But David, the MEN didn\’t just: \”find the news, the facts, and present them to the reader,\” the MEN published gushing editorials supportive of Richard Leese\’s return to office and effectively dismissed a serious incident, an assault, as nothing more than \’a bit of a domestic\’ (and in my opinion lost all journalistic credibility in the process). That was shameful journalism, because we\’re not in the 1970s or 1980s any more and, just like domestic violence is no longer acceptable and just as corporal punishment was abolished long ago, it should no longer be acceptable, in this day and age, to excuse or dismiss physically abusing a child.

A lot of progress has been made over the past couple of decades regarding domestic violence between adult partners, with the media nowadays quite rightly reporting – and promoting and editorialising – the idea of zero tolerance. Why doesn\’t that kind of zero tolerance similarly apply to Leese hitting his stepdaughter? The tone of MEN coverage was very sympathetic towards Leese, to his plight and the future of his political career, along the lines that he ought to be given a \’get out of jail free card\’ because he\’s an influential politician. Unfortunately, physical abuse committed by adults against children is still, in some sections of society, viewed as a parental prerogative, much like domestic violence used to be dismissed as \’a bit of a domestic\’. The MEN is failing the children of Manchester by going along with that out-dated idea.

I do not recall any articles around that time in the MEN (although I\’d be happy to stand corrected if you provide links, because I don\’t think I read the paper every day and might have missed them) that raised the issue of child abuse in Manchester, the numbers of children \’looked after\’ or on the \’at risk register\’ due to proven physical abuse or allegations or concerns of physical abuse, and how there\’s a clear conflict of interest where the leader of Manchester City Council has admitted assaulting a child and yet the local authority Leese leads has a legal duty to protect and look after children.

Only a couple of weeks ago the MEN itself reported on a legal case where a settlement had been reached and compensation agreed relating to historical instances of abuse in Manchester City Council\’s children\’s homes. http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1242347_huge_payout_for_victims_of_child_abuse

That case related to historical instances of abuse (to be perfectly clear, those cases relate to children\’s homes and didn\’t involve Leese). But how on earth can children in Manchester feel safe and secure and reassured that kind of thing won\’t happen again when even this year, a person in a position of authority in Manchester City Council has assaulted a child, but following a caution and a slap on the wrist and a \”sorry\” he\’s back at work and it\’s business as usual? If a child \’looked after\’ by Manchester City Council feels they have been mistreated and wants to make allegations of abuse, and feels they can\’t trust staff within social services, perhaps because they\’re the people against whom the child is wanting to make allegations, what are they supposed to do? Are they supposed to write a complaint to the leader of the council, a man who has himself admitted assaulting a child and who, presumably, would now fail a CRB check and wouldn\’t be able to work in any of Manchester City Council\’s schools or youth centres or children\’s homes himself? How is it possible that someone who would be precluded from working in those facilities, is perhaps even precluded from visiting them, can be leading the council that runs the education department and youth services and social services? How can the social services department reassure children in its care that there\’s a zero tolerance policy towards abuse when the leader of the council has not only admitted assaulting a child, but is surrounded by colleagues and supporters who sideline child protection issues in favour of political expediency?

Leese had lots of political party colleagues championing his cause, and Leese also had the MEN championing his return. Who is championing the rights of Manchester\’s children, not just those who are \’looked after\’ but those at risk of harm as well? Who\’s championing a zero tolerance attitude relating to adults hitting children? The MEN certainly isn\’t, because it\’s apparently okay to hit a child, so long as you\’re an influential politician and you did it in the heat of the moment during an argument about a cat, in which case that\’s all right then. There\’s a perception in society, and the media is partly to blame for continuing to propagate it, that so long as you\’re not one of them \’real\’ child abusers, the kind that\’s a member of the underclass, if you\’re \’one of us\’ it can\’t be child abuse, it doesn\’t count. That appals and saddens me and makes me afraid for children in the care system.

And when you say: \”It wasn�t the MEN that voted for Richard to stay on � it was the Labour group, and the council,\” you\’re rebutting a point I never made. I never said that the MEN voted for Richard to stay on, so to issue a denial is a spurious point, and in any event they\’re his colleagues and mates so, to mis-quote Mandy Rice-Davies, \”Well they would do that, wouldn\’t they?\” I wouldn\’t necessarily have expected any better of the Labour group and the council. But I would have expected the MEN to be more independent and critical in the sense of critical thinking, not to be so partisan and sycophantic. What I said was that the MEN editorialising was supportive of Leese and his return to office. I still believe that to be the case and I stand by that assertion. If you\’re going to issue rebuttals and denials, then at least try to rebut and deny points that I\’ve actually made instead of making them up and mis-attributing them to me.

Gathering together to raise much-needed funds to help with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Larry King brought out his celebrity pals to the CNN Building in Los Angeles, California on Monday evening (June 21).

With Ryan Seacrest, Ke$ha, Nicole Richie and Pete Wentz among those on-hand, the Hollywood stars busily answered phones during the two-hour telethon special “Disaster in the Gulf: How You Can Help”.

In the end, Larry and the gang raked in over $1 million to be dished out to United Way, the National Wildlife Foundation and the Nature Conservancy.

With Justin Bieber recording a special message for the event, other big names pitching in on the worthwhile cause included Cameron Diaz, Chelsea Handler, Jenny McCarthy, Giuliana Rancic, Kathy Griffin, Ryan Seacrest, Alyssa Milano and Ian Somerhalder.