Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
Anewdayanewdawn · 15/08/2022 10:11

‘So HR not getting involved then? I couldn't work at a place like that, I'd be looking tor a new job.’

to what end? Did you really think Jim was going to go crying to head office because his nudey pic was harmed???

Hobbesmanc · 15/08/2022 10:16

Hurrah- victory for respect and decency! Hard comprehend all the feeble apologists on here. Good for you. I'd have cut it into little squares!

Well I'd probably have emailed HR at Head Office first.

Sparklingbrook · 15/08/2022 10:17

Anewdayanewdawn · 15/08/2022 10:11

‘So HR not getting involved then? I couldn't work at a place like that, I'd be looking tor a new job.’

to what end? Did you really think Jim was going to go crying to head office because his nudey pic was harmed???

No, the way that the managers dealt with the whole thing, thinking it was no big deal Jim having the picture in his locker and the whole debacle that followed. Plus a lot of the workforce thought it was all hilarious.

(We'll never know if HR would have done anything though as they were never alerted)

DdraigGoch · 15/08/2022 10:45

WaveyHair · 15/08/2022 08:11

Because at the time it was not actually illegal which is how the Sun got to print these photos in a public newspaper.

Illegal is different to objectionable.

Show quote history

Leaving aside the fact that some of the pictures were taken when the girls were 15, and only published once they were 16; even if the picture was legal when it was created, it is illegal to possess now.

For all those suggesting that the OP should have gone to HR, which do you think is crueller to Jim? Drawing a bikini in permanent marker, or dragging him through a sexual harassment complaint?

Sparklingbrook · 15/08/2022 10:53

For all those suggesting that the OP should have gone to HR, which do you think is crueller to Jim? Drawing a bikini in permanent marker, or dragging him through a sexual harassment complaint?

I don't think anyone cares about cruelty to Jim that much do they? He's clearly a terrible terrible person (and a paedophile according to some). He was asked to take the picture down and he didn't, (he could have kept his precious picture at that point) management were told and they did nothing so HR would be the logical next step IMO.

FrippEnos · 15/08/2022 10:53

DdraigGoch · 15/08/2022 10:45

Leaving aside the fact that some of the pictures were taken when the girls were 15, and only published once they were 16; even if the picture was legal when it was created, it is illegal to possess now.

For all those suggesting that the OP should have gone to HR, which do you think is crueller to Jim? Drawing a bikini in permanent marker, or dragging him through a sexual harassment complaint?

Show quote history

The most HR would have done in this case is get "Jim" to take the picture down and maybe a note in his record.

The main point for me in going to HR would be to put a rocket up the management of whichever company this is as they are very lack luster and not taking their responsibilities seriously.

Sparklingbrook · 15/08/2022 10:58

HR getting involved (from my experience of HR at places I have worked) would have meant that a message would be sent to all employees outlining what is acceptable.
And a clear message to the ineffective management it should not have been tolerated in the first place.

But if the HR here is as hopeless as the managers who knows?

PoseyFlump · 15/08/2022 11:50

We are raising a nation of hurty feelings, lily-livered scaredy-cats who won't allow themselves to ever bend the rules, even for the greater good. Sometimes you have to take action yourself because those in authority are too busy tying themselves up in 'be kind' knots.

SuperPets · 15/08/2022 11:53

PoseyFlump · 15/08/2022 11:50

We are raising a nation of hurty feelings, lily-livered scaredy-cats who won't allow themselves to ever bend the rules, even for the greater good. Sometimes you have to take action yourself because those in authority are too busy tying themselves up in 'be kind' knots.

Quite.

Frankly anyone defending a middle aged pervs right to his vintage child porn wank fodder can go fuck themselves. Criminal damage indeed...what a load of bollocks.

Thereisnolight · 15/08/2022 12:03

PoseyFlump · 15/08/2022 11:50

We are raising a nation of hurty feelings, lily-livered scaredy-cats who won't allow themselves to ever bend the rules, even for the greater good. Sometimes you have to take action yourself because those in authority are too busy tying themselves up in 'be kind' knots.

What if someone takes a dislike to your religious symbol or your eating of meat? Can they take matters into their own hands and damage your property? Why not, by your logic?

Rockbird · 15/08/2022 12:19

Because that's the same as a topless photo of a child on public display? Yeah...

ReneBumsWombats · 15/08/2022 12:22

Thereisnolight · 15/08/2022 12:03

What if someone takes a dislike to your religious symbol or your eating of meat? Can they take matters into their own hands and damage your property? Why not, by your logic?

Show quote history

What "logic" are you applying here?

Thereisnolight · 15/08/2022 12:39

ReneBumsWombats · 15/08/2022 12:22

What "logic" are you applying here?

Show quote history

The logic that when you personally disapprove of something you can take action by destroying property.

Thereisnolight · 15/08/2022 12:40

Rockbird · 15/08/2022 12:19

Because that's the same as a topless photo of a child on public display? Yeah...

She’s not a child. She’s 16. Or was.

I don’t approve of page 3 girls but it’s not illegal.

ReneBumsWombats · 15/08/2022 12:43

Thereisnolight · 15/08/2022 12:39

The logic that when you personally disapprove of something you can take action by destroying property.

Show quote history

How does that equate personal dietary choices with underage boobs out in the workplace?

SheeWeee · 15/08/2022 12:52

Thereisnolight · 15/08/2022 12:40

She’s not a child. She’s 16. Or was.

I don’t approve of page 3 girls but it’s not illegal.

Show quote history

16 IS a child. An indecent picture of a 16 year old is NOW completely illegal.

SelfPortraitWithFoxInSmokingJacket · 15/08/2022 12:53

What if someone takes a dislike to your religious symbol or your eating of meat? Can they take matters into their own hands and damage your property? Why not, by your logic?

Um, because it is not illegal to possess a religious symbol or eat meat...? Whereas it is now illegal to possess an explicit image of someone under 18, regardless of how, when or where it was produced.

I have to say I agree the poster upthread who said it was much kinder to Jim to draw on the photo than to go to HR. If he had any sense at all he'd accept that a newly bikini-clad beloved is much, much preferable to the shitstorm that should rightly follow a complaint of 'Jim is flaunting his possession of an illegal image of a sexualised child'.

DdraigGoch · 15/08/2022 12:54

Sparklingbrook · 15/08/2022 10:53

For all those suggesting that the OP should have gone to HR, which do you think is crueller to Jim? Drawing a bikini in permanent marker, or dragging him through a sexual harassment complaint?

I don't think anyone cares about cruelty to Jim that much do they? He's clearly a terrible terrible person (and a paedophile according to some). He was asked to take the picture down and he didn't, (he could have kept his precious picture at that point) management were told and they did nothing so HR would be the logical next step IMO.

Well posters have been saying that it's terrible to have "destroyed" his precious signed print, so they must be feeling sorry for Jim.

WifeMotherWorkRepeat · 15/08/2022 12:56

Well done OP!! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Jim is an old perv, and his photo of 16 year old boobs should not be in the workplace!!! He was being deliberately provocative keeping it up and making sure everyone could see his wank-bank photo knowing that it made his female colleagues uncomfortable.

DdraigGoch · 15/08/2022 12:56

Thereisnolight · 15/08/2022 12:40

She’s not a child. She’s 16. Or was.

I don’t approve of page 3 girls but it’s not illegal.

Show quote history

16 year olds were children then and are children now. Since 2003 it has been illegal to possess indecent images of them.

PoseyFlump · 15/08/2022 12:57

@Thereisnolight I don't follow a religious symbol nor eat meat so they are not relevant to me. But neither do I need a god or a government to tell me how to be 'good'. In my view it is up to everyone to find their own personal line in the sand. When to take a stand. The sexual exploitation of a child for me trumps Jim's feelings or the authorities incompetence.

We have a law that certain natural plants are illegal. Yet they can cure cluster migraines and severe pain for some. So if a person in their late seventies decides to bend the rules to buy illegal plants for health reasons I can understand that. I would prefer that sort of society where people are able to make those judgements. I know you don't agree but that's your line in the sand.

Thereisnolight · 15/08/2022 12:58

DdraigGoch · 15/08/2022 12:56

16 year olds were children then and are children now. Since 2003 it has been illegal to possess indecent images of them.

Show quote history

The age of consent is 16.

Thereisnolight · 15/08/2022 12:59

PoseyFlump · 15/08/2022 12:57

@Thereisnolight I don't follow a religious symbol nor eat meat so they are not relevant to me. But neither do I need a god or a government to tell me how to be 'good'. In my view it is up to everyone to find their own personal line in the sand. When to take a stand. The sexual exploitation of a child for me trumps Jim's feelings or the authorities incompetence.

We have a law that certain natural plants are illegal. Yet they can cure cluster migraines and severe pain for some. So if a person in their late seventies decides to bend the rules to buy illegal plants for health reasons I can understand that. I would prefer that sort of society where people are able to make those judgements. I know you don't agree but that's your line in the sand.

Do you eat meat?
Lots of people (including me) think that the slaughter of a living creature to provide burgers for humans is unethical. Would you be ok with me damaging your property if I see you cooking meat in it?

Thereisnolight · 15/08/2022 13:00

Where did I say I didn’t agree with people using plants?!

Thereisnolight · 15/08/2022 13:02

But if I did have a problem with 70 year olds using illegal plants would it be ok for me to damage their property?