Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Oh dear. That's an overwhelming vote against my plan then. Not the snake idea, you understand, but the general "small discreet in a place not many people would see it" tatoo idea. But it seems the general view is that they don't look good on birds.


I feel all sad now.

Look. Tattoos, like mullets and brand spanking New build buy to let flats, look fine at the time BUT...they soon look crap and one becomes bored of them and they're irremoveable, say unlike that charming print you got in {insert last holiday} which after a year you bung away. Therefore, the only tatoos that are really worth it are ones that have their original purpose of saying that you are part of a proper group/gang OR one's that are so in your face (and that normally means on your face)that people go "WTF was he/she thinking" poncey thai bands on middleclass kids on their gap years...do f*clk off. Tattoos in intimate places are also a waste of time and look dead stupid in moments of passion.

steveo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A ginger skinhead used to drink in the ED. 'Cut

> here' dotted line around neck and swastika on

> forehead. It was a good look.



I once saw a skinhead with '555' tatooed on the back of his head. After a few drinks I felt brave enough to ask him why. He said he thought it was the sign of the devil, but got it wrong.


True story.


Acceptable:

Swallows on back of hands between thumb and forefinger (a Navy thang)

Small tattoo of a tiger on a lady's inner thigh (a Brum thang)

Tattoos were always considered to be a 'branding' mark which one assumed from afar especially on the beach, were the worst of people.


It is not true they are not the worst, they just have suspect taste in what they do to their bodies.


My eldest daughter had been considering one for some months,

when my sister explained that most of her time spent working for the NHS was involved in removing unsightly and ill thought out tattoos on the bodies of people who new better but wilfully went ahead and did it anyway.


There are many thousands who would be rid of them if they had a magic wand.

Apparently the removal of them is costly and painful, and you can always tell where the procedure took place.


I hope and pray my daughters do not venture any further than the youngest one, having a piercing done at the back of her neck waiting to go sceptic.


I find them pointless, hideous, and extremely permanent.

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> My eldest daughter had been considering one for

> some months,

> when my sister explained that most of her time

> spent working for the NHS was involved in removing

> unsightly and ill thought out tattoos on the

> bodies of people who new better but wilfully went

> ahead and did it anyway.

>


I hope and pray that the removal procedure is not being done on the NHS. If one penny of NHS money were to be spent removing tattoos then it would cause me to come over all Daily Mail. Seriously.

It's all bollox this "wot is acceptable and wot isnt". If ya dont like it dont look and certainly stop wiv the silly look down ur nose attitude.


If u r considering getting a tatt dont be swayed by wot others think. Its something u should do bcoz u want to do it not coz of wot others think u should or shouldn't do. As wiv wot kind of tatt and where u choose to wear it.


Each to their own

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • You say that this post should be considered as a complaint. I am afraid that it won't be. You need to write directly to the council and sign the communication with your own name.
    • More power to them. I very much hope they win and it would be fantastic if a precedent is set to stop exploitation of park land by councils. I would also like to see Gala moved to the Common.
    • I would disagree that the tables outside the Blue Brick bothered nobody. They were not within the cafe's curtilage (one table was even placed on the other side of the road!) but on a narrow public footpath where pedestrians have a "public right of way". Added to that, some customers rearranged the tables so the footpath was blocked completely. 
    • Walking last Friday early evening anywhere near where the bottom end of Lordship Lane meets the Goose Green roundabout, one would have been directly confronted - as I was - with this scene: Outside the East Dulwich Tavern an impenetrable phalanx of pushing yobs, shouty louts and selfish yahoos pressed outward from the open doors of this establishment, past the curtilage (the land in front of and owned by the business), all across the public right of way, to the kerbside. This was the situation all the way along, end to end. I watched as passersby, old people, children, parents with buggies, people just going about their business, were forced by these booze-sucking bellowing scumbags onto the road - where, at that hour, traffic rushed endlessly off the roundabout. We have, I realised, somehow become so used to this revolting spectacles as to believe it to be inevitable. It is not. This is why I'm dropping this post. Enough really is enough. This roiling boozy blockade represents a total failure by all the responsible authorities - the licencing authority, for example - but most of all (yet once more, again, as ever), by Southwark Council. Two very different comparisons to give you some perspective: 1. The Kings Head pub on the corner of Albermarle and Stafford Streets, London SW1. Here too, patrons like to drink and chat outside on a warm evening - why should they not. But here, on the latter side a line marks the curtilage on the pavement. Drinkers remain, respectfully, in good order, within the line, watched, quietly and carefully, by a security guard. I wager good money this arrangement is a condition of this pub's licence. 2. The Blue Brick is a cafe in the quiet backstreets of East Dulwich, on the corners of Fellbrigg and Shawbury Roads. Until a few months ago, about half its covers were tables out on the pavement. They bothered nobody. Oh! But they extended all of several centimetres too far into the footpath, so into fearless action swang Southwark Council officers - and now these tables are gone. Result, eh? "Well you see," some wiseacre said to me, "There needs to be a complaint." Not actually true, but for sure this is all too often how local authorities get pushed to do what they should be doing. Hard to think why a complaint trumps, say (and god forbid!) a child being injured on the road. In which circumstance, of course!, Southwark would swing into noisy, virtue-signalling, belated action. But in any case let this post be considered a big, very definite COMPLAINT about this prolonged abuse of our public right of way. I invite readers who agree with me to add their voices. Oh, and all those wee local ward councillors might get off their chufties, defy their party managers, and actually help sort this scandal out. Thanks for reading, Lee Scoresby
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...