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??

I think you will be lucky to avoid getting fired, if I am completely honest! Shut the locker, make a paper bikini, or if you felt so strongly go to HR. It’s one of those impulsive actions that has the potential to land you right in it

So if it wasn't appropriate for the kitchen fridge, it isn't appropriate for the workplace.

And no, despite the baseless claims to the contrary by certain posters he clearly didn't keep his locker locked "99% of the time". The OP stated that he used to leave it open and she obviously had enough time to colour it in without getting caught.

So do you think it is right that it is now illegal if you didn’t see anything wrong with it at the time?

So if it wasn't appropriate for the kitchen fridge, it isn't appropriate for the workplace

I think you are confusing me with another poster saying it was appropriate then? I certainly didn't say that. I just thought rather than deface it he could be reported to HR then take it down and take it home.
As for the other bit I don't think I commented on how long he left his locker open for.

TooMuchLaundry you're looking for a fight that I'm not going to give you. Read my first post. It's only there because I wanted to make people aware that everyone's story is not the same. I'm not going to apologise that it doesn't fit the narrative that you so desperately want.

I said that I wouldn't encourage a 16 year old to do it now, I'm glad it's illegal because times have changed and the Internet makes a massive difference.

Times have changed because we know it is wrong, not because of the internet. So many workplaces had pictures/calendars of topless women. The Sun had a wide readership your photos could have had a wide distribution, didn’t need the internet

TooMuchLaundry I'm perfectly aware that the photos could have been shared elsewhere and that was fine by me too. That footage of me dancing on TV could be shared anywhere, but you are so desperate to turn my experience into something else. I understand I'm not going.to change your mind, not that I set out to do so. Thanks for the debate.

I think you are both unreasonable.

He should have taken it home if it was a signed photo that is important to him 🤪 He definitely should not have allowed it to be on display in the workplace. However, if Jim is 45 and got this picture in the 80’s when both he and the ‘model’ were both 16. Then that does feel slightly different to 45 year old Jim having a topless picture of a current 16 year old.

You shouldn’t have defaced his property - however I am conflicted because I would have found the drawn on bra hilarious- I bet his face was a picture when he saw it.

Ok, you knew as a child your semi-naked photos would be wanked over, but no-one led you to believe that was normal behaviour.

Yet, they took photos of you for exactly that purpose and made money from them.

And you still believe you weren't groomed to enable them?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

TooMuchLaundry OK I'll say this once more. At the time I was legally an adult, I could have sex, leave school, get married
I WAS NOT LEGALLY A CHILD. I was not groomed. I knew about wanking, nobody coerced me, nobody groomed me, It was a job and well paid.

Please stop victimising me.

What a load of tripe. No employer is going to fire someone for that, not when they'd risk a tribunal and a load of bad publicity for failing to deal with sexual harassment and permitting the display of illegal (since 2003) images.

I agree . Well done op. Jim knew he was provoking a reaction by keeping it up, and leaving his locker open when he knew it offended people, and he succeeded. A cheap replica picture was defaced, boo hoo. What did he expect? This is very epitome of people playing stupid games and winning stupid prizes.

You've made me wonder if the OP would have been better taking the picture down and posting it to his wife.

No, I wasn't suggesting that you were the one making comments about the locker being locked. No, that was a different poster.

I know you want to believe I was groomed (and believe me I know about grooming from a professional standpoint) but I can categorically state that I wasn't.

And that is very disturbing, when a professional doesn't recogise grooming.

And doesn't understand that not feeling groomed is not the same as not being groomed.

I've been inspired by this thread to Google whether it actually is criminal damage to destroy an illegal image, because so many posters are up in arms about it. It looks like if you believe that you have a lawful excuse to damage something it is not criminal damage - the examples they give on the government website are about things like destroying dangerous walls or causing water damage in a fire, but it seems crazy that something that it is actually illegal to possess (let alone display) would be regarded as lawful property. Any lawyers around to confirm/deny?

@Page3photo this is a discussion thread in a discussion forum.

If you don't wish to take part in this discussion, you're perfectly at liberty to click the button at the top of your screen.

You've made me wonder if the OP would have been better taking the picture down and posting it to his wife

Now that would be highly unlikely.

I think it is awful, that you defaced his property. The image was not an illegal one and was not of a child under the age of consent. Jim has cherished this photo since he was 16 (for 32 years) and you decided to damage it.

What is most disgusting, is that you do not even have the decency to admit that you are the guilty person! You must be very proud of yourself, laughing and smirking behind Jim’s back? Why did you not just close his locker door, every time he left it open?

You seem to be very proud of your behaviour? If you think that what you did was okay, then own it! Tell him it was you, or are you afraid of the consequences?

If you think the OP is a troll, don't vote, report to MNHQ.

The image was not an illegal one and was not of a child under the age of consent.

Are you entirely sure? From what other posters have said the law now states that it is illegal to own explicit or sexualised images of anyone under 18, regardless of whether they are of an age to consent to sexual intercourse, and regardless of how or when the image was produced.

I didn't say I think the OP is a troll and (assuming) MNHQ admin don't work with the OP, they couldn't possibly say either.

Could be a copycat page 3 photo defacing...

I think Jim may have arrived @Watzzap

😂😂😂