Tattooed policemen.
Discussion
HantsRat said:
What's wrong with that? Do you judge someone based on their appearance?
Yes, we all do. I wouldn't trust a financial advisor who looked like a tramp. Or a barber with a terrible haircut. I suspect if a tattoo lover walked into a tattoo parlour, and the tattooist had dreadful tattoos, they would walk out!So off your high horse.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Yes, we all do. I wouldn't trust a financial advisor who looked like a tramp. Or a barber with a terrible haircut. I suspect if a tattoo lover walked into a tattoo parlour, and the tattooist had dreadful tattoos, they would walk out!
So off your high horse.
MehSo off your high horse.
Fair point
Carryon.
xjay1337 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
When you meet someone, you have no idea how well they can do the job. The way they look, talk and act are how you decide initially if you trust them.
For many people, tattoos are indicative of poor judgement. Permanently visible tattoos, on the hands, neck or face, especially so. It's an opinion they are fully entitled to hold.
To me that's no different to assuming that all young black people with hoodies carry knifes.For many people, tattoos are indicative of poor judgement. Permanently visible tattoos, on the hands, neck or face, especially so. It's an opinion they are fully entitled to hold.
It's judgemental which is the issue here.
Open your mind and hearts etc.
Some of the nicest people I know are covered in tattoos.
Do you have kids? What if they said they were going spend their wages on a big face tattoo this week? Would you simply say 'thats wonderful, we know you are a nice person inside'?
People do of course have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies. I of course, have the right to think they might be a bit little foolhardy, or just a f
king idiot. Should we dig out the bad tattoo's thread?
People do of course have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies. I of course, have the right to think they might be a bit little foolhardy, or just a f
king idiot. Should we dig out the bad tattoo's thread?Edited by Rick101 on Wednesday 11th November 15:31
By chance opened the page on this.
Perfect, absolutely perfect.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=30&...
Perfect, absolutely perfect.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=30&...
Rick101 said:
Not a fan of tattoo's generally. Certainly shouldn't be acceptable in a public facing job in my opinion.
What's next? one of those ridiculous ear tunnel things a pierced nose and some skinny jeans?
piercings in potentially confrontational roles have very good reasons not to be acceptable ( primarily the ease of injuring someone by ripping them out) What's next? one of those ridiculous ear tunnel things a pierced nose and some skinny jeans?
as for the skinny jeans, in certain roles not looking like the stereotypical copper in civvies is a requirement of the role ...
certainly a street offences teams that a family member was part of looked a right rag tag bunch when dressed to blend in to the shopping streets of a midlands cities, - chavs, goths, metallers , yummy mummy ...
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Yes, we all do. I wouldn't trust a financial advisor who looked like a tramp. Or a barber with a terrible haircut. I suspect if a tattoo lover walked into a tattoo parlour, and the tattooist had dreadful tattoos, they would walk out!
So off your high horse.
Perhaps if people focused more on other people's skills and abilities rather than their cosmetics, there would be no need for a high horse.So off your high horse.
It's simply an indicator. If you have reason to believe someone is very good through a recommendation or evidence of their work that's a great indicator. If you don't know anything about them and they turn up looking like someone on the above thread, I'd question their ability to make good choices.
Retroman said:
Perhaps if people focused more on other people's skills and abilities rather than their cosmetics, there would be no need for a high horse.
Surely it's the people with tattoos and bolts thru their faces that are focused on cosmetics. My body is what's been handed to me following millions of years of evolution, and I've never given any thought to modifying it. What's more, I bet an electrician would be more likely to get the job rewiring the tattoo parlour if he was covered in tattoos The one without tattoos might have been the better option.
Retroman said:
Perhaps if people focused more on other people's skills and abilities rather than their cosmetics, there would be no need for a high horse.
You do realise though that we are still about 50 years away from that point don't you? And that only speaks for the 'modern western' world. Most of the rest of the World is still somewhere about 1846, or 1454 in some cases.I am a solicitor. I am male. My hair is currently about 1/3 the way down my back. I like having long hair and can get away with it because I am billing well and most of my Clients either like it or don't care two hoots. There are some though that aren't so keen. One regular bought me £25 worth of hairdressing vouchers the other week...
I am well aware that it makes me stand out and is 'not of the norm'. This can be a good thing but I am under no illusions that if the bills start to drop away the scissors will have to come out to play. Thing is i can get my hair cut within 24 hours...
Personally not keen on seeing them. Standards of appearance used to be important but are no longer the case now. Those that had tattoos had to keep them covered and were sentenced to long sleeved shirts for the duration of their service.
Rules in my force at present are
Some tattoos should remain covered at all times whilst in the workplace. These include:
· Tattoos that undermine the dignity and authority of the office of constable
· Could cause offence to members of the public or colleagues and/or incite provocation
· Are garish, numerous or particularly prominent (i.e. on the face or hands)
· Might be considered provocative, offensive, cause ridicule or otherwise detract from the professional image of the police service
Beyond this, officers and staff should use their professional judgement as to whether tattoos are appropriate or not.
Rules in my force at present are
Some tattoos should remain covered at all times whilst in the workplace. These include:
· Tattoos that undermine the dignity and authority of the office of constable
· Could cause offence to members of the public or colleagues and/or incite provocation
· Are garish, numerous or particularly prominent (i.e. on the face or hands)
· Might be considered provocative, offensive, cause ridicule or otherwise detract from the professional image of the police service
Beyond this, officers and staff should use their professional judgement as to whether tattoos are appropriate or not.
Tom1312 said:
Since when did a liberal application of well done tattoos indicate bad decision making abilities?
I would guess thousands of years. I would guess that when one group of hunter gatherers bumped into another group, that maybe had different face paint, or wore fur from a different animal, they took a dim view of it.Humans do that.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Surely it's the people with tattoos and bolts thru their faces that are focused on cosmetics. My body is what's been handed to me following millions of years of evolution, and I've never given any thought to modifying it.
So you've never had a haircut, or shaved before?Here's hoping you never require surgery throughout your life.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff