# Fresh ink rules out a career in police



## Erebos (Jan 30, 2012)

Just read the front page of yesterday's news paper. What are your thoughts?

NSW police officers will be banned from having visible tattoos under a sweeping reform of the force's public image set to begin this year.

The Sunday Telegraph can reveal that a draft policy, being prepared for Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione, is in the final stages of approval and recommends banning all visible tattoos on serving police and new recruits coming into the force.

The document, written by Assistant Commissioner Michael Corboy and Assistant Commissioner Paul Carey, recommends a new standard for cadets, meaning that anyone with prominent body art trying to join the police could be denied entry to the academy.

Discussions are also under way about how serving officers with full-sleeve tattoos, or other prominent tattoos, should be managed, with several options being considered.

They range from asking officers to wear long-sleeved shirts and pants to cover up the tattoos, to the more extreme measure of having them removed entirely.




Cheers Brenton


----------



## Heelssss (Jan 30, 2012)

Boooooooo, Tats are awesome- especially under uniform.

DAMN you Mr S!!


----------



## Aussie-Pride (Jan 30, 2012)

wow the community is getting softer by the day. What's wrong with a bit of ink?


----------



## Kurto (Jan 30, 2012)

they used to deny entry to the police force if your were under 6ft. Now they have to send 5 or 6 cops out to minor incidents.. 

who gives a rats about tattoos!!


----------



## Heelssss (Jan 30, 2012)

they should ban soft whimpy asian chicks..

lmao , classic!


----------



## Sezzzzzzzzz (Jan 30, 2012)

Good- now we'll be able to tell the good guys from the bad! (sarcasm)

what a load of crap. Im not the greatest fan of cops, but everyone should have the right to do whatever they want to with their own skin.

I thought that we had got passed the days of tattoos being unacceptable.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Jan 30, 2012)

Geez, I suspect every workplace in Melbourne, cops included, has at least one tattooed person. When I went for my job I wore a short sleeved top as I didn't want to hide them and then be stuck wearing long sleeves in a hot, humid aquarium and reptile shop. Boss didn't even look twice. I have seen numerous cops here with tattoos, young guys especially and even in some of the more up market eateries etc the waiters have tattoos. One of our best customers is a salesman in a real estate agency and he is heavily tattooed. Maybe Melbourne is just more open minded.


----------



## Vincey (Jan 30, 2012)

It says not visible tattoos. Not any tattoos at all.
Sorry but I agree 100% with this. I love tattoos and body art so before you cuss at me remember that 

In saying that, how many other jobs have this exact ruling?

QQ moar


----------



## vampstorso (Jan 30, 2012)

Sounds like the Assistant Commissioner has had too much time on his hands.
Must be from all those people who call the police and then never get any aid. 


I think he needs a life. If the public doesn't care, why does he?

Also means we'll just have plenty of sub-parr officers. As they're turning down willing and able applicants over something so silly.


You know what they should do? Do more frequent fitness tests! I'm sure they say they do, but I've seen so many officers who can hardly walk, let alone run.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Jan 30, 2012)

^ Refer to above post.


----------



## Snake Catcher Victoria (Jan 30, 2012)

Im not supposed to show my tattoos when Im doing security for Melbourne park and a couple of other companies.
I was ejecting a young fella from the tennis last week when he turned to me and said" you think you're tough because you have tattoos', as they had made an appearance during the brief scuffle.
I thought to my self, "boy. that tattoo is older that you" 
and applied some more pressure to the arm lock he was in,lol.

And yeah, tats are ok on cops, but not on hands, neck or face ideally.And none of the tribal stuff on white boys, ok


----------



## Ramsayi (Jan 30, 2012)

Sorry occifer I didn't realise I was going that fast.


----------



## Fuscus (Jan 30, 2012)

Lets face it, tattoos are normally either 
a/Boring
b/Derivative
c/Tell the world you can drink more than your IQ
d/All of the above


----------



## Sezzzzzzzzz (Jan 30, 2012)

Fuscus said:


> I wouldn't make that racist remark in front of my wife - - unless you have already had enough children
> 
> Lets face it, tattoos are normally either
> a/Boring
> ...




maybe thats your opinion, but, cop or not, anyone should be allowed to express themselves with a tattoo, however big or small. 

i have also seen many un-tattooed people drinking to by the way...

Whatever happened to dont judge a book by its cover.


----------



## FAY (Jan 30, 2012)

The job has a code of dress and how you are perceived to the public.......I personally do not care less about tattoos BUT they are the rules, if you don't like them, then don't join....simple really.


----------



## grannieannie (Jan 30, 2012)

I think it depends on what the tattoo is....I'd object to something like a skull or something overly aggressive looking and I'm not saying they have to have... butterflies.....instead  but there are lots of decent pictures that I think would be ok.
Both my son and daughter have tattoos and my daughter-in-law has a lot, on her back, arms and thighs, which personally I think is a bit over the top for a woman, but they are....nice pictures...if you know what I mean. I've even considered having a little one...but hubby would be most upset. I thought very seriously about getting one for my 60th birthday last year.
So I guess my thoughts about police and anyone really is....fine....but I don't like aggressive looking ones.

What I really don't like are some face piercings....some of them make me want to throw up.


----------



## Erebos (Jan 30, 2012)

FAY said:


> The job has a code of dress and how you are perceived to the public.......I personally do not care less about tattoos BUT they are the rules, if you don't like them, then don't join....simple really.



I agree but it is acceptable now so what about ppl geting told to remove them or find another job. 


Cheers Brenton


----------



## tarafritz2011 (Jan 30, 2012)

Shouldn't they be worrying about more important issues like, oh I don't know, all the drive by shootings that have been happening lately?


----------



## Sezzzzzzzzz (Jan 30, 2012)

FAY said:


> The job has a code of dress and how you are perceived to the public.......I personally do not care less about tattoos BUT they are the rules, if you don't like them, then don't join....simple really.




Fay, I agree with you 100%, but obviously it wasnt part of their dress code until now, because otherwise they wouldnt have any police with tatts. There was also talk in one article that they would make members with existing tattoos, either wear long shirts or get them permanently removed.


----------



## abnrmal91 (Jan 30, 2012)

I couldnt care less if someone has tats, this again explains why the police cant actually catch/charge anyone with serious crimes. They are too worried that an officers tat may offend someone. 

Society needs a reality check, get over yourself and carry on.


----------



## Ramsayi (Jan 30, 2012)

The fact is 90% of the population don't have tats so it stands to reason that tats are not really socially acceptable.


----------



## tarafritz2011 (Jan 30, 2012)

Ramsayi said:


> The fact is 90% of the population don't have tats so it stands to reason that tats are not really socially acceptable.



You can't say that something isn't socially acceptable because it is a minority.


----------



## Fuscus (Jan 30, 2012)

abnrmal91 said:


> .. explains why the police cant actually catch/charge anyone with serious crimes. ...
> Society needs a reality check...


You sure its society that needs the reality check?


----------



## Erebos (Jan 30, 2012)

Ramsayi said:


> The fact is 90% of the population don't have tats so it stands to reason that tats are not really socially acceptable.



Did you make that up. Sounds like it every second person has tattoos. 


Cheers Brenton


----------



## Sezzzzzzzzz (Jan 30, 2012)

id like to see the real statistics, wonder if there are any studies on it...


----------



## KaotikJezta (Jan 30, 2012)

Ramsayi said:


> The fact is 90% of the population don't have tats so it stands to reason that tats are not really socially acceptable.




That was way back in 2001, I think you'd be surprised by the stats now


----------



## Fuscus (Jan 30, 2012)

newtolovingsnake said:


> id like to see the real statistics, wonder if there are any studies on it...


Department of Health and Ageing - Prevalence of tattooing and body piercing in the Australian community


----------



## KaotikJezta (Jan 30, 2012)

Fuscus said:


> Department of Health and Ageing - Prevalence of tattooing and body piercing in the Australian community



like I said, that is from 2001. I also love how skewed the study is, trying to tie tattoos with hard drug use ie: Injecting and the pathetic reasons they give for people wanting tattoos. The reason being, they got the results for the numbers from Communicable Disease Intelligence. Not really an accurate cross section of tattooed people in the community.


----------



## abnrmal91 (Jan 30, 2012)

Fuscus said:


> You sure its society that needs the reality check?


Yep there are bigger things in this world then worrying about someone's tats.


----------



## Pinoy (Jan 30, 2012)

Fuscus said:


> Lets face it, tattoos are normally either
> a/Boring
> b/Derivative
> c/Tell the world you can drink more than your IQ
> d/All of the above



Your mentality is like those people who think only wierdos, drugos and bikies keep snakes. You generalise people knowing little about them or why they do the things they do.

Tattoos aren't always about being tough or showing how macho you are. People have tattoos for many different reasons like the memories of loved ones, a symbol of dedication to their beliefs etc. Tattoos can also be a way of expressing yourself. Of course there are people who get them to look cool to their mates but not everyone that has a tattoo is like that. 

I think it's rubbish what they're trying to do. Imagine if they tried to do that in the defence. We probably wouldn't have one lol.


----------



## Ramsayi (Jan 30, 2012)

Pinoy said:


> Your mentality is like those people who think only wierdos, drugos and bikies keep snakes. You generalise people knowing little about them or why they do the things they do.
> 
> Tattoos aren't always about being tough or showing how macho you are. People have tattoos for many different reasons like the memories of loved ones, a symbol of dedication to their beliefs etc. Tattoos can also be a way of expressing yourself. Of course there are people who get them to look cool to their mates but not everyone that has a tattoo is like that.
> 
> I think it's rubbish what they're trying to do. Imagine if they tried to do that in the defence. We probably wouldn't have one lol.



Regardless of all that where would the line be drawn with regard to tats in the police service? Would only certain types/sizes or locations of tats be acceptable and if so who would make those decisions? See where I am going with this?


----------



## DarwinBrianT (Jan 30, 2012)

If I remember right, this all started awhile back and it started over religious tattoos offending people.
Its just easy to say no tattoos and be done with it... just another reason to not be a cop.


----------



## Sezzzzzzzzz (Jan 30, 2012)

okay this is from the USA, but I am sure we are pretty much on par with them.

Thirty-six percent of those ages 18 to 25, and 40 percent of those ages 26 to 40, have at least one tattoo, according to a fall 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center. (see pdf of tattoo poll numbers)
The National Geographic News stated in April 2000 that 15% of Americans were tattooed (or approximately 40 million people!)
Esquire Magazine estimated in March 2002 that 1 in 8 Americans was tattooed.
According to the American Society of Dermatological Surgery, they stated in 2005, that of all the people they treat with laser and light therapy, only only 6% are getting a tattoo removed.
Harris Poll, 2003, estimates that fully 36% of those aged 25-29 have one or more tattoos.
A 2006 a study done by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology found that 24% of Americans between 18 and 50 are tattooed; that’s almost one in four. And the survey showed that about 36% of Americans age 18 to 29 have at least one tattoo!​Make no mistake about it, the tattoo industry is hot property. There are an estimated 20,000+ parlors operating in the United States, according to a U.S. News & World Report article, which said, on the average, an establishment is being added in the country every day. The article ranked tattooing as the sixth fastest growing retail venture of the 1990s, right behind Internet, paging services, bagels, computer and cellular phone service


----------



## Ramsayi (Jan 30, 2012)

newtolovingsnake said:


> okay this is from the USA, but I am sure we are pretty much on par with them.
> thirty-six percent of those ages 18 to 25, and 40 percent of those ages 26 to 40,......



That was way back in 2006


----------



## Pinoy (Jan 30, 2012)

Ramsayi said:


> Regardless of all that where would the line be drawn with regard to tats in the police service? Would only certain types/sizes or locations of tats be acceptable and if so who would make those decisions? See where I am going with this?



I see what you're saying there. In the defence, we are allowed to have visible tattoos but there are some obvious ones we can't have in visible areas. Things like swear words, nude people, grotesque images etc. Basically things they wouldn't normally show on day time tv lol. 
We're told, if you have to think about wether you'll get in trouble for it, don't do it. Things like full sleeves, random pictures (not of the type mentioned above) names etc are accepted. I think the only thing they are strict on are facial tattoos. 
To me, this makes sense and isn't too hard to follow.


----------



## Sezzzzzzzzz (Jan 30, 2012)

yes i am aware of that, but the popularity of tattoos have increased, definitely not decreased.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Jan 30, 2012)

Maybe we can start a poll to see how many people on APS alone have tattoos.


----------



## Ramsayi (Jan 30, 2012)

KaotikJezta said:


> Maybe we can start a poll to see how many people on APS alone have tattoos.



You could but that in no way would give you accurate data as people here don't really represent a cross section of the community.


----------



## Sezzzzzzzzz (Jan 30, 2012)

sorry off topic but i just saw this on facebook.


----------



## Greenmad (Jan 30, 2012)

Fuscus said:


> Lets face it, tattoos are normally either
> a/Boring
> b/Derivative
> c/Tell the world you can drink more than your IQ
> d/All of the above



Baldness so that must make you 
a/ Old
b/ Boring
c/ A thug
d/ Most likely a & b.


----------



## Pinoy (Jan 30, 2012)

We may actually have an ABR that details what is and isn't an acceptable tattoo in the defence force. If I can find one I'll post what it says...


----------



## Sezzzzzzzzz (Jan 30, 2012)

That would be great Pinoy. Id definately be interested if anyone can find an official survey of how many people have tatts. Seems to me that at least every 2nd person has one nowadays.


----------



## Aussie-Pride (Jan 30, 2012)

Pinoy said:


> We may actually have an ABR that details what is and isn't an acceptable tattoo in the defence force. If I can find one I'll post what it says...



The ADF has a strict policy on tattoos and body piercing. Tattoos and/or brands are prohibited on the face of candidates wishing to enter the Navy, Army, or Air Force. For Navy candidates, the face includes the scalp, ears and neck. For Army candidates, tattoos are prohibited on the face (which includes the scalp ears and neck) and the hands. Air Force candidates are prohibited from having or obtaining tattoos on the face excluding the scalp, ears and neck.
Additionally, female candidates are permitted to have tattooed eyebrow forms (excluding eyeliner) providing it follows the natural arch line of eyebrows and is of a natural colour that matches the colour of the hair. Females may have lip tattooing to enhance the outline of the lips providing it does not look unnatural ie. is not outlined in black, is not a non-flesh colour and does not change the natural shape of the lips.
Apart from the face (and hands for Army candidates), tattoos and/or brands are permitted on other parts of the body, unless the tattoo or brand is considered offensive and undermines the dignity and authority of The Australian Defence Force. Further guidance on this policy can be provided by contacting Defence Force Recruiting.
Candidates who have tattoos for religious reasons which are in those areas prohibited above, are advised that Defence Force Recruiting is required to seek approval from the appropriate single Service authority prior to applicant appointment or enlistment.

My brother served and his covered in tats, he had issues with having a southern cross on his neck.


----------



## Erebos (Jan 30, 2012)

Pinoy said:


> We may actually have an ABR that details what is and isn't an acceptable tattoo in the defence force. If I can find one I'll post what it says...



In the defense your actually not aloud to get tattooed while in the service not saying this happens but regardless you have to ask permission! they will take you with tattoos so firstly your wrong and second if you have a hard boss and get a tattoo you can be charged the same as getting sun burn


Cheers Brenton


----------



## tarafritz2011 (Jan 30, 2012)

I have four tattoos - they are all small and all hidden, except the one on the back of my neck which is only visible if I have my hair up.
This being said, I don't have my tattoos to live up to the image of being tough or cool. All my tattoos represent a part of who I am - therefore I would feel personally offended if somebody asked me to remove them. Luckily enough, I'm not in the police force


----------



## Aussie-Pride (Jan 30, 2012)

tarafritz2011 said:


> I have four tattoos - they are all small and all hidden, except the one on the back of my neck which is only visible if I have my hair up.
> This being said, I don't have my tattoos to live up to the image of being tough or cool. All my tattoos represent a part of who I am - therefore I would feel personally offended if somebody asked me to remove them. Luckily enough, I'm not in the police force



watch out this chick has tough stickers lol just kidding, my gf has a half sleeve she's a pen pusher ( office worker) she has to have them covered at all times, good for me not as many guys going in for the i like your tats quote lol

Also laser removal of tats looks wrong it's just burning the inked skin.


----------



## Fuscus (Jan 30, 2012)

KaotikJezta said:


> like I said, that is from 2001. I also love how skewed the study is, trying to tie tattoos with hard drug use ie: Injecting and the pathetic reasons they give for people wanting tattoos. The reason being, they got the results for the numbers from Communicable Disease Intelligence. Not really an accurate cross section of tattooed people in the community.


You got stats to back this up?



abnrmal91 said:


> Yep there are bigger things in this world then worrying about someone's tats.


your original post



> I couldnt care less if someone has tats, this again explains why the police cant actually catch/charge anyone with serious crimes. They are too worried that an officers tat may offend someone.
> Society needs a reality check, get over yourself and carry on.


states that the _"police cant actually catch/charge anyone with serious crimes"_ which is clearly not true and needs a reality check



Pinoy said:


> Your mentality is like those people who think only wierdos, drugos and bikies keep snakes.


I stand by my statement, which if you read properly does not encompass all tattooed people. *Most* ( but not all ) of the boring and derivative tattoos, hearts, flowers are stencilled. The *average* female who goes in to get her "slag tag" does not produce a personal detailed design, instead she leafs though a design book or (occasionally) brings in one downloaded from the web. Same for the bloke wanting an AC/DC, skull or Harley tattoo. Personally, I think that if you were going to get a tattoo a stencil at least avoids misspellings like








Occasionally you do see an amazing tattoo but how many are amazing works of art like this:








Greenmad said:


> Baldness so that must make you
> a/ Old
> b/ Boring
> c/ A thug
> d/ Most likely a & b.


you forgot my category - exceptionally cute 
Though any of your choices work for me


----------



## Pinoy (Jan 30, 2012)

br3nton said:


> In the defense your actually not aloud to get tattooed while in the service not saying this happens but regardless you have to ask permission! they will take you with tattoos so firstly your wrong and second if you have a hard boss and get a tattoo you can be charged the same as getting sun burn
> 
> 
> Cheers Brenton


You are allowed. 
I found the ABR, it only talks about where you're not allowed to get a tattoo and what happens if you get one in those places. It says nothing about getting permission to get tattoos anywhere. 
So by the book, I'm not wrong and after a discussion with our coxswain (naval police), you can only be charged if the tattoo affects your ability to work (during the healing proccess). You can be charged for being sunburnt but only if it affects your ability to work. 
I will post what it says when I get home and have a keyboard to type it all lol.


----------



## Aussie-Pride (Jan 30, 2012)

lol "slag tag" I like it. I have " your name" on my **** cheeks so I can tell people I have their name on my **** lol i also have my family my friends down my left rib cage under and under my right arm on my ribs i have "be who you are say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind" are these acceptable or would these be classed as slag tags? lol


----------



## TigerCoastal (Jan 30, 2012)

Tatt's arent everyones cup of tea, i have missed out on getting jobs due to the ink that i have. I dont cover them up for no-one, even if they are offended as the tatts are a part of me, accept me accept my tatts. With an attitude like this i know i am not doing myself any favors, but i am not a bikie or drug user, i work 60+hr weeks, so why shouldnt *I* be able to enjoy what *I* like? This is the problem with the world today, everyone is to worried about what the next person is doing, instead of looking at themselves. 

They tried something similar where i currently work (due to a sexual misconduct complaint about one of my tatts) and tried to make people cover their tatts. I work in a factory with 800 other people and around 15-20 were effected by this. All that was needed to say was one word and they back peddled. HARASSMENT. If you make one person wear long sleeves, ALL must wear them regardless of if they have tatts or not, other wise you are bullying a minority......


----------



## Pinoy (Jan 30, 2012)

For those interested, here's the refference from the ABR the defence uses as a guide for what is and isn't an acceptable tattoo in the RAN (Royal Australian Navy).

Directly quoted from ABR 81 (manual for dress and conduct)

"Tattoos
5.17 RAN personnel are not permitted to have tattoos or brands on their face, scalp, ears or neck (generically referred to as facial tattoos) that would be visible when wearing an open necked, collared shirt. If for religious or cultural reasons, personnel are required to obtain such a tattoo or brand, a waiver is to be sought from Director General Navy People (DGNP). Serving personnel who obtain facial tattoo are to be assessed by their Commanding Officer(CO), with a recommendation being passed to DGNP for a decision regarding their future employment. Socially unacceptable tattoos or brands, that include indecent, offensive, racist or sexist themes are prohibited. "


----------



## saximus (Jan 30, 2012)

TigerCoastal said:


> This is the problem with the world today, everyone is to worried about what the next person is doing, instead of looking at themselves.



Well said. 

I've never understood the mentality of some of the people in this thread. Fair enough some people with tatts and other body mods are criminals or "bad" people but there are plenty of people without them that are bad too. 
If you meet someone who is a kind, generous person and who you get along with perfectly well and instantly like, would your perception of that person change if you found out they have a skull tattooed on their arm? If so, why? Why does the choice to change something about their own body make someone less worthy or respect?
This goes for a job like being a cop then too. If a person is diligent and hard-working and is the best candidate for the job, do those traits instantly disappear because they have some ink on them?
I'd be really interested to hear from the tattoo haters with valid reasons other than "I saw a guy once who wasn't very nice and he had a tat"


----------



## Ramsayi (Jan 30, 2012)

saximus said:


> Well said.
> 
> I've never understood the mentality of some of the people in this thread.




Who are some of the people in this thread? I can only find one who has expressed a negative opinion to tatts. :?


----------



## Gruni (Jan 30, 2012)

Ramsayi said:


> The fact is 90% of the population don't have tats so it stands to reason that tats are not really socially acceptable.



And 75% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Just because a majority of people do not have a tatt does not mean that they do not generally accept other people having one. The issue is really about how to you definitively regulate what is considered an 'offensive' tatt. I am a school teacher and know plenty of teachers who have visible tatts (mine is on my chest so not an issue) but none of them look at the job and say 'Gee how cool would it be if I had a tatt of a bong or a naked woman that my students can all look at.' 

They want to address the issue of the overall image of the police force and have grabbed a knee jerk approach to the issue. If they want to raise the image of the force they hould address the number of police serving so rural communities aren't under staffed or so that hot spot areas with violent crime can be more effectively patroled etc and maybe not make the police seem like revenue raisers with the flash for cash speed checks etc. I know a number of cops and they are good blokes and gals trying to do their jobs.

And Fuscus that really is a narrow minded comment. Some people get the drunken spur of the moment tat but many people especially these days think long and hard about their design because they want something with some detail and artistic merit or a deeper personal meaning. My wife and I got ours a few years ago (I was 40) after months of thought and searching and stone cold sober, to commorate the baby boy we lost and burried two years earlier. I will be getting one more for both of my surviving children in the near future. Judging us for our tatts is like judging me for being a dirt bike rider or for being a teacher.

I will now don my flame suit and wait for the impending backlash.


----------



## TigerCoastal (Jan 30, 2012)

Gruni said:


> Some people get the drunken spur of the moment tat but many people especially these days think long and hard about their design because they want something with some detail and artistic merit or a deeper personal meaning. My wife and I got ours a few years ago (I was 40) after months of thought and searching and stone cold sober



Any respectable and decent tattoo artist wont give you a tatt if you have been drinking, and if you have any respect for yourself you will use one of these artists as they tend to have the better hygene practices in place. If you rule out the risk of disease transmittal there is still downfalls. I've had backyard ink done, supplying ALL of my own consumables (needles, ink cups, tubes, etc) and have had the ability to drink while getting one done, and i bled like a stuck pig! And due to the excess bleeding the ink got flushed back out in large patches leaving me a major re-color, and from that day i only pay top $$$ for my ink, from a great artist (and a**hole)


----------



## Gruni (Jan 30, 2012)

I had a mate in the Army years ago who was stung by scorpions on bivowac (sp?) and was really ill and hospitalised. He went on to get a scorpion tattooed on his shoulder near one of the stings, he was serving at the time and required no permission. 

I also know a lady who currently teaches on the central north coast who was a police officer and because of her ink was succesfully used as an undercover drug ops cop as the ink gave her 'cred' she was even encouraged when she wanted more. Her ink included a sleeve and significant calf work visible while wearing female dress uniforms.

I don't think it should really be as big an issue as the media are making it, just to come back to the original point of this thread. Take a leaf out of the Defense Forces handbook and move on, then address some of the bigger issues the voters are voicing like police staffing numbers and response/patrol stats.



TigerCoastal said:


> Any respectable and decent tattoo artist wont give you a tatt if you have been drinking, and if you have any respect for yourself you will use one of these artists as they tend to have the better hygene practices in place. If you rule out the risk of disease transmittal there is still downfalls. I've had backyard ink done, supplying ALL of my own consumables (needles, ink cups, tubes, etc) and have had the ability to drink while getting one done, and i bled like a stuck pig! And due to the excess bleeding the ink got flushed back out in large patches leaving me a major re-color, and from that day i only pay top $$$ for my ink, from a great artist (and a**hole)



That is all fair enough and I certainly went to great lengths to suss out my studio and even the artist who did our work as I wanted someone who could do fine detail and not make it look like old school navy or prison ink. That doesn't change the fact that drunken tatts happen, my original post was pointing out that these are really becoming the minority of ink you see done these days, where as back in the 70's it was common practice. Also it is interesting to look around certain areas. I spent Christmas in Logan (Woodridge/Kingston) in Qld and it seemed like people without tatts were in the minority.  

It certainly is a life choice that has gained in popularity and many 'professionals' now have tatts, but they also tend to use discression choosing what they get and where and _most_ (imho) that I have noticed have them in places covered by the clothes they wear for daily work.


----------



## Snowman (Jan 30, 2012)

Body art is so last decade anyway. Cool people are getting them removed rather than added.


----------



## Ramsayi (Jan 30, 2012)

Gruni said:


> It certainly is a life choice that has gained in popularity and many 'professionals' now have tatts, but they also tend to use discression choosing what they get and where and _most_ (imho) that I have noticed have them in places covered by the clothes they wear for daily work.



This is the point though,if tats were/are as acceptable as some seem to think then why would a person feel the need to have them covered?


----------



## Aussie-Pride (Jan 30, 2012)

I never plan on being a copper so it doesn't worry me just another upside of being a tradie.


----------



## Gruni (Jan 30, 2012)

Ramsayi said:


> This is the point though,if tats were/are as acceptable as some seem to think then why would a person feel the need to have them covered?



It is just an observation. I keep mine covered because of the conservative way in which teachers are percieved and the fact that many of the principals I have worked under are from an older generation who have different views to most of the other people I deal with on a day by day basis, and so as to avoid unnessecary crap with narrow minded people, but mostly because I got mine for private and personal reasons NOT to show off that I have one. More and more of the teachers I know who have tatts these days are happy to have them on show but choose designs that won't provoke reactions in people.


----------



## Erebos (Jan 30, 2012)

It's funny how tattoos are frowned apon but other dudes at the beach in his jockey swimmers is fine. 


Cheers Brenton


----------



## hazza88 (Jan 30, 2012)

my mates a cop and you works with a guy in the police force with full sleeve tattoos but this is in wa


----------



## Twitch_80 (Jan 30, 2012)

My mate is a cop and covered, arms, legs, hands, neck. Still does his job just fine.


----------



## phantomreptiles (Jan 31, 2012)

Didn't read the whole thread - but my two cents worth....
If they are tasteful and not facial tattoos I don't see the problem. Where do we draw line? In this day and age we need to be able to accept pretty much anything, tattoos have been around for a very long time, let's keep them around for alot longer.
Personally if I got pulled up or arrested, tats on a cop would be the very last thing I would be worrying about, equally if I needed to talk to the police for any other reason, again tats would not prevail my thoughts.


----------



## AUSHERP (Jan 31, 2012)

sounds like discrimination to me. I'm sure if they claim the tattoos are for religious purposes they'll be allowed, like full face covers in banks and service stations.


----------



## Exotic_Doc (Jan 31, 2012)

Just saw this thread. Issue been on my mind constantly for the past couple of days. I wear my tattoos proudly, i am still going to follow the path im on and become a cop. I want to see how this is going to go down once it is introduced. You accept the most capable people to do this job, then turn em away cause of tattoos? Ur f%#@ kidding me....


----------



## Gruni (Jan 31, 2012)

I think at the end of the day whether you 'like' tatts or not would you_ really care _whether the person who helped you had some or not?


----------

