Barred from joining RN due to a tattoo

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by 5dits, Jul 21, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. No visible tats, them's the rules.
     
  2. Rules are rules. We should not lower standards just because society is falling to shit.
     
  3. Seconded.
     
  4. Agree - rules is rules - but, does anyone know what would happen if someone currently serving were to get a tattoo (say after a mega pissup) where it was visible in uniform - would they automatically discharged?
     
  5. Just for a change, I agree with AngryDoc. If the lad is so keen to join the RN, he can have the tattoo removed by paying for private surgery.
     
  6. Seems fair, and if he's that keen it's reasonably easily removed...
     
  7. I quite agree rule is rules, but every now and then it is actually quite sensible to look at the rules and see whether they are achieving what you really want, or are actually harming the organisation.

    I have just a slight suspicion that the no visible part of the rule was not that they really need no visible but that allowing selectors to may a subjective judgement on what was acceptable and what was not was considered too difficult.

    Perhaps in this day and age where tattoos are far more common than when I was of recruitable age there is an opportunity for change.
     
  8. Maxi - sorry, no. Marijuana is popular - should we be allowing that as well?

    Don't let 10 years of NuLab hugging get to you - the recruitment problem we are currently facing is nothing at all to do with tattoos!
     
  9. Wrong! And what is angrydoc wittering on about - lowering standards ? Has he never seen blokes with tatts on their hands. Suggest he gets some sea time in.

    What exactly is an invisible tattoo ???

    What about tropical rig - no tatts on legs or feet ?

    Get a grip you bunch of tarts !
     
  10. Tanzi - unwise to criticise anyone's sea time when you don't actually know anything about them.

    I have seen plenty of tats, what with 2 fully functional eyes and all that. For your information, the rules apply (as they always have) to No 1 uniform, not tropicals.
     
  11. Yet more media pressure on the Forces to lower standards just because it's become the norm in civvy street.
     
  12. That would be No. 1's with gloves on then ? What a crock !
     
  13. The current rules essentially exclude anyone with tattoos on their hands and above the collar on a fastened shirt, an inch below the jawline. It'd be interesting to see just how many otherwise suitable candidates that actally excludes. In would be useful to compare that with the numbers of candidates which this rule currently excludes, but would need some other form of filter as being unsuitable. Clearly that could be done through the interview, so it's unlikely to be an additional step.

    But are the numbers actually worth it. What makes this newsworthy (using the term loosely in respect of the Stun) is that it's very unusual. We don't make the rules on the basis of exceptions.
     
  14. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

  15. Jesus what a Neanderthal!!!
     
  16. I'm surprised the Sun hasn't nominated him for Queen's Colour Guard.
     
  17. And clearly one part of any sensible review would be just what impact the rule actually makes, interestingly if it only affects ahandful of potential recruits it is equally and argument for continuing (no real impact) and for abandoning (no real impact).

    One must remeber this is not a long term service tradition, rather a recently modern rule and thus just as easy to change as it was to make in the first place.
     
  18. Having known several characters who (after entry) got tats on hands, calves, ankles etc, then wanted to go SF and had them removed......meh, I reckon if he wants to join up bad enough he can get his little gang tat removed... If he passed recruitment tests with scores so high, I think the issue might have been glossed over more than he thinks.
    Granted its only an "H" and its not even on his forehead (Arnold Rimmer!!), but I have seen Jimmys slapping band-aids on AB's with "tits out" singapore tats on forearm/bicep before they go on gangway or shore duty in trop rig (white front/shorts). There might not have been regs against it, but do you want to argue with a 2 and a half with a sense of humour failure...?
     
  19. Why was he allowed to go through the selection process and entrance exam when they must have known that he was going to be refused entry because of his tatt. Seems to be a waste of everyones time.
     

Share This Page