You assume i have ink. Interesting.

My point is that it has never been the case that “tattoos are just for scum”, and that the author of this piece is woefully and intentionally unaware of history and culture, even inside the upper crust of his own british milieu.

There's a huge difference between:

1. Not liking something

and

2. Going out of your way to write a long article detailing all the shortcomings of those that partake in the thing you don't like.

Of course you have the right to dislike tattoos, but that doesn't give anyone the right to tell someone they suck for something they chose because they like it.

> 2. Going out of your way to write a long article detailing all the shortcomings of those that partake in the thing you don't like.

For those able to put words in order that article would take 15 minutes to write and 5 to proof read.

>Of course you have the right to dislike tattoos, but that doesn't give anyone the right to tell someone they suck for something they chose because they like it.

What would you do if the author tattooed that piece on themselves? You now can't tell them they are wrong for hating people with tattoos because it's a tattoo.

Lol, if the author tattoos themselves, it changes nothing. That would be equivalent to someone chopping off their own limb, getting a prosthesis, and then (being a mental giant that can put words in order) penning an article in 15 minutes (proof reading it for 5 minutes, of course) about why disabled folks shouldn't get prosthesis titled, "the hubris of man".

At the end of the day, keep your opinions about what other people do to/for themselves to yourself ... it's as simple as that. And when you choose to exercise your right to share that unrequested opinion, don't be alarmed when you get a middle finger in your face.