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!

Oh give it a rest charlie with the silly public sector talk. "Establish responsibility taking." Ffs

ah, I see you don't know anything at all about the basic tenets of these interventions simon.
You're still seeming to be bitter about this sort of thing.

Pan, Simon hasn't been around for a bit but has popped up a lot of late.

oh I see Yonic - thank you! Hope all is well.

simon - the diction is important due to minimisation and denial that people bring with them over these issues - to be precise, essentially, and reduce 'wriggle-room'. Nothing clever or public-sectory about it. Just good sense.

Good sense in your opinion charlie. My bet would be that the vast majorty of the public would say that not using the term child porn due to complaints from a few people who incorrectly assume themselves to know better amounts to nonsense.

And yes, diction, language, semantics - yes they are important. But when an existing and well recognised phrase actually perfectly articulates to people the subject in hand - child porn = paedo-related porn - then why change?

can think of nothing better to do with their time than split hairs over terminology

why dont you go away and study effects of language on people then come back and offer views.

perfectly articulates to people the subject in hand how much more explaining do you need? The term does not articulate the subject in hand, and thats the whole point.

We all know that it does not and cannot involve consent - children can't give consent - and is therefore abusive and illegal

One would like to think so comfort but look at all the recent rochdale gang abuse cases, where police, social workers etc all in fact treated them as adults....

I dont need any explaining from you knitted. I'd rather stick knitting needles in my eyes.

Now you're clutching at straws knitted. It's getting embarassing

Knitted, Simon has nothing better to do than post snarkily on various MN threads, I would save your pixels, TBH.

Thanks Yonic

Seeing as a fair few people in the bbc seem to be/have been involved in child sexual abuse, it seems they can't see what the problem is. It's probably normal and acceptable within that organisation.

Fine, you think there are bigger fish to fry? Off you go and fry them. But I don't think anyone is arguing that "child porn" is a better description than "images of child abuse" - you either feel neutral about it or strongly that it should be changed. So let those who want to change it, try, and if you don't, go do something you do care about.

Yes I think it's a valid point you raise. The term "child porn" does seem trivial and, I agree House, flippant.

The terminology needs to be condemnatory enough to bring the full burden of shame to bear upon the head of the convicted person.

The word child porn should be challenged if it is allowing abusers to minimise what they are doing. I think it deserves to become obsolete-not because it's "offensive" but because it's inadequate.

"Indecent images of children" is more appropriate. After all this isn't porn is it-it can be anything up to rape, not someone flashing their tits in naughty negligee.

Somebody has a good point. If the broadcasters using the term are also responsible to creating it in the first place, as a consequence of not having taken the issue seriously, then discovering that and pointing it out would be a step towards killing the phrase.

YANBU - and good for the MNetters that complained, and got the wording changed.

The correct terminology is images of child abuse or indecent images of children. Ask CEOP - you'll never see them using the term 'child porn' because they recognise that this is a sanitised term - a sort of 'whitewash' and a minimisation of what's actually involved in the making of these images - which is of course welcomed by the abusers.

Terminology is important.

Maybe instead of moaning about 'splitting hairs', you should consider it from the victim/survivor's point of view? Read what Shy Keenan has to say on the matter for instance. Many adult survivors (not speaking for everyone nor trying to) are pretty disgusted by people calling it 'child porn'. Knowing that, why would you keep using it?

If it's child porn, what does that make the child? I say a, it was either a video or a picture, that said, 'my name is x, and I am a child porn star'. It did the job well, you couldn't see it and think there was nothing wrong with saying 'chid porn' afterwards. I think that might have been Shy Keenan's too.

It's actually about the most simple and basic respect towards other human beings.

Quite similar to saying 'child prostitute'...callling children 'prostitutes' rather than 'abused children' is NOT helping the situation at all. Language has a real effect on how we percieve things...there's plenty of research on the subject.

I got the impression that pretty much everyone commenting here on the trivialisation problem agreed. And, I wondered whether the remaining issue was how to kill of the expression amongst journalists.

hiddenhome Wed 28-Jan-15 16:59:02

Excellent point, Simon has form apparently so probably best not engage.

They just changed it on the bbc app to 'child abuse'.

Good - 'child porn' totally minimises it

it's images of child abuse

and yes - that poster has a lot of form for goading on rape/feminist threads - ignore it x

Not sure whether anyone has said this, but if the bbc respond with some bullshit to a complaint, always worth complaining a second time in response, as it triggers escalation through their internal procedures. If lots of people do it even more likely to get attention...