Believe it or not, the headline in the link above is the actual headline that appears in the article that this posting is about.
Believe it or not, the article appears in a UK publication.
Believe it or not, the publication in question describes itself as "the only specialist courts and tribunals agency operating within the UK. - we have been supplying the national, regional and local press for more than 20 years and have built a hard fought reputation as one of the country's best news agencies"
If indeed they supply the nationals and locals, no wonder it is so hard to change the language that the UK media use!
Unfortunately, having spotted this disgusting headline, and pointed out the offense that this causes , Court News UK seem not able to grasp that images of "one-year-old babies being sexually abused" (from the article) are not pornography.
Their argument to me, was that they were merely quoting the dictionary definition, namely
"Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity' (involving babies)".
Really? I have never seen this in any dictionary I have seen.
Surely a publication that reports on court cases in the UK would (or should) know that the correct legal definition is "Indecent Photographs of Children" (UK Sexual Offences Act 2003)?
Surely a publication like "Court news UK" would (or should) realise the offense, the trivialisation, the paedo-friendly language that "porn" implies to when referring to images of children (and babies) being sexually abused?
Am I to think that, by their reasoning, they would refer to black people using the "n****r" term, as this also appears in the dictionary? Would they refer to gypsies as "p*k*ys" as that too is in the dictionary?
Would they be happy, if hypothetically one of them had a young child, that was raped, abused, and filmed, seeing this being reported in the media as "pornography"? Looking through their site, there does seem to be a large amount of stories, all using the "child porn" or "baby porn" headlines, so maybe being offensive to victims of this dreadful crime means nothing to them?
So Court News UK, you take the honours of being my first Name and Shame
If you have any comment to make, please feel free to comment (anonymously if you wish).