Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Friday, June 17, 2005

Archbishop Tut Tut

Archbishop Tut TutThe Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Tut Tut, gave a lecture to media professionals this week; in it he "tut tutted" at them, and expressed his worries about the state of journalism and the internet.

To some extent I have a degree of sympathy for some of the views of Archbishop Tut Tut, with regard to the sometimes more hysterical (not funny ha ha) aspects of media coverage.

He made a reasonable comment with regard to the need for people to question precisely what constitutes information, and what is mere intrusive and unpleasant story telling for the sake of selling copy.

Unfortunately, Tut Tut conveniently ignores the fact that there are many stories that the media have up their sleeves about Nanny and her chums; yet do not tell us.

This "self censorship" is practiced for a number of reasons, including:
  • The information cannot be proven

  • The information will be best presented at a later date

  • The information is being used by the media as a bargaining tool

  • The information is not in the public interest
Don't believe me?

I know of one big story that the media has deliberately suppressed, that would be front page headlines, but would be regarded as privately intrusive.

No, I am not going to tell you what it is.

However, Archbishop Tut Tut then rather let himself down by exposing his Nannyistic tendencies.

Much like many others in Nanny's coterie, he dislikes the concept of freedom of expression.

He launched an attack on the internet itself, saying that it harbours "paranoid fantasy, self-indulgent nonsense and dangerous bigotry".

Which is undoubtedly true, for many of the billions of pages that litter the net. However, it is the fact that anyone can post anything on the net that keeps it in balance.

There may be a billion pages dedicated to the most unpleasant, bigoted garbage you can possibly imagine; yet these will be countered by a billion pages of creative, insightful observations.

Archbishop Tut Tut then displayed his true colours by describing the net as a free-for-all, that was "close to that of unpoliced conversation".

Now read that phrase "unpoliced conversation" again and again; think about what that is really saying about Tut Tut's line of thinking.

What he actually wants, and what Nanny and her coterie would sell their souls for, is for the net to be controlled.

In other words he wants censorship, so that only "respectable" opinions and thoughts can be aired.

Who would decide what is respectable?


Can you imagine what it would be like if Nanny controlled what could be posted on the web?


  1. Anonymous11:11 AM

    Well obviously this site wouldn't exist to start with.

    What exactly does he mean by "unpoliced conversation"? Does this man seriously think that policed conversation is desireable? Once upon a time comments like "unpoliced conversation" would be regarded as the preserve of the extreme loony left. With people with his views in positions of power it doesn't take too much to see where we're headed.

  2. Exactly, in my view, it's a very sinister phrase.

    Odd that the media didn't really pick up on it.

  3. Anonymous11:39 AM

    Bloody hell. I'm moving to Mars.

  4. chris Edwards1:02 PM

    This is the norm, checking news reports out that I find on sites like yours or Kim du Toits with Reuters I find only the news that the leftie do gooders want is published, I have won a lot of rows about this but when they google one of my 'fabricated' reports game over, all well and good but what can we do about it?????

  5. Chris7:15 PM

    Agree with Chris above Kim's worth a read, just in case you can't find him:

    Also I'm a big fan of this unpoliced conversation stuff it leads to dangerous ideas, and that scares nanny

  6. Anonymous11:07 PM

    This isnt the story concerning a certain party leadership candidate is it?

  7. Sorry Anom, miles off!

  8. Just about 12 months ago something serious happened which affected the Blair family. I understand that the media knew all about it but agreed to keep it quiet.
    I reckon we should be told. Is that one of the stories?

  9. The mainstream "media" (and by media I mean brand name papers and TV channels) came to an agreement with someone/people.

    They agreed not to publish/report the story, in exchange for modified behaviour from that person(s).

    Sorry Railwayman, I won't go further than that.