Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
bluberries · 14/08/2022 10:18

I think everyone was in the wrong here but Jim and the management most so.

CecilyP · 14/08/2022 10:18

Boobsakimboo · 14/08/2022 09:45

For those who are saying IABU, curious as to why? Is it because it’s a Page 3 girl or would you usually think it’s okay to have a photo of a top less woman on visible in the workplace when women have asked that it be taken down?
no judgement! Just genuinely curious!

No, it’s not because it’s a topless model! Quite the opposite That’s the reason you think you had the right to vandalise it! I would treat any other signed photograph that was important to its owner. If it was just a cut out from the paper, I’d have said YWNBU.

WisherWood · 14/08/2022 10:18

I once worked on a construction site where builders left photos of naked women around. I put them in the bin. True, they weren't precious, signed photos. I still put them in the bin. If you want to look at women posed in that way, do it at home.

whalleyt · 14/08/2022 10:18

in all seriousness wouldn't HR count this as an indecent image of a child as subject is under 18?

Thesunisoutout3 · 14/08/2022 10:19

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

ancientgran · 14/08/2022 10:19

I voted you were being unreasonable as he wasn't breaking any laws and you were. Destroying someone else's property isn't OK.

Sparklingbrook · 14/08/2022 10:19

whalleyt · 14/08/2022 10:18

in all seriousness wouldn't HR count this as an indecent image of a child as subject is under 18?

Possibly, but weirdly they were never contacted.

juicyjan · 14/08/2022 10:20

You are most definitely not being unreasonable, OP.

There's a reason why tabloids don't print topless models of 16 years old any more. 16 year olds who are still made to stay at school; whose immaturity is recognised; the age where they're still open to exploitation. Has nobody learned anything from the Epstein narrative?

I would have been fuming if management had taken their responsibilities so pathetically. What if a young Saturday girl had started at your place? How would that have made her feel. Absolutely right to call out Jim and management on this issue.

Well done.

saraclara · 14/08/2022 10:20

Boobsakimboo · 14/08/2022 09:45

For those who are saying IABU, curious as to why? Is it because it’s a Page 3 girl or would you usually think it’s okay to have a photo of a top less woman on visible in the workplace when women have asked that it be taken down?
no judgement! Just genuinely curious!

It's because it's not your property.
There are far far better ways of handling this that would actually have changed the company's culture, rather than just giving you a buzz and getting you into trouble.

WhiteTeaNoSugar · 14/08/2022 10:20

I can’t believe that someone in the workplace in the UK is allowed to have a topless photo of some woman that their colleagues can see. Incredibly sexist and backward, should be a law suit and a disciplinary waiting to happen.

Onandupw · 14/08/2022 10:20

yes poor old Jim and his need to publicly display his attraction to a NAKED SIXTEEN YEAR OLD GIRL.

jim is a dirty perv.

if you’d damaged his car or other personal property different - but you amended the child sexual image.

pictish · 14/08/2022 10:20

Discovereads · 14/08/2022 10:18

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.

Absolutely agree.

whalleyt · 14/08/2022 10:20

Are you really that sensitive you can't handle a bikini clad model?

the op was the one who added the bikini top....

Maireas · 14/08/2022 10:20

Boobsakimboo · 14/08/2022 10:01

‘Do you ever see topless women on holiday? God help you if you ever do - you'd probably cry’

as a woman I see naked women all the time. As a gay woman I absolutely would not bring a almost naked picture of a woman that I masturbated to as a teen and pin it up in my workplace where it’s visible to others. Then refuse to believe other might not want to see it… and in fact I might wonder whether it’s appropriate at all for a grown adult in their 40s to be drooling over a picture of a topless teenage girl.

Very good point. This is because you are an adult. In the workplace.

whalleyt · 14/08/2022 10:21

@Sparklingbrook but the fact that management & Jim had ignored requests would mean the fallout would be much bigger once HR was involved.

FOJN · 14/08/2022 10:22

It was obviously precious to him and now you have ruined it.

I'm not sure I agree with this, I don't take "precious" things to work because I neither trust or expect my colleagues to be careful about protect possessions which are of value to me. If I have taken something precious to work then I know it's my responsibility to keep it secure. Jim could have shut his locker door.

Dontcareforthehaters · 14/08/2022 10:22

AdInfinitum12 · 14/08/2022 09:52

You're unreasonable because you've permanently defaced someone's property, something you've admitted was very precious to him and he'd had for a long time. If people were uncomfortable with it being in his locker then you/they should have kept complaining to management until something was done about it. There's no excuse to do what you did to someone's property.

This is why the OP is unreasonable.

cliffdiver · 14/08/2022 10:22

WaitingForWinter1 · 14/08/2022 09:54

Do you ever see topless women on holiday? God help you if you ever do - you'd probably cry

An adult woman choosing to embrace her body is completely different to a child who has most probably been manipulated into exposing her body for the gratification of others.

moose62 · 14/08/2022 10:22

It doesn't matter what the photo was. It wasn't yours and technically you committed criminal damage. You can justify it any way you want but there was nothing illegal about his photo, just not tasteful. If you had a photo that you loved in your locker and someone chose to deface it because they didn't like it, you would be tge first to complain.

MrsLargeEmbodied · 14/08/2022 10:22

it is his!
you should have a picture of a naked man on your locker door
or near naked

Antarcticant · 14/08/2022 10:22

Dammitthisisshit · 14/08/2022 10:03

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.

true. But Jim is no longer 16 and the workplace is not the right place for that image to be on show. Jim was asked to take it down.

Oh, yes, I agree he should have taken it down, or indeed, not displayed it in the first place. But I don't think there's anything wrong with him looking at it - not much different from enjoying memories of the girlfriend/boyfriend you had when you were 16. It doesn't mean that, in your 40s or whatever age, you are going to start lusting over the 16 year olds of 2022.

SunnySwirl · 14/08/2022 10:23

This is so funny. Well played OP. Jim is a childish twat. He kept at work presumably as his wife doesn’t know he likes perving over near naked photos of adolescents. Yuck!!

MrsLargeEmbodied · 14/08/2022 10:23

i think ywbu

PollyRockets · 14/08/2022 10:23

It's a signed photo

Of course YABU to destroy his property

There are correct channels to use to get him to take the photo down

You can't just destroy peoples things because you don't like them

Original poster
Boobsakimboo · 14/08/2022 10:23

‘You should be fired! It wasn't your property !! Grow up and apologise. A picture in someone's locker is none of your business. Are you really that sensitive you can't handle a bikini clad model?’

the locker is frequently open and the photograph visible to the room.
TOPLESS. And in a thong, sitting at an angle where the thing is barely visible. She’s wearing a bikini top now though…

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread