Paul Flynn MP - Plot loser and libelist

Libelist Mp(who made false allegations against a company the other year and had to pay out a large libel payment, yet lacks the moral fiber to resign) Paul Flynn rambles on and on and on again and again in the house....

Congratulations to the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) on raising the subject. I join in his congratulations to our soldiers in Afghanistan on their courage and professionalism, but I cannot share any of his optimism. I feel a sense of hopelessness about the whole operation. We all pray that it will be a success, but there is very little to suggest that it can be. ** Nice to see New Labour back bench MP's behind the drugs war. Anyone think he has a point to make there?

The likely outcome is the "Colombianisation" of the whole of central Asia, and the possibility that we are entering into our own British Vietnam. Look at the experience of the Russians: they went into Afghanistan with great hope and confidence, but they were there for 10 years and lost 15,000 soldiers. When they left, there was an army of mujaheddin of 30,000 surrounding Kabul because the occupation antagonised Afghanistan's population. We know that the answer to terrorism is not to go in with guns blazing, but to win the hearts and minds of the people. By going into Helmand province we are losing the hearts and minds of the people. The province has been relatively peaceful, but it has one economy: growing poppies. The rest of the economy was destroyed, partly by the Soviet invasion. We are about to go in and eradicate the region's only means of support and the only way for its people to escape the dirt poverty of their existence. ** Yes the Russians went in years ago, the CIA/FBI supplied the Afgans with weapons/advisors to help them fight the war - hardly the same case really is it? Also what do you call the rebuilding projects in Afganistan if not "hearts & minds?" - after all a large part of what the UK is doing in Afganistan is rebuilding after decades of war, I liked the bit about comparing it to Vietnam, cast the worry out into the media before the mission starts....

There is an alternative, which is to respond to another crisis in the world. If someone in a developing country is dying of AIDS or other diseases, there is only a 6 per cent. chance that they will get relief from their agony by using diamorphine. There is a world shortage of the drug. Some 70 per cent. of the world's supply of morphine is used in 7 per cent. of developed countries, so there is little chance of it being available for someone in a developing country. In Afghanistan, we are destroying the raw material for making morphine, as it is also the raw material for making heroin. The alternative is to license some of the poppy growers in the Helmand province, to win them over to our side, and to solve the problem of the world shortage of morphine. That is a simple solution. It is not guaranteed success and there are difficulties involved, but it offers at least some hope. The alternative is one of hopelessness. ** Ah now we have wandered off the Afgan problem to something else, no change there for Mr Flynn

Let us look at the experience elsewhere in the world where something similar has been tried, and let me explain why we use the word "Colombianisation". The problem of Colombia was considered very simple as far as the United States and world opinion was concerned: they would go in and destroy the coca crops, which have been grown in south America for a thousand years as an appetite suppressant and for use against altitude sickness. However, it was ingested in such a way that there was not the high that we in the west get when we use it in the form of cocaine. After nearly two decades of suppression of the coca crop, the result is no improvement. The amount of coca on the world market is exactly the same because of the squeezed balloon principle: if we reduce crop production in Colombia—it has been reduced—it expands elsewhere, for example in Peru and Bolivia. The amount on the streets in the United States is the same as it was. ** Bloody hell now he is trying to bring Columbia into the equation, no thats another story altogether.

Going into Afghanistan was justified on the grounds of attacking the Taliban and al-Qaeda, but it was also justified on the basis that it produced 90 per cent. of the heroin on the streets of Britain. What is the situation now? It is exactly the same. Have we reduced the crop? Not at all. In fact, the heroin on our streets is now cheaper than ever because there is a greater supply than ever. We have achieved nothing in the years there. Our mission—the British soldiers' mission—is to eradicate the crops. There has been a reduction of 20 per cent. in the area cultivated, but a reduction of only 2 per cent. in the amount of heroin produced, because of increased production. If the mission were successful and we destroyed the entire crop of Afghanistan poppies, all that would happen would be increased planting in Myanmar, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and north Pakistan. But that eradication will not happen; the squeezed balloon principle will operate. So we are on a mission impossible as far as the eradication of poppies is concerned. ** Fast enough to critise, yet your solution is what exactly....Er nothing except to bleat about how bad things are. Reminds me of that chap in Dads Army who used to keep saying "Were DOOMED" at every setback...

Far more dangerous is what we will do with the population of Helmand province. If we are successful and reduce the poppy crops, we will affect farmers there, who want to make a living. That is their primary motivation. Four of them were here last week, talking about their position. They would love to go into the legal production of opium for morphine. They want a peaceful future, but we are repeating exactly the folly of the Russians, who created the mujaheddin and incited them, and who were driving the Helmand farmers into the arms of the Taliban. ** No the Russians had their own plans for Afganistan, ours is a different plan based not on torture and imperial expansion but cooperation and development. Harping back to the Cold War days is no good as the world has changed a lot since then, even if the dead idea of socialism has not.

I do not wish to add to the fears of the families who today saw off their loved ones, but I believe that we are sending our troops into the gravest danger. You asked for brevity, Mr. Weir. I should have liked to go on at some length, but I shall make my points briefly. I am more concerned about this military expedition than any other that we have ever taken. We are putting our brave soldiers at the gravest possible risk by sending them to Helmand province. There is no precedent of success in such circumstances. Operation Enduring Freedom has become operation enduring stupidity. **Yes our troops are going to a dangerous part of the world, and need not some windbag out to make cheap political points at their expense. According to you Enduring Freedom and the other lefty losers of Nu Labour has not worked, tell that to the people helped by terrorist thugs like Saddam being removed from power.

The idea that we can eliminate a drug at the supply stage has been proved to be false. In a report published by the Government's strategy unit, Lord Birt—who no longer works there—emphasises again and again that we cannot eliminate drug use from the supply side because of the enormous demand and the sums of money to be made. We must solve the drugs problem on the streets of Chicago, Cardiff and London; otherwise, the enormous demand there will suck in the drugs. The trade is lubricated by the huge amounts of money made at every stage, from the poppy field to the street corners. There answer is not to try to destroy the supplies. That has been a total failure. We spent much money and achieved no reduction. ** My god can this man whaffle! The biggest windbag to come out of Wales since Neil Kinnock and about as successfull to!

One of our newspapers had a headline on the subject yesterday and was mocked for its pains by a Minister at the Foreign Office, who mentioned the muesli-eating and The Independent-reading people who attend the first nights of Harold Pinter plays. That is a despicable attitude to something so serious. It is not a subject fit for humour. What The Independent wrote had an air of prophesy about it. Its front-page headline was "Into the Valley of Death". Someone looking back on this folly in ten years' time—a latter-day Tennyson—might well amend the words of Tennyson's poem about ministerial and officer folly to talk about the tragedy that is about to unfold. Tennyson started off by saying:

"Someone had blunder'd . . .

Their's not to reason why,

Their's but to do and die:

Into the valley of Death"—

or into the mouth of Helmand—drove the 5,000. ** Enough already, that ladies and gents is the loudmouth windbag and libelist MP Paul Flynn.

Some previous posts on libelist windbag and all round crap MP Paul Flynn...
http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2006/02/paul-flynn-mp-fucktard.html
http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2006/01/paul-flynn-libelist-mp-soft-on-drugs.html
http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2006/01/some-bits-on-jessica-morden-mp.html
http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2005/12/paul-flynn-convicted-of-libel-still.html
http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2005/11/paul-flynn-pays-out-36000.html
http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2006/01/labour-isnt-working-loudmouth-libelist.html
And for the cynics out there who want an outside source: Paul_Flynn

Paul Flynn's apology:
Recently Paul Flynn was involved in a libel case where he made comments about an endowment pensions company, the result of which he had to pay out damages. He was sued after he posted an attack on such companies on his website, claiming they were out to "re-rob" the victims of endowment mis-selling by dishonestly over-charging them for their services.
But he made the mistake of referring to well-regarded company Endowment Justice Ltd, which represents mis-selling victims on a "no-win, no-fee" basis. The company and its directors sued and at London's High Court Mr Flynn made a public apology for the "unjustified attack" on the claimants' integrity.
The MP as part of the settlement put the following statement on his website: On this website in February this year, I made certain statements referring to Endowment Justice Limited, one of the companies which offers assistance in obtaining compensation for those people who were mis-sold endowment policies. I have been campaigning against companies providing professional services in relation to endowment policy compensation claims, but my facts about Endowment Justice were incorrect. As a result, I wrongly accused the company and its directors Nick Keca, Marianne Fitzjohn and Graeme Webber of having previously mis-sold endowment policies and now dishonestly overcharging those self-same victims to help them obtain compensation. I am happy to clarify that neither Endowment Justice Ltd or any of its directors were ever involved in any aspect of endowment policy selling. It was therefore false and unfair to suggest that they had profited from the historic mis-selling of endowment policies. I was also incorrect in stating that Endowment Justice, which offers its services in recovering compensation on a “no-win, no-fee” basis, could charge its customers up to 40% of any compensation gained. Endowment Justice in fact charge customers 17.5% plus VAT or 22.5% plus VAT of any compensation gained. I was wrong to give the unintended impression that the company or its directors acts in any way improperly or unlawfully in providing services to those seeking compensation for endowment policy mis-selling. I would like to apologise to Endowment Justice for my allegations, and to Mr. Keca, Ms. Fitzjohn and Mr. Webber for any embarrassment or distress caused by my false remarks.

.