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??

@Ryah76 and yet here you are attempting to argue with several other posters, about indecent images of children of all thing.

Dunno. Do they get their knickers in a twist on Mumsnet when it doesn't happen?

@Ryah76 and again please tell me where that quote says Jim is wanking off to the picture in his locker? You won't find me saying that because I didn't say it.

I would have had so much fun with this over the years. I would have made her a variety of different outfits, like the paper cut and fold dolls I used to get as a kid.

She would have had an 80's Madonna inspired outfit. A Friday night outfit, pjs, special celebration outfits, speech bubbles 'Brrrr... Has anyone spotted any Blue Tits recently' or suchlike.

But in all seriousness, I am glad that it's gone. It's a bit grim that he thought it was ok to put this on display in the workplace.

@PumpkinClementina And here you are totally ignoring the content of my responses, and lying about what you have said within yours, and then insulting and name calling when you fail to comprehend what the actual debate is about!

Is this shit show still going? I’m pretty sure any one of you MNetters arguing fervently that it’s okay, would be up in arms if you opened your husbands cupboard/office/desk and found a picture of a 16 year old with her breasts out…or would you argue he was perfectly okay to do that and that it’s not sexual really and anyway they (topless child) can enlist in the army so it’s all fine after all. 🙄

Well I'd hope men would be equally outraged if any man or woman had a sexually explicit picture of a child on their locker actually.

Now who’s ring disingenuous? I posted your quote., don’t play dumb

I think many people would have an issue if someone posted an explicit picture of 16yo boy in their locker, and rightly so.

You need parental permission to enlist if you are 16.

And why do you think Jim has a picture like that in his locker? Please don’t say it is because he thinks he is one of the only people in the world who got a signed photo.

😂 You can't post a quote where I said Jim was having a wank because I didn't post one. The quote you re posted didn't even say that!

@Ryah76 and @PumpkinClementina you guys need to start your own bitching thread and slog it out there…It’s just derailing the whole thing and going round in (pathetic) circles of ‘you said, I said’

Honestly I'd be fairly grossed out by the picture too - and I'd have lobbied furiously to have it removed.

I wouldn't agree that you had the right to destroy (I know you say it's not destroyed but let's be realistic, to him it is) something he's held precious from the age of 16. So, what, 32 years?! If he still puts it up in his workplace it's meaningful to him. Ruining it because you don't like it seems mean, especially if he's also your 'friend'.

The right thing to do was to speak to the management, explaining why this was completely unacceptable.

Regardless of your opinion, you have damaged something that he obviously likes very much.

I think you've been childish and spiteful.

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.

Don't some of you think there's also a bit of a power trip going on here with Jim over the women? Almost like he's pissing, marking his territory and calling the break room his. This is not simply women being prudes.

@BorisJohnsonsHair she did speak to management and they didn’t do anything

Who gives a fuck if it’s “meaningful” to him? It’s a photo of a child with her nipples out.

I do not like page 3, but it is not illegal. I suspect you have committed criminal damage

I can’t judge someone damaging child pornography, no matter how much this guy likes it.

Agree with this. 100%

I think you dished out a natural consequence to Jim for creating a hostile workplace environment.

Good luck to Jim trying to get to the bottom of it. He doesn't have a leg to stand on. Topless photos of women are offensive in a workplace, and topless photos of teenage girls even more so.

Your management should have told him to take it down.

Do you have a union? If there are any repercussions doled out for this, like a separate locker room for men where they can keep topless photos, or termination of locker room privileges for the women, you need to go to your rep.

If there isn't a union you need to look up your rights yourself. Women have the right not to be regaled with a photo like Jim's and management are obliged to stop employees from creating g a sexist and hostile environment for all employees.

Is displaying sexually explicit material to unwilling women not sexual harassment in the workplace? Management should have made him take it home before it got to this stage.

I assume it was the Sam Fox one? Underage pics were made a sexual offence back in the early 2000's and should have been left at home since then!

Do you ever see topless women on holiday

Does the poster who posed this ridiculous question really not see any difference between a beach and a workplace?

The law wrt sexism (topless photos in this case, which management won't do anything about) in the workplace is there to protect employees from sexual harassment or sex based discrimination, which limits career prospects of specific classes of employees.

Management that sees nothing wrong with the sexual objectifjcation of women are less likely to consider women for promotion, for pay raises, or to consider concrete and measurable job performance of female employees because they believe they are there to provide titillation for the male employees and managers, not to just get on with their work and progress in their careers.

@MugginsOverEre yes it is, and the refusal to take it down was a big, fat 'Fuck Off' on his part to his female colleagues. Apparently he realized management would back him.

The inaction of the management was something that could have exposed them to financial consequences if the OP had chosen to take them to a tribunal. She has saved them a lot of money.

The picture is offensive and tells the women in the workplace that women are no more than bodies to Jim, especially as OP, and others asked him nicely to take it down, and their feelings didn't count. Jim could still have "enjoyed" his picture at home.

That's the problem with dismissing people's feelings. They can disregard yours, too. So, now he can't "enjoy" his precious picture anywhere anymore.

Tough.