Traditionally one might expect tattoos to be found on the skin of sailors, labourers and Hell’s Angels, depicting quite negative connotations. However this has become an incredibly outdated position with the rise of beautiful body art forms and sentimental designs printed on the skin. Even Winston Churchill and President Roosevelt were famously inked.
Now that Scotland Yard Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe has ordered a ‘tattoo amnesty’ for the Metropolitan Police, an uneasy controversy has been created. The amnesty decrees that any visible tattoos must be covered up, or failing that, registered to prevent further inking. Despite sounding extreme, this means that an arm tattoo is allowed as long as your sleeves can be rolled down. Such a major decision splashed across all media outlets has put in jeopardy questions of freedom of action, and the right to autonomy over one’s own body.
Surely tolerance of difference itself is breached when displays of difference are banned? However the reality is that these men and women have chosen to wear the police uniform. This is an emblem to signify immediately the authority of the police. What it also does is levels differences within the force whilst on duty. The police cannot be seen as woman, man, gay or straight; only as a police officer. The point of their uniform is that personality is essentially left at home.
Such explicit showings of, for example, religious persuasion or football preference has no place while dealing with the public or each other. The degree of professionalism required from a police officer leaves no space for explicit adverts about personal lives and this is essentially what a tattoos is.
Ian Pointon, Kent Police Federation chairman claimed that they could act as an icebreaker. However while they may make the officer more personable, they could quite easily to do opposite. For the tattoo to be a problem, it has to be one the face or hands, therefore being “visible” and unable to be covered up. A marking covering ones face could make someone far less approachable.
I have consistently been led to believe, by the media and my surroundings, that generationally we are the most accepting, racially and religiously. This by no means implies that the older generation are all racist or intolerant, yet they have not grown up with the same level of diversity tolerance, awareness of politicized rhetoric and enforced political correctness.
This changing environment relates directly to the issue of tattoos as they were not so common fifty years ago, and therefore there is less understanding. The generational difference will not affect the way the police do their job as long as there is a staple uniformity amongst the police. This is certainly helped by the new amnesty on tattoos. I therefore completely agree with the new rule.
Our supposedly free and developed society should allow freedom of speech and everyone to wear and say what they want. However in a job where one represents the judicial system there should be absolute uniformity. Hogan-Howes’ decision only refers to noticeable markings; therefore a tattoo on an arm is not a problem. The fundamental thing is that officers with a facial tattoo are not being removed from their posts, merely prevented from getting more ink.
The most concise argument I have seen against this is: how does a tattoo stop someone from doing his or her job? However, if, as I believe, so much of a police officer’s job is about making people feel secure in their community, and if this can be helped by rolling down their sleeves, or thinking twice about the next painting on their hand, surely this can only be viewed as a good thing?