to email BBC News and complain they are still using term "child porn" on their news website.

[kissmyheathenass]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31015347 gary glitter related - ugghh.

I know lots of us find the term 'child porn offensive'. The BBC bends over backwards to avoid language which might offend so why do they think this is acceptable? I am emailing them to point out why they should to rephrase. If anyone else would like to email them, please do!

YANBU and thanks for the headsup.

Here is the online form. I have asked for a reply and will update if I get anything useful.

I ranted quite a lot

Yes, please do. The Times use this term too

Good for you. Thank you Im fillling out the form now.

Can I ask what you wrote - mine is rather concise. Here it is so far:

"Gary Glitter breaks down in tears over child porn images" is your headline. I would like to point out child porn doesnt exist. It implies consent. Pictures of men having sex with very young children are images of child abuse and should be referred to as such"

shall be filling in form

this is the second time i have known about them having to be pulled about this

Good luck, I've given them this feedback many times before and the silence I've had in return has been deafening.

It's shocking that they think it's acceptable to be honest.

Oh, hang on, I didn't save it. Let me think...

First I pointed out that "child porn" doesn't exist, and suggested other wording that would be accurate.

Then I had a rant about how using the phrase "child porn" minimises and legitimises the material itself.

Then I had a massive rant about the production of images/video of child abuse/sexual assault.

Then I defined pornography and explained in words of one syllable why "child porn" is an oxymoron.

Why does child porn imply consent?

To me, child porn is a subset of child abuse.

I find your suggestion that you think child porn refers to a consensual act to be a lot more offensive, I'm afraid.

Child porn as a phrase doesn't offend me.

It doesn't make me think 'consensual'. I'm extremely surprised to think people think others think that it would mean that.

Do you think everyone's stupid?

I'm shocked the BBC (and The Times) think this is acceptable given the coverage of BC's recent use of the term 'coloured' for example.

at your lack of responses Elephant. Have they acknowledged the issues you have raised at all? I have asked for a response so will let you know if I get one and I will post it here.

I would love to see a MN campaign against the use of this term.

I've emailed...sickens me !!

there is no suggestion that child porn refers to a consensual act

but pornography does (not that abuse is never not happing within pornography)

these are images/films of children being abused and should be called that

Twitter campaigns can be effective. #Abusenotporn

FWIW Facebook (hardly a bastion of sensitivity) has the Gary Glitter story "trending" and refers to it as "sex crime trial".

Sex crime. No more, no less.

I've complained about this before. I got a snotty response that showed the article I had complained about had not used the phrase child porn but "indecent images of children". The thing is, the original version of the article had been updated and the offending phraise amended but the response didn't acknowledgr this. My advice is to screen shot the article so you have proof.

Chilicosrenegade, no I dont think everyone is stupid . Lots of people find the term offensive. It minimises what is happening to the child.

Pornography is viewed by many as harmless fun, some find it offensive on religious/feminist grounds for instance. But the word 'pornography' to me implies those participating have consented to be there.

Where crime is involved then it is no longer pornography, it is an image of a crime scene.

If it isnt a term that offends, dont contact the BBC. If like me, you would prefer them to use another term please email them.

But the word 'pornography' to me implies those participating have consented to be there.

Why? Doesn't imply anything of the sort to me. Pornography just means images used for sexual stimulation, possibly only ones explicitly created for that purpose, though I'm not sure about that qualifier.

Can't see the issue.

TBH I think it's a bit warped to suggest that people think 'child porn' is anything other than images of child abuse. They don't.

And how great would it be if you redirected your anger and your energy at things that warranted it and needed it respectively.

If someone secretly films two people shagging, then distributes the video as entertainment, I'm pretty sure the video would fall within the definition of porn, even if the people in it had no idea the video existed, and therefore obviously hadn't consented.

consent has nothing to do with the definition of pornography. Pornography is sexual content for the purpose of titillation. Consent is irrelevant.

They've updated the article without changing the wording.

TBH I think it's a bit warped to suggest that people think 'child porn' is anything other than images of child abuse. They don't.

Child sex offenders do. And that's partly why some people (including me) get really sticky about using accurate language.

I'm trying to search for any material about this topic, but for obvious reasons I don't want to type "child porn" into Google without a lot of other search terms ...!

It doesn't matter whether people can or cant see the issue, its not child porn is abuse.

Using that phrase gives rise to all sort of implications as well as it being a special porn catagory.

Purple, if you watched a documentary called "wonderland" which is about child abuse images and those that create and watch them, you will see why its so offensive. So offensive and so imperative to keep driving the fact home its abuse.

Many pedophiles think the children are consenting, and even want to meet the stars of the child....porn.

x post mrs H.

Anybody who thinks that they can change the mindset of paedophiles by fiddling with vocabulary is seriously deluded.