FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Tattoos and their problems...

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2121516/I-wear-make-cover-body-art--Salesman-22-claims-Next-forced-shop-floor-stock-room-80-tattoos.html

Yes, I know it's his right to cover himself, but is it also the Business right to promote a certain image?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Oh no! he has a drawing on him! he might hit me and rob me!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2121516/I-wear-make-cover-body-art--Salesman-22-claims-Next-forced-shop-floor-stock-room-80-tattoos.html

Yes, I know it's his right to cover himself, but is it also the Business right to promote a certain image?"

Not an ideal solution but it happens with lots of other businesses too. He has been there 4 years so should have known visible tattoos wouldn't help work wise.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

It's the right of any employer to set a standard of presentation that they then require their staff to follow, it's also the right of employees to seek employment elsewhere if they then decide not to comply with the personal presentation code of any company in the workplace.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *emima_puddlefuckCouple
over a year ago

hexham

Apparently there were problems with each tattoo he got that was visible, he should have considered this.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

i'd rather work in the stock room lol

But seriously what the hell did he think would happen... and what kind of irresponsible tattoo artist tattoo'd someone so young on their neck and hands... you cant cover that shit up day to day...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Young and foolish, but in this case beyond foolish because he was warned and still kept on staff but continued to have more and more visible tattoos done.

I think Next should be appluaded for making so much effort to keep him on staff, and he should be applauded for going public with his stupidity, and hopefully informing other young people that if you want to work in a customer service environment keep yer tats where they can be covered up.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

The thing that makes me smile the most is;

We are told we shouldn't judge people by appearances.

But all people give off an appearance to be judged. Basic human traits, needed for survival to judge the encounter (Time of day and situation).

Don't anyone say they don't, look at people's profiles, they are all trying to give off an appearance to try and interests similar people.

Love to all

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

Two sides to this , reality and objectivity.

Firstly the world we live in is bigoted and prejudice the fact we are quoting from the mail may be an illustration of such narrow mindedness. So with this real world knowledge it was IMO foolish to have such tats when it is fully known the consequences .

Part two is of course objective the fundamental of right and wrong. We rightly have laws to prevent prejudice and discrimination towards people of differing colours and religions, sex and sexuality.It is wrong to presume that a tattoo is a negative attribute to the person wearing it .In many ways a sleeve of tattoos should not be treated in any differing way to a person with a non white skin.

The line could perhaps articulately and rationally be drawn where the body art can be called offensive(beyond that of some small minded peoples general distaste of tattoos) Ie a naked woman or offensive/provocative words .

It is right that we do encourage boundaries and prejudices to be broached .The man was daft im sad to say because if he is not of the right mind set it will have an adverse effect on his life , yet it is for the right minded amongst us to stand up for his rights

(all this said i have not read the article thus have no idea if his tats are offensive but the sentiment remains even if in this case he is not deserving of support !)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

when you wear certain clothes, dye your hair differently, fill your tits with french silicon, you are presenting others with an image for others to judge, regardless of why you chose to alter a certain look, others will have their own perception. I've wonderd about tattoo's and having any meaningless arabic, tribal or chinese drivel stamped on my hide doesnt enter my head. Just my thoughts.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"...the fact we are quoting from the mail ...."

Did they make it up, is it not true. Should certain news/interest stories be excluded form the mail or any paper? Who will decide which stories are worthy to be published?

There is a lot more pages in the Mail, than many other papers, so they must fill it with stories that are of interest to their readers, as will any other paper. They would love the circulation of the mail

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

He worked there before getting tatts, he had some and was told it was against company policy but still had more done. I think the guy know what he was getting into.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

does someone in a customer-facing role have the 'right' to wear what they want? To dress scruffily? To use foul language? what is the difference between these and tattoos?

a company has the 'right' to project and present the image it wants. it's up to the employees to accept this, or choose to work elsewhere. I mean, if you got a job in a bank, you'd expect to have to wear a shirt/tie/business dress/suit wouldn't you???

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

ive got tattoos and intend on getting more, and in a perfect world people wouldnt judge me for them.

unfortunately the world isnt perfect and its very naive/stupid to think people wont judge so i would never get any that wernt easily covered with a long sleeved shirt, my career is far more important to me than having a fancy drawing on my skin

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I have two large tattoo's on my back and a small one on my shoulder. They are personal to me and I have the option to show or cover. Where I work I wouldn't be allow to show them..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I do think it's a pity people are so hung up on it, I mean, it's purely cultural isn't it? Like most things we have been indoctrinated and led to believe some things are not acceptable where actually.. why should be give a shit? Where I work guys aren't even allowed an earing..WTF? but girls are it's just daft.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he_original_poloWoman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester


"Two sides to this , reality and objectivity.

Firstly the world we live in is bigoted and prejudice the fact we are quoting from the mail may be an illustration of such narrow mindedness. So with this real world knowledge it was IMO foolish to have such tats when it is fully known the consequences .

Part two is of course objective the fundamental of right and wrong. We rightly have laws to prevent prejudice and discrimination towards people of differing colours and religions, sex and sexuality.It is wrong to presume that a tattoo is a negative attribute to the person wearing it .In many ways a sleeve of tattoos should not be treated in any differing way to a person with a non white skin.

"

Utter bollox!

I can't even be arsed to explain why trying to compare tattoos with the colour someone is born is ridiculous.

The DDA actually refers to tattoos when it addresses disfigurement......... it says it does not include them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2121516/I-wear-make-cover-body-art--Salesman-22-claims-Next-forced-shop-floor-stock-room-80-tattoos.html

Yes, I know it's his right to cover himself, but is it also the Business right to promote a certain image?"

yes it is, i am a manager for a large company and im also semi heavily tattooed but i have still turned down people for jobs for having tattoo

Our company polacy is we will not employ anyone whos tattoos can not be covered by their uniform, so anyone with them on their hands, neck etc will be turned down, that goes for managers too, i have to be fully covered thro the summer so mine dont show

This is because people do still hold a dim opinion on tattoos and tho i obviously know people with them are not yobs its not my opinon that matters its the customers and they are always put first

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire

I always said to my son have as many as you like as long as they can be covered by long sleeves and not on your neck.

Wonder how many people would want to go and see a bank manager with love and hate tattooed on his hands.

This guy was told more than once so its his own fault

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

.


"Two sides to this , reality and objectivity.

Firstly the world we live in is bigoted and prejudice the fact we are quoting from the mail may be an illustration of such narrow mindedness. So with this real world knowledge it was IMO foolish to have such tats when it is fully known the consequences .

Part two is of course objective the fundamental of right and wrong. We rightly have laws to prevent prejudice and discrimination towards people of differing colours and religions, sex and sexuality.It is wrong to presume that a tattoo is a negative attribute to the person wearing it .In many ways a sleeve of tattoos should not be treated in any differing way to a person with a non white skin.

Utter bollox!

I can't even be arsed to explain why trying to compare tattoos with the colour someone is born is ridiculous.

The DDA actually refers to tattoos when it addresses disfigurement......... it says it does not include them."

Utter bolox back !!

Point missed me thinks . Perhaps you should be bothered to give an articulate explanation back.

You will note i said in many ways not in all ways , and in many ways my statement is true , ie the colour of that person skin inked or not choice or not is no indication to the personality beyond it .

Just because a tattoo is no considered by the dda as disfigurement has no bearing on my point, the point is a simple one of prejudice .Just because a person has chosen to decorate their skin this should not mean they are prejudged negatively on it.

It seems many are so hung up on "must not give the wrong impression" rather than realising image is not everything , content is far more important.

I can be negatively prejudice towards men with white shirts wearing ties and i could articulate my reasons .Is this right however? no for there are indeed some who are not slimy.

It is my opinion that it is very bad to condone the labeling of all people with tattoos as the same , rather than just with clothing assessing the specific tattoo. A man or lady with BNP stamped on their neck should be assessed differently to a one wearing a Celtic band

It was once considered acceptable to discriminate against non whites just as it is now it seems by some acceptable to discriminate against a person who chooses body art ,surely it is right to speak out against discrimination of personal choice by people who have no other reason but "i dont like them"

Just becaue a person has decided to wear a particular item of clothing, jewlery, hair style, or tattoo this does NOT legitamise the narrowmindedness of others to restrict their fredoms and rights !

Next you will be suggesting it is acceptable to discriminate against men with beards or shaven heads or women who dont wear make up

(i know it goes on, i said is it right or acceptable ?)

So you may have an opinion why my analogy is ridiculaus yet could not be assed to articulate it? My analogy was NOT intended to be a parralell more an illustration that a superficial "skin deep" pigmant chosen or not should have zero influence on a person work prospects !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

The way we dress and what we adorn our bodies with is to portray an image.

People will be judged on the image they project. Or what's the point in having an image?

We could all wear Chairman Mao suites and do away with individuality.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

the problem is a lot think once htey have the job they can do what they like

We've had it where i work where ive told people with tattoos that they cant be on show and they are fine with that, agree to wear long sleeve shirts and everythings ok, then after they have been there for a while they start creeping out from under their clothes and start having them on show because they think once they have a contarct you cant touch them

how wrong they are

if you know your company's policy on tattoos and you break then dont moan if you loose your job

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *waymanMan
over a year ago

newcastle

I always enjoy the tattoo debate.

I'm a professional who works in a customer facing role. I'd never let my tattoos be seen while I'm working with the public.

When we're on off site days however, I'll often wear clothing that lets my tattoos be seen, and no-one comments adversely. Quite the opposite, they're good for starting convos. There is, probably, a difference between tatts that appear considered, and those that espouse the Aimy Wino 'any bit of crappy flash I fancy' approach to being tattooed.

I think that probably makes me a tattoo snob, but it does highlight what I think of as the way in which employers bend their own rules - the nice lass with a good attitude won;t get any hassle if her back tatt peeks out from under her top when she bends over, but heaven help the chavvy lad with a chip on his shoulder who lets his crappy tribals be seen beyond his sleeves.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 31/03/12 01:38:39]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

the thing that annoys me is the amount of cowboy tattooists that operate from kitchens, garages etc

friend of mine has spent a few hours already with a guy who is disgraceful, he cant draw never mind tattoo! im considering grassing him up to the police his tattoos are that bad, problem is lots of people dont understand that good tattoos arnt cheap and cheap tattoos arnt good

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he_original_poloWoman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester


".

Two sides to this , reality and objectivity.

Firstly the world we live in is bigoted and prejudice the fact we are quoting from the mail may be an illustration of such narrow mindedness. So with this real world knowledge it was IMO foolish to have such tats when it is fully known the consequences .

Part two is of course objective the fundamental of right and wrong. We rightly have laws to prevent prejudice and discrimination towards people of differing colours and religions, sex and sexuality.It is wrong to presume that a tattoo is a negative attribute to the person wearing it .In many ways a sleeve of tattoos should not be treated in any differing way to a person with a non white skin.

Utter bollox!

I can't even be arsed to explain why trying to compare tattoos with the colour someone is born is ridiculous.

The DDA actually refers to tattoos when it addresses disfigurement......... it says it does not include them.

Utter bolox back !!

Point missed me thinks . Perhaps you should be bothered to give an articulate explanation back.

You will note i said in many ways not in all ways , and in many ways my statement is true , ie the colour of that person skin inked or not choice or not is no indication to the personality beyond it .

Just because a tattoo is no considered by the dda as disfigurement has no bearing on my point, the point is a simple one of prejudice .Just because a person has chosen to decorate their skin this should not mean they are prejudged negatively on it.

It seems many are so hung up on "must not give the wrong impression" rather than realising image is not everything , content is far more important.

I can be negatively prejudice towards men with white shirts wearing ties and i could articulate my reasons .Is this right however? no for there are indeed some who are not slimy.

It is my opinion that it is very bad to condone the labeling of all people with tattoos as the same , rather than just with clothing assessing the specific tattoo. A man or lady with BNP stamped on their neck should be assessed differently to a one wearing a Celtic band

It was once considered acceptable to discriminate against non whites just as it is now it seems by some acceptable to discriminate against a person who chooses body art ,surely it is right to speak out against discrimination of personal choice by people who have no other reason but "i dont like them"

Just becaue a person has decided to wear a particular item of clothing, jewlery, hair style, or tattoo this does NOT legitamise the narrowmindedness of others to restrict their fredoms and rights !

Next you will be suggesting it is acceptable to discriminate against men with beards or shaven heads or women who dont wear make up

(i know it goes on, i said is it right or acceptable ?)

So you may have an opinion why my analogy is ridiculaus yet could not be assed to articulate it? My analogy was NOT intended to be a parralell more an illustration that a superficial "skin deep" pigmant chosen or not should have zero influence on a person work prospects !

"

It's still bollox.

A tattoo is choice, the colour someone is born is not.

A company may say all employees need to wear a tie, it does not mean they are prejudice towards people who don't wear ties, it is just the standard of appearance they expect whilst their employees are at work... or are you suggesting no employer should have the right to set standards for appearance in the workplace?

"Just becaue a person has decided to wear a particular item of clothing, jewlery, hair style, or tattoo this does NOT legitamise the narrowmindedness of others to restrict their fredoms and rights !"

Really?

Let us not forget this lad entered into a contract with the employer and by entering into the contract he gave the employer the right to restrict how he chose to ink his skin.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *waymanMan
over a year ago

newcastle


"the thing that annoys me is the amount of cowboy tattooists that operate from kitchens, garages etc

friend of mine has spent a few hours already with a guy who is disgraceful, he cant draw never mind tattoo! im considering grassing him up to the police his tattoos are that bad, problem is lots of people dont understand that good tattoos arnt cheap and cheap tattoos arnt good"

Police won't do anything - tattoo parlours are licensed by your local council. Give them a call...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *waymanMan
over a year ago

newcastle


".

Two sides to this , reality and objectivity.

Firstly the world we live in is bigoted and prejudice the fact we are quoting from the mail may be an illustration of such narrow mindedness. So with this real world knowledge it was IMO foolish to have such tats when it is fully known the consequences .

Part two is of course objective the fundamental of right and wrong. We rightly have laws to prevent prejudice and discrimination towards people of differing colours and religions, sex and sexuality.It is wrong to presume that a tattoo is a negative attribute to the person wearing it .In many ways a sleeve of tattoos should not be treated in any differing way to a person with a non white skin.

Utter bollox!

I can't even be arsed to explain why trying to compare tattoos with the colour someone is born is ridiculous.

The DDA actually refers to tattoos when it addresses disfigurement......... it says it does not include them.

Utter bolox back !!

Point missed me thinks . Perhaps you should be bothered to give an articulate explanation back.

You will note i said in many ways not in all ways , and in many ways my statement is true , ie the colour of that person skin inked or not choice or not is no indication to the personality beyond it .

Just because a tattoo is no considered by the dda as disfigurement has no bearing on my point, the point is a simple one of prejudice .Just because a person has chosen to decorate their skin this should not mean they are prejudged negatively on it.

It seems many are so hung up on "must not give the wrong impression" rather than realising image is not everything , content is far more important.

I can be negatively prejudice towards men with white shirts wearing ties and i could articulate my reasons .Is this right however? no for there are indeed some who are not slimy.

It is my opinion that it is very bad to condone the labeling of all people with tattoos as the same , rather than just with clothing assessing the specific tattoo. A man or lady with BNP stamped on their neck should be assessed differently to a one wearing a Celtic band

It was once considered acceptable to discriminate against non whites just as it is now it seems by some acceptable to discriminate against a person who chooses body art ,surely it is right to speak out against discrimination of personal choice by people who have no other reason but "i dont like them"

Just becaue a person has decided to wear a particular item of clothing, jewlery, hair style, or tattoo this does NOT legitamise the narrowmindedness of others to restrict their fredoms and rights !

Next you will be suggesting it is acceptable to discriminate against men with beards or shaven heads or women who dont wear make up

(i know it goes on, i said is it right or acceptable ?)

So you may have an opinion why my analogy is ridiculaus yet could not be assed to articulate it? My analogy was NOT intended to be a parralell more an illustration that a superficial "skin deep" pigmant chosen or not should have zero influence on a person work prospects !

It's still bollox.

A tattoo is choice, the colour someone is born is not.

A company may say all employees need to wear a tie, it does not mean they are prejudice towards people who don't wear ties, it is just the standard of appearance they expect whilst their employees are at work... or are you suggesting no employer should have the right to set standards for appearance in the workplace?

"Just becaue a person has decided to wear a particular item of clothing, jewlery, hair style, or tattoo this does NOT legitamise the narrowmindedness of others to restrict their fredoms and rights !"

Really?

Let us not forget this lad entered into a contract with the employer and by entering into the contract he gave the employer the right to restrict how he chose to ink his skin.

"

I understand the point you're trying to make, but your last paragraph is such utter bollocks it's embarassing.

An employer's right to enforce dress or conduct standards in conditional, and does not extend beyond the limits of what is proportionate and necessary.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top