To think the Met banning visible tattoos on their officers won't solve their 'professional image' problems?

[AgentZigzag]

A memo (not a daily mail link, I wouldn't do that to you ) was sent round saying officers and civilian staff will face disciplinary procedures if they get a visible tattoo, and they have to declare any others they have.

Maybe it's because I grew up in the 70/80s when the Met had a corrupt and dishonest reputation in the media that makes me think they must have better things to concentrate on to improve their image than superfluous and harmless tattoos?

It made me wonder as well, how many have, or plan to get, 'love' and 'hate' done across their knuckles?

It seems strange for the Commish to get a bee in his bonnet about tattoos when officers and staff already have to declare their body art when they apply for the job in the first place! Nothing offensive is allowed no matter where it is and if some are visible I thought they were required to cover them, ie long sleeved tops.

What will happen to those who have banned tattoos and already work there even though they've declared them? Laser them off?

But yes, seems like a big fuss!

Well they don't actually check your tattoos, visible or not!

And i was one of This 'corrupt and dishinest' lot myself!!!

*dishonest

I'm sleep deprived and thought you post was titled "mnet" as in "mumsnet"

What did you think of the Met when you were working for them Witchety? Was the stereotype deserved or over hyped?

at the rough lot that are MN posters, that's a thread I'd like to read on site stuff, MNHQ breaking the news that all but 14 posters in the home counties are banned