No its physical rather than online... its kind of on my arm....
Tattoos....
#26
Posted 28 January 2006 - 06:33 PM
#27
Posted 28 January 2006 - 06:57 PM
#28
Posted 19 February 2006 - 12:10 AM
A young probationer who I tutored had a tat' of the George Cross on his upper arm. Before he was aloud in the job, he was told to remove it or cover it with something else. Exactly what is wrong with a tat' of this description. Who will it offend.
What if he was an asian officer and had a tat' of an asian country. Would they say the same.
He removed it to get in.
I think your right. I would have to appeal that decision. Assuming it was just a St Georges Cross with no offensive comments or slogans then whats the problem. What if you had a crucifix on your body. Would you have to cover that up too incase you offended a member of another religion. Utter rubbish. Beuracratic pussy footing nonsense. Some senior people should get a set of balls and stand up for their (prospective) officers.
[/rant]
#29
Posted 19 February 2006 - 10:58 AM
A young probationer who I tutored had a tat' of the George Cross on his upper arm. Before he was aloud in the job, he was told to remove it or cover it with something else. Exactly what is wrong with a tat' of this description. Who will it offend.
What if he was an asian officer and had a tat' of an asian country. Would they say the same.
He removed it to get in.
I think this was an abuse of authority.
Weeell...
A tattoo of his national flag - on his upper arm - I'd say is impossible to object to...
..well, impossible without leaving the force open to a complaint about thier lack of adherence to the spirit of diversity...I hope he gets a pay out.
Oh, and tattoo removal...? OUCH!
#30
Posted 06 April 2006 - 12:56 AM
Official guidance on tattoos states that you should not have any which could cause offence. Tattoos are not acceptable if they:
Attached, an example of a tattoo that might well not meet the guidelines
- undermine the dignity and authority of the office of constable
- are garish or numerous or particularly prominent
- could cause offence to members of the public or colleagues and/or invite provocation. This would include tattoos which are rude, lewd, crude, racist, sexist, sectarian, homophobic, violent or intimidating or tattoos which display unacceptable attitudes towards women, minority groups or any other section of the community, or alignment with particular groups which could give offence to members of the community.
surely this would not matter, as its unseen whilst in full kit!!!
surely this would not matter, as its unseen whilst in full kit!!!
also reading the above one about the st george, i have a canadian maple leaf on my under forearm, that mean im foooked?
#31
Posted 06 April 2006 - 12:59 PM
one on my bicep is of a british full dog with england on it over a union jack (tacky I know, and also factually incorrect!!)
I also havea lion over a union jack , again with england on my shoulder blade (yes, tacking again, the things we do as youths!!)
Hampshire constabulary were fine over these as they are not in view.
I would have had problems I feel if they were on my forearms or anywhere else in view purely as whilst they were just harmless tattoos they could have been viewed as offensive by others.
as said, luckily this wasnt an issue as they are not on view (unless I was topless which isnt likely whilst on duty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or at least I hope not!!!)
#32
Posted 17 April 2006 - 03:14 PM
I have 2 tattoos (a seahorse on my right arm, and the letter B on my ankle) but neither are (I should think) offensive and both are easily covered.
*phew* I'd hate to have to get rid or otherwise... I love my tats and plan for more, now I have the guidelines I will ensure I follow them when next at the inkers (not that I was planning on having any rude, garish or offensive ones done, but you KWIM...LOL)
#33
Posted 25 May 2006 - 10:25 PM
I didn't get it either at first, so thanks for opening my eyes
![]()
I have a tattoo on my right arm and was thinking of getting another one.
A chap on my rota is covered in tattoo's and just has to wear a long sleeve shirt, not really a problem.
Not sure if its the same guy but there is a regular I have worked with a few teams who has a tattoo covering his complete left arm more or less. Its just a pattern that I am aware of but the amount of attension he gets is massive and to be honest it helps bridge the gap. They stop him and ask all about it.
#34
Posted 26 May 2006 - 11:54 AM
Not sure if its the same guy but there is a regular I have worked with a few teams who has a tattoo covering his complete left arm more or less. Its just a pattern that I am aware of but the amount of attension he gets is massive and to be honest it helps bridge the gap. They stop him and ask all about it.
I think I know who that is. Its not the guy I'm talking about, he literally is covered in tattoo's, from the neck down
#35
Posted 29 July 2006 - 08:05 AM
To add insult to injury they said I was okay to continue as a special, surely it makes not difference whether i'm special or regular, the reasons apply still as to why they have rejected me, to a MOP i'm a mersey police officer with a tattoo on his arm and represent Merseyside police.
I intend to appeal against this decision, if anyone has had any experience of appeals I would be grateful if you could advise.
#36
Posted 01 August 2006 - 01:52 AM
gutted for you stevefq. i could not imagine how it would feel to get that far then knocked back! hope you get things sorted mate, good luck
Edited by sc smoggy, 01 August 2006 - 01:54 AM.
#37
Posted 21 August 2006 - 05:41 PM
Iv'e just recently passed all the recruitment stages for Merseyside, but I got a call from recruitment yesterday saying i'm being rejected on the grounds i have a tattoo on my right forearm. It is of an eagle and is not offensive to anyone. Recruitment have had a photo of it since about a week after my application went in and i'm wondering why it has taken them this long. I stated in a letter when I sent the photo, that if it was going to be a problem I would start the process of getting it removed, but nothing was said.
To add insult to injury they said I was okay to continue as a special, surely it makes not difference whether i'm special or regular, the reasons apply still as to why they have rejected me, to a MOP i'm a mersey police officer with a tattoo on his arm and represent Merseyside police.
I intend to appeal against this decision, if anyone has had any experience of appeals I would be grateful if you could advise.
If thats true thats digusting. I would appeal that. How can you be good enough for frontline work as a special but not a regular. I've been through similar mate, its frustrating.
#38
Posted 23 August 2006 - 04:13 PM
Regards
#39
Posted 23 August 2006 - 07:38 PM
#40
Posted 24 August 2006 - 10:06 AM
I dont see why it would be rejected... unless its offensive to hedghogs..
so no .. i wouldnt see a problem
Animal Rights activists claiming I'm presenting a creature in a fictitous manner which may harm poor childrens images of what hedgehogs are like/do ?
Haha oh well.
#41
Posted 24 August 2006 - 12:05 PM
As for that george cross tattoo. I suppose some people could see it as favouring English people and the English tradition?
#42
Posted 24 August 2006 - 01:28 PM
#43
Posted 12 October 2006 - 08:02 PM
if applying as a regular or special is it possible to appeal against a "regret to inform you" decision made because of your tattoos? Has anyone done this and if so were you successful?
thx
G
#44
Posted 15 January 2007 - 10:00 PM
I have been honest about my tattoo in my application to cheshire but its never been a hinderance here in herts.
#45
Posted 16 January 2007 - 08:56 AM
As for the person who was rejected on the basis of the tatt, as harsh as this sounds, if forces have to many recurits they need find some reason to cut the numbers, it may not seem fair but as long as they dont break the law they will continue to do it, mind you some forces have broken the law, but that is a seperate subject.
Forces who claim the St George Cross is offensive should be named and shamed, have they forgotton that it forms an intergral part of our National Flag? By St George Cross I mean a red cross on a white back ground with no other symbols and lettering.
They ditched the height requirement when I was a kid because excellent candidates were being rejected for stupid reasons, some of the best officers I have ever worked with would have been rejected under the old height requirement. As long as the tatt doesnt break any laws then I should not be a problem, then again I am just being an idealist.
Edited by Revolver_Ocelot, 16 January 2007 - 08:57 AM.
#46
Posted 11 December 2007 - 04:16 PM
I'll be starting my training for the Specials in January and I haven't been asked about my tattoos (yet?). I have an Eagle on my right shoulder/arm, which I shouldn't see a problem with. However, I also have a hooded skull on my left shoulder/arm (about 7cm x 5cm). This would obviously be covered up with and it wouldn't be visible should I be wearing long sleeve or short sleeve. Would they consider it to be offensive though?
Thanks
#47
Posted 11 December 2007 - 04:41 PM
Hello everyone, I'm new to this site.
I'll be starting my training for the Specials in January and I haven't been asked about my tattoos (yet?). I have an Eagle on my right shoulder/arm, which I shouldn't see a problem with. However, I also have a hooded skull on my left shoulder/arm (about 7cm x 5cm). This would obviously be covered up with and it wouldn't be visible should I be wearing long sleeve or short sleeve. Would they consider it to be offensive though?![]()
Thanks
I would take some photos of them and send them to recruiting and let them decide. If they cant be seen then it should be ok but whos to tell.
#48
Posted 11 December 2007 - 06:12 PM
I would take some photos of them and send them to recruiting and let them decide. If they cant be seen then it should be ok but whos to tell.
why ?
It isnt visible in a uniform and non offensive to they cannot be discriminated against as its within the guidlines.
#49
Posted 28 December 2007 - 01:16 PM
why ?
It isnt visible in a uniform and non offensive to they cannot be discriminated against as its within the guidlines.
I was a Special in the met for 2 years, Im now a regular in the met.
I have a full backpiece japanese dragon style and a three quarter tribal and half sleeve dragon tattoos on both arms.
I have never had any problems as long as you send in photograhs when you apply.
I had all mine done before I joined. I think that if you have a skull tattoo its normally deemed unsuitable, but I could be wrong though.
#50
Posted 22 January 2008 - 11:55 PM
0 user(s) are browsing this forum
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users




















