Tattoo ban for police officers

[Richie]

http://sphotos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/76538_456704667706498_773953268_n.jpg





The head of the Metropolitan Police has banned officers and staff from getting visible tattoos because they "damage the professional image" of the force.
Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe also said employees must register details of any body art with line managers, or risk being thrown out of the force.
A Met statement said its policy on appearance would promote consistency.
Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation John Tully described the policy as a "little heavy handed".
The memo sent to officers and civilian staff on Monday made clear they must not get any more visible tattoos and declare all those they currently have within a month, or face a disciplinary hearing.
The Met's official statement said: "The standard of appearance required from serving police officers and staff has recently been reviewed to promote consistency."
It also said applicants wanting to join the police service were already to declare tattoos.
Mr Tully said it seemed rather a harsh policy and questioned the need to use misconduct procedures over tattoos.
"Clearly anything that is overtly offensive shouldn't be allowed but I think using the sledgehammer, which the commissioner seems to want to use for gross misconduct under our discipline procedures, for anyone who has these or doesn't declare them is a bit heavy handed."

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19974694




I can understand where they're coming from but then again saying it portrays a 'thuggish' image is a little harsh. Feel sorry for some people who got a visible tattoo and wanted to join the police force in the future but now can't.




What are your views on this?

[Cerys]

I agree that some tattoos may portray a bad image onto the police, but the majority won't. Eg how would a little flower on your wrist or something make you seem 'thuggish'?

Ah thankgod I don't have any tattoos for if this ban sticks xP

[Matt]

I think the tattoo pictured below is one that shouldn't be allowed as in my opinion, portrays the wrong type of image for the police force. However, as mentioned by Cerys, i think a small tattoo that is either covered by clothes or very tiny is acceptable and shouldn't be an issue.

As for the "thuggish" remark. I think that was totally the wrong word to have been used and deters people from joining the police.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Absolutely the right measure and along with it I would put back in place the old height, weight and strength restrictions which we have abolished over the years purely for dogmatic politically correct reasons - ie, to allow more women into the force purely to meet quotas.

The job of the Police is to command respect and to be able to catch criminals whilst on foot (and thats another thing I would bring back, foot patrols) - a Police officer who is weak, overweight or too small is simply a ridiculous concept because like it or not, an average sized woman or a small man will not have the strength to overpower a suspect and nor will an overweight Police officer.

As for those opposed, no it's purely for professional reasons and most people do see it as thuggish (apart from teenagers whom naturally think they look good but realise otherwise when the reach the age of 30). The Police should be subject to restrains other professions have, for example it'd be unlikely that you would find a Bank Manager with a studded nose and a mohawk would it? same ought to apply here.

Fully behind this and quite amazed we've got some common sense left in the year 2012.

[xxMATTGxx]

I think this has been a rule at other Police forces for a while, not sure but that's what someone told me a while back.

[GoldenMerc]

Think this is silly, tattoos on hands yeh I agree, on arms no :/

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[Kardan]

Absolutely the right measure and along with it I would put back in place the old height, weight and strength restrictions which we have abolished over the years purely for dogmatic politically correct reasons - ie, to allow more women into the force purely to meet quotas.

The job of the Police is to command respect and to be able to catch criminals whilst on foot (and thats another thing I would bring back, foot patrols) - a Police officer who is weak, overweight or too small is simply a ridiculous concept because like it or not, an average sized woman or a small man will not have the strength to overpower a suspect and nor will an overweight Police officer.

As for those opposed, no it's purely for professional reasons and most people do see it as thuggish (apart from teenagers whom naturally think they look good but realise otherwise when the reach the age of 30). The Police should be subject to restrains other professions have, for example it'd be unlikely that you would find a Bank Manager with a studded nose and a mohawk would it? same ought to apply here.

Fully behind this and quite amazed we've got some common sense left in the year 2012.

I think this is one of the rare occasions where I agree with you :) Tattoos do give off a bad vibe - and the restrictions that you mentioned I would also agree with if they were brought back, assuming that they were for the police officers actually out on the street and not across all departments.

[GommeInc]

I always thought the thuggish image came from films? Most of the people I know with huge, visible tattoos are lovely and a tiny bit eccentric in a butch, manly way.

I sort of see their point as it can come off as intimidating, but surely it depends on the type of tattoo and size? A lot of good officers out there may be targetted for their tattoos despite these intimidation fears being purely superficial. Language and physical body shape are more than likely to counter-out these claims that tattoos are intimidating. If an officer has a huge tattoo up his or her arm, but speaks in a calm, friendly way and is of a reasonably thin/average body build, then will they be intimidating?

I usually step back when I see a policeman at the door regardless of their appearance, their uniform usually spooks me when I least suspect it :P

Part of me thinks this is one of those concerns no-one would of cared about, but because a news article has appeared suddenly opinions are being formed that otherwise would never of existed.

[Absently]

I don't really think one visible tattoo on your arm should be banned, I agree if you have a whole arms length. One visible tattoo that could be medium size or whatever and says something like your kids names and something like their birth date is not exactly thugish :P or imagine like a heart signifying when you first fell in love - seems all quite innocent really. Of course, if it's completely overboard like skulls, tigers and naked women, that's not exactly professional so should be banned. No matter what a police man or woman looks like I'll always see them as an authority figure, with a million tattoos I think it would more so scream gangster :P

[blackops121]

There was once a police officer that was great, probably the best in the entire force's history. He had a massive track record of arrests with justification, he had stopped drug rings and human traffickers, he had saved multiple lifes single handedly in one of the biggest hostage rescue operations in the UK's history. If it wasn't for this one man's integrity, high morale standing and dedication he would never have became the saviour that he is. His record has got him a massive foot-hold into even a military standing if he so wishes, where he could possibly go on to save the f'ing world from WW3.

No jks, he didn't get in because he had his mothers name tattoo'd across his arm who died of cancer when he was 4.

In my opinion, this ban is absolutely pathetic.

[Lee]

completely against this, only violent tatoos etc should be disallowed but sleeves and things are ok in my opinion.

[Empired]

What happens to current police officers with visible tattoos? Does anyone know?

I don't think it's fair to judge someone just because they have tattoos. As said above I know a number of people who are lovely with tattoos. It doesn't change your personality at all! If people judge someone because they have tattoos, that's their problem really! Maybe people want to go back to a time where you had "neighbourhood" policemen who helped old women over the road and things (exaggeration), but that's impossible. Times have moved on and now lots of people have tattoos.

If they want to turn away one of the best people they could get for their force just because they have a tattoo, they must be mad.

[Sian]

Seeming as I don't think tattoos make you look thuggish at all, whenever I see someone with tattoos they seem perfectly normal to me so I'm against this, however the rule for most work is generally for non-visible ones and I'd get them not wanting pornographic or rude tattoos being on show.

[Aiden]

This is stupid, I can see why they did it but really? What happened to don't judge a book by its cover.

[flatface]

It's always been against the rules for officers to have tattoos on the hands, neck and face etc because they can't be covered, they're stamping down on officers with tattoos on their arms etc by making them cover up with long sleeve shirts.

As for the height/weight restrictions, I totally disagree with @-:Undertaker:- (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=24233);, I work very closely with the police, infact a specific example being when I was attending to a patient last Friday night in an area full of clubs and pubs, a random intoxicated man became very violent towards myself and another female to the point I had to push my emergency button for urgent police assistance. About a minute later 2 "petite" female officers came to help me, they tried to reason with this man who was roughly the same height as me (6 foot) and of a big build, he was having none of it so the officers arrested him, he resisted so they both tackled him to the ground, they did struggle to restrain him even with the use of their CS spray, it took atleast another 5 officers to restrain him on the floor. My point being, they still managed to force him to the ground and protect myself and over members of the public from being attacked - therefore done a good job in my opinion. Even a tall, muscular officer wouldn't have been able to restrain this criminal single handedly, it's all about power in numbers. The point you make about the restrictions being abolished just to meet equality quotas is ridiculous, bringing them back would obviously mean that there would be less female officers which would be massively detrimental, over the past years there has been a massive increase in crimes such as rape and domestic violence being reported to the police, in a lot of cases female officers play a massive part in not only investigating these types of crimes but also comforting the victims, especially when the victim doesn't feel comfortable speaking to a male officer.

I'm proud of the fact that the police (especially where I live) are so diverse. Police aren't there to command respect - the Metropolitan police being a perfect example, renaming themselves from the Metropolitan Police Force to the Metropolitan Police Service, reactive policing is so old fashioned and inappropriate in most cases. The point you make about foot patrols is good and I totally agree, proactive policing is the way forward however to be proactive the workforce of police officers needs to be diverse with a equal mixture of males, females, ethnicities, sexualities etc.

[-:Undertaker:-]

As for the height/weight restrictions, I totally disagree with @-:Undertaker:- (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=24233);, I work very closely with the police, infact a specific example being when I was attending to a patient last Friday night in an area full of clubs and pubs, a random intoxicated man became very violent towards myself and another female to the point I had to push my emergency button for urgent police assistance. About a minute later 2 "petite" female officers came to help me, they tried to reason with this man who was roughly the same height as me (6 foot) and of a big build, he was having none of it so the officers arrested him, he resisted so they both tackled him to the ground, they did struggle to restrain him even with the use of their CS spray, it took atleast another 5 officers to restrain him on the floor. My point being, they still managed to force him to the ground and protect myself and over members of the public from being attacked - therefore done a good job in my opinion. Even a tall, muscular officer wouldn't have been able to restrain this criminal single handedly, it's all about power in numbers.

Yes, and I didn't make the claim that all female Police officiers are useless or unfit for the job. I made the point that compared with Police (usually men due to the laws of nature) who have more strength and can run faster - they simply aren't as good and that factors such as weight, height and strength ought to be taken into account. The job of the Police force is, after all, to protect and serve the public - not to meet government equality quotas.

The facts are that when faced with chasing a suspect for example, two strong tall men are much more capable of doing the job than two petite female officers are or two overweight and short male officers are. That is just the way it is and by ignoring this you will lower standards.


The point you make about the restrictions being abolished just to meet equality quotas is ridiculous, bringing them back would obviously mean that there would be less female officers which would be massively detrimental, over the past years there has been a massive increase in crimes such as rape and domestic violence being reported to the police, in a lot of cases female officers play a massive part in not only investigating these types of crimes but also comforting the victims, especially when the victim doesn't feel comfortable speaking to a male officer.

Having less female officers wouldn't be 'detrimental' because the job of the Police service is not to meet equality quotas so that radical feminists, female lobby groups and the government can pat themselves on the back - the point of the Police service is to protect and serve the public from those who wish to disrupt the lives of others. Would less female Police (a statistic) be detrimental to me and you when faced with a criminal? no, it wouldn't make a difference much in the same way that it makes absolutely no difference that most of the British cabinet is male. What matters is that they can do the job.

For example I judge the bin service based on how often the bins are emptied - not by the statistical minority groupings of its workers.

As for the point on rape and so forth, who said we'd have no more women officers? and who for that matter ruled out the possibility of non-frontline Police being not subjected to these rules? when I speak of imposing common sense rules for frontline policing, i'm not at all suggesting the entire Police force be subjected to it. Indeed, i'd even argue that females on the whole would be more suited to the type of role you speak of there with the example of rape rather than men on the whole.


I'm proud of the fact that the police (especially where I live) are so diverse. Police aren't there to command respect - the Metropolitan police being a perfect example, renaming themselves from the Metropolitan Police Force to the Metropolitan Police Service, reactive policing is so old fashioned and inappropriate in most cases. The point you make about foot patrols is good and I totally agree, proactive policing is the way forward however to be proactive the workforce of police officers needs to be diverse with a equal mixture of males, females, ethnicities, sexualities etc.

Really? because in my eyes and the eyes of others, we couldn't give a damn whether the Police officers coming to our aid are black, yellow, white, gay, young or old - all we ask is that that are the best for the job in question. You may be obsessed with lowering standards to meet government quotas, the rest of us are not ... especially when it lowers the quality of a vitally important service which saves lives.

The fire service has also been subjected to the ridiculous quotas of 14% of it's force having to be female, despite the fact that females on average have half the upper body strength that men do.... this is a measure which will no doubt cost lives, purely to meet dogmatic and frankly ridiculous reasons.

[IceNineKills]

I just don't like how they're branding visible tattoos as 'thuggish'.

[flatface]

Yes, and I didn't make the claim that all female Police officiers are useless or unfit for the job. I made the point that compared with Police (usually men due to the laws of nature) who have more strength and can run faster - they simply aren't as good and that factors such as weight, height and strength ought to be taken into account. The job of the Police force is, after all, to protect and serve the public - not to meet government equality quotas.

All police officers pass a fitness test consisting of a bleep test and stength/grip test aswell as a sufficent BMI and have to reach the minimum level for their application to progress. To protect and serve the public they also have to be approachable. Also a perfect candidate that scores top marks in all tests & interviews with perfect communication skills is 0.5 an inch too short to join, what happens then?

The facts are that when faced with chasing a suspect for example, two strong tall men are much more capable of doing the job than two petite female officers are or two overweight and short male officers are. That is just the way it is and by ignoring this you will lower standards.



Having less female officers wouldn't be 'detrimental' because the job of the Police service is not to meet equality quotas so that radical feminists, female lobby groups and the government can pat themselves on the back - the point of the Police service is to protect and serve the public from those who wish to disrupt the lives of others. Would less female Police (a statistic) be detrimental to me and you when faced with a criminal? no, it wouldn't make a difference much in the same way that it makes absolutely no difference that most of the British cabinet is male. What matters is that they can do the job.

In my eyes, having less females officers would be detrimental. Potentially less crimes such as sexual assaults would be reported and the needs of the victim may not be met and therefore the police would not be serving the public to the best of their ability. Again, the police are much more proactive then they use to be, it isn't all about "chasing a criminal" it's also about serving the community and getting involved with the community, a diverse group of officers make this much more achieveable.


For example I judge the bin service based on how often the bins are emptied - not by the statistical minority groupings of its workers.

As for the point on rape and so forth, who said we'd have no more women officers? and who for that matter ruled out the possibility of non-frontline Police being not subjected to these rules? when I speak of imposing common sense rules for frontline policing, i'm not at all suggesting the entire Police force be subjected to it. Indeed, i'd even argue that females on the whole would be more suited to the type of role you speak of there with the example of rape rather than men on the whole.

There would be less female officers - fact. If you dial 999/101 because you've been sexually assaulted the dispatcher will try there best to ensure a crew is sent that comprises of a female & male officer.


Really? because in my eyes and the eyes of others, we couldn't give a damn whether the Police officers coming to our aid are black, yellow, white, gay, young or old - all we ask is that that are the best for the job in question. You may be obsessed with lowering standards to meet government quotas, the rest of us are not ... especially when it lowers the quality of a vitally important service which saves lives.

Speak for yourself. Like the ambulance service, the police rarely have to physically intervene e.g "chase" suspects or use their strength/height to resolve situations, 90% of the calls attended are resolved simply with the use of good communication skills, just because an officer maybe short or a little overweight in your eyes doesn't mean they wouldn't be able to do the job to a high standard. Also what would the cut off be for height and weight? What is the minimum strength and height for a person to be able to chase a suspect?

The fire service has also been subjected to the ridiculous quotas of 14% of it's force having to be female, despite the fact that females on average have half the upper body strength that men do.... this is a measure which will no doubt cost lives, purely to meet dogmatic and frankly ridiculous reasons.

Government quotas/feminist groups really don't interest me, having a police service that reflects the people they're serving does.

[-:Undertaker:-]

All police officers pass a fitness test consisting of a bleep test and stength/grip test aswell as a sufficent BMI and have to reach the minimum level for their application to progress. To protect and serve the public they also have to be approachable.

Then you don't understand my point. I made the point that in order to accommodate more women, shorter Police officers etc that the standards have been purposely lowered to achieve this dogmatic political goal. I think the difference between us both is that you think standards ought to be purposely lowered to achieve politically correct goals whereas I (and i'm betting the majority of the British public) consider this ridiculous.


Also a perfect candidate that scores top marks in all tests & interviews with perfect communication skills is 0.5 an inch too short to join, what happens then?

Would entirely depend. If the force was struggling to recruit (very rare) then this could be waivered in certain circumstances, but if not then the candidate for the job would have to be let go. I know of somebody who is mixed race and who was offered a job purely based on the colour of his skin and was told this - he turned it down because he knew he wasn't being offered the job based on his skills, rather his colour. I find that noble and quite proper.

Yet with your logic, you would say it is a shame that an unfit man for the job turned down the post because people of mixed race needed more 'representation' in the Police Force.


In my eyes, having less females officers would be detrimental. Potentially less crimes such as sexual assaults would be reported and the needs of the victim may not be met and therefore the police would not be serving the public to the best of their ability.

Sorry, but i'm struggling to understand why a statistic released yearly telling us how many female officers there are (or black, or asian, or gay) in anyway is detrimental to you, me or society in general. I would have thought that lowering entry requirements, which you seemingly advocate and support, is detrimental considering the Police are there to protect and serve?


Again, the police are much more proactive then they use to be, it isn't all about "chasing a criminal" it's also about serving the community and getting involved with the community, a diverse group of officers make this much more achieveable.

I have no idea what this waffle about 'getting involved in the community' is and it comes across to me as complete verbal nonsense - the Police are there to catch criminals and keep order. That is the purpose of them. You can attach as many political buzz phrases such as 'getting involved' 'community' etc to it as you like - but the purpose of the Police Force is to protect and serve the public from those who threaten to disrupt order.


There would be less female officers - fact. If you dial 999/101 because you've been sexually assaulted the dispatcher will try there best to ensure a crew is sent that comprises of a female & male officer.

Naturally there would be less female officers if standards such as strength, weight and height were re-established. Why does this matter? surely standards matter more? or does the fulfilment of politically correct goals seem a more important goal to you than the prevention of crime in our society?


Speak for yourself. Like the ambulance service, the police rarely have to physically intervene e.g "chase" suspects or use their strength/height to resolve situations, 90% of the calls attended are resolved simply with the use of good communication skills, just because an officer maybe short or a little overweight in your eyes doesn't mean they wouldn't be able to do the job to a high standard. Also what would the cut off be for height and weight? What is the minimum strength and height for a person to be able to chase a suspect?

Yes it does mean they won't be able to do the job to a high standard. I mean really, what is so difficult to understand or accept in regards to this simple fact of nature? when involved in situations such as a chase or even potential violent situations, an overweight, weak or sort Police officer is simply no good especially when faced with a typically young offender.


Government quotas/feminist groups really don't interest me, having a police service that reflects the people they're serving does.

Indeed, a gay man who is reporting a break in is almost certainly concerned that the officers responding to his call are also gay. I'm sure the black woman down the street is also overly concerned that the officerrs responding to her call are black or of ethnic minority so she doesn't feel 'alienated' and is 'represented'.

I think you have it all upside down, people are not concerned how they are 'represented' (how am I in anyway represented by the fact that white, gay males are in the force? i'm an individual - I represent myself)... people are concerned that the Police can catch or prevent crimes occuring in the first place.

And by lowering standards, you are placing road blocks in the path.

[Chippiewill]

I think these regulations on tattoos are entirely reasonable, there's a reason why visible tattoos are called interview killers and just because the Police Force is a public service does not mean it is not allowed to have standards of appearance. It's also incredibly inconsistent for police officers to have visible Tattoos, a practice commonly associated with criminals.

[GommeInc]

I think these regulations on tattoos are entirely reasonable, there's a reason why visible tattoos are called interview killers and just because the Police Force is a public service does not mean it is not allowed to have standards of appearance. It's also incredibly inconsistent for police officers to have visible Tattoos, a practice commonly associated with criminals.
Isn't the police force meant to be doing away with stereotypes? It's bad enough they target black males, because black males are "commonly associated" with crime. If they're police officers they're clearly not criminals. Actions speak louder than tattoos.

[Alkaz]

Absolutely the right measure and along with it I would put back in place the old height, weight and strength restrictions which we have abolished over the years purely for dogmatic politically correct reasons - ie, to allow more women into the force purely to meet quotas.

The job of the Police is to command respect and to be able to catch criminals whilst on foot (and thats another thing I would bring back, foot patrols) - a Police officer who is weak, overweight or too small is simply a ridiculous concept because like it or not, an average sized woman or a small man will not have the strength to overpower a suspect and nor will an overweight Police officer.

As for those opposed, no it's purely for professional reasons and most people do see it as thuggish (apart from teenagers whom naturally think they look good but realise otherwise when the reach the age of 30). The Police should be subject to restrains other professions have, for example it'd be unlikely that you would find a Bank Manager with a studded nose and a mohawk would it? same ought to apply here.

Fully behind this and quite amazed we've got some common sense left in the year 2012.
Totally agree with this. Also police officers chewing gum and especially with their mouths open is disgusting.

[Chippiewill]

Isn't the police force meant to be doing away with stereotypes?
Police are meant to be doing away with giving off the impression of acting on stereotypes. In reality stereotyping, as long as it's accurate, is just more efficient.

And ultimately they don't want policemen to look like unapproachable thugs.