As Sue noted on Wednesday, it looks as if we'll be seeing and hearing even more about "van attacks" and "lorry attackers" from the BBC in the wake of their latest editorial guidelines (to be published later this month).
The Daily Mail says that BBC reporters will be told to avoid using the word "terror" to describe any terror attack, "unless they are quoting someone else".
The paper goes on, "Instead, they will refer to terror attacks by naming specific details, such as the location and the method of slaughter used":
The controversial edict means that the BBC will no longer use the phrase 'terror attack' to describe the massacres at London Bridge or Manchester Arena, as the corporation did when the atrocities occurred.
Reporters would describe them as the London Bridge van attack or the Manchester Arena bomb attack instead.
Now, of course, this is nothing new. It's merely a ratcheting-up of something the BBC has been doing already with increasing frequency.
What is particularly striking here though is the bizarre thinking behind it:
According to well-placed BBC sources, bosses are eager to report terror attacks consistently, regardless of the terrorists' political ideology. But instead of branding them all as terror attacks and risk accusations of bias, it wants to avoid the word altogether.
A senior news source said: 'It boils down to that phrase, 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.
It will be interesting to see the exact wording when the new editorial guidelines are published.'Our question is, 'Is Darren Osborne [who was behind the Finsbury Park terror attack] a terrorist?' He is being motivated by far-Right thinking, in the same way as the guys in the attack on London Bridge. Consistency will be the key.'