Toddler Tattoo Artists ???? Three-Year-Old Ruby Dickinson is the World's Youngest Tattoo Artist

tats are so vile and ugly

tats are so vile and ugly


to see an innocent child involved in TATS is terrible

I also think tattoos are disgusting, and that teaching a child to get them is awful.

But that doesn't make it a child protection case.

If we're going to make raising a child to enjoy tattoos into a child protection case, then we need to make raising a child Christian into a protection case because of the vile nature of the teaching of that religion. And we'll need to make not vaccinating into a child protection case. And we'll need to make...

anything that anyone doesn't agree with, which isn't outright abuse, into child protection cases.

What they are doing is morally wrong, but it's not legally wrong.

I also think tattoos are disgusting, and that teaching a child to get them is awful.

But that doesn't make it a child protection case.

If we're going to make raising a child to enjoy tattoos into a child protection case, then we need to make raising a child Christian into a protection case because of the vile nature of the teaching of that religion. And we'll need to make not vaccinating into a child protection case. And we'll need to make...

anything that anyone doesn't agree with, which isn't outright abuse, into child protection cases.

What they are doing is morally wrong, but it's not legally wrong.

i tend to agree with you , i do however think that if that IS a real tattoo on her arm, that her parents have no sense- a 3 year old is not capable of grasping the permanency of such a thing... how will she feel about it when she is older?I hope it is henna or something similar.

i know nothing about child work laws in the UK, how far can they take this?
Can you imagine going in to get a tat and being asked if you mind a 5 year old artist?

I also think tattoos are disgusting, and that teaching a child to get them is awful.

But that doesn't make it a child protection case.

If we're going to make raising a child to enjoy tattoos into a child protection case, then we need to make raising a child Christian into a protection case because of the vile nature of the teaching of that religion. And we'll need to make not vaccinating into a child protection case. And we'll need to make...

anything that anyone doesn't agree with, which isn't outright abuse, into child protection cases.

What they are doing is morally wrong, but it's not legally wrong.

i tend to agree with you , i do however think that if that IS a real tattoo on her arm, that her parents have no sense- a 3 year old is not capable of grasping the permanency of such a thing... how will she feel about it when she is older?I hope it is henna or something similar.

i know nothing about child work laws in the UK, how far can they take this?
Can you imagine going in to get a tat and being asked if you mind a 5 year old artist?


Well, the problem is, we do all kinds of things to our childrens' bodies that are wrong, IMO. I think it's wrong to vaccinate them, too. It's a violation of their bodies. But we have to make that choice for them, we really have to-- either way, we're making a choice for them.

And if we start with tattoos, do we go to ear piercings? Circumcision (another terrible wrong to do to children-- and I do think THAT should be illegal-- genital mutilation for the lose)?

Where, when, why, do we cross the line into stopping parents from making such decisions for their children?

I would say that it should be at quality of life. Circumcision, for example, violates the quality of life for the child. Does tattooing? I would venture to think it does... and yet... it's not actually something that takes away their physical sensation as does ritual sexual organ mutilation.

So it's a fine line, and one that is very hard to walk. Given the society she'll be raised in, in which tattooing is the norm, I don't think it's a problem to the degree where it should be intervened against. Just like ear piercing for most Americans is just "normal." In the tattooing community (in which she'll obviously be raised), tattooing is just normal.




As far as the UK goes with removing children? The UK social monsters can remove children from anyone, with literally no reason except, "We think they WOULD abuse the child."

It's rampant right now for infants to be removed from their parents because "they MIGHT abuse the child." The social wreckers have adoption quotas to fill now, thanks to a law Blair put in. If they meet their quota, their departments get money bonuses (huge ones).

But unfortunately, people don't want to adopt 'broken' children, they want newborns fresh popped out of the womb.

So the reasons why they'll remove children are pretty draconian. They've got quotas of children to remove, and children to sell (erm, adopt out). The more I read and hear about, the more I realize that there's not much they won't stop at to fill them.

CI says ( via phone) that while she agrees with us on parents rights - that she would personally like to thrash whoever would tattoo a child that young ( if it IS a real tattoo)

poor child will end up covered in tats,the parents are stupid

Let parents decide for themselves how to raise their children. It IS NOT of public concern.