It is completely natural to look at tattoos and feel a bit perplexed if you don’t have them yourself. For a long time, Western society viewed them through a very narrow lens—marking them as a sign of rebellion, counterculture, or specific professions like sailors and soldiers.  

Over the last couple of decades, however, tattoos have undergone a massive cultural shift. Today, the psychology, sociology, and demographics behind tattoos are widely researched.  

1. Why Do People Get Tattoos? (The Psychology)

Psychological research shows that the motivations for getting tattooed have evolved from wanting to “rebel” to wanting to “author” one’s own identity. Psychologists cluster the primary motivations into a few key areas:

 Narrative and Identity Construction: For many, the body is a canvas to tell a personal story. Tattoos frequently serve as external markers of internal experiences—commemorating a major milestone, a personal triumph, or a philosophical belief.  

 Healing and Post-Traumatic Growth: A growing body of psychological research highlights tattoos as a therapeutic tool for emotional recovery. Following trauma, illness, or bereavement, getting a tattoo can be a way to reclaim agency and control over one’s own physical body, turning invisible emotional pain into a visible symbol of survival.  

 The Desire for Uniqueness (Distinctiveness): Psychological studies measuring personality traits show that individuals with tattoos often score slightly higher on the “Need for Uniqueness” scale and “Openness to Experience.” It’s an aesthetic choice to stand out in a highly uniform world.

 Aesthetic Adornment: Just as someone might choose a specific clothing style, hairstyle, or jewelry to feel confident and attractive, many people simply view tattoos as beautiful, permanent art pieces that improve their body image.  

2. Tattoo Demographics in the UK

If you feel like you are seeing tattoos everywhere in the UK, your observations are backed up by data. Tattoos are no longer restricted to any single social class, regional background, or gender. They have firmly entered the British mainstream.  

Data from major polling firms like YouGov and Ipsos paint a clear picture of who is getting inked:

By Age: The Middle-Age Boom

While Gen Z and Millennials embraced tattoos early on, the sharpest growth in recent years has actually been among middle-aged adults. Around 37% of British 35-to-54-year-olds have at least one tattoo—matching the exact percentage of 16-to-35-year-olds. It has become a common way to mark mid-life milestones, 50th birthdays, or retirements.  

By Gender: A Surprising Shift

Historically a male-dominated practice, contemporary UK surveys show that women are now just as likely, if not slightly more likely, to have tattoos than men, frequently opting for fine-line, minimalist, or highly illustrative custom designs.  

By Region and Profession

Geographically, tattoos are ubiquitous across the UK, though major urban hubs boast the highest density of studios. London, for example, is a global epicenter for tattoo artistry, driven heavily by creatives and tech sector workers.  

The old social barrier of the “unprofessional tattoo” has largely dissolved in British working culture. While corporate finance or corporate law can still be conservative, fields like education, healthcare, tech, and creative media heavily feature visible body art.

The Reality vs. Perception Gap: A 2025 study published in the Journal of Research in Personality found that while people frequently judge a person’s entire character based on their tattoos, those assumptions are almost always wrong. The only trait that accurately aligned with reality was that people with unique or unusual tattoos genuinely are more open to new experiences.

Ultimately, tattoos have transitioned from a subcultural stamp of non-conformity into a deeply personal, mainstream form of self-expression. For the person wearing them, it is rarely about shocking the public—it is usually about looking down and seeing a meaningful map of where they have been.

Keir Starmer wasn’t ousted by his own Party for what he did or didn’t do, but for what he is, and what he isn’t. He is a quintessentially North London middle class professional, and a very successful one.

Public Prosecutions is not a job area requiring charisma or communication skills , other than cerebral ones. Guilt is determined not on belief or even principle but on facts.

In the world of politics facts are often unclear and disputed. Success is within the constraints of what is “possible”. Bismarck said further that “politics is not an exact science”. But Starmer’s previous world had to be. English law never had a “Not proven” verdict. And they’ve removed it in Scotland. It has to be binary.

But politics is not binary as well as not being exact. Which brings complex factors into play. “People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war, or before an election” (Bismarck again). In the legal system lying is perjury and an offence. In politics lying is sometimes downgraded to just being “economical with the actualité”. Ask Tony Blair.

Despite being surrounded by liars Starmer wasn’t very good at it. For the likes of Boris Johnson (a journalist not a lawyer) truth was negotiable. Starmer did try political pragmatism (i.e. misleading us with borderline untruths ) but didn’t have Boris’s skillset.

If you’re going in opposition to lambast others for having the dark arts then when in office playing them (badly) yourself you invite the charge of hypocrisy. Starmer had a bewildered look at times as he tried to play a game the rules of which he didn’t understand, and was possibly even unaware.

Rab Butler, an able and principled politician, called his autobiography “The Art of the Possible” an acknowledgement, perhaps, that able though he was his principles were not bendable enough to reach the very top. Starmer on the other hand tried to be Groucho Marx (“These are my principles , but if you don’t like them I have others”). It didn’t work.

Violet Elizabeth couldn’t face up to the fact that she’d blown it. Another once best friend Mark Field did offer to try and comfort her (again) but she decided , probably correctly, that that was a bygone that could be left to be a bygone. She tried praising Donald Trump but he wasn’t having it either “I thought you were a goddam Liberal” he said (he was right of course. And she was also a republican in those days.)

Violet Elizabeth could never be fully part of the established Tory gang. Too girly, and not very good with a catapult. And as, sadly, age and failed ambition began to take its toll life has become a struggle. As she herself put it “I want to be a good girl, but it’s so difficult!”

Second careers (I speak from experience) can be enjoyable and liberating. You’ve nothing really to prove. Your first career track record is for all to see. Your pension is banked. And now, give or take a bit, you can do what you like. As Harold Pinter put it “I can’t be sacked, because I haven’t got a job”. Unless, of course, like Sir Keir Starmer you choose at nearly 60 to aim at the most difficult job in the country.

Fame of course is the Spur. As Milton put it “Fame is the spur that the clear spirit doth raise. That last infirmity of noble mind. To scorn delights, and live laborious days.” Starmer had indisputably a “noble mind” in his previous incarnation. You don’t become a Human Rights lawyer if you have ignoble thoughts. And you’d think scorning delights and choosing to live “Laborious” days (capitalisation intended) was not really what you’d want in your seventh decade.

There is a certainty to legal processes of which Starmer was obviously aware and skilled in managing. In politics there is no such certainty. The illogical (Brexit, Truss…) is just as likely as the logical. A charlatan like Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage is as likely to succeed as someone more principled.

And politics is a career choice and usually an early one. Johnny come latelies rarely achieve anything. It’s also grubby. Starmer saw this in his appointing of Mandelson. He thought that lacking in the dark arts of politics as he personally was he’d choose someone who wrote the dark arts rule book. A catastrophic error of judgment.

Wrong man, wrong time, wrong place. Compare, for example , with his Labour PM predecessor. Gordon Brown was on a hiding to nothing. But his political nous and deep political experience combined with his astute management skills during the global economic crisis rightfully gained him many plaudits. He wasn’t far away from winning the 2010 election and forced the Conservatives into Coalition. Brown could have won despite everything.

I’ve seen people fail when they reach the top in business and sport and The Arts because in the top job a different skill set is required than is needed as you climb the greasy pole. Another problem is that if you’ve genuinely succeeded in something (like Starmer in the Law) it can give you a false sense of infallibility. Even arrogance. When you’re the head honcho you have to earn respect – it doesn’t come automatically. Unless you’re in North Korea. David Cameron got that wrong as well. Enjoying the fruits and the status of office he assumed the people would follow him in the Referendum. They didn’t. Starmer thought his overwhelming General Election win guaranteed him four or five years in office. It hasn’t.

Failure is more likely than success in the top job. Sadly for Sir Keir that was true. But then arguably only Harold Wilson has left office in modern times with his reputation intact. Even the Blessec Margaret had to slink away…

In contemporary debates surrounding educational policy, private schools are frequently criticized as engines of social division or bastions of privilege. Critics often argue that a unified, state-run school system is the only way to ensure social cohesion and equity. However, this perspective overlooks a fundamental principle of a free and pluralistic society: the primary right of parents to guide the upbringing and education of their children. Defending the existence of private schools is not merely a defense of institutional variety; it is a defense of parental liberty, educational innovation, and the democratic principle that the state does not own the minds of its future citizens.

The most compelling argument for private education is rooted in human rights and parental autonomy. Parents bear the ultimate moral and legal responsibility for their children’s well-being. Because education is intrinsically tied to the transmission of values, morals, and worldviews, forcing all children into a single, state-mandated curriculum infringes upon a family’s deeply held beliefs. Whether a family seeks a rigorous classical curriculum, a specialized arts education, or an environment rooted in a specific religious tradition, private schools provide the necessary space for cultural and philosophical diversity. As the United States Supreme Court famously ruled in the landmark 1925 case Pierce v. Society of Sisters, “The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”

Furthermore, private schools act as vital centers for educational innovation and excellence. Unburdened by the extensive bureaucratic red tape and political shifts that often paralyze public school districts, private institutions possess the agility to pioneer new pedagogical methods. Approaches such as the Montessori method, Waldorf education, and advanced STEM-focused curricula often find their footing and refinement in the independent sector before influencing broader public school practices. This autonomy allows schools to tailor their environments to specific learning styles, smaller class sizes, and specialized behavioral or academic needs, offering a lifeline to students who may struggle in a traditional public school setting.

From an economic perspective, private schools offer a significant, often unacknowledged benefit to the public system. Parents who send their children to private schools continue to pay taxes that fund local public education, yet their children do not utilize those public resources. This effectively reduces overcrowding in state-funded classrooms and lowers the per-pupil financial burden on taxpayers. Far from draining the public system, private school families provide a net financial subsidy to it.

Finally, the existence of private schools fosters a healthy competitive pressure within the educational ecosystem. When monopoly powers govern education, there is little institutional incentive to adapt, improve, or address parental dissatisfaction. The presence of alternative options forces all schools—public and private alike—to maintain high standards of accountability, safety, and academic rigor to attract and retain families.

To advocate for the right to private education is not to disparage State schools, which serve as the bedrock of universal literacy and civic life. Rather, it is to recognize that a one-size-fits-all model cannot accommodate the vast spectrum of human potential and conviction. A truly free society must preserve the right of parents to choose an education that aligns with their values and their child’s unique needs. Eliminating private education in the name of conformity would not achieve true equality; it would simply replace liberty with state-enforced uniformity.

This article was written entirely by Artifical Intelligenve (Gemini) with no intervention from me

www.openweb.com/share/3FD6tsEViQlkqIzC95KexM6ad6g

Unpopular view. If Elon Musk has become a trillionaire whilst operating entirely within the law I have no objection. Those who oppose it should really oppose the system not Musk personally.

The US is a mixed economy, as are most European countries. Within that the private sector is encouraged to innovate and grow. And its profits (and the dividends of shareholders) are taxed to fund public expenditure.

We can argue about the system and there are certainly variations to capitalism around the world. The US is one of the most liberal. But even “communist” China encourages a substantial degree of private enterprise. It works.

One of the reasons we in Britain have continuous debate about public expenditure (eg the current guns v butter arguments) is that our private sector, unlike Mr Musk, is not delivering sufficient growth.

Political arguments about the consequences of growth are not new. Mishan wrote “The costs of economic growth” more than fifty years ago and the green lobby today warns of the environmental risks of untrammelled growth. There does need to be a balance.

But, as I say, “Growth is Good” , but the greed that can underpin it needs to be checked. But Elon Musk is not Gordon Gekko! At least I hope not !

The Pension Burden: The single biggest line item in the welfare budget is the state pension (exceeding £145 billion). Protected by the “Triple Lock” mechanism—which ensures pensions rise by inflation, average wage growth, or 2.5%—pension spending has climbed steadily despite high inflation waves.

As a Pensioner I want my Pensions to retain their purchasing power. If they don’t I get poorer, which is not an attractive prospect! To do this the pension provider needs to link the pension to inflation. In my case my pensions from my employment are linked to the Retail Price Index. My State Pension is linked to the (usually lower) Consumer Price Index. We can argue about which index to choose (there are others) but the principle is the same. My pensions are broadly inflation proofed.

The Triple Lock uses the State Pension as a vehicle not just to inflation proof payments but potentially to increase the purchasing power of the pension. The link to “average wage growth” effectively says that if wages and salaries increase more than inflation so should pensions. This makes little sense. We pensioners have no right see our pension income keep in line with the earnings of those in employment. Why should we? 

The 2.5% alternative, only to be applied in low inflation or low wage growth times, is equally perverse. This implies that pensioners should see their pension income exceed inflation or wage growth by an arbitrarily applied percentage. In other words get richer compared to those in employment. 

Over the past 14 years in only four of them has inflation been the determining factor for pension increases:

•  Average Wage Growth: 6 times
•  Inflation (CPI): 4 times
•  The 2.5% Guarantee: 4 times

So in effect the “Pension burden” has increased and governments have facilitated increases not justified by inflation. 

Many argue that the UK State Pension is too low, for example when compared with other European countries.  However the overall UK retirement system relies much more heavily on occupational and private pensions than many continental European systems. That said it is certainly the case that The UK generally provides a middling-to-below-average state pension by European standards.

So there is a strong argument that the State Pension is too low. But, in my view, there is no case for distorting the annual pension increase system to correct this. The quantum of the State Pension should be under review at all times and changes made , but only when it is judged that we can afford them. So stick with mandated inflation proofing, but scrap the triple lock! 

I was, back in 1986, in a very small way personally part of the initial opening up of the People’s Republic to the West economically. I was based in Hong Kong and my multinational employer had decided that “China is very Big” and that we should invest substantially. I was part of the team.

Frequent trips to Beijing and elsewhere convinced us that these were people we could do business with. Tiannamen Square in 1989 was a setback but within months links were reestablished. China clambered swiftly up the learning curve and the West salivated. It was both a massive market for our exporters and a huge labour force for companies and brands seeking to manufacture more cheaply offshore. Think “Apple” – and countless others.

Ideology played little part in China’s commercial success and exceptional growth. Politically it did not modify its totalitarian system. It was under no meaningful pressure to do so. In effect economically it became a mixed economy with State and Private Enterprise working together. The State was hugely important for major infrastructure projects especially transport. Airports and high speed railway lines were constructed on an astonishing scale – essential in such a vast country.

There has been a pragmatic focus driving China’s success. The preposterous days of the Cultural Revolution are a distant memory. As are the bicycles and Mao suits. The old villain’s portrait still hangs In Tiannamen Square. Perhaps as a warning not to revert to the horrors off the past!

The Corrib gas dispute was not really “resolved” through a negotiated settlement that satisfied all sides. Instead, it was resolved in practice because the project was eventually completed, the remaining legal challenges failed or were settled, and gas production began in December 2015.  

What was the dispute about?

The controversy centered on several issues:

• The decision to bring untreated gas ashore through a high-pressure pipeline near homes in the Rossport area.
• The location of the onshore gas processing terminal at Bellanaboy.
• Concerns about environmental impacts on Broadhaven Bay and surrounding habitats.
• Claims by local residents that consultation was inadequate.
• Wider political objections to Ireland’s licensing and taxation arrangements for oil and gas companies.  

The conflict became nationally famous after the imprisonment of the “Rossport Five” in 2005 and years of protests by groups such as Shell to Sea.  

How was it ultimately resolved?

The outcome was gradual rather than dramatic:

1. The project was modified. Shell and regulators made a number of design and routing changes to the pipeline and imposed additional safety measures.  
2. Court challenges were exhausted. Some legal actions were settled while others were dismissed by the courts, allowing construction to continue.  
3. The state continued to support the project. Successive Irish governments regarded Corrib as strategically important and maintained regulatory approval.  
4. Gas began flowing in 2015. Once production started, the practical objective of stopping the project could no longer be achieved.  

Has opposition disappeared?

No—but it has changed significantly.

The original campaign to stop the pipeline and processing plant effectively ended when the infrastructure was completed and became operational. The large-scale protests that dominated Irish news in the 2000s have largely disappeared.  

However:

• Some former campaigners remain active on energy, environmental and climate issues.
• Criticism continues regarding the state’s oil and gas licensing terms and the fact that Ireland has no state ownership stake in Corrib.
• Former Shell to Sea activists have shifted attention toward issues such as fracking, LNG imports and fossil-fuel policy more generally.  

There is also still a lingering sense of grievance among some people in north Mayo about how the project was handled, particularly concerning policing, compulsory acquisition of land, and community consultation. The dispute remains an important reference point in Irish environmental politics.  

So the short answer is: the project went ahead, gas production started, and the immediate battle was lost by the opponents. But opposition did not completely disappear—it evolved into broader environmental, energy-policy and local-justice campaigns.  

Paddy Briggs involvement

Paddy Briggs was a former senior Shell executive who became a critic of Shell’s handling of the Corrib project. Around 2010 he publicly discussed internal Shell documents and argued that Shell had relied on political connections and had mishandled community relations. One of the documents he highlighted was a 2003 Shell management meeting record questioning whether the company had sufficiently well-placed contacts with the Irish government and regulators.  He published his views in the public domain – “The Tragedy of Corrib”

His interventions were important in three ways:

1. They reinforced opponents’ claims that the project was not simply a technical planning issue but also involved questions about political influence and corporate power.
2. They generated media attention at a time when the controversy was already a major national issue.
3. They strengthened public skepticism toward Shell among people who were not directly involved in the Mayo protests.

However, there is little evidence that Briggs’s revelations directly changed the project’s outcome. By the time his criticisms became widely known, the central issues had already been fought through planning inquiries, court cases, regulatory reviews, and years of political debate. The key decisions remained with the Irish state and planning authorities, which ultimately continued to permit the project—albeit with modifications, including a rerouted pipeline and additional safety requirements.  

In other words, Briggs’s contribution was more significant in shaping public perception of the dispute than in determining its final resolution.

A useful way to think about it is that the Corrib controversy had several overlapping arguments:

• Safety and environmental concerns (pipeline route, pressure, Bellanaboy terminal).
• Community and policing issues (Rossport Five, protests, compulsory acquisition).
• Political and governance concerns (whether government was too close to Shell).

Briggs’s interventions mainly affected the third category. They added weight to allegations of undue influence, but they did not overturn the planning approvals or stop construction. The project still proceeded and entered production in 2015.  

Among former Corrib campaigners, Briggs remains a respected figure because he was seen as an insider who validated concerns they had been raising for years. Among supporters of the project, his role is generally viewed as politically significant but not decisive in the actual regulatory and engineering decisions that allowed Corrib to go ahead.

This analysis was substantially written by AI (ChatGBT)