Property Owned As Tenants In Common
Law0 min ago
What Do They Expect.......?
273 Answers
http://
Cover themselves in the daubings of a 10 year old and wonder why they don't get the job! Please!
Cover themselves in the daubings of a 10 year old and wonder why they don't get the job! Please!
Answers
I'm with TTT here. I don't expect what I am going to say to be popular but I am going to go ahead anyway ! These tattoos just look childish. When I was a boy in the 50's and early 60's, we used to buy packs of bubble gum with transfers in them, in the way home from school. You licked these paper transfers and then stuck them on your arm. But as soon as you got home, Mum would...
06:56 Tue 23rd Sep 2014
-- answer removed --
He brought it up when he first approached my father scrivens, no we didn't assume he was necesarily a Nazi, it was not originally a Nazi symbol- however in his case it was from a period in his youth where he wanted to fit in with the people he was hanging about with and he was unhappy with it too as it caused him massive problems when he wised up and realised there is more to life than holding dodgy right wing views.
I thought everyone knew it was a interview ender.
If you are appointed with tattoos I dont see that they can fire you later for that. Employers can insist on various behaviour during work hours. A bottom-feeler can't go on feeling bottoms if you appoint them and say yeah well I did time for that and told you in the interview.
I got involved with a 'if you are in contact with customers, you must shave' "argument". No that wouldnt be the women - they never failed to comply. SOme of the men squeaked human rights.
But they also had a human right to be on a dole queue, see. They saw OK.
IN the eighties there was a huge industry in tattoo-removal.
Presumably it was an adolescent phase men went through and then as they er matured they realised how it affected income potential.
Some of the scarring was horrendous.
sorry in advance if some readers cant discern this contribution is about tattoos and employment
If you are appointed with tattoos I dont see that they can fire you later for that. Employers can insist on various behaviour during work hours. A bottom-feeler can't go on feeling bottoms if you appoint them and say yeah well I did time for that and told you in the interview.
I got involved with a 'if you are in contact with customers, you must shave' "argument". No that wouldnt be the women - they never failed to comply. SOme of the men squeaked human rights.
But they also had a human right to be on a dole queue, see. They saw OK.
IN the eighties there was a huge industry in tattoo-removal.
Presumably it was an adolescent phase men went through and then as they er matured they realised how it affected income potential.
Some of the scarring was horrendous.
sorry in advance if some readers cant discern this contribution is about tattoos and employment
I think it's just your perception of 'society's umbrella' though Retrochic- all of the opinions on this thread are purely personal and interpretations. I think if you can flog high end antiques and books covered in tattoos and not ever once to my knowledge have anyone run out of the shop horrified then certainly the statement that society imposes rules about other people's appearance is questionable at best, an more probably a I suggest merely personal to us all individually.
Ahh, this takes me back to my school days, when long hair was the issue.
I recall the idea that in order to be perceived as a serious threat to the fabric of soceity, one merely had to turn up for school after the summer holidays wearing one's hair at a challenging length.
The 'older' members of soceity saw such a badge of anarchy as a direct label with which to denegrate the individual, and of course that merely strengthened their desire to kick against the system.
These days, tattoos are used to set the individual apart from the mainstream - in most cases they are seen as body art, rather than an attempt to stand against the 'establishment'.
But sadly, that is a by-product of the increasing trend for obtaining tattoos.
People do judge on appearance, which is entirely wrong, but still a fact of life - and tattoos do still hold connotations of barbarism and general anti-social attitudes - however anachronistic that notion may be.
As a teenager, my seriously strict father would no more coutenance me growing my hair than he would driving to work stark naked. As a result, I have always flown the flag for individualism, and enjoyed the right of other people to express thesmelves in their appearance.
As a music writer, I mix with tattood, dyed and pierced people all the time, and ironically, looking as 'straight' as I do, I am far more accepted in the society they move in, than they are in mine, which is a sad situtation in my view.
I would personally never judge anyone on appearance, including tattoos, but I also accept that some sections of society still do, and the body-inked must accept that, and work round it, while endevouring to dismantle the predjudicaial attitudes behind such an approach.
I feel it is unfair to aver that peopple who work in certain professions must never be tattooed - that makes them a slave to their occupation, their appearence governed by their profession, and that is unacceptable.
Peole are individuals, and have a right to decorate themselves if they wish -accepting that this is going to lead to varying degrees of conflict in the wider world.
That is not right - but that is the way the world turns, and hopefully, as the current 'younger' generation with their tattoos become the 'older' generation - the predjudice will slowly die out.
I recall the idea that in order to be perceived as a serious threat to the fabric of soceity, one merely had to turn up for school after the summer holidays wearing one's hair at a challenging length.
The 'older' members of soceity saw such a badge of anarchy as a direct label with which to denegrate the individual, and of course that merely strengthened their desire to kick against the system.
These days, tattoos are used to set the individual apart from the mainstream - in most cases they are seen as body art, rather than an attempt to stand against the 'establishment'.
But sadly, that is a by-product of the increasing trend for obtaining tattoos.
People do judge on appearance, which is entirely wrong, but still a fact of life - and tattoos do still hold connotations of barbarism and general anti-social attitudes - however anachronistic that notion may be.
As a teenager, my seriously strict father would no more coutenance me growing my hair than he would driving to work stark naked. As a result, I have always flown the flag for individualism, and enjoyed the right of other people to express thesmelves in their appearance.
As a music writer, I mix with tattood, dyed and pierced people all the time, and ironically, looking as 'straight' as I do, I am far more accepted in the society they move in, than they are in mine, which is a sad situtation in my view.
I would personally never judge anyone on appearance, including tattoos, but I also accept that some sections of society still do, and the body-inked must accept that, and work round it, while endevouring to dismantle the predjudicaial attitudes behind such an approach.
I feel it is unfair to aver that peopple who work in certain professions must never be tattooed - that makes them a slave to their occupation, their appearence governed by their profession, and that is unacceptable.
Peole are individuals, and have a right to decorate themselves if they wish -accepting that this is going to lead to varying degrees of conflict in the wider world.
That is not right - but that is the way the world turns, and hopefully, as the current 'younger' generation with their tattoos become the 'older' generation - the predjudice will slowly die out.
Kvalidir its not my personal perception of society, there are quite a few of my generation who hold the same views. I'm sure, eventually ,this will change as us 'fogies' retire and our children (most of who by then will have a tat) will be more accepting. Some things take time to change. It would not faze me one iota if I got served in an Antique shop by a tattooed man or woman, but I would not employ one in my shop, no way. My choice.
Whilst it may be everybody's right to be tattooed, pierced, dreadlocked or balded, it does just give hint to prospective employers that there may be a compatability issue that could at the very least impact efficiency. I wouldn't employ anyone with a tattoo larger than a few square inches whether it was visible or not because of what it says about them or rather what they say about themselves.
Just to lighten the thread a little and to understand why us "old farts" may have a prejudice towards tattoos.
In the 50's Merchant Naval seamen would exposed to weeks without seeing land whilst working on ships trading from Far eastern countries to the UK.
In transit of the Suez Canal, they would disembark in Egypt, get a prostitute, get drunk and then..........get tattooed.
The incubation period of VD (syphilis, gonorrhea etc ) was just long enough for these tattooed sailors to disembark in the London Docks with penile discharge and weeping sloughing sores covering the penis.
At that time they would go to the VD depts at the London Hospital or Barts where they would seek advice and treatment.
Our teacher at that time Dr Ambrose King always stressed the association between tattoos and VD (STD's) and to this day the sight of a tattoo brings up the association.
In the 50's Merchant Naval seamen would exposed to weeks without seeing land whilst working on ships trading from Far eastern countries to the UK.
In transit of the Suez Canal, they would disembark in Egypt, get a prostitute, get drunk and then..........get tattooed.
The incubation period of VD (syphilis, gonorrhea etc ) was just long enough for these tattooed sailors to disembark in the London Docks with penile discharge and weeping sloughing sores covering the penis.
At that time they would go to the VD depts at the London Hospital or Barts where they would seek advice and treatment.
Our teacher at that time Dr Ambrose King always stressed the association between tattoos and VD (STD's) and to this day the sight of a tattoo brings up the association.
Retrochic - "Andy you as well are missing the point. There is a vast vast difference between visible and non visible tattoos."
I am not missing the point at all.
The point is - people with visible tattoos can and do experience varying degrees of predjudice based on a perception that a tattoo is anti-social, and therefore, so is the wearer.
My point is that, although that is not the way a civilised society should operate - that is the way that our society operates, and tattoo wearers must unfortunately incorporate perceived attitudes into their decision to obtain a tattoo, and the employment contraints that may be placed upon them as a result.
I fail to see how that position misses the point - ?
I am not missing the point at all.
The point is - people with visible tattoos can and do experience varying degrees of predjudice based on a perception that a tattoo is anti-social, and therefore, so is the wearer.
My point is that, although that is not the way a civilised society should operate - that is the way that our society operates, and tattoo wearers must unfortunately incorporate perceived attitudes into their decision to obtain a tattoo, and the employment contraints that may be placed upon them as a result.
I fail to see how that position misses the point - ?
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |