|
Post by mouse on Jun 12, 2016 5:52:29 GMT -5
A former Ministry of Defence policeman with an unblemished record has been banned from joining the regular force because of a tattoo of a ‘Crusader’ knight on his arm. The 33-year-old, who quit his MoD role as an armed counter-terrorism officer because of declining eyesight, claims he was told by Sussex Police that the image was ‘religious’ and could be offensive. He now plans to sue the force, citing religious discrimination. The force denied the image was seen as religious, with a spokesman describing it as violent and partisan. The tattoo on the man’s upper left arm is of a medieval knight in full armour, displaying a cross of St George and holding a sword. The symbol was at the centre of controversy last week when England football fans were warned they could upset Muslims if they dressed as Crusaders during Euro 2016 because the costumes recalled medieval holy wars in the Middle East. The man, who does not want to be named, branded the police’s decision ‘ridiculous political correctness’, adding: ‘I consider myself English and Christian, and as such portraying a knight from England’s past should not be a problem.’ In an email sent to him after he was rejected, the Sussex force referred to a section on their website that included ‘religious content’ as one of the criteria used to judge if tattoos were offensive. Former Minister Lord Tebbit said: ‘Evidence of an attachment to British values or to Christianity is Evidence of an attachment to British values or to Christianity is clearly unacceptable these days.’ Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3637108/Banned-police-Christian-tattoo-Image-Crusader-knight-branded-violent-partisan-force.html#ixzz4BMT0ANnR Follow us: @mailonline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3637108/Banned-police-Christian-tattoo-Image-Crusader-knight-branded-violent-partisan-force.html#ixzz4BMSKxrBR Follow us: @mailonline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jun 12, 2016 5:58:25 GMT -5
well that's RICHARD COUER DE LION out of the history books then.... but exactly who can possibly be offended by such a Tatoo and just how did the portrayal of a knight become a religious emblem ??...because if such a portral is offencive then surely those walking around in muslim garb can be said to be equally offensive....they cannot have it both ways...but then if we non muslims are offended who cares[ and actually we don't make a habit of being offended by every thing] the crusades happened...get over it
|
|
|
Post by annaj26 on Jun 12, 2016 7:24:27 GMT -5
well that's RICHARD COUER DE LION out of the history books then.... but exactly who can possibly be offended by such a Tatoo and just how did the portrayal of a knight become a religious emblem ??...because if such a portral is offencive then surely those walking around in muslim garb can be said to be equally offensive....they cannot have it both ways...but then if we non muslims are offended who cares[ and actually we don't make a habit of being offended by every thing] the crusades happened...get over it That IS stupid, but I can see where they might not want to have to field a lot of complaints and grumblings from the people who live to find religious insults. Law Enforcement has their hands full already and need their attention on keeping things safe, not dealing with whining and any excuse to riot. I don't think they'd hire him here either. Too much distraction.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jun 12, 2016 7:28:58 GMT -5
all they had to do was insist the tattoo was covered when on duty are we really so far down the road of the wet and weak that a tattoo is a sackable offence
|
|
|
Post by annaj26 on Jun 12, 2016 7:33:28 GMT -5
all they had to do was insist the tattoo was covered when on duty are we really so far down the road of the wet and weak that a tattoo is a sackable offence It depends on the job and the situation I would think. Law Enforcement is a very specialized field. They need nothing to distract from the responsibilities. Here, that would be like somebody with a KKK hood tattooed on his arm. Might be what he or she believes in but wouldn't work on the streets!
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jun 12, 2016 11:00:22 GMT -5
I’m not that knowledgeable about these things happening in England, but I guess that we in the United States do not hold 100% of the rights to political correctness. However, I will suggest that if some may find the Crusades offensive is more the making of an issue where none exists. The Crusades were primarily defensive actions against aggressions by nations in the Mideast against Christians and Europe. To now take offense against them is to try to rewrite history. If authorities in England take such a stand I cannot help but wonder what it is that they stand for? Apparently not England.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jun 12, 2016 11:37:47 GMT -5
I’m not that knowledgeable about these things happening in England, but I guess that we in the United States do not hold 100% of the rights to political correctness. However, I will suggest that if some may find the Crusades offensive is more the making of an issue where none exists. The Crusades were primarily defensive actions against aggressions by nations in the Mideast against Christians and Europe. To now take offense against them is to try to rewrite history. If authorities in England take such a stand I cannot help but wonder what it is that they stand for? Apparently not England. I'll go with AnnaJ's remarks. Of course it's not good to kowtow to the complainers, but in the case of LE, it's far better to keep things as routine as possible for keeping the peace, as they are charged with doing, instead of letting personal principles get involved. For others ... go with the crusades tatoos and signs ... whaterver. For Law Enforcement, put the duties of the job, first.
|
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
Post by Jessiealan on Jun 12, 2016 12:48:52 GMT -5
all they had to do was insist the tattoo was covered when on duty are we really so far down the road of the wet and weak that a tattoo is a sackable offence It depends on the job and the situation I would think. Law Enforcement is a very specialized field. They need nothing to distract from the responsibilities. Here, that would be like somebody with a KKK hood tattooed on his arm. Might be what he or she believes in but wouldn't work on the streets! Less extreme but to the point, it would be like a police officer here having a confederate flag tattoo. It would put him and his fellow officers in danger. Of course it should not be allowed.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jun 12, 2016 14:03:30 GMT -5
well that's RICHARD COUER DE LION out of the history books then.... but exactly who can possibly be offended by such a Tatoo and just how did the portrayal of a knight become a religious emblem ??...because if such a portral is offencive then surely those walking around in muslim garb can be said to be equally offensive....they cannot have it both ways...but then if we non muslims are offended who cares[ and actually we don't make a habit of being offended by every thing] the crusades happened...get over it Mouse I agree with you, this tattoo represent the defense of Western culture and Christian communities in the Mideast. Those who fought against Western culture may or may not be offended but it is not relevant. This tattoo represents the successful defense of England, of Europe, of Western culture. Nor would this be similar to police in the United States wearing a shoulder patch of a tattoo of one of the Confederate flags, rather, it is similar to police in the United States wearing a shoulder patch or a tattoo of the flag of the United States and doing so in the former States of the Confederacy. That does happen every day and no one is offended. That someone who is a Muslim might get offended, too bad, this is the West, not Mecca or Medina. By the way, any police officer in the United States could have a tattoo of a Confederate flag and that would not place them in danger.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jun 12, 2016 20:43:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jun 12, 2016 21:41:47 GMT -5
Beth I believe that this is about restricting 'visible' tattoos. That is understandable, but I don't believe that it restricts tattoos that are not visible. I also don't believe that it restricts the type of non visible tattoos.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jun 12, 2016 21:53:39 GMT -5
Yes.
The upper arm IS visible in short sleeved uniforms.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jun 13, 2016 3:17:52 GMT -5
the tattoo could easily have been covered in the winter via winter uniform and in the summer by flesh coloured plaster....the real reason behind this is political..PC and righton on..this man has shown via the tattoo his origins and his preffereces and nationality...and the powers that be cannot stomach any slant away from what they have deemed acceptable....afterall a male with a knight tattoo cannot be trusted to keep quiet on certain issue that the police etc order kept quiet....such as a Syrian imports rape of a girl which was kept very under wraps...or the mass groomings kept quiet for 20yrs this really isn't about a tattoo....its about control
|
|
|
Post by annaj26 on Jun 13, 2016 11:03:40 GMT -5
the tattoo could easily have been covered in the winter via winter uniform and in the summer by flesh coloured plaster....the real reason behind this is political..PC and righton on..this man has shown via the tattoo his origins and his preffereces and nationality...and the powers that be cannot stomach any slant away from what they have deemed acceptable....afterall a male with a knight tattoo cannot be trusted to keep quiet on certain issue that the police etc order kept quiet....such as a Syrian imports rape of a girl which was kept very under wraps...or the mass groomings kept quiet for 20yrs this really isn't about a tattoo....its about control Mouse, if it had been a political tattoo in favor of something you disagree with, would you feel the same way? I'm against anything that might put our police officers in more danger than they already find themselves, daily.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jun 14, 2016 3:38:17 GMT -5
the tattoo could easily have been covered in the winter via winter uniform and in the summer by flesh coloured plaster....the real reason behind this is political..PC and righton on..this man has shown via the tattoo his origins and his preffereces and nationality...and the powers that be cannot stomach any slant away from what they have deemed acceptable....afterall a male with a knight tattoo cannot be trusted to keep quiet on certain issue that the police etc order kept quiet....such as a Syrian imports rape of a girl which was kept very under wraps...or the mass groomings kept quiet for 20yrs this really isn't about a tattoo....its about control Mouse, if it had been a political tattoo in favor of something you disagree with, would you feel the same way? I'm against anything that might put our police officers in more danger than they already find themselves, daily. personally I dislike tattoos of any type...but what a person decides to have on their body is their business and not mine...and I mentioned the tattoo could easily be covered in a working situation. my objection to the treatment of this chap and his tattoo is its about freedom of choice and the freedom to excersise that choice...plus the tattoo is a visual expression of a period of our history..and thus in OUR country should not be objectionable to anybody..simples there are those who get offended by every thing..and I do not think we should be pandering to them who ever they are its like those who get offended by the Swastika or peeps going to fancy dress parties in feathered headdresses or parody Hitler....get a life and stop looking to be offenda every waking moment
|
|