Contractor dismissed over Body Tattoo's - the tattoo debate

[original PM]

I agree - in general if you go on Holiday and there are a lot of people around the pool covered in writing then you probably need to go a bit more upmarket.

Because strangely enough later that night the ones being rowdy, calling the waiters Manuel and generally being rude and abusive are ---- you've guessed it the muppets covered in writing.

And that is a fact.

[Spartacus]

Was it Warrior Princess?

That's her. Nice lady, liked a pint (of champagne).

[SpontaneousOrder]

I think it's much more complicated than that. I'm willing to be proven wrong but by factual evidence only.

No evidence required.
There is nothing complicated about dhoogs observation - that his own anecdotal evidence suggests that there is a strong correlation between lower class people and a propensity for having tattoos.

The only scope for debate is how you define 'lower classes' (or whatever it was that dhoog actually said).

Beyond that, (assuming that dhoog isn't telling porkies for some reason) then whether that observed correlation is an accurate indicator of the wider population, or not, is either true or false.

He's not suggesting that tattoos make you lower class, or that being lower class means you must get a tattoo - simply that from a random & evenly distributed sample of people from different classes, one could reasonably expect to see more tattoos among those that fall into the lower class category.

It's either right or wrong.

[darmstadt]

I agree - in general if you go on Holiday and there are a lot of people around the pool covered in writing then you probably need to go a bit more upmarket.

Because strangely enough later that night the ones being rowdy, calling the waiters Manuel and generally being rude and abusive are ---- you've guessed it the muppets covered in writing.

And that is a fact.

Weird that, because when I was lazing around the pool at the Chateau Marmont most of the people also lapping up the rays had tattoos and thats a pretty upmarket place

[original PM]

Weird that, because when I was lazing around the pool at the Chateau Marmont most of the people also lapping up the rays had tattoos and thats a pretty upmarket place

They may have been footballers...

[ZARDOZ]

No evidence required.
There is nothing complicated about dhoogs observation - that his own anecdotal evidence suggests that there is a strong correlation between lower class people and a propensity for having tattoos.

The only scope for debate is how you define 'lower classes' (or whatever it was that dhoog actually said).

Beyond that, (assuming that dhoog isn't telling porkies for some reason) then whether that observed correlation is an accurate indicator of the wider population, or not, is either true or false.

He's not suggesting that tattoos make you lower class, or that being lower class means you must get a tattoo - simply that from a random & evenly distributed sample of people from different classes, one could reasonably expect to see more tattoos among those that fall into the lower class category.

It's either right or wrong.

This is going off at a tangent ..

Let's look back at what was actually said

"For instance in the north-east, a large proportion of people in their 50s and 60s have tattoos because nearly everyone worked in working class jobs.
"

This sounds like man down the pub talk not even anecdotal.
But even if it were, anecdotal evidence is not good enough to prove or disprove anything in a wider context.

I personally think he is wrong with his claims of large proportions of working class having Tattoos. I also think if you try to correlate Tattoo uptake with Socio demographic status it won't really show anything as I would suspect lower and middle class have a fairly even distribution of the Tattooed.

The underclass has latterly been added to this debate. Those are not working class.

[Batcher]

I'm probably prejudiced then but if I interview two people and one of them has visible tattoos (especially on the neck or knuckles) then the one without tattoos would get the job.

I know it's all about perception and stereotypes but that's just the way it is.

[d000hg]

Since people getting a tattoo don't fill in a form saying if they are working class, how shall we gather "factual" evidence?

Presumably looking at the type of people you actually see inside a tattoo parlour would not be "factual" enough for you?

[darmstadt]

They may have been footballers...

Nah, I think one was John Belushi but I think the blue tattoo that I saw was actually him turning blue

[tractor]

...

No, you are desperate to put such words in my mouth so you can argue them.

I said tattoos are more common in the working classes. You're assuming that because I associate tattoos with the working classes that I am passing judgement on them because you want to believe I think badly of the working classes. I never mentioned intelligence or said anything derogatory about tattoos or the working classes, the fact you assume that suggests you're prejudiced really.

I'm bringing smoking into it because that is another thing that is more common among the less educated demographic. I'm not making a judgement on that either. It's just the way things are.

Only because tobacco is more accessible and usually cheaper than the high class dope the rich educated partake of. When tobacco was introduced by that well known scalliwag and ne'er-do-well Sir Wally, they all said, where did that dole bludder get the money for a ticket to the Americas to bring back that much duty free eh? He should get a job they said, instead of gallivanting around the world at the taxpayers expense.