Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To have ‘defaced’ this photograph??

818 replies

Boobsakimboo · 14/08/2022 09:39

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??

OP posts:
DdraigGoch · 14/08/2022 11:25

Boobsakimboo · 14/08/2022 09:45

For those who are saying IABU, curious as to why? Is it because it’s a Page 3 girl or would you usually think it’s okay to have a photo of a top less woman on visible in the workplace when women have asked that it be taken down?
no judgement! Just genuinely curious!

I think it is important to emphasise that the photo is not of a woman, but of a girl. She was a child when it was taken.

whalleyt · 14/08/2022 11:25

Amazing how many of you seem to think that child pornography is ok if its an original signed copy.

i think it's clear from this thread that many people don't understand the law & changes that have been made, but worrying when I assume many have dc. I work in education (not with children) but still have to do lots of safeguarding, CSE, online safety etc training.

BellePeppa · 14/08/2022 11:25

As much as I understand how you felt you should have put a temporary cover on the picture, not permanently vandalised it. Each time the locker is left open you could have stuck post-its or something on it, to show your protest that way and he might at least start keeping his locker shut. Is it even allowed or legal nowadays to have such things on show at work?

Sparklingbrook · 14/08/2022 11:25

If Jim and the model are the same age and he's 48 then it's not SF.

whalleyt · 14/08/2022 11:26

But they didn't see a problem. Which is why Op should have.

which Ive already agreed with...

doesn't change the fact the management were in the wrong though.

Discovereads · 14/08/2022 11:26

whalleyt · 14/08/2022 11:14

@Discovereads is that the same for indecent images of children?

the fact remains the majority of leather handbags are not from crocodiles & are not illegal to use at work.

I don’t know what the exceptions are tbh. I think even HR would need to get legal advice as it’s a case of a historic photo (historic as in time period, not importance) so some grandfather clause may apply, it has an original signature by the subject potentially indicating consent for the photo to be distributed, it’s not being displayed/shown in public, but being kept inside a locker door that is 99% of the time closed and locked so would the workplace act even apply? Really would need a solicitor familiar with the law and exceptions to research and advise if it is illegal or not.

But it doesn’t have to be illegal for it to be wrong or for management to make a policy prohibiting it. Management has a lot of discretion…ie you can’t drink alcohol at work even though it’s not illegal to drink and use a computer all day. You can’t call a coworker an asshole/cunt…also not illegal but swearing is often gross misconduct and you get sacked.

So illegal/legal largely irrelevant. Management should have told Jim to take the photo home. They were wrong not to do so.

But the OP destroying the photo is even more in the wrong because the damage of vigilantism in the long run is much more than the damage of a glimpse of a topless photo when a locked locker door is open now and then. OP had nondestructive, nonbullying options available to her that she chose not to take.

Flapjack637 · 14/08/2022 11:27

The thread is throughly depressing. The sheer amount of (presumably female, likely with children) posters justifying a sexual image of a child is staggering.

The fact Sam Fox is now an adult has absolutely no bearing on this.

Do these posters think historic sexual abuse of children should be forgotten once the child turns 18?!

WomanStanleyWoman2 · 14/08/2022 11:27

Sparklingbrook · 14/08/2022 11:25

If Jim and the model are the same age and he's 48 then it's not SF.

Sam Fox is 58 - maybe 48 was a typo? Assuming any of this happened

Sparklingbrook · 14/08/2022 11:29

WomanStanleyWoman2 · 14/08/2022 11:27

Sam Fox is 58 - maybe 48 was a typo? Assuming any of this happened

Show quote history

She's 56 so who knows Grin

limitedperiodonly · 14/08/2022 11:29

OP approached Management after speaking to Jim but got the brush off from them all. I was going to say that defacing someone's property is wrong but it's not like taking a knife to an Old Master is it?

SuperPets · 14/08/2022 11:29

WomanStanleyWoman2 · 14/08/2022 11:27

Sam Fox is 58 - maybe 48 was a typo? Assuming any of this happened

Show quote history

She's 56

Sparklingbrook · 14/08/2022 11:30

whalleyt · 14/08/2022 11:26

But they didn't see a problem. Which is why Op should have.

which Ive already agreed with...

doesn't change the fact the management were in the wrong though.

Absolutely. The OP, Jim, the management- everyone is in the wrong in this.

whalleyt · 14/08/2022 11:31

@Discovereads the image would certainly breach most company's policies & as its now deemed being of a child even worse so I can't see any tribunal coming down harder on the op particularly as she went to management.

Hoppinggreen · 14/08/2022 11:31

I vote YABU because I think you should have acted more professionally and gone down the official route
however, I do think what you did is pretty funny though

Onandupw · 14/08/2022 11:31

@Discovereads topless photo … or photo of a naked girl used by Jim as wank dose since he was 16.

give your head a wobble.

I am very happy to take the risk of a spate of vigilantes taking down posters of child sexual images personally.

Sparklingbrook · 14/08/2022 11:32

So it's not SF, as too old and KP is too young. 🤔

Twopenny · 14/08/2022 11:32

I was the 1000th vote and it's spilt exactly 50/50. Didn't expect that.

It was simply a power play on his part to keep it up. He knew people, primarily women, didn't like it. He knew he was making them uncomfortable. He'd been asked multiple times to take it home. He's surely well aware that it's now illegal to display topless images of sixteen year old girls. And he had no need to look at his precious picture of underage tits every day while he's at work. He chose to keep it up despite all that.

OP took the power back. Fair play, I say.

whalleyt · 14/08/2022 11:32

Absolutely. The OP, Jim, the management- everyone is in the wrong in this.

yes I just disagree the OP is in the most wrong.

Sparklingbrook · 14/08/2022 11:33

OP took the power back. Fair play, I say

I'm not convinced it's all over TBF. What's the next move?

whalleyt · 14/08/2022 11:34

Do these posters think historic sexual abuse of children should be forgotten once the child turns 18?!

i think they probably do tbh

Sapphirensteel · 14/08/2022 11:34

Well done. He’s displaying it to objectify women and belittle female colleagues. The whole point of a locker is to lock it!!!

I do agree with the taking photos of his open locker though.

Sparklingbrook · 14/08/2022 11:34

whalleyt · 14/08/2022 11:32

Absolutely. The OP, Jim, the management- everyone is in the wrong in this.

yes I just disagree the OP is in the most wrong.

I should have said 'in no particular order' 😆

Buythebag · 14/08/2022 11:35

Do you ever see topless women on holiday? God help you if you ever do - you'd probably cry

It's really not the same thing is it?

One doesn't expect to be faced with the image of a topless 16yo in the workplace every day.

They had explained to Jim why they felt uncomfortable but the arrogant twat still continued to leave his locker door open. And why does he feel the need to have this at work? Presumably it's because he thinks it brings him some kind of kudos amongst the men - the sad bastard.

Jim deserves everything he got - in fact, Jim should've been disciplined and sacked if he refused to take it down. The management are a piss-poor shower of shite.

Blowthemandown · 14/08/2022 11:35

You should have made a paper, post-it note bikini top to make the point then asked management to get him to take it home. It may have monetary value and it is likely irreplaceable, so you were wrong to deface it. Doesn’t matter that he is wrong to have it there.

Onandupw · 14/08/2022 11:35

depressing indeed.

those 50% really aren’t concerned about the outrage of the OP failing to be a whistleblower when management failed to comply with hr obligations. They think mens rights to look at child sexual images trump all.

repulsive.

Swipe left for the next trending thread