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:
saraclara · 14/08/2022 13:35

Buythebag · 14/08/2022 11:57

😂 😂 😂

Show quote history

WTAF both of you?

What a spiteful and homophobic thing to do @TheGraceFace . And you really think that's funny @Buythebag ? To lie and put someone entirely innocent into the firing line?

melj1213 · 14/08/2022 13:38

To borrow a Reddit parlance ESH (Everyone sucks here)

The OPs coworker should not have brought the photo into work
The OPs boss should have acted on the complaints and asked him to remove it
The OP should have made an official complaint via the correct channels and should not have permanently defaced someone else's property.

Two wrongs don't make a right- the photo should have been removed long ago but there were many non damaging options available that does not give anyone the right to permanently and irrevocably deface someone else's property. If the OP had taken it down, put it in the locker where it wasnt visible or covered it up (post it notes over the breasts or a piece of paper over the whole photo etc) then i would be saying YANBU but she chose to use a sharpie to permanently damage it.

Equally the OP doesn't seem to have actually made a formal complaintto her employer via the grievance process. If a formal complaint had been logged then it would have had to be dealt with via the company's process and procedures which would have undoubtedly had the photo removed and the OPs coworker officially reprimanded (but very unlikely to lose their job or in any serious trouble) but the OP could be the one in trouble instead if their coworker puts a grievance in regarding damage to their property by the OP and "I've not destroyed it, just defaced it permanently" is not an excuse that would fly in that kind of meeting.

Whitehorsegirl · 14/08/2022 13:38

''@ChicCroissant
I used to work in HR, we've been involved in requesting people to remove images on display. This was inside a locker so you could have pushed the door closed or contacted HR at any point, yet you decided to go down the Sharpie route? 🤔''

Really? if you worked in HR you would be aware that lockers are company property and that people should not use them to store or display offensive material, which would include not storing a revealing picture of an underage girl. Material that in this case could be seen by members of staff when open or left open.

The OP did raise it with management who decided to do nothing. They are the ones who are putting the company and it reputation at risk by failing to discipline this guy and have the material removed. Because this would make a lovely little legal case against the employer for creating an hostile, sexist environment.

Let's be glad that you no longer work in HR...

WaveyHair · 14/08/2022 13:38

YABU - not your property to deface. You may find the photo objectionable but not illegal. To permanently ruin it is crossing a line, bit like graffiti on car.

powergrip · 14/08/2022 13:40

I'll repeat myself. You absolutely can destroy and deface any and all indecent images of children! It does not matter that it is someone else's property. It does not matter that 'it was different back then'. It does not matter that it was his 'private locker' (which is also incorrect). And any one who defends the right for this man, or any man, to have this type of image of a child, especially on public display, should be ashamed of themselves.

DdraigGoch · 14/08/2022 13:40

Hobbesmanc · 14/08/2022 11:43

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.

To be fair, I don't think that people should display Michaelangelo artwork in the workplace.

Long-served members of this site will know that it can be very triggering and cause people to start wailing uncontrollably...

whalleyt · 14/08/2022 13:44

@WaveyHair why do you think it's not illegal?

Moonmelodies · 14/08/2022 13:44

powergrip · 14/08/2022 13:40

I'll repeat myself. You absolutely can destroy and deface any and all indecent images of children! It does not matter that it is someone else's property. It does not matter that 'it was different back then'. It does not matter that it was his 'private locker' (which is also incorrect). And any one who defends the right for this man, or any man, to have this type of image of a child, especially on public display, should be ashamed of themselves.

Please don't destroy or deface the Sistene Chapel.

Sciurus83 · 14/08/2022 13:46

Good on you! Where on earth do you work this was allowed to stay up?! I thought it was 2022!

DrDetriment · 14/08/2022 13:46

Whatever the morality of this OP, you ruined someone's personal possession. These go for £50 to £100 on eBay. He got it at 16 and it is now worthless. You owe him some cash.

Discovereads · 14/08/2022 13:47

Whitehorsegirl · 14/08/2022 13:16

''Discovereads ·YABU
You damaged someone’s personal property that is actually a quite valuable signed vintage photo and irreplaceable. It’s something that was very precious to an older man that he had treasured since he was 16- so for decades.
You were also being an entitled vigilante about it by going against management decisions that employees can have what they like in THEIR LOCKERS so long as it’s not illegal. You have no right to be the self-appointed morality police of the locker room.The picture was on the INSIDE of HIS LOCKER- so not displayed in a prominent place as you trying to imply. And I doubt very much he is wandering off and leaving his locker door wide open and unlocked during the work day. It’s open while he’s in the locker room which is perfectly fine.Quite frankly, you’re a bully and I hope you get caught and disciplined.''

FFS

-This is not ''his locker'': this is his employer's property and premises. He would have signed a contract that state he should not be bringing the company into disrepute
-the employer also has a duty to run a workplace where employees are not subjected to questionable material which can cause offence
-displaying a picture of an underage girl in a state of undress at work is gross misconduct and would result in the employee being sacked by any decent HR department/employer.

You can try to dress this up as much as you can, that picture should never have been there in the first place.

I think there is such an incredible sense of entitlement here in saying that a man cannot spend 8 hours in a work environment without being able to display/look at a picture of a half naked girl that can also be seen by the rest of the staff.

And that if a woman objects to that and takes action, because the male management is refusing to, she should be the one to be punished.

When you think about it, it is actually mind-blowing...

I agree the picture should never have been there in the first place and that management should have acted. Have said so several times.

But none of that makes the OPs actions reasonable. As a pp put it, two wrongs don’t make a right. She was BU to go all vigilante and destroy someone else’s property as a one woman morality police force.

TeapotTitties · 14/08/2022 13:49

derxa · 14/08/2022 13:33

I think you're right here

Show quote history

I'm trying to find a link

Page3photo · 14/08/2022 13:50

I've name changed for this post. If it's Sam Fox then I'm around the same age as her and I actually did a few of the same sort of photo shoots when I was 16. I was over the age of consent, I wasn't groomed, I was paid and treated really well actually. Now I'm not advocating 16 year old do this now, and in this age of social media I certainly would do it if I was 16 now.

I'm also not saying that some girls weren't treated badly or groomed I'm just pointing out that not everyone else's experience is not the same.

I do think that Jim is BU for displaying this but also think the OP has been massively unreasonable for damaging his property.

MrsLargeEmbodied · 14/08/2022 13:52

Sciurus83 · 14/08/2022 13:46

Good on you! Where on earth do you work this was allowed to stay up?! I thought it was 2022!

no, because this particular story was in a magazine some time ago!

ReneBumsWombats · 14/08/2022 13:52

It's one of those things where you shouldn't have done it but it's so hard to give a shit.

Smithy8001 · 14/08/2022 13:53

TeapotTitties · 14/08/2022 13:49

I'm trying to find a link

Show quote history

Aww is this another troll post??? There’s been so many lately!!! Must be the heat.

Discovereads · 14/08/2022 13:53

powergrip · 14/08/2022 13:40

I'll repeat myself. You absolutely can destroy and deface any and all indecent images of children! It does not matter that it is someone else's property. It does not matter that 'it was different back then'. It does not matter that it was his 'private locker' (which is also incorrect). And any one who defends the right for this man, or any man, to have this type of image of a child, especially on public display, should be ashamed of themselves.

Im certainly not defending anyones “right” to have illegal indecent images of an under 18, because no such right exists.

But similarly there is also no such right to “direct action”. Enforcement of the law- including seizing or destroying illegal property is a police power and when a civilian usurps police powers that is also illegal. So no, you cannot seize and destroy another persons property even if it is illegal for them to own it.

Anyone defending either action should be ashamed of themselves.

hangrylady · 14/08/2022 13:54

YABU but so what, its funny!

Marvellousmadness · 14/08/2022 13:54

Management sounds like they would men

Yuck

How vile that he was allowed to have that in his locker at work. I would have made a formal complaint

TeapotTitties · 14/08/2022 13:57

Page3photo · 14/08/2022 13:50

I've name changed for this post. If it's Sam Fox then I'm around the same age as her and I actually did a few of the same sort of photo shoots when I was 16. I was over the age of consent, I wasn't groomed, I was paid and treated really well actually. Now I'm not advocating 16 year old do this now, and in this age of social media I certainly would do it if I was 16 now.

I'm also not saying that some girls weren't treated badly or groomed I'm just pointing out that not everyone else's experience is not the same.

I do think that Jim is BU for displaying this but also think the OP has been massively unreasonable for damaging his property.

I was over the age of consent, I wasn't groomed, I was paid and treated really well actually.

Did you understand as a 16 year old child that men would be wanking themselves off to the photos of your tits?

TeapotTitties · 14/08/2022 14:01

Smithy8001 · 14/08/2022 13:53

Aww is this another troll post??? There’s been so many lately!!! Must be the heat.

Show quote history

I have no idea but Sam Fox has been on GMB very recently defending page 3 in an interview with Susanna Reid and Richard Maidley.

And in the tabloids last week, photographed on her honeymoon.

IAmAWomanNotACis · 14/08/2022 14:01

I cannot believe how much stick you've been getting from people on a mainly women's site!

OF COURSE it's inappropriate for him to have a topless photo of a woman anywhere in the workplace. It's entirely inappropriate and he was asked several times to take it down as his colleagues found it offensive. The fact that she was 16 in the photo and he is now 48 just adds to the ick factor.

You asked management to deal with it: they didn't. The response that it was from a different era is pukeworthy: the point is very much that we are no longer in that other era, we are in 2022 and they SHOULD be being much more careful about workplace equality and harassment laws, which I'm sure this is flying at least very close to the margins with. You should perhaps have gone to HR next, but I understand you not wanting to get your colleague in trouble, and I think your actions were very reasonable and restrained (I'd have had it totally mysteriously disappear). I'd probably still flag it to HR to be honest, and get them to send a broadcast email that it is not appropriate to display topless photos of women in your lockers. Not that one should have to do that in 2022, but here we are, with women telling other women that they should put up and shut up with a 16 year old's tits on display in your workplace.

Page3photo · 14/08/2022 14:02

TeapotTitties

Did you understand as a 16 year old child that men would be wanking themselves off to the photos of your tits?

Yes, I think pretty much every 16 year old knows about walking. To be fair People want over images of fully clothed people too.

unname · 14/08/2022 14:03

The picture would be illegal, child pornography, where I live.

Hanging a picture of a topless, bare bottomed woman would be sexual harassment, creating a hostile work place.

I think you should have gone to HR and this pervert should be fired.

Page3photo · 14/08/2022 14:03

*people wank (my phone will not let me write wank!)