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

I guess this is going to be, generally, an age thing.

Tattoo rules prevent potential RAF recruit from landing her dream job (From Oxford Mail)

Depends - if it's visible and unsightly it may be considered inappropriate or grotesque

I don't know if it has changed but they were never to be visible and in catering especially it was taboo, as they are up her neck above the collar I totally agree with the stance. once you let one in sight like that, you would then have to justify each and every one, from flowers like hers through to swastikas.

Check the link; stars on her upper neck, therefore visible in uniform!

The article U.S. Marines change the women's uniform to allow enlisted females to cover tattoos | Daily Mail Online, indicates that the USMC are prepared to change their uniform rules in order to comply with their requirement that there should be no visible tattoos so, if the Royal Air Force were to adopt a similar approach, it would appear that Laura Hill might have to adopt another style of headgear in order to comply.

Removal of a tattoo is of course another option, and one which the Royal Navy certainly applied when a disenchanted young sailor had "I hate the Navy" tattooed.....on his forehead.:= The removal was very painfully undertaken on unpaid leave but, when the sailor subsequently served in sunny climes, the words reappeared, albeit faintly, greatly to his subsequent regret, a feeling I suspect so many others must share.:(

Jack

I just don't believe this happened the way it's reported.

There are many, many people serving who have tattoos that are visible when wearing uniform and, since I met him just yesterday, there's at least one young man with very noticable body modifications.

I suppose it depends whether they got them prior to service or after.
In her case and altering the uniform to cover it up, do they do an RAF hijab. plus are you seriously going to alter the uniform of every serving RAF female to simply adhere to the whims of this one person? I think not.
A bit of a case of if it was her desire to become a member of the RAF, she should have learnt the requirements before decorating her body so. Her choice and her consequences.

As for the army rules

http://www.army.mod.uk/news/26584.aspx

Hers appear not to be on the rear of her neck, but the side, so may well be inadmissible in full time service.

Surely that applies to all forces?

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. What next, wearing of uniform trousers with designer rips or the waist band worn half way down my backside just because some so called trend setter has decided it's OK? 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.

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.

Or, we could let the best people in regardless of how they look?

It's a crazy idea I know, but looking good on a parade is no longer important on the field of war.

We used to not want tattooed oiks because it was indicative of the sort of person they probably are.
Society has moved on and I know loads of aircrew officers with tattoos.

Get a life.

But, but, but, THE RULES!!!! FFS. :ooh:

You do know that the rules are laid down by people and the people can change the rules, yes?

An example is the fact that she is gay.
That used to disqualify her, but now it does not.

Tattoos in the 21st Centuary
 

If you consider the changes that have been made regarding sexual orientation, co habiting, being pregnant whilst in service and the ability of trans gender individuals all being allowed to serve. It does seem quite ridiculous that an individual should be positively discriminated against due to the location of a tattoo. If it were offensive or inflammatory then perhaps they should be given the option to have it removed or covered over. Otherwise I don't see the problem

Maybe she was turned down because she was useless (and showed poor judgement, obviously).
New entry requirement: "Confirm all tattoos are correctly spelt" (or spelled, for US military?)

Right, stop that now. Clearly you are taking the piss....

This way up? left hand... right hand? All useful tattoos

This is not a case of discrimination, it's a case of uniformity. Men can't wear beards and sideburns have to be trimmed no lower than the midpoint of the ear. The fact that society has moved on doesn't matter a bit. Her appearance doesn't meet the uniform standards because of a conscious decision she has made. Sorry, it's their train set I'm afraid.

Hold on, if men can't wear beards, does that mean ladies can?

An age thing? yep!!

I'm to the right end of "middle aged" and I think it's :mad: change the rules and get the best people on board!!!

No rules against ladies with beards as far as I'm aware, presumably as long as it's kept neat & trimmed. I know for certain that WRAFs can & do wear moustaches....