Via Al-Jahom, I have stumbled upon this particularly irritating article—nonetheless, it proves a point. And, unlike Obo, I am not yet utterly tired of pointing out the same shit time and time again.
Apparently the woman pictured—one Hayley O'Neil—above has got tremendously offended because someone at the Dole Office pointed out that no one would hire someone with fuck-loads of tattoos and facial piercings. Fair enough, I'd say.
Apparently Hayley disagrees. [Emphasis mine.]
"The guy said: 'on first impressions do you think anyone would hire you?' He said: 'look at it this way if you were to stand behind a wall—or put a paper bag over your face do you think you would have a better chance?'
"He then backtracked and tried to say that he was sorry and hoped I wasn't offended but I was.
"He talked to me as though I was just going through a phase in my life, but this is my lifestyle choice, and this is who I am."
That's lovely, Hayley. I am happy that you have found yourself. But may I just ask the obvious question—how about you pay for your lifestyle yourself, you selfish fuck?
I work for my money and my lifestyle choices are curtailed to the tune of £600 a month—some of which goes to pay for you. So, could you tell me why the fuck my lifestyle choices should be curtailed to pay for yours?
I don't think that you should put a bag over your head, Hayley: I think that you should put a bag right over yourself, load it with a couple of bricks and get some nice, strong, working men to throw you in the bastard canal.
Or you can pay for your own lifestyle. Your choice.
UPDATE: in the comments, Leg-Iron opines that Hayley is, at least, trying to get a job.
She looks like a Cenobite but she is at least trying to get a job. there are many who aren't.
Hmmmm. Now, as readers will know, I'm a cynical bastard; as such, I would simply point out that, in order to get Job Seeker's Allowance you have to "prove" that you are actively seeking a job. Which is why the dole is doled out at a state outlet known as Job Centre Plus.
Another commenter, Furor Teutonicus, was astute enough to suggest that Hayley remove her facial piercings—that no one would notice they were there after a couple of days.
A big fucking clue arseholes, you can take a piercing out, and in two days you wont even know it had been there.
Unfortunately Hayley herself has shot this idea down.
''I said I could take the piercings out but they look a lot worse when they are out."
"Worse", Hayley? Don't you mean "less good"? Or is it that you understand why the Job Centre Plus chap said his piece?
Commenter fred was outraged at my body fascism...
my god... this is pretty rich stuff, you can't have freedom and then expect people to conform to what YOU personally think is an acceptable standard!
... and totally missed the point—a point that I considered putting in the post but didn't because I thought "it's unnecessary because no one will be stupid enough to think that I personally give a crap about what she looks like." Thank you, fred, for proving me wrong: evidence that such people exist is always a salutory lesson.
For clarity's sake, as well as fred's, I shall now amplify my point: employers usually expect a certain look from their employees, especially those who are in customer-facing roles. This is not always because employers are massively conservative, but because they understand that their patrons are.
As such, young Hayley is considerably reducing the chances of gaining employment because of the way that she looks. Which I wouldn't have any issue with were she not using money extorted from other, hard-working people in order to fund her lifestyle. (Plus, perhaps uncharitably, I also slightly wonder who has paid for her tattoos and her piercings...)
Basically, as with any other personal choice, I don't care what you do or look like as long as other people are not forced to pay for your choices.
You want personal choice? You want to adopt a particular lifestyle? Great: you pay for it.