Are Visible Tattoos Allowed in Uniform?

#1
While perusing a Canadian military forum just before Christmas, one of threads on the British Military included photographs of a recent visit by Elizabeth II to Combermere Barracks. Please take note of the soldier on the left side of the photo.



The soldier in question has a tattoo behind his left ear, a pinky ring and what was known in my day as a 'coke finger,' that is an extended finger nail on the last finger of his right hand. I brought this up on the Canadian site and was chastised for pointing it out. I was told that he (the soldier) had probably already been disciplined for the tattoo, and that 'it would cost more to remove it, than it was worth.'

I'm obviously dated in my thinking, having served in a time when tattoos on an exposed body part was strictly forbidden. I guess that has changed now for persons in uniform. Maybe hidden behind the ear is not considered to be exposed, in the normal sense.

But, and this is a big but, if the rules are still the same vis-a-vis body art, isn't getting one after enlisting an open demonstration that the offender is incapable of accepting discipline and therefore unfit to serve? Or am I, again, outdated in my thinking?

Conversely, would a soldier be recruited with an exposed tattoo on the understanding that he (or she) not get any further art done? If so, isn't that a slippery slope to allowing other such offending exceptions? Not having achieved the educational minimum or having a very serious and violent criminal record or being physically or mentally below standard?

Sorry, I'm starting to drift here. I was just really curious about the tattoo. Have the rules changed and is the Army better for it?

Cheers,
Dan.
 
#2
I'm not sure if many people here are versed in the rules & regs of the Canadian Armed Forces.
 
#15
While perusing a Canadian military forum just before Christmas, one of threads on the British Military included photographs of a recent visit by Elizabeth II to Combermere Barracks. Please take note of the soldier on the left side of the photo.



The soldier in question has a tattoo behind his left ear, a pinky ring and what was known in my day as a 'coke finger,' that is an extended finger nail on the last finger of his right hand. I brought this up on the Canadian site and was chastised for pointing it out. I was told that he (the soldier) had probably already been disciplined for the tattoo, and that 'it would cost more to remove it, than it was worth.'

I'm obviously dated in my thinking, having served in a time when tattoos on an exposed body part was strictly forbidden. I guess that has changed now for persons in uniform. Maybe hidden behind the ear is not considered to be exposed, in the normal sense.

But, and this is a big but, if the rules are still the same vis-a-vis body art, isn't getting one after enlisting an open demonstration that the offender is incapable of accepting discipline and therefore unfit to serve? Or am I, again, outdated in my thinking?

Conversely, would a soldier be recruited with an exposed tattoo on the understanding that he (or she) not get any further art done? If so, isn't that a slippery slope to allowing other such offending exceptions? Not having achieved the educational minimum or having a very serious and violent criminal record or being physically or mentally below standard?

Sorry, I'm starting to drift here. I was just really curious about the tattoo. Have the rules changed and is the Army better for it?

Cheers,
Dan.
JNCOs in one of the now gone Scots regiments often had their ear lobe tattooed, they were still capable of fulfilling their role and accepting discipline. Anyway the powers that be are obviously not that bothered or they would have hidden him somewhere out of Her Majesty's line of sight.
 
#17
Geez.. all three of those NCO's Crowns are facing different directions. As well as having differing centerlines from their stripes. And Pte. Pinky with the Tattoo is obviously doing a shit touch up on a boot that he was: 1. Too lazy to clean before he started; 2. Too lazy to remove the spur from to properly attempt to polish; 3. Too lazy to turn loose of in front of the Queen; as well as, 4. Too lazy to come to attention. Although he is outnumbered by those not so squared away NCO's that can't quite remember what attention looks like either, the one with the totally drunken crown is the only one close. Although maybe they are just all giddy at meeting the Queen and have already been put at ease but can't remember what that looks like. At least the one's that speak English are generally polite.
 
#18
Why's the Corporal with a crown (God alone knows what the Household Cavalry types call their ranks) spitting on his armour in front of the Queen?
Wah?

From the far end.
Corporal of Horse (Brass Crown) = Sgt.
LCP/L of Horse (Cloth Crown) = Corporal.
LCPL = LCPL (Funnily enough) and a Trooper.
All Blues and Royals.
 
#20
The ring, and the tattoo aid in identifying him as a 'zero' down at the cottaging sites of inner London. It's probably part of his human rights to be able to wear them. And he's not bulling his boots, he's wiping Prince Edward's spunk off them.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top