Should anti-tattoo discrimination be illegal?

Status
Not open for further replies.
viv1969 said:
Oh well, if Wikipedia says it to be so.......
Click to expand...

I was going to qualify my post with a cautionary comment regarding Wikipedia, but I have read it elsewhere too.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
POAH said:
and I suppose black people are more likely to be criminals as well ?
Click to expand...

I posted that merely to illustrate that Wiki is not needed to find numerous references to a previous post. I also qualified it by stating "which is not to say people with tattoos are necessarily criminals".
A pity you had to play the "race card".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
chadders said:
I posted that merely to illustrate that Wiki is not needed to find numerous references to a previous post. I also qualified it by stating "which is not to say people with tattoos are necessarily criminals".
A pity you had to play the "race card".
Click to expand...

I didn't play any card, I mearly made a statement about statistics
 
POAH said:
I didn't play any card, I mearly made a statement about statistics
Click to expand...

I didn't see statistics mentioned anywhere in your post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
POAH said:
it was plain as daylight TBH
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. It was a sarcastic dig, and a cheap shot, and you know it. But, hey, if it makes you happy carry on believing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
ST4 said:
The Yakuza is an organised criminal fraternity in Japan and are identifiable by their tattoos. Other groups are too. What's so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

I don't believe that's hard to understand.what is hard to understand is the sweeping generalisation that anyone so tatooed must be part of some criminal fraternity, or completely lacking in either intelligence or self control.
Thinly veiled bigotry at it's British finest :-)
 
viv1969 said:
I don't believe that's hard to understand.what is hard to understand is the sweeping generalisation that anyone so tatooed must be part of some criminal fraternity, or completely lacking in either intelligence or self control.
Thinly veiled bigotry at it's British finest :)
Click to expand...

And who has stated that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Steve Smith said:
I bet they wear shoes too...


Steve.
Click to expand...
They do, but the wearing of shoes doesn't cause people to categorise them. A tattoo does. In Japan tattoo = yakuza. People with tattoos travelling in Japan may find golf courses won't accept them, bathhouses, many establishments will refuse.
 
StephyB said:
But again a paramedic is different to a health practicioner.
Click to expand...

Possibly, will be odds on he's saved several lives though with those full sleeve tatts!
 
RichardtheSane said:
When someone uses the term 'thinly veiled' it generally means something is not stated but inferred.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but I don't need a lesson in English comprehension.
I think you need to read the relevant quote again:

viv1969 said:
what is hard to understand is the sweeping generalisation that anyone so tatooed must be part of some criminal fraternity, or completely lacking in either intelligence or self control.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what is supposed to be "thinly veiled" by that statement. It's a fair point. I simply enquired who had made those "sweeping generalisations". Whilst reluctant to name names, Ruth has answered in a roundabout way. Nuff said.
 
viv1969 said:
I don't believe that's hard to understand.what is hard to understand is the sweeping generalisation that anyone so tatooed must be part of some criminal fraternity, or completely lacking in either intelligence or self control.
Thinly veiled bigotry at it's British finest :-)
Click to expand...

No one, including me actually said that. It's not so hard to get.

However, I'll say this from experience. Many business require a conservative appearance and a business like image. Massive face tattoos, gaping holes in the ears, pink hair, piercings in the nose etc just don't give the sort of corporate image that many businesses with to project....so if two candidates were called to interview after initial selection process you'll not find it hard which one gets selected. The one with a normal hair cut dressed in business dress, or the one with pink hair, tattoos on the face, nose studs and a wacky green coat with peace badges in the lapel?
 
tracybradbury said:
Really!!!
Well as I said before I have 2 and I've never been involved in criminal activity or illicit activity!
Click to expand...

There's a bit of a difference between facial tattoos and a couple do discreet tattoos on the inside of your wrists.

Heck my mother has a small elephant tattooed on her ankle and she's no criminal.

I think the topic has, as usual, been blown totally out of proportion.
 
Haha was supposed to say criminals, but hey, horses for courses.

I did not say that all people with tattoos are criminals, simply that tattoos are associated with them.

Like it or not, a LOT of people do associate tattoos that way, including employers.

You choose to have a tattoo, you choose by default to restrict your employment opportunities if they cannot be covered.

If someone doesn't employ you because of your tattoos it is not discrimination, you have chosen to have them, it's not like you were born with a skin condition, have a disability, etc etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
I've got no tattoos and I'm a convicted criminal. Well sort of. It's safe to say a tattod person doesn't automatically mean a crook.

Tattoos just give a bad appearance for a lot of employers. They often go with people that are often "a bit wild" or "alternative". Employers see these people as difficult, awkward and won't fit with the company ethos.

When it comes to the point of someone being covered in them on their face and all over their arms many corporate employers will raise an eye brow. Particularly if they go hand in hand with hair coloured jet black, or some wacky colour. I'm sure a great many people that choose to look that are capable reliable people but in these days it's not only about that when many places can be picky about which capable reliable people they hire they'll want someone to fit in with what they think is normal. For most normal isn't face tattoos, pink hair or military coats with silly band badges on them but a basic smart hair cut, minimal or no tattoos and a business attire
 
Last edited:
StephyB said:
Haha was supposed to say criminals, but hey, horses for courses.

I did not say that all people with tattoos are criminals, simply that tattoos are associated with them.

Like it or not, a LOT of people do associate tattoos that way, including employers.

You choose to have a tattoo, you choose by default to restrict your employment opportunities if they cannot be covered.

If someone doesn't employ you because of your tattoos it is not discrimination, you have chosen to have them, it's not like you were born with a skin condition, have a disability, etc etc.
Click to expand...

But nor does extensive tattooing mean a person lacks self control.
 
No sort of about it Steve.
 
Thanks for the fix, always get those two muddled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
viv1969 said:
But nor does extensive tattooing mean a person lacks self control.
Click to expand...

It could be argued that extensive tattooing means a person has a lot of self control.
 
I have been watching this thread with interest to see where it went.
Some references have been made linking tattoos with crime etc and I agree that maybe historically this may be true. You could also argue that it is also linked with the military. However this is the 21st century, i have seen many professionals for example police, doctors, surgeons, solicitors etc all with tattoos. Even police officers with "visible" tattoos.
Many get them to mark a point of their life, for others it's an expression of choice. I myself have 2. 1 covers my entire back the other is on my bicep. I work in a professional industry where appearance matters, therefore they can be covered and many I work with are unaware I have them. (BT I have never been in trouble with the police, well other than speeding)
There are still many people with prejudiced opinions based on historic facts. Is it a form of discrimination? Technically yes, will it go away? Not as long as people have a right to make an initial judgement (which is based on own beliefs). I think David Beckham went a way to changing people's minds but there is still a long way to go.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top