PPRuNe Forums - Tattoo you? Female applicant turned down due to her tattoo.

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)

- - Tattoo you? Female applicant turned down due to her tattoo. (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/576213-tattoo-you-female-applicant-turned-down-due-her-tattoo.html)

.....or how about "coach parties welcome"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigbux (Post 9312939)

.

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.

Being gay, bisexual, left wing or anything like that doesn't stop you looking smart in uniform, whereas tattoos take away the principle of uniformity. We all have to conform with standards of haircut, pressed trousers, shiny shoes etc. Do the masses all have to be covered in tattoos to continue this uniformity so that we can embrace the minority? Granted, some of these tattoo covered people may well be of a high calibre, but we are a uniformed service and there are rules to be followed. If someone chooses to get tattoos then that is their choice and good luck to them. I personally think it looks absolutely bloody awful and that is why I do not have any. We can only bend over to appease the PC brigade so much, and this is a step too far for me I am afraid.

Quote:

When I first joined it was an offence to be gay

[PEDANT] It never was - either in Service or Civilian life - illegal to be gay. What was illegal - in some times and jurisdictions -was to undertake gay activities..... [/PEDANT]

The celibate gay is not that unusual .........

BEagle, I know you will say Navs don't count but we had one who could not goi in shirt sleeve order. He had his tats removed - not invisible but pretty feint.

Then we had a Nav Stude who was advised to let the holes in his ears heal over. I don't believe he graduated.

Quote:

The celibate gay is not that unusual ......

My mum always used the term 'Confirmed Batchelor'. Not sure if that was correct or not.

Aaron.

Sqn Ldr Blenkinsop took full advantage of the RAF's decision to relax its policy regarding visible tattoos. She is now planning a series of facial piercings.

http://cdn2.holytaco.com/wp-content/...011/04/179.jpg

Quote:

My mum always used the term 'Confirmed Bachelor'.

Indeed so; the Torygraph obits would use as their final sentence:

"He was unmarried" ...........

Always surprised me, given the 'bull' standards of the Guards Regiments, that the senior NCO in the British Army had an anrmful:

http://forces.tv/sites/default/files...?itok=BeAhfAyr

FODPlod #47, In my youth, it would have appealed to my sense of humour to have strolled into the Officers' Mess bar with that lady :E

Quote:

Originally Posted by High Average (Post 9313623)

Granted, some of these tattoo covered people may well be of a high calibre, but we are a uniformed service and there are rules to be followed.

You are quite right. Can't let operational capability and competence due to employing high calibre people get in the way of looking smart on parade. Sheesh:rolleyes:

I am surprised that no one has mentioned facial hair!

Aaron.

Like FODPlodz pic there, where do you draw the line between visible acceptable and visible unacceptable?

Saw a man, shaven head, tattoo from waist, over head and down back on just one half of his body. Fortunately he wore trousers. He also wore a chain on his chest. Take the OP, if below the ear was acceptable, how about ear to eye?

Quote:

Originally Posted by downsizer (Post 9312566)

The rules are quite clear. If they are visible in No1 SD, so essentially hands and necks, then they are to be rejected.

She isn't the first and won't be the last. Many people have them removed to get in.

As others have stated the Army policy is much more relaxed, she can jog on there if she likes.

There's one recently/retired AVM who had tattoos removed from his arm as a junior officer as he realized they would be career-limiting. He had also pierced his ears in his youth.

I remember my dad (ex Scots Guards), who had three tattoos on his arms always regretted them and advised me never to get myself tattooed. I took his advice. Sounds like the retired AVM referred to by whenurhappy made a wise move getting rid of his.

As for that guards WO pictured, I concede you don't get to a position like that without being a seriously good soldier. Doesn't prevent me thinking he looks bloody awful in shirt sleeve order!

Simple fact is she has a tattoo that would be visible above the neckline in uniform.
Reading the article, it would appear she has a partner who could have informed her of the regulations concerning tattoos.
As stated in this thread a “dream job” would imply she would do anything to get it including remove tattoos, I would.
So all in all it appears the recruiter did his/her job correctly, wrong person not recruited; WIN.
For information I got my first forearm tattoo at “Doc Prices’” down Union Street in Plymouth at 17, my balancing tat at 20 on the other arm and have never regretted either, but they were iaw regs and not visible with sleeves rolled down.
The Master at Arms spotted my tattoo and informed me that only salty sea dogs and criminals had tats and asked which I was. I thought it was rich as he had arm and leg tats and he put me on stores party, saying if I couldn’t do the job because of my new tat he would troop me for self inflicted wounds. Seems the fact I was only 17 went right by him.

Happy memories.

I am only posting here for one reason...

So I can...

Tourist...I concur.

Tats here, tats there, sheesh.....

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/...20071115210309

Quote:

Always surprised me, given the 'bull' standards of the Guards Regiments, that the senior NCO in the British Army had an armful:

Judging by his cap badge he isn't serving with a Guards regiment at the time of the picture, maybe TA? Possibly in a staff post outside the brigade.
May never have ben a 'regular'?

Don't know if it still applies but there was, I believe, a time when you wouldn't be accepted into SF if you had tattoos.

The new rank of Army Sergeant Major is held by Glenn Haughton, formerly WO1 in the Grenadier Guards

The Army creates its most senior post ever for a soldier - British Army Website

As you imply, the cap badge he is wearing is the badge worn by army staff officers and others who are ex regimentally employed. I have a photo of my father wearing this badge as a lieutenant in the Corps of Military Police in WW2, because at that time the CMP did not have any officers and they had to be seconded from other regiments and corps. If you read the link you will find that Sergeant Major Haughton is a member of the Executive Committee Army Board, as well as various other boards. An interesting fact is that at the end of his tenure, he will do the army staff course, and be commissioned in the rank of major.