A golf club contacted me this week after admitting a new member with visible face tattoos.
They had clearly seen the tattoos at the time of joining and had no issue—until another member complained. Not about the content of the tattoos, just the fact that they were on his face.
The club wanted to know whether they were now stuck with this decision, or if revoking his membership would amount to discrimination. Specifically, they asked: Are tattoos a protected characteristic?
I confirmed that no, tattoos are not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. So legally, they could withdraw his membership without risking a discrimination claim.
But it struck me as strange that the appearance of this new member had become more important than his character.
Because here’s the uncomfortable truth:
The members who have bullied staff, made inappropriate remarks, or even sexually assaulted female staff—none of them had face tattoos. Many had no visible tattoos at all. They looked “respectable”. Polished. Professional.
And yet their behaviour was far worse than anything this new member had done—he hadn’t done anything wrong at all.
I’m far from the first to say it, but it bears repeating:
We should be judging members of our organisations by their conduct and character, not their appearance.
You really can’t tell a book by its cover anymore, and certainly not by its tattoos!
