|
|
Post by beth on Jun 14, 2016 7:00:46 GMT -5
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 I don't think so .. It's mostly about him needing to respect the standards that go with the LE job. It's easy to sit at home and say, "oh my .. people should be free to do .. whatever ... " but if they aspire to a profession they need to adhere to the rules of same. It might mean the difference between being able to function in that role and being a risk factor. |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jun 14, 2016 8:20:21 GMT -5
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 I don't think so .. It's mostly about him needing to respect the standards that go with the LE job. It's easy to sit at home and say, "oh my .. people should be free to do .. whatever ... " but if they aspire to a profession they need to adhere to the rules of same. It might mean the difference between being able to function in that role and being a risk factor. he had already been employed by the state with tattoo in situ....and had to resign not down to the tattoo but down to eye sight..he was in armed counter terrorism and how is his tattoo disprespecting any standards...it isn't...of course if they had a policy of NO tattoos then I could go along with that...but they don't... an Englishman wearing an English symbol should not be considered offencive in England or in an English police force.. it is pure discrimination of his nationality by those whose perceptions are very slanted
|
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726 
|
Post by Jessiealan on Jun 14, 2016 9:27:31 GMT -5
I don't think so .. It's mostly about him needing to respect the standards that go with the LE job. It's easy to sit at home and say, "oh my .. people should be free to do .. whatever ... " but if they aspire to a profession they need to adhere to the rules of same. It might mean the difference between being able to function in that role and being a risk factor. he had already been employed by the state with tattoo in situ....and had to resign not down to the tattoo but down to eye sight..he was in armed counter terrorism and how is his tattoo disprespecting any standards...it isn't...of course if they had a policy of NO tattoos then I could go along with that...but they don't... an Englishman wearing an English symbol should not be considered offencive in England or in an English police force.. it is pure discrimination of his nationality by those whose perceptions are very slanted
It sounds as if the Dept. is to blame. They should have rules that cover tattoos. Most of our police departments do. |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jun 15, 2016 2:40:31 GMT -5
absolutely Jessie..one blanket rule applied would stop all this nonsense
rather than a pick and mix as to what is and what is not acceptable dependent on the whims and fancies of PC
|
|
Omega
