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??

So only people who own property worth millions are worthy of having their possessions protected? Interesting.

So, rich kids can go deface and vandalise poor peoples homes because they’re cookie cutter Council tower blocks but poor kids cannot go out and deface that £15m mansion on millionaires row designed by a grand master architect.

If it’s wrong to destroy someone’s property as a vigilante, it’s always wrong, for everyone’s property no matter how much it is worth. Otherwise you’re just making inequality worse.

I think if the topless woman was an adult in the picture you'd have been unreasonable but she was 16 - still a teenager and basically a child. Good on you! Fair enough Jim liked to look at it when he was also 16 but why does he still feel the need to stare at a top less 16 year old now he's a man? Does he ogle teenagers in the street too?

@Blowthemandown why is it wrong to cover up a child’s naked breasts on a photo being displayed by a middle aged man?

@Discovereads the rights to the ownership of pictures of naked children is a social justice issue is it?

but not sack Jim for having child sexual abuse images in his locker?

having a sexual image of a person under 18 is illegal. Even if it was legal when the photo was made.

It doesn't have monetary value. You can buy them for a fiver off eBay.

There was another thread this morning, since deleted, about a man making an inappropriate comment to a younger female colleague and lots of people were up in arms. Jim is displaying pornography at work! He was asked to remove it and he didn't. He deserved his photo being defaced. Maybe it's because I work in a school and it's a more cautious environment but porn at work is horrific and Jim is lucky in this outcome. Jim is a twat.

Jim is a dirty old perv and knew people didn’t like it but chose to display a photo of a 16 year old with her tits out anyway. Surely displaying pornography at work is illegal or at least against company policy as a minimum. Good on you and I’m only surprised nobody got rid of it sooner. If Jim’s wank fodder is 16 year old tits he should have the grace to look at it in the privacy of his own home.

I’m guessing it was Sam fox, who in no way is ashamed of her past. Where as I agree a signed photo of her in his locker isn’t ideal, if you’d such an issue you should have complained but honestly the way this is written it sounds like you’ve written it so folks can blow hot air up yer arse.

His child pornography might be worth money and would be hard to replace, so it was wrong to destroy his indecent image of a child?

Do you actually hear yourself? Tell you what, go and explain to a teenager that you think images of child porn are ok if they are worth cash to someone and hard to find, see if you can explain it in a way that doesn't make you sound utterly vile....

You need to grow up, you are a child whose only acceptable view is your own.

I don't? That's not the issue here. The question the OP asked was re her own actions of defacing someone else's property. I disagree with what she did, although not her reasons for doing so. I think the problem should have been handled differently.

I wonder how SF’s parents feel about how they treated their child?

Once again, this man is displaying pornography of a 16-year-old girl IN THE WORKPLACE. He's bloody lucky some Sharpie and a ruined photo is all he got! If I were him I'd shut up and be grateful I wasn't in the midst of a disciplinary for displaying porn at work 🤷‍♀️ Nowhere I've worked would ever have stood for that.

You say he’s been using it to wank, but that’s highly unlikely to be fair as people don’t ten to wank at work.

Yes he shouldn’t have the photo pinned up at work. Yes it is inappropriate. Yes management should have asked him to take it down.

But, no way in hell should the OP have permanently defaced it. And if you allow some vigilantism, you are not risking just what you think is ok, you end up risking widespread vigilantism on all issues. I’ve seen it happen in other countries. As soon as it’s ok for the little stuff, the argument then goes well why isn’t it ok for the big stuff, the stuff that really matters? Like I think Bob X down the road is peadophile but there’s no evidence (the cunning bastard) so the police will do nothing, so I’m going to gather a mob and force him to flee from his house and threaten him with being murdered in the street if he ever comes back to my neighbourhood.

You need to grow up, you are a child whose only acceptable view is your own.

well that's certainly a twist, the OPs employees are also taking part in child labour 😱

I wonder how Jim would feel if the women that complained had pictures of young naked men, in their lockers.

It sounds like Jim was aware this photo caused offence and did nothing, nor did management or HR.

I voted YNBU - it made me giggle.

Yes the question in the OP was

So MN, was AIBU?? Not asking whether Jim was.

So many shitty apologists and nonsensical whataboutery on here today. I'm looking at you Michaelangelo poster. And the ridiculous comparison to vegans slicing up handbags

Yeah she probs should have taken it to HR but it doesn't feel like a very supportive work environment. Direct action. Well done.

Don't know but it can't be SF in the picture Jim had.

What a strange question. I cannot fathom where that has come from.

admit nothing. I think you were absolutely justified in putting a bikini on his smutty picture. I think having that picture up visible to all the women at work is an act of sexual intimidation.

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.

The majority of people agree that the photo should be removed.

What people are voting YABU for is the way that OP went about it.
You cannot just destroy someone’s property when there are other channels to go through first.

I find it odd that many posters who voted YANBU agree with OPs actions because she simply covered her nipples.
But don’t mind a 16 year old girl in her underwear in a sexy pose - surely that’s just as bad?

Going to HR would have meant the entire photo being removed which is why I like many others voted YABU.

I dont cry when i see women topless on the beach on holiday, but i was certainly upset and emotional when i read about the child brothels in Thailand and Laos where Western men go to rape kids. If this photo was a picture of a naked 16 year old Thai prostitute, would everyone be so cool about it being displayed at work?

Some of you people are really weird.

If Jim is 48 and Sam fox (who I think this is about) is 56, he was a lot younger than 16 when he wrote in for this picture.