Just A Bit Of Armless Fun?

In 1960, Terry Nutkins had an unfortunate encounter with a brutally violent African otter which resulted in him losing a couple of fingers. Despite this horrific and frightening injury, he managed to forge a successful career as a children’s TV presenter without scarring for life scores of impressionable kids. Which, in the wake of the recent Cerrie Burnell saga, begs the question… Is a missing forearm too much for our children to take? Clearly not. I think the vast majority of us are perfectly comfortable with people of different shapes/creeds/cultures and perceived disabilities. The question is, how do the dissatisfied minority manage to be so well heard?

The BBC received nine complaints about the one-armed C Beebies presenter Burnell, claiming that her missing limb was frightening their kids. Concerned parents resisted explaining to their children that some people are simply different to others and took the only other sensible course of action. They flooded onto the internet and gossiped anonymously.

One comment on the CBeebies parent’s forum stated: “Why does she have to have the sleeve pulled up so high? She didn’t have to hide the arm, but I think she should pull her sleeve down a bit more.” Part of me wishes that I’d written this nugget of genius in a macabre fit of cyber bad taste. But I’m pretty certain that ‘Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells’ is being deadly serious. This, I think, is the key to the whole internet deal. Who’s being serious? Who’s on a wind-up? It’s impossible to tell. The anonymity that the medium provides, allows all manner of trolls to write all manner of nonsense. And if it’s on the internet, why then,it must be true.



This is why Terry Nutkins got away with presenting on Children’s TV for so long. It wasn’t because viewers were so mesmerized by his spectacularly breathtaking hippy-monk hairdo that none of them noticed his missing digits. It’s because people had better things to do in those days than spend endless hours debating endless drivel on the internet. Granted, the internet wasn’t around in those days and that’s exactly the point. It’s presence in society now means that conversations once confined to pubs and supermarket queues are now conducted in the virtual ether with an audience of billions. An audience ready to gasp in horror. An audience ready to nod in agreement. An audience ready to be abusive. And, importantly, an audience more than ready to fan the flames of self-righteous indignation from the relative safety of their computer.

Take the Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand incident. The majority of complaints were received AFTER the infamous phone call had been broadcast. Meaning that thousands of cyber-ghouls made the effort to listen to a recording of the show just so they could start a web-based witch hunt. It doesn’t take much to start an online stampede. It’s incredibly easy to forward emails and links. And wherever these links take you, you’ll find the dissatisfied minority on their high-horse; the sort of people who used to have the complaints department on their speed-dial. They don’t need that anymore though, they’ve got it saved to their internet favourites.

Chances of a Nutkins comeback in the digital age? Absolutely none; the forums would be positively teeming. “Look at his hair,” they’d type. “Why does he have to have the back so long? He doesn’t have to hide it completely, but I do think he should wear a hat.” I tend to agree. It's a ridiculous barnet.