The trouble with using a comment, 'sexual interest in children' in your piece is that such a statement fails to differentiate between pedophilia and sexual arousal in post-pubescent children. My case being the latter. Post-pubescent children being defined as being aged 14 years upwards. While such a difference does not alter the classification as 'Paraphilia' (a generic medical term used to describe this illness), the psychological distinction for the individual with such an illness is significant. The risk associated with such an individual, should they act out on their paraphiliac impulses is arguably greater if they fall into the category of pedophilia as their potential victims are likely to be more vunerable and less able to protect themselves. On another matter, an issue with the wording of the crime defined as being 'counts of making indecent images of children' is that it suggests to the audience (your readers) that the person has physically taken the image (picture) of the child, with the implication therefore that the child was in the presence of the person taking the picture. This is simply NOT the case. The word 'making' is a legislative generalism which allows it to be applied to a variety of situations. In my case, the downloading of images onto a computer - thereby MAKING the image appear on the computer screen. In this instance, such a distinction is more serious, both in the minds of the audience of the report and equally for the offender themselves. To put it another way, how many of your readers would have understood the distinctions that I have made? Perhaps highlighting such distinctions are of little relevance to some readers, but to persons who have this illness, they are of considerable significance and if they are to 'come out' and seek help, misleading information albeit unintentional, in the public domain will do little to encourage them.