richard_smith237

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

On 6/25/2025 at 5:46 PM, richard_smith237 said:

With darwinian prowess, someone has removed themselves from the gene pool... 

Perhaps some innocent passenger was involuntarily and unjustifiably removed from the gene pool by the driver of the car?

"involuntarily"...   Seems like the choice not to wear a seatbelt was a voluntary one.

6 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

3 hours ago, Nid_Noi said:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21425704/

 

Tattoed faces and facial recognition algorithms are not best friends.

Passport biometrics and facial recognition camera need to match. If not you don’t get in.

 

This is where my mind went immediately too. Also, over the years, I have seen several IOs in various countries explicitly look up and down from the face to the passport photo to see if they match. This is obviously one of the security points they are meant to check, in addition to biometrics, and implies they have discretion to refuse entry if they have a valid reason to doubt the traveller and the picture are the same person – the fact that he was allowed in twice before lends credence to this.

Though the article mentions he started getting facial tattoos nine years ago, he might have visibly less on the passport photo than what he has now. It is an extreme body modification which could warrant further investigation (and ultimately denial).

It's certainly a possibility - but what's most striking is that he appears to have been given no benefit of the doubt, no opportunity to clarify or defend himself.

I recall a personal experience in Singapore, where an immigration officer nearly denied me entry because she felt my passport photo didn’t sufficiently resemble me. Rather than argue the point, I asked her to call a supervisor. Suddenly, it was no longer an issue, and I was stamped through without further delay.

In this gentleman’s case, verifying his identity should have been relatively straightforward. Between driving licences, credit cards, previous digital entry records, and other standard documentation, there are numerous ways to establish who someone is.

Which leads me to believe that ‘facial recognition’ wasn’t truly the issue at all. Rather, it seems the decision rested with the discretion of the immigration officer - who may have made a subjective, and perhaps unfair, judgment. In cases like this, personal bias can easily masquerade as protocol.

12 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

They already do. I have several visible tattoos, but facial ones I find very disturbing, IMO there has to be some underlying psychological issue for someone to do something so radical.

Isn't this all just part of a broader spectrum of personal expression?

I often arrive at the same conclusion as you: there seems to be, in many cases, an underlying psychological impulse driving someone to make such a permanent and radical alteration to their appearance...   particularly when it involves scarring or marking the skin through tattoos.

And yet, when we look back through history, tattoos - facial and otherwise - have been an integral part of numerous cultures. From the Māori moko to the ancient Egyptian and Nubian tattooed mummies, and the warrior tattoos of the Samoans or Celts, body modification has long served as a symbol of identity, status, spirituality, and belonging.

That said, the context we're discussing is modern Western society, which brings with it a particular set of social expectations and norms. In this setting, facial tattoos, in particular, still carry significant stigma. They're often associated with criminality, marginalisation, or anti-social rebellion - despite the growing popularity of tattoo culture in general.

I constantly find myself caught in a philosophical tug-of-war, particularly with folk locked in their ways, or unable to self reflect on their prejudices...   

On one hand, I find myself defending what many criticise as the 'nanny state' - the inclination of governments and institutions to impose regulations for the collective good, provided those measures are proportionate and reasonable. On the other, I advocate for individual liberty, particularly when the choices people make pose no tangible harm to others.

Facial tattoos lie precisely at this intersection: a deeply personal decision that inevitably clashes with prevailing public perception. The question is, should society evolve to embrace such expressions of individuality, or is it justifiable to preserve certain aesthetic standards - especially within professional or formal contexts? It's an ongoing tension, a balancing act between the right to self-expression and the unspoken rules of societal conformity.

If this individual had been a Nobel Laureate in Physics, we'd likely be celebrating his eccentricity - a maverick mind with an unshakable independence of thought. Or imagine him a musical genius: the tattoos would be seen not as rebellion, but as a visual extension of his creative brilliance. In one context, he's lauded for his uniqueness; in another, he's judged for the same traits.

Then again, he might just be a Benidorm or Magaluf regular... drawn to sun, cheap lager, and the chaos of a full English at 2am. But equally, he could be a perfectly ordinary man whose sense of identity simply doesn’t conform to the mainstream.

Not everyone wears their self-expression on their sleeve - some wear it on their face.

The irony, of course, is that we know far less about him than the judgmental loudmouths who've rushed to condemn him with such casual bigotry. Their assumptions say far more about them than they ever will about him.

3 hours ago, angryguy said:

I dont know, can you stop investigating me?

He might if you stop making statements that you'll kill kids and their innocent parents !!!! 

35 minutes ago, bannork said:

Good point regarding the burqa, in fact it is banned now in various public places in certain EU states.

 

From the perspective of ID, facial recognition etc - so it should be...   

Its a different conversation, but I don't believe any woman is comfortable wearing a Burkha hiding their face...  its forced by zealots in a draconian society... 

... Conversely, this man with facial tattoo's has made himself far more 'facially recognisable'... 

That said: I understand the sensitivities of 'culture and appropriateness'...     however Dubai actively covets Western Tourists, it has done so for a while and 'in general' it has shown not only incredible tolerance but great hospitality towards foreigners...     I've been out in the dessert dune-bashing and met with land owners, had very pleasant conversations... "please enjoy my land" type of thing...   

I've worked with many Arabs from both Abu Dhabi and Dubai and found them pleasant to work with, well educated with a good sense of humour... 

I find the folk of the UAE very welcoming, Particularly Dubai and Abu Dhabi... Sharjhah less so, but thats because the laws are more draconian there and thus there is less 'Western exposure'... 

That said, I'd absolutely Shyat it if I found myself on the wrong side of some drug law etc...  some of those stories are absolute horror stories...   and when drinking, never get wasted, and never walk home - Taxi door to door...   seems thats the way to do it...  

But... I go back to the fact that this man has enjoyed Dubai twice before without issue...    the only question I have is if his full facial tattoo's have been completed since his previous visit...

Blocking him on his third visit seems harsh... 

2 minutes ago, bannork said:

1 hour ago, Magictoad said:

It is DUBAI! What did he expect? Didn't he know tattoos are forbidden in Islam?

Good point. He's another case of exceptionalism-

' I'm from the West, accept me as I am, and if you don't, that's your problem.'

Isn't that what happens with all the Arab women arriving in Europe in Burkhas ? 

"I'm from the Middle East, accept me as I am, and if you don't, that's your problem.'

What if this guy was a Mauri with face tatts  - would he have been rejected ?

I know the tatts were not cultural or religious, so its somewhat of an unfair comparison - however, twice before there was no issue, so why the issue now? 

1 hour ago, MalcolmB said:

We? 
This is Dubai Immigration who drew the line.

Their country their rules. 
what you think is irrelevant 

Thats a valid point from the perspective of him getting rejected.

But, he was accepted twice before that... 

So.. where do they draw the line - 66% ok apparently..    but as another poster mentioned, it seems it just came down to one individual Immigration officer who didn't like his look. 

-------

As far as we, what I think and what the forum things - its quite relevant to the discussion - thats the point of the discussion, even your trolling and attempt to provoke could bring up a relevant and valid point.

21 minutes ago, Bruce Aussie said:

She be dizzy. She would have been on a bracket somewhere. 240kms amazing that it could stay under car with all noise and road bumps ect 

Indeed - quite the story of survival...   

2 minutes ago, Magictoad said:

I think his face was covered in tattoos which is socially unacceptable in most circumstances; so they probably saved him a beating in the streets of Dubai!

A beating on the streets of Dubai... .  "tell us you never been to Dubai without telling us you've never been to Dubai" !!!! 

2 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

 

There are cultural and religious prohibitions. Dubai is Sunni muslim and unlike Shiite muslims are not as accepting. If one wishes to travel to a foreign land, one must be prepared to  accept the local social customs. The locals did not want some heavily inked person amongst them, or maybe the  tattoos were an excuse to just deny entry to an undesirable foreigner.

I think thats a valid point - but he'd been there twice before and it wasn't a problem...

I've worked in Dubai and spent a lot of time in the UAE and many other countries in the Middle East - In Dubai, Tattoo's can be seen everywhere on so many 'Western tourists'...   

2 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

The reality is that the demographic of western males who are heavily inked like this man are more likely to be mentally ill and/or of a lower socio economic demographic than western males who are not marked up.

There's that aspect - but the world has moved on, perhaps that thinking is a number of decades old.. 

The modern world - tatts are a nothing burger...   So many have them, they're everywhere amongst normal people... 

Maybe you are right and he has mental issues, or thats a reason to suspect he might have, or suspect his attitudes are somewhat 'less restricted' than most people...  But again, thats antiquated thinking.

2 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

It is particularly pronounced with some western countries. It is not as if he was bringing anything of value to Dubai was he, so it is doubtful that the UAE has lost anything from this. He can go holiday in Cambodia, Thailand and Spain with his countrymen who look just like him.

The same can be argued of any individual tourist - Both you and I bring no more or no less when we visit places like Dubai - we're no different, until we behave differently - thus... If he had a history of misbehaviour, I'd agree with you.

I get it - his face draws a lot of attention and when someone draws such attention they can expect to be treated differently and shouldn't cry about it...  However...  I think the decision to reject him, especially as he's been there before is harsh... 

14 minutes ago, Magictoad said:

You say he's a great guy but what was he like when he got all the tats? You don't know; do you. I think facial tattoos are a form of inadequacy and attention seeking. Well he got the attention; just from the wrong people at the wrong time!

No.. You said I said that... I didnt....   I said we don't know...   he 'might be a decent guy'.... 

But I do agree with youf comment about attention seeking and perhaps inadequacy... but then that fits all tattoos, no ?... where is the line ?...  What about clothing ?...   thats a form of attention seeking too right ? - people trying to dress well to look good etc... 

I don't agree with facial tattoo's...     But I agree less with judging people based on how they appear, their hair cut, nose rings, and tatts...    But, there's a large grey area... clearly this guy is on the fringes of that grey area...  nevertheless - If he sparked up a conversation with me in a bar, I wouldn't crap it and walk out of there because of his tatts...   

Given his facial tattoo... I can see the reasoning by some suggesting he deserved to be rejected entry - but I just think thats narrow minded thinking - he's a tourist like any other, he just happens to have more tattoos than most.

6 minutes ago, MalcolmB said:

Manslaughter Richard, manslaughter.

As usual over ventilating and over exaggerating.

Its murder..    The scuffle happened earlier in the day, granny went out looking for the kid with a deadly weapon

... Granny Swung a scythe at a 14 year old child and killing them.

Murder (ฆ่าคนตาย - Kha Khon Tai): Section 288 of the Thai Penal Code:

"Whoever kills another person shall be punished with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment of 15 to 20 years."

This is the standard murder charge – killing someone intentionally and unlawfully.

Aggravated Murder (ฆ่าคนตายโดยไตร่ตรองไว้ก่อน – Premeditated Murder): Section 289:

This applies to premeditated killings, murder of parents, murder for robbery, or to cover up a crime.
Punishment: Death penalty only (although Thailand has a de facto moratorium on executions).

Thailand doesn’t use the exact term “manslaughter” in its penal code, but there are less severe forms of unlawful killing, such as:

a) Killing in the Heat of Passion 

If someone kills another due to severe provocation or a sudden quarrel, the punishment is lighter (3-

b) Negligent Killing 

Causing death through negligence (e.g. reckless and / or drunk driving):
 

6 minutes ago, MalcolmB said:

And making up your own version of events to point score.

Nope... nothing made up.

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

He had visited Dubai twice before, without issues.

 

So some IO suddenly decided he's not coming in.

 

The far-reaching powers of IOs have to be curtailed across the board, every country has this issue. There are no detailed rules, so people can make informed decisions. It's just left up to the whim of some IO.

Thats the unfair part - IF Dubai had a firm rule, such as no facial tattoo's etc...     then it would be clear not for him to waste £3000 on a trip there only to be refused entry on the whim of an Immigration officer. 

I've always found Immigration in Dubai to be quite pleasant or simply indifferent, one time they called my son into the booth so he could 'stamp is own passport'...    But this story is an example of the other side of that same coin. 

Its unfair that he was rejected just because of a tattoo....     

But.. it seems many on this forum are dead against anyone who differs from the mundane norm...  I get that, face tattoos are somewhat 'alarming' for some to look at, they may indicate some on the fringes of normal society and that makes people uncomfortable...  But, if they are so open in their behavior I wonder whether judging a book by its cover is correct....

... A guy who lives near mean is covered in tatts... no face tatts, but all over his body...  he's a lovely guy, doting father, clearly a good husband, works hard etc...      But some on this forum would see a photo of him and pass an extreme judgement....  

2 minutes ago, angryguy said:

17 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  You would kill a child if that child had a fight with your grandson ?

You area potential child killer yourself ?

Its hard to know unless it happens. I might seek the parents first

The goldfish and the Cat too... ???   

Just now, SAFETY FIRST said:

 

I hope this story doesn't give anyone ideas, I'd hate to see one of our members turn up to the Christmas party with a sickle. 

 

BTW, I hope I haven't offended anyone in the past, if I have im deeply sorry but it was the alcohol. 🍺

See you at the Christmas party. 🥳

 

Note to admin, please provide adequate security for the party. 🙏

 

Weapon checks at the door? Fair enough.

But what on earth are they meant to do about Malcy’s hands? Those things are lethal. Can’t exactly have him pop them in a tray like loose change.

Maybe a straitjacket’s the only solution – not exactly unfamiliar territory for him, I’d imagine. He could probably slip right back into one like it’s a favourite dressing gown.

"Safety first".... after all.

2 minutes ago, angryguy said:

I would have done the same, after getting the facts straight first

You'd go out and murder a child because they had a scuffle with with your grandson...??  

Bang-on with your user name though !!!  

...  At least Safety First was right... 

42 minutes ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

These things happen in other countries, not just Thailand. 

5 minutes ago, MalcolmB said:

Nice people the Thais. The woman thought she was sticking up for her grandson. 

like clockwork...      cretinous response to a horrible murder... 

....   69 Year old granny thought she was 'stickup up for her grandson'......  She took a scythe and revengefully went out and murdered an innocent boy...   

I'd be equally as scathing in my remarks of her behavior whatever her nationality - and equally scathing of your pathetic attempts to defend a murderer, even had it been someone else other than you - though I struggle to see how anyone else could be so deluded.

3 minutes ago, MalcolmB said:

He is right off isn’t he.

If it was a western woman he would be claiming there must be more to the story, it is bad reporting, Grandma was only defending her family etc.

But when it comes to Thais he can’t bring himself to hide his bigotry.

I agree with you, he needs to take a break, a long break or perhaps a permanent one.

 

Nice people the Thais.

Nice try cockroach... but no... 

I know of two families who are returning to the UK this year solely for health purposes of their children.

They both suffer lung difficulties aggravated by the Air Quality in Thailand.

Just now, MalcolmB said:

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

...erm... because you radiate social repellant... 

Are you bringing the missus?

Aww... Malcy... thats not even a solid effort....