Should I report naughty friend

bb1234567

Sardonicat wrote: »

It's like a creeper peering in through a crack in your curtains while you're sitting there watching the news and getting off on knowing he can do this without you knowing.

It is..but the pervert is present there, at your home, that's dangerous,and a lot more distressing if you were to find out about him having been **** outside your home. Online is also creepy, but the fact they're not physically present removes a dimension of the alarm you would feel. It sits very firmly in between the activity you described, and **** to somebody's photos on social media in terms of offensiveness. There isn't really a direct comparison to anything else,Imo there's no ither crime in existence that might inform how one should go about punishing or reacting to the individual who commmtted this offence. It's just a very specific recent modern problem

Gruffalux

Sardonicat wrote: »

It's like a creeper peering in through a crack in your curtains while you're sitting there watching the news and getting off on knowing he can do this without you knowing.

Yes, very good analogy. Or a landlord having a secret camera. It is abusive. And it is weird that people are somehow trying to justify it by saying everyone ****. Like Duh! tell me something I don't know.
I know the OP may be untrue but the scenario does throw into question if people should have to do group camera calls because of abuse potential.

bb1234567

Gruffalux wrote: »

Yes, very good analogy. Or a landlord having a secret camera. It is abusive. And it is weird that people are somehow trying to justify it by saying everyone ****. Like Duh! tell me something I don't know.
I know the OP may be untrue but the scenario does throw into question if people should have to do group camera calls because of abuse potential.

Yes even if it's fake I think it raises a lot of salient issues

Gruffalux

bb1234567 wrote: »

It is..but the pervert is present there, at your home, that's dangerous,and a lot more distressing if you were to find out about him having been **** outside your home. Online is also creepy, but the fact they're not physically present removes a dimension of the alarm you would feel. It sits very firmly in between the activity you described, and **** to somebody's photos on social media in terms of offensiveness. There isn't really a direct comparison to anything else,Imo there's no ither crime in existence that might inform how one should go about punishing or reacting to the individual who commmtted this offence. It's just a very specific recent modern problem

So if a landlord had installed a secret camera and was **** about their tenant in real time, are you saying it is about the same as if they wanked about the tenants photos that they found on social media. People are arguing to defend privacy, including you, but here you are ignoring the invasion of the others privacy.

AndrewJRenko

Gruffalux wrote: »

People are arguing to defend privacy, including you, but here you are ignoring the invasion of the others privacy.

The proposed solution of having everyone switching on cameras, even if you ignore the privacy issues involved, does not solve the problem. A carefully adjusted camera will allow the offender to continue to jerk off if they wish.

Gruffalux

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The proposed solution of having everyone switching on cameras, even if you ignore the privacy issues involved, does not solve the problem. A carefully adjusted camera will allow the offender to continue to jerk off if they wish.

Yes, I can see the problem with that. But now I also think there should be nobody switching on their cameras, because it is obviously open to abuse if some have theirs off.

Sakana

I really can't see how this is anyone's business but the onanist.

sbsquarepants

Sardonicat wrote: »

not treating her like some masturbatory material while she is doing her job.

I'm not really sure what the difference is, if he's **** over her at the weekend, or on a bank holiday.


Now, i'm not defending him and i certainly wouldn't do it myself (mainly because i'm too stupid to operate my dick and anything else simultaneously, so i'd almost certainly get caught:D)


But each to their own i suppose, there's no real harm done is there?


People do some strange things, a bloke i know told me once that he fúcked an orange - i think that's a damn sight weirder, and even then i think there's no real harm in it!

EmmetSpiceland

sbsquarepants wrote: »

People do some strange things, a bloke i know told me once that he fúcked an orange - i think that's a damn sight weirder, and even then i think there's no real harm in it!

I see your point but what it really comes down to is that the orange isn’t going to care either way but a colleague isn’t going to be “impressed”, or flattered, by some grubby toad beating it like it owes him money while they are going through the quarterly reports.

AndrewJRenko

Gruffalux wrote: »

Yes, I can see the problem with that. But now I also think there should be nobody switching on their cameras, because it is obviously open to abuse if some have theirs off.

There is a benefit to having cameras on, in terms of human contact, personal connection, body language.

It would be crazy to lose these benefits because of one or two crazies.

Gruffalux

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There is a benefit to having cameras on, in terms of human contact, personal connection, body language.

It would be crazy to lose these benefits because of one or two crazies.

Perhaps the advent of things like OnlyFans and other personal web cam service providers - I think there are such things - have blurred the lines for more than just 1 or 2 crazies.
It is effectively in this instance being used as a secret camera and I am sure people would not say oh what harm is it! if the person renting them their AirBnB had one installed in the rental space for the purposes of their own stimulation.

Peehaps a tech solution would be if one chooses no camera for oneself then one does not get to see the others either. And in spite of your saying it, camera angles would not disguise ****, or at least they would curtail its enthusiasm considerably.

BrianD3

Sardonicat wrote: »

It's like a creeper peering in through a crack in your curtains while you're sitting there watching the news and getting off on knowing he can do this without you knowing.

This and talk of secret cameras are bad comparisons. A better comparison would be some lad looking out the window of his house and privately **** about a woman that he sees walking down the street.

**** is a personal bodily function that is none of anyone else's business, not even the wankee.

A personal bodily function like many others like farting or scratching one's arse. I bet that there are people farting during meetings, maybe even sh*tting. Who knows what is going on when the camera and mic are off.

But as usual people lose the plot when it comes to anything related to sex - men are abusers and oppressors, women are victims. Yet I notice that nobody picked up on my link to the survey which found that more women have masturbated about a work colleague's social media pics than men have. It would be reasonable to infer that women are at least as likely as men to be masturbating in Zoom meetings.

sbsquarepants

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

I see your point but what it really comes down to is that the orange isn’t going to care either way but a colleague isn’t going to be “impressed”, or flattered, by some grubby toad beating it like it owes him money while they are going through the quarterly reports.

Maybe I'm just odd - but i just can't see why the quarterly reports makes the slightest difference. It's not as if she'd get all weak at the knees knowing he was pulling himself assunder imagining her bent over the desk either now is it?


There's a good reason why we generally don't tell people we **** over them!

B.A._Baracus

You are probably the only person he confessed this too :pac:
So being pulled a side by a manager might be a tiny indication you ratted him out op haha.

EmmetSpiceland

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Maybe I'm just odd - but i just can't see why the quarterly reports makes the slightest difference. It's not as if she'd get all weak at the knees knowing he was pulling himself assunder imagining her bent over the desk either now is it?

There's a good reason why we generally don't tell people we **** over them!

I’m fairly confident that if the office ladies found out that this lad was “flogging” it while on a Zoom call with them that they wouldn’t be impressed. Some might even refuse to have any dealings with him at all.

That’s when it becomes a bigger “issue”, right now no one knows. Just as a person may never know that someone has been “snurgling” their saddle, bus seat or, even, office chair.

The “fallout” of this being revealed will have lasting implications for the gross pervert and the office, as a whole, particularly those in his masturbatory crosshairs.

Gruffalux

Mastubatory crosshairs - a new and hopefully painful condition not unlike pseudofolliculitis caused by w (anking) fh during zoom meetings. They deserve it, the sleazy cretins.

Ash.J.Williams

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Having a **** during work to pictures of girls that are talking at that time is not what many would deem normal behaviour.

i've never seen it mentioned in a company handbook

Ash.J.Williams

1990sman wrote: »

the attack on christendom wasnt neccessary to make your point

it's always necessary

B.A._Baracus

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

i've never seen it mentioned in a company handbook

That page is always stuck together....













*Grabs coat*

sbsquarepants

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

I’m fairly confident that if the office ladies found out that this lad was “flogging” it while on a Zoom call with them that they wouldn’t be impressed. Some might even refuse to have any dealings with him at all.

I can't see them being too pleased at any time, can you? I don't really think their own exact activity at the time of the alleged offence is what they'd particularly take issue with!

As I've said there is a generally a damn good reason why you should keep the object of any wankathons blissfully oblivious as to their starring role, however complimentary you may believe that admission to be:D

ILoveYourVibes

Piehead wrote: »

A co-worker who is a buddy of mine has admitted to fapping off to the pictures on zoom calls of female attendees when they are talking. Not everyone has their camera on so he can’t been seen as his is off (he claims it’s broken). Nevertheless its seems somewhat deviant behaviour and must be against some work policy. Should I report to HR? May be just my word against him though?

How did he admit it?

Do you have proof?

EmmetSpiceland

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I can't see them being too pleased at any time, can you? I don't really think their own exact activity at the time of the alleged offence is what they'd particularly take issue with!

As I've said there is a generally a damn good reason why you should keep the object of any wankathons blissfully oblivious as to their starring role, however complimentary you may believe that admission to be:D

No, certainly not. But there is a big difference between this creep “indulging” in a spot of social netwanking outside of work and him pulling the skeleton out of himself to a live feed meeting during working hours.

They might not happy be happy about him engaging in a spot of hand to gland combat over their Instagram but they know they can improve their security settings to keep him out.

If they found out he was up to this “carry on” while ogling them during work it could, understandably, lead them to feel unsafe at work or, at least, disgusted to the point of not wanting to be presenting over Zoom.

This all hinges on whether the OP highlights this perv’s “behaviour” to HR. It will remain a, somewhat, victimless crime until word gets out. Until then he’s free to continue jerkin’ the gherkin over these, unsuspecting, working professionals.

Weird that he told the OP, sounds like he might want to get caught.

bb1234567

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

No, certainly not. But there is a big difference between this creep “indulging” in a spot of social netwanking outside of work and him pulling the skeleton out of himself to a live feed meeting during working hours.

They might not happy be happy about him engaging in a spot of hand to gland combat over their Instagram but they know they can improve their security settings to keep him out.

If they found out he was up to this “carry on” while ogling them during work it could, understandably, lead them to feel unsafe at work or, at least, disgusted to the point of not wanting to be presenting over Zoom.

This all hinges on whether the OP highlights this perv’s “behaviour” to HR. It will remain a, somewhat, victimless crime until word gets out. Until then he’s free to continue jerkin’ the gherkin over these, unsuspecting, working professionals.

Weird that he told the OP, sounds like he might want to get caught.

Can I ask why you put so many innocuous words in inverted commas? Or am I just not aware of a lot ofcommon double entendres

I find it hard to imagine anyone seriously admitting this. Are you sure it wasn't just a joke, OP?

'God these Zoom calls are so boring.'
'Ah sure do what I do and just bang one out while they're yabbering on.'

I'd love to know exactly how this came up a serious point on conversation if there wasn't some history of sharing stuff like this. It's kind of remarkable if it's true and it was a full admission.

Gruffalux

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

No, certainly not. But there is a big difference between this creep “indulging” in a spot of social netwanking outside of work and him pulling the skeleton out of himself to a live feed meeting during working hours.

They might not happy be happy about him engaging in a spot of hand to gland combat over their Instagram but they know they can improve their security settings to keep him out.

If they found out he was up to this “carry on” while ogling them during work it could, understandably, lead them to feel unsafe at work or, at least, disgusted to the point of not wanting to be presenting over Zoom.

This all hinges on whether the OP highlights this perv’s “behaviour” to HR. It will remain a, somewhat, victimless crime until word gets out. Until then he’s free to continue jerkin’ the gherkin over these, unsuspecting, working professionals.

Weird that he told the OP, sounds like he might want to get caught.

What if the wanker tells someone else and also says ''I told Piehead too''.
And then the someone else thinks, I shall tell management. Then Piehead is in a somewhat difficult position for not having reported it.
The livestream component of the activity is what makes it different from ordinary private time perving. The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 Section 45 seems to cover mostly public places - perhaps it could be argued that the shared digital space in a Teams meeting or such constitutes a public place. Otherwise, without the public places requirement, part (3) of said section states - (3) A person who intentionally engages in offensive conduct of a sexual nature is guilty of an offence.

This last section is a matter for interpretation and argument.
The declaration to another of having engaged in the act would be a factor I think, as it moves from the private sphere more definitively to the public sphere.

Piehead

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

How did he admit it?

Do you have proof?

Nah don’t have proof. Was talking to him on a call and I mentioned how boring the meetings and getting and then he said something along the lines of “well this is what I did to spice it up”

Trouser Snake

Piehead wrote: »

Nah don’t have proof. Was talking to him on a call and I mentioned how boring the meetings and getting and then he said something along the lines of “well this is what I did to spice it up”

Maybe he was jacking off telling you as well.

Ash.J.Williams

what does he do when the men are talking, take the hand off the throttle and wait a bit, or is it pedal to the metal? or does he mind?

EmmetSpiceland

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

what does he do when the men are talking, take the hand off the throttle and wait a bit, the pedal to the metal? or does mind?

You’d imagine he just eases off the “throttle”, something akin to having the camera pan to a dude, in a porno movie, as you hit the “vinegar strokes”.

There’s no doubt that this degenerate is a “seasoned” pro at flogging on.

ShatterAlan

Piehead wrote: »

A co-worker who is a buddy of mine has admitted to fapping off to the pictures on zoom calls of female attendees when they are talking. Not everyone has their camera on so he can’t been seen as his is off (he claims it’s broken). Nevertheless its seems somewhat deviant behaviour and must be against some work policy. Should I report to HR? May be just my word against him though?

I'm wondering who the wanker is here.

Jim2007

Piehead wrote: »

A co-worker who is a buddy of mine has admitted to fapping off to the pictures on zoom calls of female attendees when they are talking. Not everyone has their camera on so he can’t been seen as his is off (he claims it’s broken). Nevertheless its seems somewhat deviant behaviour and must be against some work policy. Should I report to HR? May be just my word against him though?

Well if he is on the boards I expect he’s got the message by now....

Millionaire only not

Piehead wrote: »

Nah don’t have proof. Was talking to him on a call and I mentioned how boring the meetings and getting and then he said something along the lines of “well this is what I did to spice it up”

Maybe he likes u . that’s why he told u , so ye could have little play time together- lol
U would really want to keep the image in your head your friend is enjoying himself while talking to u - lol

sbsquarepants

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

.

This all hinges on whether the OP highlights this perv’s “behaviour” to HR. It will remain a, somewhat, victimless crime until word gets out. Until then he’s free to continue jerkin’ the gherkin over these, unsuspecting, working professionals.

Weird that he told the OP, sounds like he might want to get caught.

Keep shtum Piehead!

Piehead rocks into HR with the earth shattering news that Mr X has been pulling him self around the room while Natalie Huge-Knockers from accounts is discussing the recent sales slump. Mr X (if he exists) gets called in and simply says "I have no idea what he's talking about, he's always been a bit weird about her to be honest"

What then? What becomes of the brave and noble piehead. Look at Assange, Snowden, Manning.

No one likes a snitch Piehead. You're put on the suspected sex offenders register, Natalie will never speak to you again and you've provided Mr X the perfect opportunity to polish all his armour (instead of just his helmet) and then rock up to her and apologise for your weirdness. Tell her he never liked the look of you and how he's regularly had to defend her honour from the freaky things you told him you'd love to do to her.

6 months on and you've been ostracised, blacklisted in your industry, you're drinking to much, behind on your bills, your personal hygiene is gone to shít - all while Mr X is banging Natalie harder than Tommy Lee's drum kit.

**** gonna **** Piehead, ain't no point in fighting it.

OMM 0000

Piehead wrote: »

A co-worker who is a buddy of mine has admitted to fapping off to the pictures on zoom calls of female attendees when they are talking. Not everyone has their camera on so he can’t been seen as his is off (he claims it’s broken). Nevertheless its seems somewhat deviant behaviour and must be against some work policy. Should I report to HR? May be just my word against him though?

Let's think this through.

You go tell HR.

HR call him into the office.

He raises his eyebrows and says WTF that's insane, I can't believe he said that, I know he has an issue with me but that is just crazy.

HR cannot make a decision, but there's at least a 50% chance they think you are dangerous and crazy and your career is forever damaged.

So, say nothing except tell the guy to cop on and ask him how would he feel if someone was doing that to his mother or sister.

Piehead

Piehead wrote: »

Nah don’t have proof. Was talking to him on a call and I mentioned how boring the meetings and getting and then he said something along the lines of “well this is what I did to spice it up”

Good chance he was joking. Or maybe not but if not he must be really thick to tell anyone, or maybe he's testing you. Either way you can tell HR what he told you if you want, and if they say anything he will know who the snitch is. Is he a "key player" or just some guy?

Surreptitious

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Let's think this through.

You go tell HR.

HR call him into the office.

He raises his eyebrows and says WTF that's insane, I can't believe he said that, I know he has an issue with me but that is just crazy.

HR cannot make a decision, but there's at least a 50% chance they think you are dangerous and crazy and your career is forever damaged.

So, say nothing except tell the guy to cop on and ask him how would he feel if someone was doing that to his mother or sister.

He's probably going to get off on that or be at it himself.

Piehead

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Let's think this through.

You go tell HR.

HR call him into the office.

He raises his eyebrows and says WTF that's insane, I can't believe he said that, I know he has an issue with me but that is just crazy.

HR cannot make a decision, but there's at least a 50% chance they think you are dangerous and crazy and your career is forever damaged.

So, say nothing except tell the guy to cop on and ask him how would he feel if someone was doing that to his mother or sister.

Maybe I should get him to say it again and record him.

OMM 0000

Piehead wrote: »

Maybe I should get him to say it again and record him.

I wouldn't.

By recording him you're getting involved in his crap. You do not want to be associated with this. People are weird and they may start associating you with zoom ****, even though you're innocent.

Tell him to stop and move on.

Piehead

Piehead wrote: »

Maybe I should get him to say it again and record him.

Do you think it is wise to ask someone that? If he says no, it’s a pretty creepy question.

chrissb8

Piehead wrote: »

Maybe I should get him to say it again and record him.

That's illegal and can't be done without the permission of a court if you are doing it to someone unwillingly, so don't do that.

chrissb8

chrissb8 wrote: »

That's illegal and can't be done without the permission of a court if you are doing it to someone unwillingly, so don't do that.

That is not the case. In Ireland, permission to record a conversation between two parties can be given by one party only. Put simply, as long as you are one of the people in the conversation, you can record it without the permission of the other person.

bertiebomber

NO mind you own business if he takes those risks and they make him happy why must you spoil it ? you are the enslaved one afraid to do anything except tell on people. You are a perfect employee doing everything you are told. Employers have exploited us all for years now we can get a few laughs on them chill out you silly sod.

Sardonicat

bertiebomber wrote: »

NO mind you own business if he takes those risks and they make him happy why must you spoil it ? you are the enslaved one afraid to do anything except tell on people. You are a perfect employee doing everything you are told. Employers have exploited us all for years now we can get a few laughs on them chill out you silly sod.

How is he getting a laugh on his employer?

bertiebomber

getting paid while at the cinema !! not actually working all great - attempting to not be enslaved like his pal .

Sardonicat

bertiebomber wrote: »

getting paid while at the cinema !! not actually working all great - attempting to not be enslaved like his pal .

He's not at the cinema though. He's **** over a work colleague while she's working. She's actually a real person. I wonder is it a Pavlovian response? Female on screen = fap, fap, fap. ...

Sardonicat

Sardonicat wrote: »

He's not at the cinema though. He's **** over a work colleague while she's working. She's actually a real person. I wonder is it a Pavlovian response? Female on screen = fap, fap, fap. ...

You are taking this too seriously.

sbsquarepants

Sardonicat wrote: »

He's not at the cinema though. He's **** over a work colleague while she's working. She's actually a real person. I wonder is it a Pavlovian response? Female on screen = fap, fap, fap. ...

I can only speak personally, but anyone i have ever wanked over was a real person (Well Jessica Rabbit excluded, but everyone fancies her:D) I'm going to come right out with and say i bet that's probably true of you too.

As a species we do tend to be attracted to other real life living people.... sometimes with masturbatory results.

It's not something i'd do myself, but i'm just just not getting the outrage i'm afraid.

Sardonicat

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's not something i'd do myself, but i'm just just not getting the outrage i'm afraid.

So you have never actually done what the alleged protoganist has done. And neither have I. And obviously my above comment was serious. I genuinely believe no man can resist tugging himself if he see a female on a screen. I'm about as serious as the story in the OP.

EmmetSpiceland

Dav010 wrote: »

You are taking this too seriously.

I’m not sure you’re taking this seriously enough, D. This guy is a sex pest and while his crime may well be “victimless” that does not mean it’s any less depraved, or shocking.

I guess it’s just different for guys. We’d have no problem with Sarah, the consultant, “jilling” to our, live, image.

Hell, even big Oonagh from compliance would get a pass but reverse the roles and there’s a difference. Especially when the “tugger” is a greasy creep. It’s just disgusting.

EmmetSpiceland

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

I’m not sure you’re taking this seriously enough, D. This guy is a sex pest and while his crime may well be “victimless” that does not mean it’s any less depraved, or shocking.

I guess it’s just different for guys. We’d have no problem with Sarah, the consultant, “jilling” to our, live, image.

Hell, even big Oonagh from compliance would get a pass but reverse the roles and there’s a difference. Especially when the “tugger” is a greasy creep. It’s just disgusting.

The guy was in his own home.