The Metropolitan Police is once again making itself a laughing stock with its latest edict – Policeman should not have visible tattoos. Does a copper become less effective at fighting crime if he has a Cross of St George or West Ham logo on his neck? No. So why is the Met wasting its time on this rubbish?
Do not get me wrong, I loathe tattoos. They are not pretty and generally there seems a good correlation between those who choose to decorate their body in this way and innate stupidity. Just look at most Premiership footballers if you doubt me. As they get older and their skin starts to sag and droop these morons will look increasingly ridiculous. But having a tattoo does not make them any better or worse at kicking a ball around. Nor should it stop someone being a copper.
In case you missed the edict
Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, has ordered those who already have visible tattoos to cover them up and if they are uncoverable officers must “register” on a special list or they could be fired. Bernie states:
“All visible tattoos damage the professional image of the Metropolitan Police Service. This corporate announcement discusses a specific requirement from the MPS Dress Code Policy in relation to the display of tattoos.
With effect from the date of this announcement, tattoos on the face, or visible above a collar line, or on the hands are not permitted. All other tattoos must be covered.
The MPS is aware that some officers and staff already have prohibited visible tattoos. These are defined as tattoos that can not be covered by everyday clothing (i.e. on the face, above a collar line and on the hands.
It will be a requirement, by the Commissioner, that all officers and police staff with existing tattoos defined as ‘visible’ must register such tattoos as a formal written declaration to their line manager before 12 November 2012.
Any officer or member of police staff who fails, without reasonable excuse, to declare and register an existing visible tattoo will be liable to disciplinary action. Such a failure is liable to be considered to be gross misconduct.”
I would consider that the Met’s professional image is tainted by: having officers on Murdoch’s payroll, shooting innocent Brazilians, beating newspaper sellers to death, persecuting motorists for doing 32 mph, failing to catch more criminals, its rabid adherence to Heath & safety/diversity agendas rather than to fighting crime, etc. Not by having the odd officer showing an “I love Julie” (or in today’s met “I love Johnnie”) tattoo. Surely having a few officers with tattoos is all part of a diversity agenda anyway?
And the idea of a tattoo register just sounds utterly Orwellian. Not to mention a complete waste of time and money.comments powered by Disqus