Time to lay off Blair a bit?

SOMETIMES I feel sorry for Tony Blair. Put aside things like the dodgy dossier, cash for peerages and his style-over-substance rhetoric for just one moment and you'll see why.

Fair enough, he's got a lot wrong - and often doesn't seem to accept the fact - but to accuse him of being guilty of the River Ripper cases seems to be just daft.

Of course, people aren't blaming him for the actual crimes, but the circumstances which led up to the deaths of the five prostitutes.

Why? Apparently, it is because of his government's policy on prostitutes. And who is saying this? The rolling news channels, of course.

To be honest, they aren't actually blaming Labour for the deaths, but once they've done the breathless 15-minutes-with-the-normally-studio-bound-anchor-at-scene-because-it's-such-
a-big-story segment, its back to the one left behind in the studio to hold a debate on what is happening.

Hell, there's another 45 minutes to be filled and holding a debate is much cheaper than finding real news.

And so, less than 24 hours after the last two bodies were discovered in 'sleepy Suffolk' (I assume that is its full title, and maps have only ever given an abbreviation, because that's what everyone has been calling it for two days) we're into the debate about who should take the rap for what went on.

Because simply catching the killer isn't enough. Let the public floggings begin.

It's a trend which has been going on for a while. The last crime news story to warrant the TV stars out of their interactive studios and into the depths of middle England was the tragic double death of Holly and Jessica back in 2002.

The Bichard enquiry came into being after Holly and Jessica's killer, Ian Huntley, was sent down - that's about a year after they died.

But as each major news event comes and goes, the TV channels seem determined to fill more of their non-stop hours with breathless coverage covering all angles as soon as possible, we now have this ridiculous situation.

The prime minister being blamed for the deaths of five women in Ipswich. Because his policy on prostitutes leaves them at risk.

And just what is his policy? By my reckoning, it's the same as everyone previous government. Prostitution is illegal. Those who take part in it are breaking the law.

What's the alternative? To molly-coddle those involved? To create a safe environment? Would those people who condemn Blair's policy then not round on him for another example of the nanny state?

Sometimes, as Prime Minister, can you just not win?