Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
EdBallsDay · 14/08/2022 18:00

Antarcticant · 14/08/2022 10:00

Well I couldn’t give a single shit about damaging someone else’s property when the property in question is a pornographic image of a child.

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.

Presumably Jim is no longer 16 so it's vile that he is perving over a photo of a minor. And not even ashamed of it, but publicly displaying it!

Normal to fancy 16 years olds when you are 16 yourself. Only paedophiles are still attracted to 16 year olds when they are in their 30s or 40s or whatever.

EdBallsDay · 14/08/2022 18:02

Rogue1001MNer · 14/08/2022 10:02

he wrote into The Sun and got a signed one sent- so it’s very precious to him

This is why you are being unreasonable.

Because he didn't just cut it out of a newspaper, he wrote off to the paper for an actual photograph, which you went into his locker and destroyed. You had no business going into his locker, open or not.
If you'd made her a little bikini and stuck it on top, I'd have applauded you. But you permanently damaged his property.

And you say you're good mates with him? I think you're a lousy friend.

And I think this even though I would also hate the photo.

Boo hoo. My heart bleeds. 🎻

EdBallsDay · 14/08/2022 18:02

Boobsakimboo · 14/08/2022 10:03

‘Jim was 16 when he acquired the image, and so was the model.’

True. Buts it’s 48 year old, married father of 3 Jim, who has this picture up in his workplace.

🤮

EdBallsDay · 14/08/2022 18:03

Rheia1983 · 14/08/2022 17:48

Wow, there are actually people on this thread arguing that child porn that is precious to someone should not be defaced/destroyed?

What other types of child abuse should be permitted if it's precious to the owner?

OP, well done.

Unbelievable eh?

Rockbird · 14/08/2022 18:11

I can't believe there are so many people on this thread that can't see anything wrong with having a photo of a topless 16yo on public display. I don't care if it's a grown man or a 16yo boy that has the photo. I don't care if the photo was taken yesterday or 100 years ago. A topless photo of a child. Listen to yourselves.

OP YANBU. He's lucky it isn't shredded and in the bin, it would be if I worked there.

Maireas · 14/08/2022 18:15

Rheia1983 · 14/08/2022 17:48

Wow, there are actually people on this thread arguing that child porn that is precious to someone should not be defaced/destroyed?

What other types of child abuse should be permitted if it's precious to the owner?

OP, well done.

Indeed. There are certainly a lot of "Jim types" on this thread 🤔

Boobsakimbo2 · 14/08/2022 18:16

@JaneJeffer because l wanted to comment on another thread and didn’t want to be identifiable! So was going to leave this one as I thought I had said my bit .but then lots of posters asked questions here and I felt guilty about going off so changed back to close to original! I don’t know if you can change back to an old name on MN but if you can it’s beyond my tech abilities.

JaneJeffer · 14/08/2022 18:21

You can. Once you have a username it's yours forever @Boobsakimbo2

Ryah76 · 14/08/2022 18:28

How is it child porn? That’s very strong! I remember it being the aspiration of many young women in the 80’s to be page 3 girls- they did so knowingly and launched very lucrative careers. This is NOT the same as child exploitation in any way… your comparison does an injustice to the very real victims of such abhorrent acts.

toomuchlaundry · 14/08/2022 18:35

Because it is underage. Quite rightly the law has changed

Maireas · 14/08/2022 18:36

Ryah76 · 14/08/2022 18:28

How is it child porn? That’s very strong! I remember it being the aspiration of many young women in the 80’s to be page 3 girls- they did so knowingly and launched very lucrative careers. This is NOT the same as child exploitation in any way… your comparison does an injustice to the very real victims of such abhorrent acts.

Does that make it ok to have it posted up in the workplace?

CecilyP · 14/08/2022 18:38

TeapotTitties · 14/08/2022 13:28

I voted YABU because I've read this story twice in the last 5 or 6 years.

The last time was in a woman's magazine.

That would make sense. Six years ago both ‘Jim’ and Sam Fox were 50!

141mum · 14/08/2022 18:41

You see topless people on the beach

CecilyP · 14/08/2022 18:46

HollowTalk · 14/08/2022 14:17

If it's Samantha Fox you're talking about then she was massively exploited by men, in particular her father. The newspapers were waiting for her 16th birthday to post topless photos of her. There was a countdown.

For those of us old enough to remember her in her heyday and who have now have read about what the reality was, it's absolutely shocking.

No you’ve got the wrong model. Sam Fox started with the Sun when she was nearly 17. Another model who was alluded to upthread, but whose name I’ve already forgotten, posed for the Sunday Post at just 16.

ReneBumsWombats · 14/08/2022 18:52

141mum · 14/08/2022 18:41

You see topless people on the beach

You also wear swimming costumes, drink too much Pimm's and eat ice cream whenever you like. Try doing that at work.

Ryah76 · 14/08/2022 18:56

I addressed the work issue earlier- if it’s totally I appropriate for the work place. However, HR are in place for a reason- use them.

Ryah76 · 14/08/2022 18:56

Should read it’s totally inappropriate for the work place.

Wakemeuuuup · 14/08/2022 18:58

You should have made a proper case for him having to remove it. Defacing it was wrong

CecilyP · 14/08/2022 19:01

toomuchlaundry · 14/08/2022 16:51

Unfortunately, SF wasn't the only 16yo topless model

She was the only 16 year old to pose for the Sun. The newspaper that Jim wrote to for the signed photo.

DownNative · 14/08/2022 19:03

Brefugee · 14/08/2022 09:43

you shouldn't have defaced the photo. You could have taken it down and placed it in the locker, or stuck post-it notes on it.
What you really should do is take a photo of the room with the door open and the tits on show and show your management and tell them, again, that it is unacceptable, makes people uncomfortable and that they MUST do something.

Correct course of action!

Glamour pics have no place at work. Equally, you have no right to deface others' private property.

Ryah76 · 14/08/2022 19:05

toomuchlaundry · 14/08/2022 18:35

Because it is underage. Quite rightly the law has changed

You may not like it, but 16 years is considered appropriate age to go to war and have sex. You are applying historical context to modern values and opinions regarding consent.

This takes the conversation down a different road - the question was if the OP was unreasonable by defacing her colleagues property- I say yes and it should have been escalated to HR. The question of the models age , and the historical values vs modern day acceptable norms ,is a separate issue.

CecilyP · 14/08/2022 19:07

I think this brings up a key point. Was it illegal? It is NOW illegal to possess a sexual image of someone under age 18. ‘Sexual’ is something that can be argued about but the definition includes partial nudity.

It wasn’t illegal, otherwise a mass circulation newspaper like the sun would have been prosecuted. It became illegal under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

UnCivil · 14/08/2022 19:08

Agree with the poster who borrowed from Reddit - everyone sucks here.

If you truly objected on the grounds that it’s a indecent image of a child you should have reported to HR. You say you didn’t as you didn’t want him to get in trouble? Is it only boobs that make the image indecent? Surely it was clear that the girl was near naked even with a sharpie bikini top?

orangeisthenewpuce · 14/08/2022 19:12

Nasty thing to do. Not your property. He is allowed to do something you don't agree with. You're not the boss.

DownNative · 14/08/2022 19:22

Ryah76 · 14/08/2022 19:05

You may not like it, but 16 years is considered appropriate age to go to war and have sex. You are applying historical context to modern values and opinions regarding consent.

This takes the conversation down a different road - the question was if the OP was unreasonable by defacing her colleagues property- I say yes and it should have been escalated to HR. The question of the models age , and the historical values vs modern day acceptable norms ,is a separate issue.

Show quote history

16 year old CANNOT go to war due to the murder of the 3 Scottish soldiers by Provisional Sinn Féin and Provisional IRA in 1971.