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

    • This week's edition of The Briefing Room I found really useful and impressively informative on the training aspect.  David Aaronovitch has come a long way since his University Challenge day. 😉  It's available to hear online or download as mp3. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002n7wv In a few days time resident doctors -who used to be known as junior doctors - were meant to be going on strike. This would be the 14th strike by the doctors’ union since March 2023. The ostensible reason was pay but now the dispute may be over without more increases to salary levels. The Government has instead made an offer to do something about the other big issue for early career doctors - working conditions and specialist training places. David Aaronovitch and guests discuss what's going on and ask what the problem is with the way we in Britain train our doctors? Guests: Hugh Pym, BBC Health Editor Sir Andrew Goddard, Consultant Gastroenterologist Professor Martin McKee, Professor of European Public Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Mark Dayan, Policy Analyst, Nuffield Trust. Presenter: David Aaronovitch Producers: Caroline Bayley, Kirsteen Knight, Cordelia Hemming Production Co-ordinator: Maria Ogundele Sound Engineers: Michael Regaard, Gareth Jones Editor: Richard Vadon  
    • That was one that the BBC seem to have lost track of.  But they do still have quite a few. These are some in their 60s archive. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0028zp6
    • Hi Trinidad. Have just messaged you about a facebook post...
    • I don't know if he does newborns but I highly reccomend Will Westwood at Goose Green Clinic I've tried many Osteopaths locally and in Central London over the years and he Is now my 1st choice.... Highly qualified, and very gentle with good advice and aftercare.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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