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:
MrsMcisaCt · 14/08/2022 10:23

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.

Yes that's true actually. Now you put it like that I no longer feel sorry for him.

PurpleCatCuddles · 14/08/2022 10:24

YANBU. I don't care if you defaced someone's 'property' (ick, it's a photo of an actual human being). Firstly it is in general not appropriate for the workplace and secondly it is a CHILD. Disgusting. Actually disgusting. Wonder what Jim has on his computer if he thinks that's acceptable tbh.

Sparklingbrook · 14/08/2022 10:24

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.

Doesn't matter about any 'fallout'. At the moment it sounds as if nobody knows how to deal with it anyway.
HR should be involved as that's the sort of thing they deal with, especially if any disciplinaries or dismissals are going to happen as a result.

jetadore · 14/08/2022 10:24

Great banter OP, well done. Where do you even work that topless photos on display aren’t considered completely unprofessional?

whalleyt · 14/08/2022 10:24

You can justify it any way you want but there was nothing illegal about his photo

I think topless photos of 16 yr olds are illegal though now hence the sexting stuff

Ws2210 · 14/08/2022 10:24

16 years old? Surely that is child sexual abuse material? To everyone saying the op is BU, how would you feel if you found a photo of a topless child on your husbands phone/laptop?

PurpleCatCuddles · 14/08/2022 10:25

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.

He's not 16 anymore though is he?

oakleaffy · 14/08/2022 10:26

KrisAkabusi · 14/08/2022 09:47

I said you were unreasonable, because you damaged someone's property. He shouldn't have had it there, there's no excuse for this in the workplace any more, but there were other options other than destroying it.

Absolutely this.
The chap had sent off for it when he too was Sixteen, and as for being a ''Child'' as you call it, he was a 'Child' too. If she was 16, it must have been legal at the time, otherwise the Sun wouldn't have used her picture.
You were wrong to deface it, and maybe he can't have it pinned up at home, maybe his wife would be upset, who knows.

Quia · 14/08/2022 10:26

You undoubtedly damaged someone else's property, and there was absolutely no need to. You could have made it clear to Jim that if he didn't take this down voluntarily you were taking it to HR, or you could simply have taken it down yourself, leaving it in his locker, and told him you would do so every time it was left visible. However, as PP have said, it doesn't even sound as if it was left visible - you would catch the occasional glimpse when he opened his locker.

Do you police your other colleagues' belongings in this way?

whalleyt · 14/08/2022 10:26

@Sparklingbrook I'm not disagreeing but as the OP said Jim was a friend I assume that was motivation. I think at my work this would be a sackable offence as gross misconduct.

Crappydoo · 14/08/2022 10:26

I can't believe that management thought it was acceptable in the first place. I worked in an office with a lot of engineers in th 1990s and they were asked to remove page 3 photos from their lockers back then (bear in mind we were also allowed to smoke at our desks so it's going back a bit!)

DottyYy · 14/08/2022 10:26

Obviously damaging someone’s property is very naughty. But OP I think you are a legend.
That is ridiculously inappropriate for a workplace.
Where do you work?
I used to work in a factory with a load of men who had some photos like that up, it made me feel very uncomfortable but I didn’t want to make a fuss and I was the only woman. I had fantasies about defacing them too but there was always people around.

AlisonDonut · 14/08/2022 10:27

By having that image for everyone to see, he is basically forcing everyone to be voyeurs of naked children.

IcakethereforeIam · 14/08/2022 10:27

Yanbu, op imho

Apparently sharpie can be removed from photos with cotton buds and rubbing alcohol (...? wtf is rubbing alcohol). Don't tell him!

Antarcticant · 14/08/2022 10:27

PurpleCatCuddles · 14/08/2022 10:25

He's not 16 anymore though is he?

Show quote history

If you had a photo of a partner you'd had when you were both sixteen, would you destroy it? Or would you enjoy the nostalgia? I know she wasn't his partner, but the principle is the same?

Maireas · 14/08/2022 10:27

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

She's gay. She doesn't have a picture of a semi naked woman on her locker door.

PurpleCatCuddles · 14/08/2022 10:27

oakleaffy · 14/08/2022 10:26

Absolutely this.
The chap had sent off for it when he too was Sixteen, and as for being a ''Child'' as you call it, he was a 'Child' too. If she was 16, it must have been legal at the time, otherwise the Sun wouldn't have used her picture.
You were wrong to deface it, and maybe he can't have it pinned up at home, maybe his wife would be upset, who knows.

Show quote history

Is he sixteen now? I think not.

Quite right if his wife would be upset. It's child pornography.

Discovereads · 14/08/2022 10:28

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.

Why is not getting what you want = being ignored? She wasn’t ignored, she complained and her request was denied by management.

The OP couldn’t handle her request being denied so she went all vigilante and destroyed the item in question. Since she felt so strongly about it she should have appealed to higher management or HR.

This attitude is incredibly dangerous. It’s a slippery slope when vigilantes are celebrated.

whalleyt · 14/08/2022 10:28

If she was 16, it must have been legal at the time, otherwise the Sun wouldn't have used her picture.

yes but times have changed if you look at current laws. Forced sexual
activity in marriage didn't used to be illegal.

Sparklingbrook · 14/08/2022 10:28

whalleyt · 14/08/2022 10:26

@Sparklingbrook I'm not disagreeing but as the OP said Jim was a friend I assume that was motivation. I think at my work this would be a sackable offence as gross misconduct.

Yes we have all the 'Jim is a friend' stuff and not wanting to get him into trouble but defacing his property is ok and letting him wonder who did it etc. It's all a bit contradictory for me.

Georgeskitchen · 14/08/2022 10:28

Many of the page 3 girls willingly got into glamour modelling and some went on to be big stars and made lots of money.
It never seems to be a problem when women are ogling at half naked oiled hunks in suggestive poses. Remember the Chippendales?
Jim should probably have either kept his locker door shut or kept his picture at home. I don't think you should be going around vandalising other people's property because you Don't approve of it!!

PurpleCatCuddles · 14/08/2022 10:28

Antarcticant · 14/08/2022 10:27

If you had a photo of a partner you'd had when you were both sixteen, would you destroy it? Or would you enjoy the nostalgia? I know she wasn't his partner, but the principle is the same?

Show quote history

No I but I wouldn't hang it in the workplace for all to see and lust after 16 year old boobs even when approaching middle age.

oakleaffy · 14/08/2022 10:29

PurpleCatCuddles · 14/08/2022 10:25

He's not 16 anymore though is he?

Show quote history

And neither is the model!
She is probably comfortably middle aged, like him.

WomanStanleyWoman2 · 14/08/2022 10:29

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!

Because it wasn’t your property. Why didn’t you go through the proper channels?