') :stuck_out_tongue:
sk8erjm1
24 Dec 16#6
Pretty sure there's a letter missing in the make of these, can't think where though hmmm
stuartconnolly1
24 Dec 16#8
if you order today, can collect on 28th, Wednesday
sleepywhispers
24 Dec 16#9
Just out of curiosity my friend is looking to know would a man get away with wearing these cause he bought a pair of safety shoes from sports direct and he said they're like wearing stones on his feet
Roger_Irrelevant to sleepywhispers
25 Dec 16#13
The pink ones can be worn by uphill gardeners.
MacTheMac
24 Dec 16#10
I work on site, and many of us get our safety boots/trainers from Sports-Direct. They have Dunlops, which last a good 9-12 months for under £25, and far from being uncomfortable, feel like soft trainers from day 1. Previously I paid £60 for a pair of DeWalt boots which I could only tolerate for a couple of hours at a time, and eventually tossed into a skip, gladly rid of them.
sleepywhispers to MacTheMac
24 Dec 16#12
my mate says he can only wear his dunlop shoes for a couple of hours
simont_space
24 Dec 16#11
It is. Building sites are avoided by the equality loons because it's hard work. No push for more women digging and plastering.
Opening post
13 comments
blerk, haha, I thought this was either a typo or a euphemism for a `female` bloke :smiley: Quite amusing in a chauvinist way if you actually are a bloke!. But not. Other definitions, though interesting seem even more obscure!
(~ means 'approximately equal to', not 'logic NOT') :stuck_out_tongue: