Judge Callander has seen a few sights in his time. And he has some strong opinions, some of which are canvassed in a Herald story today. We're not great fans of tattoos either, so this resonated with us:
Epidermal self-mutilation with grotesque ill-drawn graphics so frequently flaunted by defendants, their associates, and witnesses are most irritating. It is distracting for a judge to gaze for hours at incomprehensible and often misspelled words or skin art so badly drawn that they are ugliness personified. When a man can't even successfully spell four-letter Anglo-Saxon words, it makes me worry either about the standards of teaching in our schools, or the intelligence quotient of some of our more delinquent citizens. One witness was asked to identify an accused by describing the man's tattoos. I applauded his response. "I can't really describe his tattoos. They were a load of rubbish. They looked like the graffiti on a public dunny wall."
Self-expression is fine. But do these people ever take a moment to consider what they might look like in ten, or twenty, or thirty years time when Father Time and saggy skin catch up with them?
No comments:
Post a Comment