Friday, September 24, 2010

Fuck your lifestyle

For fuck's sake...

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.

60 comments:

freedom fighter fan of DK said...

the problem with this post is that it makes me worry what Andrew Neil will say the next time you go on the BBC...

Leg-iron said...

I don't know. She looks like a Cenobite but she is at least trying to get a job. there are many who aren't. I had a different take on the story.

As for Andrew Neil, next time, start the interview by asking where he bought his toupee. Because you wouldn't want to get similarly fobbed off with something that looks like a cat coughed it up.

That should set the tone nicely.

JuliaM said...

"I don't know. She looks like a Cenobite but she is at least trying to get a job."

How hard, though?

Old Nick said...

I wouldn't employ her. Not because she has tattoos, but because she looks like a right mardy cow.

I'd love to see what she looks like in thirty years time when all those tattoos have gone blue and her skin's sagging. You have to be thick to do that to yourself.

the a&e charge nurse said...

So employers are frightened of tattoos?

Well, we could deny self-expression amongst the jobless, by introducing gear like this?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_u3lFqBksmrE/TD9eauric8I/AAAAAAAAfvo/ZRhjRwkry34/s1600/burqa1.jpg

Or simply accept that 'tatts' are not a reliable measure of performance?
http://www.2010tattoos.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/david-beckham-back-tattoos.jpg

Geoffers said...

My dear devil, you're going to get in trouble again. Carry on in this vein and you may as well have not bothered shutting the Kitchen.

PS - I agree with you totally on this.

Angry Teen said...

I don't give a shit what Neil says.

Keep up the good work, DK.

P.S: word verification for this comment was "thunts". Rhyming slang, perchance?

the a&e charge nurse said...

Angry Teen - do you regard all people with tattoos as the same?

If job centre staff object to tatts & piercings why not dyed hair or funny clothes?

Roger Thornhill said...

Because JS+ is a monopoly, there is an argument for their staff to be a bit more tactful.

However, all this comes back to the problem of State monopoly of welfare and the entitlement that almost always will automatically spring.

End the monopoly.

Thus, the employee of the provider of non legally enforceable welfare - i.e. those collecting and administering voluntary donations - can say whatever their contract allows them to. If that enables them to say "your tats and metalwork render you unemployable, so our largesse shall be curtailed until you take remedial action", then so be it. Those wanting to be supported can always apply to another organisation who is ok with it.

The latter sort of entity will surely exist, because people like a&e will be happy to fund them so they can provide welfare for people who put self expression before self responsibility.

the a&e charge nurse said...

Well, Roger, there might be an argument about which type of welfare system is most effective, but this tawdry little case does not revolve around anything so grandiose.
No, it is more an example of what happens when certain sorts of people fail to conform with expected stereotypes.

Maybe job centers should employ a drill sergeant to bellow "get your hair cut, you horrible little man" every time someone turns up looking for work?

Ed P said...

She is, at least trying to get a job. I see it differently - the young set out deliberately to shock older generations (and why not, most did so too when teenagers), so give her a few years and she will have outgrown the rebellion. I employ people based on their ability and reliability, with so-called "lifestyle choices" generally irrelevant (unless the safety elf is involved). Her piercings, although disconcerting and off-putting to me, would not have much influence on any employment decision.

John Demetriou said...

This is a great article and it speaks to your audience. It is angry and that represents the people who agree with you (right minded people who are themselves angry and want to shout about stupidity, illiberalism and injustice).

I think you should carry on blogging like this and simply develop a fresh strategy for how you'll present yourself going forward.

In other words, get back to doing what you love and do best in this game.

Sorry, but your employer should just have to deal with it. Bite the bullet, be you and stop worrying.

fred said...

lol i find it quite funny that a libertarian will try to dictate what a person does with their own body, i also find it hysterical that when faced with the situation of someone choosing to do this, and them being in receipt of state benefits, that you would sit there and bloody well moan about the money they are apparently costing you like some fat cat tory who was caught with his snout in the trough.

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!

think about that..... maybe you won't look such a hypocrite next time.

tomsmith said...

Fred, you are an idiot.

DK is not trying to dictate what this person does to her body, merely that she take responsibility for her choices. I'm sure he doesn't agree with state (coercively) funded job centres or state welfare payments. But since these exist, telling this woman that she is unlikely to appeal to an employer looking as she does is entirely reasonable because it is true.

Do you suggest that employers be forced to employ less desirable candidates so as not to offend them?

Anonymous said...

Yikes!

It's been said if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

I'm outta here!

Gordon Is a Moron said...

Humble Devil, tho old Kitchen hit home in many ways with me, it spoke my thoughts more eloquently than I ever could. This is getting back to what has inspired many of us to not feel alone. I do not know how many lpuk members there are now, but I for one and I suspect many others would add substantually to their membership and donations to have an unleashed Devil at the head.

Complexmessiah said...

So are you seriously trying to say that this lass, due to having a few piercings that some people choose not to have, is incapable of *any* fucking work? Aye, the bitch looks like a mardy cow, but that's beside the point; I know a cuntload of mardy cows who are employed and despite their obvious shortcomings in "people skills" still manage to retain employment. The fact that a libertarian ideal preaches to individual freedom and yet the head of the UK's Libertarian Party chooses to ally himself with such a banal display of obtuse conservatism goes a fuck of a long way to show why the party has not grown exponentially despite the majority of those whom I've talked to on the subject seem naturally incined to support the party's ideals. Many idividuals I know curtail the desired presentation of themselves to the outside world in order to fit in, get a job etc. The question has to be asked, however, why? When the libertarians support this kind of shit it makes us a hypocritical laughing stock.

Granted, there are some positions that such an image may not be appropriate, but in a nation where the majority would prefer to sit on their arses with one hand on the remote and the other on their dicks as opposed to get out and work for a fucking living, the question has to be asked; should we condemn people because their appearance doesn;t fit in with our own personal inclinations of good taste?

JuliaM said...

"No, it is more an example of what happens when certain sorts of people fail to conform with expected stereotypes."

Yeah, we're all just harshing her mellow, maaaan! Why don't us squares just chill out, right?

*rolls eyes*

"I see it differently - the young set out deliberately to shock older generations (and why not, most did so too when teenagers), so give her a few years and she will have outgrown the rebellion. "

She's 23, Ed. Not 16. How long should we wait, exactly?

JuliaM said...

"lol i find it quite funny that a libertarian will try to dictate what a person does with their own body..."

Then you clearly have reading comprehension issues.

No-one is doing that. They are simply pointing out that such choices have consequences that others should not have to pay for.

JuliaM said...

"Aye, the bitch looks like a mardy cow, but that's beside the point; I know a cuntload of mardy cows who are employed..."

Good point. Maybe her local council is, despite the cuts, hiring? Or there's always the job of doctor's receptionist.

"The fact that a libertarian ideal preaches to individual freedom and yet the head of the UK's Libertarian Party chooses to ally himself with such a banal display of obtuse conservatism goes a fuck of a long way to show why the party has not grown exponentially..."

Yup, before I vote for a party, I too wish to ensure that the leader is OK with allowing Miss Ink & Ironmongery Weekly to draw a salary from the hardworking taxpayer rather than get her hands dirty.

It's only fair, after all. Wouldn't want to be thought to be keen that actions have consequences, or anything. Perish the thought!

Furor Teutonicus said...

I suspect DK would be among the first to scream and stamp his foot until he was blue in the face and threw up on his sandles if the same JC told him,or any one else that smoking was a life style that could stop you getting a job.

One rule for you and one for all the others, right DK?

And why does your basic arsehole in a collar and tie appear to think Piercings are the same as tatoos?

A big fucking clue arseholes, you can take a piercing out, and in two days you wont even know it had been there.

Do NOT class them as the "same".

Anonymous said...

OK,

We could all go 'should, shouldn't, should shouldn't' about her getting a job, but if we stop and think, where's the line here? On the face of it, she might be a perfectly employable, if ugly, person... But what if the tats were, say, a spider's web across her face and the words 'fuck you' on her forehead? What is the sensible limit on freedom of personal expression/appearance verses the right to be treated like everyone else in the jobs market?
I agree to an extent with those pointing out that DK may be being a bit naughty here, but at the same time, if you deliberately choose to look offensive, you must pay the price in terms of likely job offers etc yourself, surely? Was the jobcentre actually doing anything other than stating a fact to her?

Furor Teutonicus said...

Much as I object to "anti tatoo attitudes" (I have 15...(or is it 16???) myself.)

However I agree with anonymous above, the job center was only giving an opinion.

But even that appears to be reason to go screaming "help" to the courts and news papers these days.

the a&e charge nurse said...

"harshing her mellow" - disappointing, JuliaM, I expect more from someone with your intelligence.

Shouldn't an applicant for any job be selected on the ABILITY to perform the task rather than factors which have no bearing on a person's education, knowledge, or skill set?

What next - signs saying you need not apply if you've ever tried drugs?

JuliaM said...

"Shouldn't an applicant for any job be selected on the ABILITY to perform the task rather than factors which have no bearing on a person's education, knowledge, or skill set?"

Sometimes, appearance IS ability - one of rhe best workers I ever met made her look shy abd reticent about piercing. In fact, he looked like he'd walked through B&Q with a magnet in his teeth. He was, however, a great backstage worker.

But we could never put him on reception. To his credit, he knew that, and accepted it. So why shouldn't the jobcentre staff point out that she's limiting her chances? As, I suspect, she WANTS to do...

Oswald Bastable said...

Stupid twat wants metal in her face- join the friggin army!

Plenty of rag-heads want to put copper and lead there!

Furor Teutonicus said...

Oswald Bastable said...

Stupid twat wants metal in her face- join the friggin army!

Plenty of rag-heads want to put copper and lead there!
September 26, 2010 9:28 AM


And other stupid twats appear not to realise that the metal in her face can be taken out, and put back in, and no one would be any the wiser.

To discriminate against someone for piercings is exactly the same as doing so because they wear a wooly fucking hat.

And her tats are "coverable".

the a&e charge nurse said...

"Stupid twat wants metal in her face".

When did you develop the ability to judge intelligence on appearance - why bother with exams, surely it would be more convenient, and certainly cheaper to have someone like Osawld Bastable allocating IQ scores based on how they look?

fred said...

lol i find it quite funny that a libertarian will try to dictate what a person does with their own body..."

Then you clearly have reading comprehension issues.

No-one is doing that. They are simply pointing out that such choices have consequences that others should not have to pay for.

that's quite amusing.... you seem to be siding with the devil because your precious wallet might be affected!

liberty my arse... seemms stereotypes arrogance and bullshit are all alive and well.

fred said...

am i the idiot here tom when you're clearly showing bias and the rest?

let's see if she really wants to work then she can, it's not up to the guy on the counter nor is it his place to tell her what she looks like and how it will affect her chances, it's up to him to get her a damn job not to judge her.

if you have a problem with that then you're the damn idiot... unless the 13 years of trying to wipe out discrimination IN ALL IT'S FORMS that the last labour government tried has completely shot over your rancid little head.

Willy said...

unless the 13 years of trying to wipe out discrimination IN ALL IT'S FORMS that the last labour government tried has completely shot over your rancid little head.

Shock horror! has the brainwashing experiment failed? Do people, even employers, still form an opinion based on a first impression?

My God!

Please don't say that an employer would be drawn to a clean cut, smartly turned out individual, before a tattooed scruff.

Fred you live in a dream world

I can't believe there are grown up people, walking amongst us even, who don't see how influential one's appearance is at an interview.

Especially in a depressed economy where jobs are hard to find. The guy was doing her a favour.

the a&e charge nurse said...

"Do people, even employers, still form an opinion based on a first impression" - yes, I believe this used to happen all the time, especially if you were Irish, black or had a certain type of accent?

I know the economy is depressed Willy, but next you will be advocating she should not be afraid to the give the boss a quick blow job in order to secure an exciting position in the packaging plant?

TheUKLibertarian said...

It's articles like this that make me wonder why you closed the Kitchen? For the record I am thoroughly in favour of stuff like this. I actually laughed out loud at "bastard canal"!

The Grim Reaper said...

Hmm... I can understand why you'd get a bit worked up about this. Although personally, I just can't take it very seriously at all. I've got a slightly different take on this one over at mine over at mine.

Fabio said...

I think it's out of question that the Job Centre worker behaved like a rude jerk.

On the other hand, I agree with the idea that other people should not be forced to pay for another one's lifestyle. Multiple, visible tattoos and piercings are a barrier for some jobs.

But they have no real reason to be for others, and in some cases may even be a plus. Hell, this gal would be pretty tame for a London metal pub where I used to hang.

the a&e charge nurse said...

"I agree with the idea that other people should not be forced to pay for another one's lifestyle" - yes, that is the Devil's objection in a nutshell, he does not want to pay, PERIOD.

Citing tattoos & piercings as the reason for his objection is rather a poor show since this criteria is both arbitrary and rather mean spirited (and opens the door to all manner of pathetic prejudices).

From the libertarian perspective it seems ALL 'scroungers' are bad, not just those with bilateral breast tattoos.

Surreptitious Evil said...

Stupid twat wants metal in her face- join the friggin army!

Unlikely. Her face decorations (are there some tattoos there too?) would have to go and her forearm tattoos would probably have to be removed.

Standard policy is nothing visible in "shirt sleeve order" on joining and the official line is:

"Tattoos. It is Army policy that a person with tattoo marks which, because of size, position or nature would be detrimental to the Service, is ineligible for enlistment, re-enlistment or continued service in the Army. Tattooing is to be discouraged, and unacceptable tattoos as outlined below may result in applications being made for discharge ..."

Willy said...

"Do people, even employers, still form an opinion based on a first impression" - yes, I believe this used to happen all the time, especially if you were Irish, black or had a certain type of accent?

What's your point?

next you will be advocating she should not be afraid to the give the boss a quick blow job in order to secure an exciting position in the packaging plant?

Read my post. I said clean cut, smartly turned out.

If you give the impression that you have no respect for your own body, how can a prospective employer be expected to think you will respect his business and clients.

the a&e charge nurse said...

The problem is not whether this woman respects her body (my guess is she does) but the inability of some to see beyond the superficial, or stereotypical.

In other words some feel they can make assumptions about her suitability for a job based on a single, and largely irrelevant attribute (tattoos & piercings) - the sort of experience often described by previous generations who were discriminated against not because of tattoos, but because they happened to be Irish, black, etc, etc.

The Devil's Granny said...

Blah, your actual problem is not her lifestyle but the fact that you get to bankroll her and you so don't want to.

Just stick to complaining about the actual problem and not waffle on liberally how you'd nanny her into employability.

the a&e charge nurse said...

"You want personal choice? You want to adopt a particular lifestyle? Great: you pay for it" - why are you so certain that she hasn't paid for it?

Is it completely beyond the realms of possibility that during a period of employment HO earned enough for the local body artist to provide a number of decorations?

fred said...

Shock horror! has the brainwashing experiment failed? Do people, even employers, still form an opinion based on a first impression?

My God!

Please don't say that an employer would be drawn to a clean cut, smartly turned out individual, before a tattooed scruff.

Fred you live in a dream world

I can't believe there are grown up people, walking amongst us even, who don't see how influential one's appearance is at an interview.

Especially in a depressed economy where jobs are hard to find. The guy was doing her a favour.

willy.... since when has a personal opinion actually meant anything...especially with the push to equalise everyone? looks like we have another winner in the "i'm a moron and i disciminate" sweepstakes.

shut up you moron.

Roger Thornhill said...

@a&e: No, it is more an example of what happens when certain sorts of people fail to conform with expected stereotypes.

Wrong, there is no argument here about non-conformity on ones own dime, only about non-conformity upon another's.


@a&e: Maybe job centers should employ a drill sergeant to bellow "get your hair cut, you horrible little man" every time someone turns up looking for work?

As I said, I think the JS+ needs to be more tactful, but then again that is only trying to put a sticky plaster on a tumour.



@tomsmith 25/9 11:50 said what I said better and it is amazing that @fred and others still think they can prattle on. One thing it does explain is why some think the current educational system and output is acceptable.

fred said...

roger i'm actually quite amazed that you think that as i'm one of the last products of the education system before it became a gcse free for all.

thing is if you really think tomsmith is right perhaps you can go join him back in the 20th century.

don't you think that's a damn good idea?, you can just sit there and compare tin foil hats and whinge about the state of the world and how it was better with dysentry rickets and walking 10 miles to work for tuppence a week!

grow up.

Roue le Jour said...

My first thoughts on seeing this picture were, if that's what she looks like when she's washed her face and combed her hair to get her picture in the paper, what does she look like the rest of the time?

"Haley love, could we lose that charming bracelet that says 'I don't want your fucking job', the reflections are upsetting the exposure. And do you have a clean, I mean different, top, love? Something to do with the digitals, but that bustier looks like it's covered in pizza juice in the viewfinder. Love, sorry to be a pain, but I think we need to lose the hair gel as well. It's the sub-eds you see, something to do with the cropping. OK, we're ready to go. Scowl!"

Boy on a bike said...

There are plenty of jobs where the boss wouldn't give a hoot how she looked. I'm sure if she was on a kill floor pulling the guts out of chooks, no one would care if she had tats all over her face.

Although they'd make her remove the ironmongery for hygiene reasons.

If she wants to look like that, fine. But get used to the idea that you probably won't be working in a customer facing environment, like a bank. Y

Sam said...

A&E Charge Nurse:

"Is it completely beyond the realms of possibility that during a period of employment HO earned enough for the local body artist to provide a number of decorations?"

It's entirely possible that Miss O'Neil paid for all her "art", but the costs associated with her "lifestyle choice" are not limited to the price she had to pay to have the ink and metal applied. Employers who are hiring for customer-facing positions are mostly looking for people who can present a smart, businesslike image. The metal in the face rules Miss O'Neil out completely, but yes, pink or blue hair is likely to be a turn-off, as is lank, greasy unwashed hair, matted dreadlocks, and probably many other "lifestyle choices".

the a&e charge nurse said...

Sam - it is along time since I have come across such a concentrated outbreak of forelock tugging.

Time and again I hear how much libertarians are said to value personal freedom (providing it does not harm anybody else) - but in practice it sounds like the libertarian definition of freedom only extends to the expectations of employers who are seemingly encouraged to perpetuate certain stereotypes judging by some of the comments on this thread?

Rob said...

"I hear how much libertarians are said to value personal freedom (providing it does not harm anybody else) "

Bingo. The ENTIRE point of this article which you and others are wilfully missing is that it IS harming others. Her choice has made it harder for her to get a job, and we are all paying for it.

I am not a libertarian but the concept is pretty fucking simple to understand here. You can deflect attention with talk of racism or demanding blow-jobs all you went but his point is completely obvious.

Friday Night Smoke said...

Speaking as someone with about the same amount of facial piercings as this woman who has has no trouble obtaining and holding down graduate level posts; I would like to say that if you're even remotely skilled you can get a job looking however you please.
The problem as I see it with the Job Centre's comments isn't that she is less likely to get certain kinds of job (which she seemingly accepts) but the "fuck me, you're totally unemployable looking like that. Put a bag over your head" (paraphrased) comment which is totally unjustified and incorrect. It embodies an outlook that cannot imagine the economy or world of employment extending anywhere beyond the public sector and low end service industries. Manufacturing or engineering firms for example care far far more about results than an unconventional personal appearance.

the a&e charge nurse said...

"The ENTIRE point of this article which you and others are wilfully missing is that it IS harming others'.

Ha ha ha ha .......... 'harming others', dear, oh dear, I haven't laughed so much in a long time.

Why don't you grow a pair of balls - or if that's too difficult can you produce a libertarian list of what's OK and what's not?

I say Tatts & piercings are not a problem - hell, it sounds like a dyed in the wool 'statist' like me is more of a libertarian than you?

Devil's Kitchen said...

A&E,

Tatts and piercings are not a problem to me, or to many others.

Tatts and piercings are a problem to some employers.

Tatts and piercings therefore reduce the likelihood of said person getting a job.

Not a problem.

Except that said person is able to make the choice to reduce their chances of employment through having tatts and piercings because they have another income.

This other income is supplied by the government, through the benefits system.

The benefits system is paid for through extortion.

If darling Hayley had no income through benefits, how quickly do you think that she would, at least, remove the piercings?

My guess is "pretty fucking quick".

Therefore, Hayley's lifestyle choice is paid for through the oppression of other people—she is only able to make her choice because of violence visited on other people.

Is that clear enough for you?

DK

the a&e charge nurse said...

"Tatts and piercings are a problem to some employers" - I see, employees have certain sensibilities that job seekers must not infringe upon?

Amongst the quivering jellies on this thread Tatts & piercings seem to occupy a pretty high place on the list of no-no's - are these the only transgression or does the list go on (and on and on)?

According to Aunty even normal people have tattoos nowadays;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7034500.stm

I'm sure most libertarians will be appalled to learn of this astonishing fact?

Devil's Kitchen said...

Who are you and what have you done real A&E?

""Tatts and piercings are a problem to some employers" - I see, employees have certain sensibilities that job seekers must not infringe upon?"

I can only assume that you are now trolling?

Employers set conditions of employment.

You do not have to accept the conditions of employment.

That is your decision and others should not have to pay for it.

FFS, A&E, grow up—you are usually better than this.

DK

the a&e charge nurse said...

'Trolling' - no.
Tying to establish first principles - yes.

The thrust of your argument seems to be that the unemployed MUST conform to some sort of expectation predetermined by employers?

Now unless I'm very much mistaken a line has been crossed when it comes to tattoos +/- facial piercings, even though several commentators have already pointed out that they were able to secure gainful employment despite this apparent 'handicap'?

Leaving aside the unpleasant criticism of this women I am really struggling to understand where this bizarre assumption originates from.

If we we rewind to the Victorian era I suspect such prohibitions are a reflection of the same sort of mindset that argued against women flaunting their ankles?

I can understand and even accept certain objections to welfare (even if I may not agree with them) but I this sort of arbitrary nonsense should have been consigned to the dust bin once it was finally realised that a person's appearance does not directly influence how well they perform in the work place.

Fascist Hippy said...

She has made a private lifestyle choice, she is quite entitled to do that.
As an employer I would make a business lifestyle choice, I am quite entitled to do that also.
Those two choices that we have each made means she is not getting a job with me, End ex

the a&e charge nurse said...

"she is not getting a job" - an employer making a decisions without ever giving a candidate a chance to put her case ........ excellent?

Fascist Hippy said...

Her appearance "puts her case" and that case does not suit me, my existing employees or my clients.

Irritating Infidel said...

"...You want personal choice? You want to adopt a particular lifestyle? Great: you pay for it. "

Quite so. Quite fucking so, indeed.

I'd extend the same comment to the hordes of pikeys who blight the country. Live how you like, just stop being a fucking parasite and pay for it yourself.

Anonymous said...

In many of the posts here there have been attacks on the idea of Libertarians saying someone cannot do what they want. I think it is important to clarify the difference between Libertarian and Anarchist.

Anarchy is a message of f**k you we will do what the f**k we want!

Libertarianism, as I understand it, is a message to Big Government that we are adults who are capable of taking resposibility for our own lives and our own actions without the need of the 'nanny state' interfering at every turn.

When I left education and entered the job market I cut my hair and had a shave. The reason? So as not to rule myself out of any job opportunities on the grounds of appearance. I did not feel oppressed by the need to do this it was my choice as the priority was to gain employment.

The JC interview is an interview to find employment. The removal of the piercings would help her cause.

That said the JC employee overstepped the mark with a personal attack.