Something else to put out there on the daft lad theory. People have their own views and I respect that, but I have mine.

I was at Thorpe Park Spa last week whilst the England boys were there, and was talking with James Graham, Sean O'Loughlin, Mossop, Sam Burgess, Tom Briscoe. What surprised me is that none of those players had tatoos at all. I just thought it was the in thing with these players, and to me no surprise that the mentality of those covered in them always seems to follow the same way.

You got me. You wrote something silly on a message board and I responded to you. Good job.

You're a winner, clearly.

Thankfully sibbs i'm quite a likeable and level-headed bloke, so I don't need to engage in such sycophantic activities. You on the other hand failed to read and comprehend before criticising, got caught out, before trying to backpedal your way out of it. Neither of which are particularly likeable qualities

Peacock seems to be covered in plenty of ink - is he the exception that proves your "rule"?

As others have mentioned Peacock is covered in 'em but it hasn't appeared to stop him being a model professional, whereas Graham from your list above perhaps isn't but that didn't stop him gnawing on Billy Slater's ear in the 2012 NRL GF ...... so I think there will always be glaring inconsistencies with this particular theory.

I accept there will always be inconsistencies. I actually pressed submit as I was about to put that Sam Tomkins was also there but was covered in them. Then again on the field his daft lad mentality could be questioned.

I can honestly say that I never saw that tatoo on Briscoe last week in the pool. And embarrassingley I think he was stood to me with his left arm facing.

i still maintain what I put though, and do think Peacock is an exeption, because he too wasn't the brightest tool when he was young, but has matured since, and I bet all his Tatoos were when younger.

It doesn't apply to all, I am not saying that. Just pointing out that the daftness seems to follow those with this sort of addiction.

I come some way short of being covered in them. But I do have a few on my arms and back. I don't think I'm a big daft lad. I'm certainly not that big. They're quite popular with a lot of people these days, not just rugby players. I know quote a few people with tattoos who are perfectly intelligent, decent human beings. I know a few people with no tattoos who are not. I also know decent, intelligent people with no tattoos, and fecking morons with tattoos. Not sure there's much correlation really.

Of course I respect your views, but they are at odds with my onw experience.

If anybody could tell me what HArdaker has actually done, and what Bailey and Delaney have actually done I'd find that easier to answer. Am I the only person not "in the know" here?

Sorry but the point about tattoos is complete tosh just because a player has tattoos doesn't make him an idiot this just seems extremely sereotypical and FYI peacocks tattoos were all done later in life whilst he's been at leeds as I know the tattooist where he had them done I also think I've seen an article sometime in the YEP