It would be interesting to know what proportion of those on or below the 'bread line' get tattoos as opposed to those above it? Whilst I'm not against tattoos, our elder daughter has two very distinctive ones which are in no way obtrusive or easily visible, I am aware that they cost money and time which some people may not actually have other than by scrimping on money for food or other necessities.
I remember speaking to a lady who came into our homelessness charity some years ago who was very heavily tattooed just about everywhere (at least visible) - legs, arms, forehead, hands, feet, ... . In the discussion, the issue of non-essential expenditure came up and she brought up the fact that she had spent in the region of £5K on her tattoos over the previous 5 or 6 years. Even she admitted that, as a result, she had spent money on them that shouldn have been spent on her children.
I think this report, like so many reports, has truths buried within it, but which are perhaps not dealt with in the way they should be.
