“Until the police address the issue as to why people don’t want to report it, they are never going to get a handle on it That is not just for drug-rape victims. That is for all victims.”Women Against Rape is dismissive of the Acpo study and is calling for more comprehensive investigations into individual rape cases. “This is what they are supposed to have been doing all along,” said a spokeswoman “It’s not more research that’s needed. They just need to investigate each rape case properly.”Elizabeth Udall, author and Cosmopolitan magazine’s expert on sexual assault, says that the police are often “quite disbelieving” of victims who report drug-rape attacks.”It’s a massive issue for women and the number of cases we are hearing about is climbing,” Ms Udall said “You feel that you are not going to be believed Also by the time you do report it, the evidence has gone. Moreover, the US Congress had already endorsed a policy of regime change in Iraq.Mr Bush had one further advantage. Out of a blue sky, American was subjected to an unprovoked attack. Since then, it has been possible to convince enough American voters that the US cannot guarantee its safety merely by defending its own borders.

That is why the President is ahead in the presidential polls.In Britain, it is different. The Americans can be persuaded that it is necessary to act to prevent another 11 September. The British are more likely to believe that by acting in support of the Americans, we will provoke an 11 September on our own soil.There is no doubt that by committing ourselves to be America’s foremost ally we did indeed increase the short-term danger to ourselves Again, that is a matter for political leadership. From the outset, however, he was much more forthright about his broader goals. He also thought it was safe to duck the challenge because, like almost everyone else, he was certain that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he could safely rest his case on them.George Bush was equally in error over WMD.

When Churchill became war leader, he promised blood, sweat, toil and tears – not headlines, sound-bites, spin and lies.There is a terrible irony. Mr Blair embraced the American cause on Iraq for the noblest of reasons. He was persuaded by the neo-Conservative analysis as expressed by George Bush: that until much of the Middle East ceased to be a Mordor of failed states, terrorism would be endemic, and that all roads to improvement led through Baghdad. Iraq could have been Tony Blair at his best, but only if he had summoned the moral authority to throw behind the cause.There, he did not even try, because he did not trust his country, his party or himself. These days, when they listen to Mr Blair, many people are primarily concerned to avoid being fooled again. It does not matter that Lord Hutton exonerated the PM or that the formidable criticisms in the subtle small print of the Butler report have been largely ignored. The public got the message that the PM had lied on crucial matters: intelligence, national security, peace or war.

That is the worst breach of faith which a prime minister can commit. For it means that when he needs to be listened to he will not be; that when he has to rally the nation, the nation will not respond.He is still trying to repair the damage by tricks and shams Over the weekend, he tried to evoke the Second World War Blair as Churchill; those clothes are far too big for him. Tony Blair on media manipulation; the next thing we know, he will be assuring us that he is a pretty straight sort of guy. Mr Blair does not seem to be aware of the extent to which he has forfeited public confidence – and it is all his own fault.There is an Arab proverb which now summarises many voters’ opinion of their PM; “Fool me once, shame on you Fool me twice, shame on me”. Kill enough of us, and we will run away.Over the past few days, the British press has hardly set out to refute that view Terrorists tend to strike when they think they see weakness.