Force to stick with present policy on tattoos
THE Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset police has no plans to lay down the law on officers who have tattoos.
Yesterday, the commissioner of London's Metropolitan police, Bernard Hogan-Howe, made national headlines for banning his officers from showing tattoos of any kind, while ordering them to register existing ones in a tattoo amnesty.
-
Avon and Somerset's Chief Constable Colin Port
Avon and Somerset's chief Colin Port told the Post a policy was already in place for certain types of tattoos, and had been for a number of years.
"Any tattoos that could be perceived as being offensive should be covered up," Mr Port said.
Contact us today for a 50% Reduction off of our Management Set Up Fee
Terms: For full Terms & Conditions, contact us today
Contact: 0117 370 7570
Valid until: Saturday, June 06 2015
He also asks officers to wear long sleeves if they have tattoos on their forearms, but felt he did not need to take any more action on tattoos in general.
"All visible tattoos damage the professional image of the Metropolitan Police Service," Mr Hogan-Howe told 52,000 staff and officers.
"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.
"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 November 12.
"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."
Comments
by goldisgod
Friday, October 19 2012, 2:19PM
“No Stagnate, what is simple is weather you have a tattoo of your blood group or not, if you need a transfusion your blood will be tested the same.”
by Stagnate
Friday, October 19 2012, 2:00PM
“@ goldisgod
Quite simple.
If I was involved in an accident that required me to have a blood transfusion then my correct group would be known and administered.
I appreciate that there is a blood group that can be administered to all, I think, in an emergency but .....”
by goldisgod
Friday, October 19 2012, 11:49AM
“" when I spent a lot of time driving around the country even considered having my blood group, it being of the less prominent type, tattooed on my arm in case of accident."
Why?”
by Stagnate
Friday, October 19 2012, 11:30AM
“@ RobBradStoke
The criteria here is 'reasonable'. To many people of my generation, tattoos give the wrong impression on first sight that can colour their reaction.
To see someone with their arms, or body, covered in tattoos gives an immediate impression, rightly or wrongly, of thuggism and that perception remains until circumstances alter it.
I personally find tattoos on women slightly offensive but that is because of my upbringing and my own personal views. I would not try to change a persons right to have a tattoo and, when I spent a lot of time driving around the country even considered having my blood group, it being of the less prominent type, tattooed on my arm in case of accident.
For once, I am in agreement with Colin Port but emphasise that the important thing is that tattoos should be reasonable.”
by Matthew_Seven
Thursday, October 18 2012, 3:53PM
“Lol I thought that was a photo of David Cameron”
by RobBradStoke
Thursday, October 18 2012, 10:47AM
“Well Done Mr Port
As several million decent people like myself have tattoos- I can see no reason why a police officer should be barred from have a reasonable one on their arm or neck.
Pity that the Met are more concerned about tattoos than corrupt or racist officers (judging by recent press stories!)”