Considering giving up main job for side hustle.

Sleeper12

cee_jay wrote: »

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/resources/disciplinaryprocedure.pdf
Page 7 - outlines examples of serious misconduct for HSE employees. This includes:

• Downloading/disseminating pornographic material from the internet
• Circulation of offensive, obscene or indecent e-mails or text messages

Depending on the account, it could be argued by HSE HR that it falls under disseminating pornographic material.

In labour court it would be argued that she is a model & an actress. I've heard people call the Board Gas add with the Ronny Drew singing offensive & obscene I heard one caller claim that Poxy & Jax in the same add offensive. HSE would want to cross its Ts & dot its I's before accusing someone of offensive, obscene or indecent behavior or they could end up with a slander suit aswell as an unfair dismissal

floorpie

floorpie wrote: »

Yeah, just look at this thread. We have potentially a 15 year old advertising and selling porn to users, dozens of guys asking how to get it, and nobody is questioning it? If I made a thread promoting a productivity app I'd made it'd be spam, but this is getting cheered on?



I don't care less what people do once it's legal, but I find it so strange that users of a JOBS board (including public sector employees) are advising someone to quit a permanent career for something that may only last another few months and which may drastically affect your future.

Where did 15 come from?

Most of the people who asked for PMs were claiming to disbelieve her. And when they didn’t get a link they went a bit crazy.

Did anybody tell her to quit her job? Except those who said she might have to worry about her contract.

Very few people are discussing the tax implications. Some are.

There have been some claims that she’s pming people. That’s not allowed but it’s not visible on the thread.

85603

85603 wrote: »

its bollocks.

extraordinary claim with no evidence.

anyone whos actually ever found themselves in an extraordinary situation in reality and has wanted to tell others about it knows in advance that they better bring some proof.

something to separate you from the endless lines of bullshtters.

op came in with no such proof up front. just a wild claim.

Very few people need to prove their employment status on this forum. It’s generally taken that they aren’t lying. I would have assumed that demands to reveal personal info are discouraged sitewide.

Wallet Inspector

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What is unprofessional about generating porn?

Up to the HSE, which would likely consider getting one's tits out to be so.

No point in pretending that a state body wouldn't think along those lines, whether it's conservative or not.

markad1

On the mobile......21 pages in, no link...... and keep seeing ads for bacon fries....
Don't know which I want now...... to see the OP or a packet bacon fries.

Sleeper12

Wallet Inspector wrote:

Up to the HSE, which would likely consider getting one's tits out to be so.

Don't they encourage getting one's tits out as you say. They spend enough money promoting breastfeeding.

Can i just point out that op hasn't actually said what she does in the hour she dedicates to her modelling career. I have no idea if she is nude, in undies or fully clothed. Without knowing any of this posters are implying it is porn. Worse still posters are trying to get her to identify herself by calling for proof.

Sleeper12

markad1 wrote:

On the mobile......21 pages in, no link...... and keep seeing ads for bacon fries.... Don't know which I want now...... to see the OP or a packet bacon fries.

I'm not a mod & I'm not directing how others should post but I do know that asking for proof that could identify a poster & posting links that promote your business services is against just about every forum rules on boards. OP can NOT post a link & I assume most asking her to do so know full well she can't even if she wanted to

floorpie

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Don't they encourage getting one's tits out as you say. They spend enough money promoting breastfeeding.

Can i just point out that op hasn't actually said what she does in the hour she dedicates to her modelling career. I have no idea if she is nude, in undies or fully clothed. Without knowing any of this posters are implying it is porn. Worse still posters are trying to get her to identify herself by calling for proof.

She implied that she makes more than others because her content is explicit and shows her face.

Sleeper12

floorpie wrote:

She implied that she makes more than others because her content is explicit and shows her face.

Implied or stated as fact?

Sleeper12

floorpie wrote:

She implied that she makes more than others because her content is explicit and shows her face.

What she actually said:

Health11 wrote:

The lower side of things are heavily skewed by a)guys and b)those without social media c)those who dont post explicit content/don't show their face.

I don't see any implying in the above statement. If you believe that she is implying explicit content and showing her face then she could equally be implying that (a) she is a guy?

floorpie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What is unprofessional about generating porn?

I don't know what the legal interpretations of "unprofessional" are. My laymen's understanding is something like, actions that are incompatible with a profession, or incompatible with expectations for professionals in the field.

I have a code of conduct and ethical requirements in my job that I just follow, similar to the nurses board's code of conduct. To stay on the good side of this code of conduct, for example, it's common practice in my profession to make social media private so that people can't see even benign pictures and content.

You need Garda vetting to be a nurse because you may work with children or vulnerable patients. That such patients may view their carer's pornography with a simple Google search makes this activity de facto unprofessional according to common understanding (I believe), even if it's not her fault that they look it up.

As I said though, I don't think my employer could fire me for this outright. But as it would bring my boss and group into disrepute I'm certain they'll find another legal way to get rid of me, and that they'll ensure I have no recourse.

fvp4 wrote: »

Where did 15 come from?

They aren't providing the link to OF to anybody, who do KYC for uploaders. They are instead trying to sell porn by email to users. So it is possible that they are a minor and therefore can't be verified on OF, or that they aren't the creator of the pictures/videos being sold. I find it objectionable that this activity is being cheered on here when even tame instances of unsolicited advertising are usually banned.

floorpie

Sleeper12 wrote: »

What she actually said:



I don't see any implying in the above statement. If you believe that she is implying explicit content and showing her face then she could equally be implying that (a) she is a guy?

? They're implying that they're at the top of the earnings scale because they are not a guy, because they advertise on social media, and because they post explicit content with face. I don't think they'd worry about being fired if they weren't showing their face.

AndrewJRenko

Wallet Inspector wrote: »

Up to the HSE, which would likely consider getting one's tits out to be so.

No point in pretending that a state body wouldn't think along those lines, whether it's conservative or not.

What's unprofessional about getting your tits out? €12k a month sounds very professional to me.

HSE won't act unless there is a clear breach of policy. I haven't seen any policy that she would be breaching.

Wallet Inspector

Their policy on staff's use of social media.

Sleeper12

floorpie wrote:

They aren't providing the link to OF to anybody, who do KYC for uploaders. They are instead trying to sell porn by email to users. So it is possible that they are a minor and therefore can't be verified on OF, or that they aren't the creator of the pictures/videos being sold. I find it objectionable that this activity is being cheered on here when even tame instances of unsolicited advertising are usually banned.

I've posted here & received no PM from op offering anything. One poster claimed to have received a pm but they seem to be banned now & I think they were trolling. Other posters stated that they received no pm. Very difficult to weed out the truth from the lying on some threads. If you don't mind me asking have you personally been sent any links from the OP?

Wallet Inspector

floorpie wrote: »

I find it objectionable that this activity is being cheered on here when even tame instances of unsolicited advertising are usually banned.

Because it's sexual and it's essential that you show how liberated you are and how anything should go with regard to the sexual. Otherwise you're a prude in a 1960s time warp.

Also, horny dudes.

Sleeper12

floorpie wrote:

? They're implying that they're at the top of the earnings scale because they are not a guy, because they advertise on social media, and because they post explicit content with face. I don't think they'd worry about being fired if they weren't showing their face.

Can you please link where they implied these things?
The quote below is clearly talking about OF in general and not their own account

Health11 wrote:

The lower side of things are heavily skewed by a)guys and b)those without social media c)those who dont post explicit content/don't show their face.

jimmycrackcorm

YellowLead wrote:

I have no idea what nursing contracts are like so can’t speculate. But in my role for example it is in my contract that I cannot take on any additional work while I do that my current role. Conflicts of interest etc. It’s not down to whether or not it’s legal, it’s down to whether or not there are certain clauses in the contract.

It's certainly debatable whether OF is actually work.

floorpie

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Can you please link where they implied these things?
The quote below is clearly talking about OF in general and not their own account

Yeah just read the bleedin post! The context is "I'm earning a lot". Somebody says "No, you're lying, the average is $100". They say "That figure is skewed by men, people without social, and people that don't show their face/explicit. I'm earning a lot, you don't have to believe me."

I.e. if you're earning a lot, it implies that you're not a man, that you use social, and that you show face and do explicit content.

floorpie

floorpie wrote: »

They aren't providing the link to OF to anybody, who do KYC for uploaders. They are instead trying to sell porn by email to users. So it is possible that they are a minor and therefore can't be verified on OF, or that they aren't the creator of the pictures/videos being sold. I find it objectionable that this activity is being cheered on here when even tame instances of unsolicited advertising are usually banned.

I am totally confused.

When do we assume anybody on here is a minor when they are talking about their job.

The op isn't advertising, to my knowledge anyway ( unless the PM story is true in which case she should be banned). On this thread there is no evidence of advertising.

And far from cheering her on it is the people who doubt her who are asking for her to post her pictures. You are literally reading a totally different thread.

Sleeper12

floorpie wrote:

Yeah just read the bleedin post! The context is "I'm earning a lot". Somebody says "No, you're lying, the average is $100". They say "That figure is skewed by men, people without social, and people that don't show their face/explicit. I'm earning a lot, you don't have to believe me."

I read the thread. You are assuming an awful lot & reading between lines. I can't find a single post where she claims to show her face or provide explicit content. I can't even find her claim to be nude.

You didn't respond to my question. Did you personally receive links from the OP?

Wallet Inspector wrote:

Because it's sexual and it's essential that you show how liberated you are and how anything should go with regard to the sexual. Otherwise you're a prude in a 1960s time warp.

Funny thing is plenty on other threads give out about the "scammers" on the housing list getting a house for life. Or maybe the lazy scroungers that live off social welfare or lone parents. Here we have someone willing to support themselves and pay tax & they still get slated. Is this girl is telling the truth then I truly admire her in many ways

floorpie

fvp4 wrote: »

I am totally confused.

When do we assume anybody on here is a minor when they are talking about their job.

The op isn't advertising, to my knowledge anyway ( unless the PM story is true in which case she should be banned). On this thread there is no evidence of advertising.

And far from cheering her on it is the people who doubt her who are asking for her to post her pictures. You are literally reading a totally different thread.

Please read the thread. Posters have asked for their OF account, she said "yes, just PM me", then the same users came back and said she will only sell her content by email or Snapchat because OF will take a commission.

We have no reason to disbelieve the PM story because she herself said to ask her for details in PM.

I do not assume that they're a minor, in fact if you read the thread I repeatedly say that we should take the employment dilemma in good faith.

However, we DO have an unverified user attempting to sell porn to users of boards.ie, per their own posts. We do not know the provenance of the images or who the user is, FOR EXAMPLE, they could be a minor who can't get verified on OF. In other words, it shouldn't be cheered on by old members of the board and should have been banned. I don't know what's so confusing about that.

YellowLead

Sleeper12 wrote: »

What she actually said:

I don't see any implying in the above statement. If you believe that she is implying explicit content and showing her face then she could equally be implying that (a) she is a guy?

Okay dude...she earns 10k a month from pictures of her sitting knitting....yah Lots of men willing to subscribe and part with their cash for non explicit content....yah

The top earners are all doing hardcore stuff and they are at it around the clock, have others helping them as it’s too much work. Yet OP spends one hour with all her clothes on sitting there innocently Of course

floorpie

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I read the thread. You are assuming an awful lot & reading between lines. I can't find a single post where she claims to show her face or provide explicit content. I can't even find her claim to be nude.

You didn't respond to my question. Did you personally receive links from the OP?

Lol what are you talking about. Re-read the post! She furthermore says in other posts that she has a large social media following, and is a girl, therein confirming that she exhibits 2 out of 3 of the attributes of high earners. Let's just wait until she confirms.

Why do you keep asking if I've gotten a link? I couldn't give a sh*t about any link from OP and I'd report anybody trying to sell me things via PM.

Wallet Inspector

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Funny thing is plenty on other threads give out about the "scammers" on the housing list getting a house for life. Or maybe the lazy scroungers that live off social welfare or lone parents. Here we have someone willing to support themselves and pay tax & they still get slated. Is this girl is telling the truth then I truly admire her in many ways

What a bizarre misrepresentation. That would only be noteworthy if they were the same people holding each view. Also nobody is slating anyone for being willing to support themselves and pay tax. That's having a job - and they do have a job, nursing.

People are only being skeptical that it's a true story because the HSE would not be happy about it. If someone chooses to do OnlyFans and similar for their sole income, and has thought about the lack of longevity and has considered what careers they can go for in middle age that their past won't affect, best of luck to them.

But nobody is slating anyone for supporting themselves and paying tax.

85603

fvp4 wrote: »

Very few people need to prove their employment status on this forum. It’s generally taken that they aren’t lying. I would have assumed that demands to reveal personal info are discouraged sitewide.

this situation is a bit extraordinary to say the least.

nobodys asking for personally identifying information.

just something beyond a claim to be making huge money for a simple side venture.

it has all the signs of being a lie. if op wants to back up these claims then she can do so, if she doesn't then what we factually have is an extraordinary claim made in public but with absolutely nothing to back it up.

YellowLead

Timmyr wrote: »

offered me email or snapchat, didnt want to give onlyfans as they take 20%

OP could confirm this didn’t happen? Also there was a post somewhere saying it wasn’t her drumming up business if people were asking for it via PM.

Sleeper12

YellowLead wrote:

Okay dude...she earns 10k a month from pictures of her sitting knitting....yah Lots of men willing to subscribe and part with their cash for non explicit content....yah

Men will pay for the most unusual things. If you search online you will find sites /accounts dedicated totally to feet or cleaning in their underwear. It's not all about the sex

YellowLead wrote:

The top earners are all doing hardcore stuff and they are at it around the clock, have others helping them as it’s too much work. Yet OP spends one hour with all her clothes on sitting there innocently Of course

You know a lot about this. I don't subscribe to any. How many subscriptions have you had to bass your claims on? Or are you just assuming?

Sleeper12

floorpie wrote:

Why do you keep asking if I've gotten a link? I couldn't give a sh*t about any link from OP and I'd report anybody trying to sell me things via PM.

Right so you are just like me & several others that have clearly stated that they haven't received any links or pms from op. At this stage more have claimed not to have pm from her than claim to have received pm from them. Many posters on many threads claim things to wind up a thread. We have no idea if anyone claiming to receive a link is a troll or not. The main poster making pm claims seems to be a banned member now if you have a look back over the first part of the thread

YellowLead

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Men will pay for the most unusual things. If you search online you will find sites /accounts dedicated totally to feet or cleaning in their underwear. It's not all about the sex



You know a lot about this. I don't subscribe to any. How many subscriptions have you had to bass your claims on? Or are you just assuming?

There are loads of articles about it if you research!!!

To your first point - I know men are into all sorts and not just overtly sexual stuff. But that’s not where the money is made - because it’s not unusual it’s everyday so they don’t need to pay.
But sure - I don’t have proof. But since OP made a joke about how great her tits were I would imagine they at least feature