Tattoo you? Female applicant turned down due to her tattoo.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With USMC and tattoos, in the late George Hall's book Superbase 17 - Kanoehe Bay - The Marines Hawaiian Haven - check out the Station Operations & Maintenance Squadron HH-46E photo chapter and the aircraft commander who is a Captain - you can see a colorful dragon tattoo near his wrist - not sure how it would look in Blue Dress D with short sleeve khaki.
cheers
cheers
cheers
cheers
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
When I first joined it was an offence to be gay. If you were subsequently found to be homosexual you were court martialled and discharged with a criminal offence recorded against you, despite it not being a criminal offence in civvy street.
Female officers were given the choice of terminating either their service or their pregnancies.
Female officers were offered PVR on marriage, but male officers not.
"Why should we change?" you ask. Is it that you are only comfortable around people that look and sound like you?, or perhaps you would be content if some arbitrary rule was applied that disadvantaged you?
It would seem that tattoos and piercings have joined the list of "must-haves" for the insecure and impressionable, along with cigarettes, beards, top-knots, designer baby names and gym steroids. But to be honest, without this bunch your Armed Forces wouldn't add up to a hill of beans.
What counts is what they can give and labelling them all to fit in with a set of stereotyped pre-conceptions is not a terribly effective way of sorting the wheat from the chaff.
Why should the RAF change it's regulations? Tattoos, in my opinion are unsightly. When someone in uniform is showing an armful of tattoos then that is even worse. Just because society has decided that tattoos are more acceptable does not mean that the RAF should change. .....We need to stop changing to suit people; the rules are there, and if you cannot comply with them then do not join. It's your choice after all.
Female officers were given the choice of terminating either their service or their pregnancies.
Female officers were offered PVR on marriage, but male officers not.
"Why should we change?" you ask. Is it that you are only comfortable around people that look and sound like you?, or perhaps you would be content if some arbitrary rule was applied that disadvantaged you?
It would seem that tattoos and piercings have joined the list of "must-haves" for the insecure and impressionable, along with cigarettes, beards, top-knots, designer baby names and gym steroids. But to be honest, without this bunch your Armed Forces wouldn't add up to a hill of beans.
What counts is what they can give and labelling them all to fit in with a set of stereotyped pre-conceptions is not a terribly effective way of sorting the wheat from the chaff.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
But where do you stop? Someone is turned down for their 'dream job' in the RAF because they have a purple Mohican hairstyle & a bone through their nose & demands that the Air Force 'gets with the times' & changes the rules? There have to be some rules in order to maintain standards & while things may gradually evolve over time I don't think that things should have to bend to the whim of one person.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But where do you stop? Someone is turned down for their 'dream job' in the RAF because they have a purple Mohican hairstyle & a bone through their nose & demands that the Air Force 'gets with the times' & changes the rules? There have to be some rules in order to maintain standards & while things may gradually evolve over time I don't think that things should have to bend to the whim of one person.
Why does uniformity matter any more? We no longer aspire to vast hordes of unthinking troops who obey orders without thinking. We now expect more professional troops who will obviously have personality.
This is not the whim of one person. This is the vast majority of the military target recruitment population now having tattoos, many of which are visible.
I don't know when the army "moved with the times" because when I was with my son in the army recruitment office, approx. 5 years ago, I witnessed a young lad being rejected on the spot because he had a tattoo on his neck. It was a shame for the lad.....he may have made a great soldier......and let's face it, what did it have to do with his possible ability as a soldier? Having said that, on balance, I had to agree. It is about conformity at the end of the day......I came across "crusaders" in my time in the emergency services.....they expected everyone to change to accommodate them.....and they were always challenging and pushing the boundaries! Nah, rules are rules........if she's that bothered, she'll have 'em removed.
Tourist wrote:
Do you actually believe some of the nonsense you write, or are you simply intent on being provocative?
As for
I have never known a professional pilot with a tattoo. Perhaps it's different in the navy, given the historical traditions applicable to seafarers?
This woman has 20 tattoos according to the local paper. If she doesn't like the RAF regulations on the subject, she could always apply to the army - particularly as she used to be an army reservist
What Standards?
Why does uniformity matter any more? We no longer aspire to vast hordes of unthinking troops who obey orders without thinking. We now expect more professional troops who will obviously have personality.
This is not the whim of one person. This is the vast majority of the military target recruitment population now having tattoos, many of which are visible.
Why does uniformity matter any more? We no longer aspire to vast hordes of unthinking troops who obey orders without thinking. We now expect more professional troops who will obviously have personality.
This is not the whim of one person. This is the vast majority of the military target recruitment population now having tattoos, many of which are visible.
As for
Society has moved on and I know loads of aircrew officers with tattoos
This woman has 20 tattoos according to the local paper. If she doesn't like the RAF regulations on the subject, she could always apply to the army - particularly as she used to be an army reservist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may not have known that they had a tattoo, but that is very different from them not having them.
Aircrew know the rules before we join up. We tend to be quite driven and informed. Young lads and lasses are less so.
I think this is a legacy of cold war warriors. Back then image maybe was more important. The last few years of conflict have perhaps focussed minds on rather more important metrics than whether they look good in uniform?
We currently have trouble recruiting either the numbers or quality of people we want. If you want to filter, filter for reasons that actually impact effectiveness, not visual impact.
Plenty of RAF aircrew with tattoos and even piercings.
The outside world has come to terms with tattoos long ago. Not a fan myself, but my brother is very high up in one of the big accountancy firms and he is covered in horrible ink and piercings. You know what, nobody cares because he is good at his job.
Aircrew know the rules before we join up. We tend to be quite driven and informed. Young lads and lasses are less so.
I think this is a legacy of cold war warriors. Back then image maybe was more important. The last few years of conflict have perhaps focussed minds on rather more important metrics than whether they look good in uniform?
We currently have trouble recruiting either the numbers or quality of people we want. If you want to filter, filter for reasons that actually impact effectiveness, not visual impact.
Plenty of RAF aircrew with tattoos and even piercings.
The outside world has come to terms with tattoos long ago. Not a fan myself, but my brother is very high up in one of the big accountancy firms and he is covered in horrible ink and piercings. You know what, nobody cares because he is good at his job.
N4790P
The outside world has come to terms with tattoos long ago.
Brandings and rings should remain with cows and bulls.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The old ban on being gay is a total red herring. People have a choice whether to get a tattoo or not, and (with limited success) it's reversible.
We used to think they had a choice in being gay. We now know that was wrong and changed accordingly. I don't think that's going to happen with tattoos.
We used to think they had a choice in being gay. We now know that was wrong and changed accordingly. I don't think that's going to happen with tattoos.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The old ban on being gay is a total red herring. People have a choice whether to get a tattoo or not, and (with limited success) it's reversible.
We used to think they had a choice in being gay. We now know that was wrong and changed accordingly. I don't think that's going to happen with tattoos.
We used to think they had a choice in being gay. We now know that was wrong and changed accordingly. I don't think that's going to happen with tattoos.
You think gay people were finally allowed in because we realised it wasn't their fault? Not their choice?!!
Would you allow people who were tattooed against their will?
The irony is that there are recruits who have big tattoos – some full sleeves – but because they cannot be seen under a uniform then they are okay.
Noticed an ex Army RN recruit on TV with forearm tats. Didn't seem to be a problem in the RN.
Despite the tats, AND a bad stutter, Popeye had a long and successful career
If the numbers coming through the door were getting low then I imagine certain 'standards' would be overlooked, after all, the foreign AF technicians I've had the pleasure of training that had tattoos and piercings were all very good at their jobs and supremely competent. Tattoos, body modifications, etc shouldn't make a difference if someone can do the job. 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,819
Received 2,799 Likes
on
1,192 Posts
While you are at it perhaps we should also let males in with waist length hair, after all that is a personal choice as well... it isn't the length of the hair that is the issue, it is a standard to go by and stick too and is a discipline thing, without building a solid foundation of discipline from the outset you will struggle to get people to follow orders when it counts.
You may not have known that they had a tattoo, but that is very different from them not having them.
