Tattoo ban for police officers

[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:-;, 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:-;, 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.