To have ‘defaced’ this photograph??

[Boobsakimboo]

We have lockers at work, in our break room where everyone goes and one co-worker,
Jim, has a photo of a famous, topless page 3 girl on the inside of his door.
the girl in the photo was 16 when it was taken, and he’s had it since around the same age - he wrote into The Sun and got a signed one sent- so it’s very precious to him.

several women have mentioned to Jim that they’d rather he didn’t have it there as the locker door is often left open and we can see it. Jim thinks we’re prudes, because it’s famous page 3 girls, and IN his locker it’s not an issue.

Anyway, cut to last week. I was alone in break room. Locker door was open so I’m looking at this picture. There were Sharpie pens sitting on the table. So I gave the child in the photo quite a substantial bikini top with the permanent marker.

shit has hit the fan! Management don’t quite know what to do. Jim is furious, and the workforce divided into those who think it’s funny and those who think it was wrong.
no-one know who did it… Jim
his suspicions …

So MN, was AIBU??

To be fair it wasn't on display in his desk . It was in his locker which you got a flash of occasionally. You knew it was precious to him and totally defaced it.
I think there is something really creepy about you feeling it's appropriate to destroy something you don't agree with in someone else's locker. Should atheists be able to destroy something religious in your locker .what a bout vegetation's upset my meat somewhere . Is it all fair game. I think you were very spiteful actually .

Why on earth would you do that when you could report him? Unless you were more bothered about making a point than you were about the actual material (or just wanted a funny story for MN that didn’t get quite the universal approval you expected)?

Are sexual images of children okay?

apparently 16 is not a child or it's ok as she chose to do it & got rich 🤷🏻‍♀️

I think the 'tide turned' in terms of Renaissance Art almost immediately.
'In November 1545 Pietro Aretino — himself a known homosexual — viciously attacked Michelangelo's "godlessness" displayed in the naked youths of the Sistine Chapel and said quite explicitly: "Even if you are divine, you don't disdain male consorts." He went on to identify two of these boyfriends, Gherardo Perini and Tommaso Cavalieri, nicknamed "Tomai'
and the Sistine Chapel was a church and workplace for many.
The Victorian era was famously responsible for covering up or knocked off the genitalia on many statues

The main thing is that HR would have sorted all this out and decided who was in the wrong etc without all this.

The OP says Jim was 16 when he acquired the image, and so was the model. There is nothing wrong with one 16 year old fancying another 16 year old. The image shouldn't have been out there, by today's standards, but you can't re-write history.

This.

@SunnyD44 not really like a handbag though is it? It’s a naked sixteen year old girl. What do you think are some of the issues with you equating a naked sixteen year old girl with a handbag?

It would be perfectly legal for 50-year-old Jim to have sex with or even marry a 16 year old.

Yes, but illegal for him to receive sexy photos or videos from her.

bizarrely because I didn’t want to get him in trouble!

But you think so little of him you destroyed something that is precious to him.

100% that picture had no place in a workplace environment however there were other options than destroying his picture. You clearly enjoyed what you did which is a very unpleasant trait.

And? Your point being...?

@Crazycrazylady sexual image of a sixteen year old
girl is the same as a piece of meat according to you?

well indeed. I think that makes the point very well.

no matter what, it isn't appropriate to have a topless child photo on your locker in the workplace. It isn't appropriate anywhere, he may have got it when he was that age but he isn't now so needs to move on from the interest in a child. He should have taken it home if it was Soooo important to him and i would have been complaining to management every week til it was removed as child porn.

@Onandupw so you think we should just destroy everything that offends us?
Do you not think something like this should be taken higher?

There is nothing wrong with one 16 year old fancying another 16 year old.

Yes, but he's 50 now. Do you watch films you used to watch when you were 16, and still find those 16 year old actors fuckable at your age now?

In most reputable companies no one would be allowed to have nude, or never scantily “pin up” pictures on site anywhere whether inside lockers or not.
the locker is company property - a decent company would say images like this are not allowed on or within company property.

a decent company would say that such pictures must not be viewed in company time and therefore not displayed anywhere that others could see including in a desk, on a desk, etc.
If he kept it in his personal bag and did not take it out then maybe ok.
There was a bit of a issue at work as some of the women had photos of famous football players - all in their kit not nude. Some toys were saying they should be taken down as they were “pin up” shots the women were goggling and lusting at, the women claimed they were just supporting their favourite team.

in the end the company got out of it because they imposed a complete no photo of humans ban anywhere - their main concern was people having pictures of family out on desks- there had been a security scare at one of our sites with protestors coming into the office. Lists of names and addresses were taken and so it became a complete Clear desk policy. 🤷🏼‍♀️ That meant they never did have to determine if the women were fans or lusting 🤣.

The poster was inappropriate for display in the workplace, no question about it. Personally I wouldn’t have defaced it, I would have removed , posted it to HR with a letter outlining the problem and managements piss poor response to the complaints raised about it.

Hopefully your colleague would be notified that it was not acceptable for display within the work place and his property would be returned to his home address.

@SunnyD44 have you read what I said above about the employer potentially in breach of the 2010 Equality Act. Op absolutely has a leg to stand on. She could quite easily create a defence about the management allowing sexual harassment and a hostile work environment by allowing Jim to display a photo others raised was offensive and made them uncomfortable. Yes OP should have raised it with HR but OP could easily argue she had no faith they would do anything either given management had been so ineffective. I'm a HR professional of 20 plus years and no way would I be recommending anything other than minor action against the OP - allowing Jim to display that photo is an employment tribunal waiting to happen.

@badgerstink - you should have put up an atheist quote on your own desk. Nietzsche’s ‘God is dead.’ perhaps?

Toys= men 🤦‍♀️

I think that the OP raised it with management who did not big nothing.

And do you think there is a difference between child sexual images and other things that might be offensive!

You were in the wrong to go about it in this way. Doesn’t matter what it is it’s not your property and you have destroyed it. You are trying to justify your actions! I agree that it shouldn’t be in the work place 100% if it’s Offending people, but formal complaints should of been put to management and they should of asked him to take his private property home.

its like someone keeps blocking your drive and you shouldn’t call the police or you keep calling the police and they’ve done nothing so you’re entitled to destroy their car! You’re not there are further avenues you can take to deal with it properly

I applaud your actions OP. If management have done nothing about it then direct action was your only recourse. It must have been grim to see that every time the locker was open. A 48 year man viewing a 16 year girl is in that way is just vile and would make me feel a bit sick. As you say he can now just concentrate on her pretty face.

It would be perfectly legal for 50-year-old Jim to have sex with or even marry a 16 year old

you need parental consent to marry under 18 & the law is changing

How important are the property rights of owners of child sexual images?

But not HR who could have done big everything.