|
join Mens-Studies |
EVIL OF POLITICAL
CORRECTNESS EXPOSED
Polcor (also
known as 'political correctness') is an evil totalitarian ideology aiming
to curtail freedom of speech and stunt freedom of thought by using Freudian
brainwashing techniques. It is like a cancer on our society and if left
untreated and uncured the very least it will eventually do is blur our
ability to see reality. In these pages you
Polcor started off at a 'think tank', the Institute
for Social Research, in Germany in 1923, its aim being to apply Freudian
brainwashing techniques in spreading spin and propaganda through word manipulation
e.g. by changing concepts and the meanings of words. It was quickly taken
up by zealots at the University of Wisconsin in the U.S. (In 1935, after
Hitler came to power, the Institute moved to the U.S. where they continued
to use Freud's guilt-and-fear conditioning mechanisms to get Americans
to buy into political correctness.)
Index to this Page
Brief
Glossary of NewSpeak
- But of course I would like to stress that this is only my opinion. - Or so it seems to me. - Or as far as I can tell. - At least, this is my hypothesis. - Tentatively speaking of course. - Hypothetically speaking of course. - Or not, as the case may be. - Or at least, this is how I imagine it to be. - Or so I have heard. - Or so I am told. - But not so in every case. - Or at least, I think so. - Of course, this is only in most cases, not in all cases. - Don't you think? - Don't you agree? - I don't believe this, but I have no doubt that it is true. - What do you think? - What are your thoughts on this? - I don't know. - I have no idea. - I don't have a clue. - I wouldn't have clue. - It beats me. - It's very complicated, I think. - Anyway, that's my opinion. - Oh well, it's food for thought. - Anyway, it's an interesting area. - At least, it should stimulate debate. - Oh well, it's an idea. - It's something to think about. - It's a grey area. - It's not a black and white issue. - It seems that the more we know about these things the less we understand. - But we are only just coming to understand these things, possibly. - Although I can't pretend to be an expert. - Though I'm not claiming this is the be all and end all. - I don't pretend to know all the answers, I'm just posing a few questions. - Please excuse me. - Or so I am inclined to think. - Or so I am led to believe. - I apologize if I have offended anyone in any way. - I apologize if I am repeating myself. - I'll ask my wife. - It's an interesting question. - My wife thinks I'm the most intelligent person on the planet. - My wife thinks so too. - My wife is the most beautiful woman in the world. - I actually disagree with my wife on this point. - Though I understand this is a controversial issue, and not everyone will agree. - Far be it for me to seek to change the way anyone thinks in any way. - This seems to be the general consensus, here, at the current time. - The older I grow, the less I know. - Although I wouldn't presume to cast doubt on the ideas anyone else has had on this issue. - Is that alright? - At least, that's how it looks from where I'm standing. - That's what it seems to suggest to me. - Of course, the above is only one of many different sides to this question. - Is that impossible? - I would wish to enter a discussion on this point, but it's beyond the scope and the parameters of this current work. - I should emphasize that I have no definite conclusions about this. THE
NEW SOCIAL CANON OF
Of recent times the more strident protagonists of Political Correctness have sought to mount a literary defence of this new and increasingly insidious social theology. It is my expressed hope that the more rational members of our disturbingly apathetic society will view such utterings with the caution they deserve. It seems to me that Political Correctness is one of those sugar-coated principles that, in theory, presents itself as a philosophy of reasonable persuasion, but in practice manifests as a philosophy that seeks instead to - compel. The various defenders of the faith wish to argue that correct speech is simply about showing consideration, both for the feelings of the subject (wherein a person or persons are involved), and for the factual propriety of the substance of one's statements; they would have us believe that such linguistic rectitude is indicative of an enlightened society. This view is, to me, both highly debatable and problematic, not to mention pretentious . . . If it were indeed the case that Political Correctness was a philosophy that merely sought to reasonably persuade the individual that studious attention to the nature of one's language was a desirable thing, it wouldn't be so bad. It is clearly the case, however, that PC has become something far other than this. What we now have is a social philosophy that has shifted its ground, and has moved from an ethic of persuasion to one of compulsion. The fact that individuals now face possible disciplinary action, if not outright dismissal, at their workplace, and in a more general social sense, have various swords of litigation hanging over their heads, makes palpable the truth of this evolutionary move. This applies most particulary to social commentators of various kinds and certainly to broadcasters in the media, who, I would think, are acutely aware of these facts. This simple reality aside, even the moral invective with which PC's defenders ply their trade and denounce the hapless fools who dare speak as their conscience demands, is evidence of this change in the ethic of PC. Even the name of the principle itself is cause for concern: Political Correctness - precisely whose politics, and whose notions of correctness are we talking about here? It is imperative also, that we differentiate clearly between people's 'sensibilities' and their 'liberties'. It should be noted that the manner in which one expresses one's views impinges only on another's sensibilities, and does not, unless such views are acted upon, and with the intent of some form of imposition, diminish anyone's liberties. If an individual wishes to suggest that women are inferior to men (or vice versa), or that the Pope is the incarnation of the proverbial anti-christ, it is their inalienable right - not only to think such a thing, but if their conscience demands it be said, to say such a thing, and to do so by whatever means are available to them; and I might add, to do so with impunity. The fact that it may strike a dull chord with a particular individual is ultimately a problem for that individual and their private insecurities. The old line about someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre simply doesn't apply in this context, because such an act is calculated to cause an affray and therefore impinge on people's liberties. It is true of course that certain invective, when expressed, may arouse the passions of the more irrational members of a society, and that such passions may lead to something more overt, but we cannot seek to limit an individual's right to free speech purely upon the basis of presumed or imagined consequences. For instance, as an Atheist, and one who is utterly uncompromising in his view of metaphysical realities, I would support, without equivocation, the right of a Christian of the Fred Nile variety to publicly declare, by way of conscience, that atheists are intrinsically evil. Such a declaration would not cause me any real concern if it were not accompanied by any obvious intent to limit my personal freedoms; firstly, because I am not a hyper-sensitive, insecure milksop; and secondly, because I recognise the superiority of the importance of the principle of freedom of speech over the superficiality of individual egotisms. It is simply a fact of life, that yes, even in these wondrously enlightened times, there are people out there who are foolish and naive enough to actually believe in something. There are yet those, who, despite the best attempts at re-education by academic relativists and sundry agnostics, still insist on clinging to notions of immutable principles and values. It is patently clear to such people that PC has become a tool for the suppression of free thought and speech, more specifically of the holders of such a philosophic perspective. Though it may seem to some that the oft analogised Spanish and Italian Inquisitions constitute a rather odious comparison, I feel that the principle is essentially the same and that to draw an homology is, therefore, quite reasonable. I concede of course that it is a matter of degree, but the reality is that we are seeing the suppression of certain individual freedoms at the impost of a particular social power; in the time of the Inquisition the tyrant was the Catholic Church; the new tyrant is society itself. Today we are seeing the tyranny of society over the individual, manifest in all its ignominy, through the advent of Political Correctness. True and consistent virtue in a society cannot be artificially fabricated, be it moral and intellectual custom, or old fashioned oppression by which we attempt this. It is utterly pointless expecting people to say one thing, when in their hearts and minds they think entirely another. A truly tolerant society is one which is tolerant even of the intolerance of its particular members. Creating a facade of social cohesion and considered tolerance by painting over reality with a candied veneer such as PC is totally without merit, and dangerously myopic. We need look no further than what was once Yugoslavia for proof of this. Generations of rivalries, prejudices, antipathies and sundry hatreds, were simply whitewashed over with the veneer of "nationhood" called Yugoslavia. It was, of course, a ridiculous contrivance, and merely created an environment in which these various tribal animosities festered and became increasingly purulent, like an infected sore that is covered by so many bandages you cannot tell what is happening underneath, until of course it is too late, and it bursts forth in all its pus-ridden virulence. It is imperative that each individual in any given society has available to them an accurate overview of the multiplicity of beliefs and principles, and yes, even the hatreds and bigotries of that society. Such a social comprehension can only come about in an atmosphere of the full and frank expression of all views - as they are truly held! - not merely as we might prefer them to be held. To imagine that people will, in time, begin to feel differently about a particular issue if they are exhorted to express their view in a particular manner, is simply inane. The truth is that people are likely to become more inflexible if they feel that the capacity to express their views as their conscience demands is being undermined. Political Correctness is a nice idea - too nice by half, methinks. Its prophets and disciples have, it seems, become far too enamoured with its (and their own) supposed virtue. This rather insipid narcissism has evolved into a particularly disquieting sense of infallibility of which even the Papacy would be envious. Let me stress, in conclusion, that it is precisely the relativism and moral agnosticism of modern academia that is the source of this foolishness. Such philosophies as those held by these modern Pyrrhonists deny any notion of an objective, absolute truth, either in a moral or a metaphysical sense; this basically means that one view is as true and valuable as another, hence no particular view should (or, nowadays, can) be expressed in such a way as to imply superiority, or heaven forbid, that it constitutes a Truth! You cannot force people to be more enlightened; and to think otherwise is fatuous in the extreme. At best we can encourage people to develop a greater sense of personal integrity, in both the moral, and I think more importantly, the intellectual sense. This takes time; it requires a paradigm shift in social consciousness. It seems to me that we are indeed experiencing a shift in social consciousness, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with enlightenment. What we are seeing is the consideration of personal sensibilities taking precedence over certain personal liberties (in this case, freedom of expression). In a society that prides itself on the claim of being, as we say, "free", evolutionary back-peddling such as that which Political Correctness has become, should be regarded as intolerable - if one may be momentarily . . . incorrect. I found this piece somewhere on the internet. If humour is what it takes to force people to think, then humour is what they'll get! - Kevin Solway ". . . In order to forge a cosmic accord of unprecedented unity and harmony, The Politically Correct Movement demands that all people, regardless of prior social preconditioning must accept the incipient world order that will offer unlimited bliss and contentment. Dammit.'' - Prof. Dr. Skippy Whitmore, Berkeley, CA, 1965 Q: WHAT
IS P.C.?
Hug a tree. Rejoice each day in our cultural differences, for they are what gives flavour to our great country. Get in touch with your sexual identity. Check your refrigerator for freon leaks. Subscribe to National Geographic. Search it for neat non-Western cultural traditions and costumes. After you read it, use the paper as an alternate fuel source. Q: I'M NOT SURE ABOUT ALL OF THIS. If you are feeling unsure about your motivation, just remember. YOU ARE RIGHT. It's that simple. You are right. Q: HOW DO I KNOW IF AN ACTION IS UN-PC? Good question. It's important to know when someone is saying something insensitive so that you can have that person removed from society. The guideline is as follows: Is the confrontation between two white people? The liberal is right. The white person is oppressing the ethnic person. Here's a fun practice drill for you: See how many newspaper articles you can make into race bias stories. It's fun! Some PCers are so good they can make the weather report look like a KKK pamphlet! Q: WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I SEE SOMEONE DO SOMETHING NON-PC? It all depends on the situation. If you are not in a position of authority, by all means report this activity immediately to whoever is in charge. If your school leader, employer, or superior is hip to the trend of the 90s, she or he will take the necessary steps to have the insensitive offender disciplined. Q: BUT ISN'T THAT CENSORSHIP? The Constitution never meant for racism, sexism and insensitivity to be espoused by anyone. That's not what free speech is about. Some call it censorship. PCers call it 'selective' speech. Saying something negative about a particular race or gender is just as damaging as, say, punching them in the face. We just can't allow that kind of verbal assault. Q: I'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT PC WORDS TO REPLACE 'BLACK', 'INDIAN', ETC. Yes. That's part of the PC movement. You see, part of the way we think about people comes directly from the words we use to describe them. Take 'black' for instance. Why should a person be judged by the color of their skin? Q: YOU MEAN THEY SHOULD RATHER BE JUDGED BY THE CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER? No, I mean they should be judged by where their ancestors are from. If your great-grandparents are from Africa, or Asia, or wherever, then you should be identified by that fact. You can even apply for special preferential scholarships! Q: I'M A MIXTURE OF FRENCH, GERMAN, ENGLISH, AND RUSSIAN. CAN I GET ONE? No, there are no scholarships for any of those. Sorry. If you are a woman, however, there should be plenty. Q: HEY, WOULDN'T A WHITE PERSON FROM LIBYA OR EGYPT TECHNICALLY BE AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN? Technically, yes. But that's not the kind of African-American we mean. That is, we're REALLY talking about skin colour, but we're pretending that we aren't. Another example: a white South-African U.S. immigrant is not an African-American either. Q: HOW CAN I LEARN TO MAKE MY LANGUAGE MORE POLITICALLY CORRECT? See The Thinking Man's Reference of Politically Correct Terms. Q: I'D LIKE MY CHILD TO BE PC. WHAT CAN I DO? Well, for one thing, we should forcibly encourage students to volunteer their time with philanthropies. Also, we should re-emphasize non-Western perspectives on history. Finally, we should re-structure tests and quizzes to reflect cultural biases. Q: I DON'T GET IT. Well, the way the system works now, 'select' under-represented minorities who tend to do worse on entrance tests have lower standards of admissions at school and work and receive preferential treatment. This is unfair and wrong. Q: IT IS? Yes. The truly PC way to do it is to have a different grading scale for different groups which gives or subtracts points from the final score, depending on who is taking the test. If you are white, then you have been benefited by society during your life. That means that you lose ten to fifteen points to make the test fair to everyone else. Q: I GUESS THAT SOUNDS RIGHT. It IS right. That's the beauty of PC. Q: WHAT ELSE DO I HAVE TO BE CAREFUL OF? Humour. PC people take every comment VERY seriously. We will not accept any comment, joke, remark, or anything that sounds like it could be a racial slur. Q: GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE. "What's black and white and red all over?'' has been staple humour for decades. Not PC - it can be taken the wrong way. In every day speech, try to use phrases like, "Isn't that the pot calling the kettle African-American.'' Any racial jokes or jokes even mentioning culture or gender should be omitted. True, this mostly limits comedy to the level of sitcoms, but that's the price you pay for social equality. Likewise, get used to using the word 'gender' (PC people don't like the word 'sex' as it has confusing connotations for them). Q: IS THAT ALL THERE IS TO IT? Yes. The Politically Correct belief is essentially a recognition that people are diversely equal. We rejoice in this equality by treating people differently based on their equal individuality. Hop aboard the bandwaggon . . . Be PC. Or you're an intolerant, racist, sexist insensitive pig. WHAT
PEOPLE SAY
I need time alone. (I need time alone with my new lover.) I need time to think things over. (I don't want to be around when you realize I'm leaving you.) We're just not suited to each other. (She's prettier than you.) I didn't mean to hurt you. (I couldn't care less about you.) We've just drifted apart. (I find you repulsive.) This has nothing to do with you. (You are diseased.) I'm the one who's to blame. (I should never have got involved with you in the first place.) All I want is for you to be happy. (Give me a break.) You'll have no trouble finding someone else. (I don't want to see you ever again.) I miss you. (I haven't found anyone else yet.) I'm fine . . . really. (If I die, it'll be your fault.) Everyone's been great. (All your friends have made passes at me.) I'm not seeing anyone in particular. (I'm playing the field.) We could get counselling. (We could go broke finding out why we're not compatible.) There'll never be anyone else like you. (I will never make the same horrific mistake again.) I'd still like to be friends. (I'd like to hang around long enough to ruin your next relationship.) Thanks to comedian Wendy Harmer for some of the above. Yes. (No.) No. (No.) Maybe. (No.) You want. (You want.) We need. (I want.) It's your decision. (The correct decision should be obvious by now.) Do what you want. (You'll pay for this later.) I'm sorry. (You'll be sorry.) We need to talk. (I need to complain.) Sure . . . go ahead. (I don't want you to.) I'm not upset. (Of course I'm upset, you moron.) You're...so manly. (You need a shave and you sweat a lot.) You're certainly attentive tonight. (Is sex all you ever think about?) I'm not emotional! And I'm not overreacting! (It's my period) This kitchen is so inconvenient. (I want a new house) I want new curtains. (and carpeting, furniture, wallpaper . . .) I heard a noise. (I noticed you were almost asleep.) Do you love me? (I'm going to ask for something expensive.) How much do you love me? (I did something today you're really not going to like . . .) Is my butt fat? (Tell me I'm beautiful.) You have to learn to communicate. (Just agree with me.) Do you like this recipe? (It's easy to fix, so you'd better get get used to it.) I'm not yelling! (Yes I am yelling because I think this is important.) Hello? Oh yes. Didn't we meet at a bar Wednesday night? (I've been waiting by the telephone for three days.) Let's not talk 'commitment' . . . Let's just see what happens. (I'm not taking any birth control pills.) I can't believe you're here. It must be fate!! (I've been following you all day.) I love a man who takes charge. (You're picking up the cheque, aren't you.) Are you listening to me!?( Too late, you're dead.) IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION "WHAT'S WRONG?" The same
old thing. (Nothing.)
Once there were three little pigs who lived together in mutual respect and in harmony with their environment. Using materials that were indigenous to the area, they each built a beautiful house. One pig built a house of straw, one a house of sticks, and one a house of dung, clay, and creeper vines shaped into bricks and baked in a small kiln. When they were finished, the pigs were satisfied with their work and settled back to live in peace and self-determination. But their idyll was soon shattered. One day, along came a big bad wolf with expansionist ideas. He saw the pigs and grew very hungry, in both a physical and an ideological sense. When the pigs saw the wolf, they ran into the house of straw. The wolf ran up to the house and banged on the door, shouting, "Little pigs, little pigs, let me in!" The pigs shouted back, "Your gunboat tactics hold no fear for pigs defending their homes and culture." But the wolf wasn't to be denied what he thought was his manifest destiny. So he huffed and puffed and blew down the house of straw. The frightened pigs ran to the house of sticks, with the wolf in hot pursuit. Where the house of straw had stood, other wolves bought up the land and started a banana plantation. At the house of sticks, the wolf again banged on the door and shouted, "Little pigs, little pigs, let me in!" The pigs shouted back, "Go to hell, you carnivorous, imperialistic oppressor!" At this, the wolf chuckled condescendingly. He thought to himself : "They are so childlike in their ways. It will be a shame to see them go, but progress cannot be stopped." So the wolf huffed and puffed and blew down the house of sticks. The pigs ran to the house of bricks, with the wolf close at their heels. Where the house of sticks had stood, other wolves built a time-share condo resort complex for vacationing wolves, with each unit a fibreglass reconstruction of the house of sticks, as well as native curio shops, snorkeling, and dolphin shows. At the house of bricks, the wolf again banged on the door and shouted , "Little pigs, little pigs, let me in!" This time in response, the pigs sang songs of solidarity and wrote letters of protest to the United Nations. By now the wolf was getting angry at the pigs' refusal to see the situation from the carnivore's point of view. So he huffed and puffed, and huffed and puffed, he grabbed his chest and fell over dead from a massive heart attack brought on from eating too many fatty foods. The three little pigs rejoiced that justice had triumphed and did a little dance around the corpse of the wolf. Their next step was to liberate their homeland. They gathered together a band of other pigs who had been forced off their lands. This new brigade of porcinistas attacked the resort complex with machine guns and rocket launchers and slaughtered the cruel wolf oppressors, sending a clear signal to the rest of the hemisphere not to meddle in their internal affairs. Then the pigs set up a model socialist democracy with free education, universal health care, and affordable housing for everyone. * Please note: The wolf in this story was a metaphorical construct. No actual wolves were harmed in the writing of the story. [ From the NewSpeak and Doublethink Homepage on the Internet ] Modern English Is Devolving Newspeak, in Orwell's book, is a new form of English in which the vocabulary was being gradually reduced in power. Words that are inoffensive and inarticulate are being foisted on us as the correct way to speak. Newspeak is the deliberate use of words that are ambiguous or deceptive in an attempt to control public opinion. 'Affirmative action' is one such example. Affirmative things can only be good. How can one criticize a good thing? Action can be good too. Affirmative action is 'plus-good'. Racial discrimination is bad. Asking about a person's race is racist unless it is the government asking. If you do not answer government questions about your race, you can be arrested, fined, or denied employment. Minorities are given special treatment this year, except for men. George Orwell Was Right! The book 1984 by George Orwell is one which you should read. The totalitarian governments which are depicted, and the social straight-jackets which were manufactured, resemble today's world situation in many ways. Big Brother, Uncle Joe Stalin, Uncle Sam, Mother Russia, the Motherland, the Great Communicator, and many other nicknames are used with affection and with power. The welfare state, centralized planning, the unemployment office, Universal Health Care, team players, and mob reactions are all manifestations of the desire by many people to fit in and to be secure. These herd reactions can be practical in an overpopulated world, but they can diminish the quality of life, as Orwell described. The population explosion is making people desperate enough to accept all kinds of indignities to fit in the mold of the beetle-like worker mentioned in 1984. Today's television indoctrination to the violent culture helps people become police and soldiers without conscience. Mass murder by governments happen every year now. People expect us to make war every year, several times a year. A year without war is so rare that leaders who do not kill enough people are considered weak and inexperienced. We do not defend our borders any more, we defend the borders of our rivals, trading the roles of enemy and ally, as in 1984. Is Eurasia our ally in 1995? Is Eastasia our enemy? Yes. That will change someday. As George Orwell said, we must have an enemy to unify our people to work together. And by changing alliances every few years, the government maintains the power to direct hatred in various directions with flexibility. Iran, Iraq, China, the Soviet Union, Russia, Panama, Lebanon, Columbia, France, Argentina, Vietnam, Japan, Germany, Nicuragua, Somalia, Uganda, South Africa, England, Ireland, Libya, Cambodia, Laos, Mexico : our enemies can change rapidly into friends and vice-versa. Doublethink is Thriving Doublethink is a term Orwell coined to describe the ability to believe two contradictory ideas without feeling confused. Doublethink is perverted thinking that reverses the truth to make it more acceptable. Affirmative Action requires doublethink to be affective. Because some people were discriminated against because of their races, a remedy was devised to help those people: discriminate against people of different races. Doublethink abilities are used to reconcile this obvious illogic. You need to be content with the wise government plan and the fact that if you do not get hired, you will never be told it was because of your race. Just turn off your intelligence, pretend you are not a victim of Affirmative Racism, and try again. Maybe there will be a more advantageous racial mix in the next job you apply for. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength. These are the three pillars of Doublethink. Are these in evidence today? Yes. Peacekeepers carry guns in Bosnia. They are sitting ducks delivering their quack message: Do Not Dare Kill Us, We Are Apostles of Peace. Anyone who shoots a Peacekeeper, will be bombed, strafed, napalmed, teargassed, and otherwise murdered. Peace is good, war is good. Freedom is Slavery. Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. Liberty is something most people are afraid to use. The freedom of speech is illegal in courts. A person who acts freely and speaks freely is someone who is ostracized, feared, and sent packing. The slogan "Freedom is Slavery" was written on tall buildings in Airstrip One so that people would know not to use freedom. (I assume you have read 1984). Freedom leads to poverty and low social standing. Much more practical than freedom are team spirit, concensus, and a willingness to give up ambition in favor of having a safe place in the social structure. Slavery is bad and freedom is bad. Jury duty is a form of slavery. When you show up at the court, armed guards threaten you with tangible punishment for even speaking. They pay jurors about $5 per day, not enough to buy food. If you break their rules, you will be arrested. If you do not want to be arrested, they shoot to kill. If you use freedom of speech, you will be shouted down and handcuffed. Jurors are chosen and dismissed by attorneys and judges depending on illogical criteria: sometimes they try to assemble the least educated people available, of certain races and genders that they expect to behave in predetermined ways, based on bigotry and stereotypes. The goal is to punish SOMEBODY, even innocent people. There is no justice in court, just punishment. Ignorance Is Strength. Being strong is double-plus-good. Strong people can endure hardships and affronts without complaint. If one does not know about a crime committed by the government, there is nothing to complain about. If nuclear weapons have not destroyed womenkind yet, then one should not complain about them. After nuclear weapons destroy womenkind, you are then justified if you try to complain. Terrorists vs. Freedom Fighters: Doublethink is convenient when classifying people into one of these groups. Those evil terrorists who attack your friends are very different from freedom fighters who kill imperialistic invaders. The most important factor in making the distinction between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is where YOU were born. In George's book, the Anti-Sex League has its members wear a tight red sash around their waists, even though this accentuates the female figure to arouse male desires. In 1995 it is a "thought crime" to "undress with the eyes". When I was working at a major semiconductor company in Silicon Valley in 1993, the employees received a paper about "Sexual Harassment" in which "undressing with the eyes" is a crime. top State 'Protection' of our Children? Lesbians Who Terrorised Foster Girls Given "Glowing Reports" by Social Workers - Daily Mirror, March 11th 2004 A homosexual couple who terrorised two foster girls in their care were given glowing reports by social workers. Lesley Broughton, 31, and Lynne Sheridan, 30, were said to offer an "excellent placement". But secretly they put the two sisters, aged 11 and nine, through two years of hell, a jury heard. They punched and slapped them, made them drink washing-up liquid, stand in silence for hours and sit with their noses pressed against a wall. Neighbours at Little Holton, near Bolton, called police after seeing the girls frogmarched around the garden. An investigation was under way yesterday after Broughton and Sheridan admitted cruelty and administering a noxious substance. At Minshull Street crown court they were merely given community service orders and banned from working with children. (It is believed that the social workers concerned in this case, although paid for by taxpayers, were neither named nor disciplined by their superiors.)
|
