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 Or am I, again, outdated in my thinking?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.