British Government Votes To Renew Nuclear Deterrent Trident

Submarine carrying a Trident missile

The British government was mulling whether to dispose of its nuclear deterrent Trident, which is a missile system. Yesterday, Parliament voted in favor of renewing Trident. I'm a peaceful, optimistic person, but I'm also a realist. In this day and age, western countries need to be sensible regarding national security. Britain, the world's fifth largest economy, needs a nuclear deterrent. It does not have to be on the level of Trident or at such a staggering cost, but a nuclear deterrent is needed. 

Britain should also maintain its own nuclear deterrent, which is not currently the case. Maintaining one's own nuclear deterrent, would also create more jobs in Britain, helping the economy. Additionally, the British government should employ more inventive scientists who are loyal to the country, to create technology to protect the nation (detection systems, weapons jammers ect).

STORY SOURCE 

MPs vote to renew Trident: Jeremy Corbyn suffers biggest rebellion of his leadership as Britain's nuclear deterrent backed by 472 to 117
 

19 July 2016 1:08am - Jeremy Corbyn has been heckled and accused of lying by his own MPs and told he was “defending the countries’ enemies” as he announced he would vote against renewing Trident. MPs on Monday night overwhelmingly backed renewing the Trident nuclear deterrent by 472 to 117 - a majority of 355 votes - which means it is secure for a generation. Mr Corbyn suffered the biggest rebellion of his leadership as 140 Labour MPs supported renewal despite his opposition while just 47 voted against...

 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk

The European Union Must Address Immigration Imbalances Threatening Select Member Nations Economic Future And Stability

 

European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium

 

The European Union is going through a transition period, as Britain recently voted to leave the EU. Without Britain's vast contribution of 350 million British pounds per month (19 billion British pounds per year) and other benefits, which could go in the next two years if the British government completes the process, the European Union will be working with significantly less money and resources. Hence the immense anger last week from select politicians in the European Union. However, it is better to be civil, as the British people have spoken and this is their democratic vote. Britain has been a great partner in the European Union and trade can continue that is beneficial to both parties.

The European Union must not be inflexible, which is what drove millions of British voters away. Concerns were not be heard regarding massive migration from other parts of the European Union and the strain and constraints it has placed on Britain. The United Kingdom’s massive population boom courtesy of immigration overwhelmed the system. Uneven levels of immigration became a massive problem, which sparked the success of the leave vote. As a recommendation to avoid any nation in the European Union buckling or outright collapsing due to this issue, the freedom of movement law needs to be revisited and revised.

The majority of the European Union traffic poured into Britain, namely London, England and overwhelmed their systems. Transportation, schools, hospitals and benefits offices became overwhelmed by the influx of millions of new permanent residents, many of whom are now receiving generous financial benefits and housing, as they came to Britain below the poverty line. Sensing the problem that was brewing, in 2009 the Judiciary Report published the article "Britain's Benefits" and a follow up entitled "Britain's Benefits Part 2" to recommend the benefits system be revised.  

 

London, England (UK)

 

In America immigrants must wait for years before obtaining benefits and still have to meet certain stringent criteria (one must be sick or disabled). Food stamps and modest cash assistance is only granted to healthy people who are well below the poverty line and with children. The majority of these changes were implemented under former U.S. President, Bill Clinton, to ensure people coming to America seek to work, not indefinitely live on benefits.

Last year, the British government attempted to negotiate a rule that would require immigrants live in Britain for 4-years before receiving benefits. This would ensure those coming to Britain intend to work and pay their way, rather than take financial and housing benefits from the state indefinitely. However, negotiations on the matter fell through.

If Britain proceeds with invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty to depart the European Union, a process that will take an estimated 2-years, Britain is going to get another massive influx as a last ditch attempt to enter the country from the EU. Then, upon Britain's completion of the process of leaving the European Union, immigration traffic will largely switch to Germany and France, two other sizeable economies in the EU. Germany and France are wealthy nations. Immigrants tend to migrate to nations that are the most economically prosperous and popular.

Paris, France 

 

To further illustrate the fact the Judiciary Report was correct in its aforementioned 2009 articles on benefits, in April of 2016, the German government began proposing and pushing for new rules regarding limiting immigrants access to receiving benefits upon landing in their nation (see external article excerpt below under STORY SOURCE for further information). It is not that one is being xenophobic. It's simple mathematics. The average nation cannot afford to give millions of immigrants financial and housing benefits indefinitely (many can't give said financial assistance on a short term basis either). It could bankrupt any country.

To compound issues for Germany, it is estimated they took in nearly 1,000,000 migrants last year from places like Syria. No disrespect to Syria, but once again, how will Germany pay for housing, feeding and clothing a record number of migrants and find said non-German speaking masses steady employment (it is easier to find employment in a nation if you speak the national language).
Which brings me back to my point, the immigration levels in the European Union are untenable. It needs to be evenly distributed among the 28 member nations, meaning each country has a quota of how many immigrants it will take per year. One or two nations can't take the bulk of the traffic. That's lopsided and the proverbial boat that is the EU will sink.

Berlin, Germany

For years millions in Europe poured out into Britain, namely London, England, a glamorous and wealth westernized city (and who can blame them, it's a great place to live). However, the European Union must be practical. No nation in this world can reasonably take that type of influx, year after year, many of whom are people who required financial and housing benefits, without damaging their economic structure. France and Germany are now in for the same influx Britain sustained from the EU and it is going to wreak economic havoc on them.

I love and respect France and Germany and don't want them to buckle under the financial pressure. I don't want the EU to collapse at all, but it is in a financially precarious place. Spain, a beautiful country, is having problems with a massive number of foreclosures, creating economic difficulties and stagnation. Greece, another beautiful country, is experiencing significant financial trouble and is seeking billions of dollars in bailout money.

The European Union must reform. Some of the rules need to change to strengthen the entire EU. You can't have key players in the European Union taking a financial walloping, as they are the back bone of the enterprise. If the key pillars crumble, the entire financial structure of the European Union will give way and collapse. Immigration must be handled in a more orderly fashion with even distribution. Proper budgetary constraints must be placed on nations in danger of collapsing, also accompanied by a regular assessment plan issued and implemented on how to get them out of said financial hole.

 

STORY SOURCE 

 

EU migration to Germany 'hits record high'

 
July 2, 2016 - Germany has proposed new legislation to limit EU migrants' access to welfare payments. Immigration to Germany from other European Union countries hit a new record of over 685,000 people last year, led by Romanians, Poles and Bulgarians, Die Welt daily said Saturday, citing official figures.

A total of 685,485 EU citizens arrived in Germany in 2015 while 303,036 left for a net increase of 382,449, the paper reported, saying it had access to data from the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF). Germany's economic success and relatively low unemployment has drawn people from the EU's poorer members in search of work and better lives.

Romanians topped the list of new arrivals in Germany last year with nearly 175,000, followed by Poles with almost 150,000 and Bulgarians with just over 70,000, Die Welt said.

Promises to limit immigration from other EU states played a key role in the campaign for Britain's membership referendum, which delivered a shock victory last week for the "leave" camp. In April, Germany tabled a proposed law to drastically limit EU migrants' access to welfare payments. Die Welt said a total of 4.1 million EU citizens currently live in Germany.
 

Berlin, Germany 

 

https://www.yahoo.com

 

RELATED ARTICLES 

 

200,000 New Homes Being Built In London In Response To Population Boom Needs To Go To Britons Who Really Need It 

 

British And American Journalists Call President Obama A ‘Hypocrite’ For Meddling In Brexit 

 

British Government Addressing Affordable Housing Requests In London 

 

The UK Leaders Debate 2015 And Britain’s Future 

 

Britain's Benefits Part 2 

 

Britain's Benefits

Donald Trump Using Brexit In Political Campaign To Plead His Case For The U.S. Presidency But It's Not The Same Thing

Donald Trump
 

U.S. presidential candidate, Donald Trump, used the Brexit victory, regarding Britain voting to leave the European Union (EU) as a platform to state he has international political credibility (but within hours proclaimed Brussels a country, when it is a city in Belgium). Trump has been stating he wants something similar for America and has voiced the same online and during political rallies. Trump used the Brexit win to bash U.S. President, Barack Obama and presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, both of whom publicly opposed Britain leaving the European Union, in the lead up to the vote.  

However, it's not the same thing. Brexit is not the same as Trump's political platform of banning Muslims from America and isolating Mexico. Britain has no rule excluding immigrants from any nation and the United Kingdom has more Muslims citizens than America. Brexit was about massive immigration from European Union states and the strain it created on the NHS (Nation Health System), overcrowding in schools, lack of affordable homes in London, as well as billions of pounds being paid out in cash and housing benefits to the influx of people who came to the country without financial support. Britons began struggling to get jobs and housing, then watched as their tax dollars went to people who had just landed in the country from other parts of the EU. 

 

Hillary Clinton

Brexit was about white, black and Arab people complaining about overcrowding and fewer jobs being available due to mass migration from the European Union, which is mostly white people. It wasn't a racial matter. However, Trump's campaign took on a racial tone, as he has insulted minorities - Mexicans, Muslims and blacks. Trump also insulted women with outright sexist statements and mocked the disabled, which is wholly unacceptable. That's a broad cross-section of people Trump has offended.

For the life of me I don't know why Trump chose this path. He could have been elected to office being the rich guy promising to turn around America's fortunes. Racism, sexism and xenophobia should not have been apart of his platform, ruining the prestigious name he once enjoyed, which was synonymous with wealth.  

Barack Obama

Democrats are now worried the success of the Brexit vote will give Trump an edge in the election, as it speaks to America's discontent with the economy. The Democrats' problem is compounded by the fact Clinton has experienced many disasters in the area of foreign policy. Proof of this being Benghazi, spying on the entire United Nations and getting caught while doing so, trying to illegally obtain the medical records of former Argentinean President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner and the illegal private email server scandal she is currently under criminal investigation for at the FBI.

RELATED ARTICLE

Presidential Poll: Americans Believe Donald Trump Would Handle The Economy Better Than Hillary Clinton

World Leaders Blaming Obama For Brexit

Barack Obama
 

World leaders, political pundits and journalists are blaming President Barack Obama for Brexit. In the April 25, 2016 article "British And American Journalists Call President Obama A ‘Hypocrite’ For Meddling In Brexit" the Judiciary Report warned that Obama flying to Britain and arrogantly threatening journalists and the British public to vote to remain in the European Union (EU) or else he would take negative action against the United Kingdom, was a bad idea. I don’t know what possessed him to do it. 

If a foreign leader flew into Washington and in a televised address began threatening Americans to vote how he says or he will punish the United States, it would go over horribly and rightly so. As a world leader you can’t go into other people’s countries browbeating and bullying them into doing your will. 

Rumors are rife in European political circles that heads of state and party politicians in the EU are squarely blaming Obama’s arrogance during the aforementioned trip to London, England for the British people voting against remaining in the European Union. Obama needs to stop asking others to do things he would not, because in America there is an appropriate rule that immigrants cannot get benefits for 4-years. During Bill Clinton’s time, he also reformed the welfare system regarding Americans and immigrants, in a way that helped to tame the nation’s finances.

A nation’s finances does not work by magic. Impractical and or excessive spending can cause any nation of the world to collapse. When a nation collapses it is not pretty - it leads to widespread poverty, social unrest and increased crime levels. It is a scenario to be avoided through proper financial, legal and social management. 

One of the biggest, richest and most influential nations in the EU, Germany, did not want to lose Britain from the European Union, as both nations have been paying a massive amount of their taxpayers money to help support the collective of nations. With Britain gone from the EU, Germany will have to do significantly more, as they have the most money and manpower. 

Considering Germany has already taken in 1,000,000 non-German speaking migrants who will need food, clothes, shelter and jobs, as well as the nation giving billions to the European Union, I hope their economy and tax coffers can sustain such a massive commitment. Germany is a strong and industrious country, but they are being stretched to the limit as well. German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, publicly stated she is in no rush to usher Britain out of the European Union, referring to the United Kingdom as a partner. Britain and Germany have done great business together. So have Britain and France and Spain, among others. 

British Prime Minister, David Cameron, bent over backwards to accommodate the EU. Britain gave 19 billion pounds per year and allowed millions of immigrants from the European Union into the United Kingdom. However, I do believe he sensed public dissatisfaction in the number of immigrants from the European Union and the issues it created with overcrowding in classrooms, the strain on the NHS and heavy demand on the benefits system. 

Last year I read a report stating Cameron was trying to negotiate a deal with the EU, stipulating immigrants could not apply for financial and housing benefits for four years after coming to Britain (it’s the same rule in America, which is not apart of the EU). The EU (headquartered in Brussels, Belgium) should have approved Cameron’s request if they wanted Britain to remain in the European Union. This was the major sticking point for the British public, Cameron tried to fix it, but the EU did not embrace it. 

British Home Secretary, Theresa May, also tried a last ditch attempt at fixing the issue. Last year May stated on British television that the government would like to implement a rule that stipulates immigrants coming to Britain should have a job lined up and financial means of support. Once again, the EU did not embrace it. 

History has repeatedly shown for centuries that when one is involved in politics, one must listen to and correctly gauge public sentiment. Never ignore public discontent. Look what it turned into for so many world leaders throughout time who refused the will of the people. The European Union lost the British people’s vote for this reason. 

Let’s be reasonable, millions of people from other parts of the European Union were emptying out into Britain, a nation that received an enormous amount of mass immigration. There should have been rules to assure immigration was done in a more controlled manner, to prevent any EU nation from breaking under the strain of immigration. However, the European Union rejected it.

From 2009 the Judiciary Report sensed public discontent in Britain regarding immigrants coming to the UK and immediately getting sizeable financial and housing benefits ( and ). The Judiciary Report made suggestions on how to reform the benefits system as the issue was turning into a powder keg for Britons, who felt they were being taken advantage of by immigrants. 

David Cameron

Once again, it wasn’t a matter of racism or xenophobia, as many of the immigrants from the European Union are white and many Brits have married them, but Britons losing benefits while seeing immigrants living very comfortably and in some cases lavishly off state money, due to the British government wanting to be hospitable in fulfilling their role in the EU and to political refugees seeking asylum, did a significant amount of political damage to the European Union’s cause. 

At the end of the day, some able bodied people would not work realizing they could just leave other parts of the European Union and plead poverty in Britain, then receive sizeable cash and housing benefits. Meanwhile, Brits born and raised in the United Kingdom, who have been working long hours for years, were not eligible for benefits (as in all countries with a benefits system, it is for the needy). Be honest, how would you feel if that happened in your country. 

Not everyone did this, as there are many French, Polish, German and Middle Eastern corner shops, phone stores, computer stores and clothing businesses I have bought goods and services from in Britain, run by hardworking immigrants, who work from sun up to sun down. However, let’s be honest, there are some immigrants that have been taking advantage of the British benefits system and this is what created the discontent among natives. 

To the Brits on the trains who get up early to go to work in business offices, stores, restaurants and on construction sites, among other places, it pained them that they have been working so hard, only to see immigrants claiming poverty getting generous financial and housing benefits (as seen in the newspapers). Some immigrants needed to understand that benefits are supposed to be within reason and for people who are sick, disabled or truly can’t find work, to stop them from becoming destitute and homeless. 

Newspapers such as the Daily Mail and the Mirror among others, began running credible stories showing immigrants who came to Britain and immediately got big benefits to the point they lived in middle class and upper class homes with multiple flat screen televisions, leather furniture, designer clothes and luxury shoes. They took advantage of the system due to their family size. The more family members and children you have in one household, the more benefits you receive and the bigger the property you will be housed in, all underwritten by the taxpayers. 

British homes are very nice and the bigger the house, the more lavish its appointments will be. Local councils had difficulty finding larger homes in more moderately priced areas of London, so big immigrant families ended up housed next to high earning judges and doctors. 

This is why in 2009 the Judiciary Report suggested the government house immigrants in places like the home counties, where there are big homes in nice neighborhoods at lower prices (Britain's Benefits). Surrey, England is nice and affordable. However, some immigrants registered for benefits in London, England, wanting to be in the heart of the fabulous capital and this is where another problem occurred for the government. 

The new rule should be immigrants applying for benefits are automatically housed in the home counties, because large London homes for big families is too expensive for the taxpayers to underwrite in benefits cases. There are many hardworking Britons in the home counties, who live in nice homes and travel to London via train for work or to enjoy the many activities in the capital. It’s workable. At the end of the day, as an immigrant, someone is giving you a chance at a new life. Be understanding, take the opportunity and make the most of it.

HERE ARE A FEW ITEMS FROM SOCIAL NETWORKING REGARDING OBAMA AND BREXIT:

 

STORY SOURCE

 Nigel Farage: Britons voted for Brexit because Obama told them not to
 

June 24, 2016, 12:01 pm - A leading figure in the British push to exit the European Union says President Obama accidentally helped the Brexit cause. Nigel Farage on Friday said Obama's calls for the United Kingdom to stay in the EU caused people to vote to leave. “Threatening people too much insults their intelligence,” the United Kingdom Independence Party head said. 

“A lot of people in Britain said, ‘How dare the American president come here and tell us what to do?’ ” Farage continued on Sirius XM’s “Breitbart News Daily,” citing Obama’s U.K. trip in April. “It backfired. We got an Obama-Brexit bounce, because people do not want foreign leaders telling them how to think and vote.” 

Obama warned Britain against leaving the EU during a visit in April, saying it could hurt potential trade deals with the U.S. “The U.K. is going to be in the back of the queue,” he said during an appearance alongside Cameron. “Not because we don’t have a special relationship but because given the heavy lift of any trade agreement, us having access to a big market with a lot of countries rather than trying to do piecemeal trade agreements is hugely inefficient.” 

Donald Trump on Friday mocked Obama for being on the losing side in the Brexit vote. “The world doesn’t listen to him,” the presumptive GOP presidential nominee said during a press conference in Turnberry, Scotland. Trump said he wholeheartedly backed Britain’s decision to leave the EU and once again forge its own path. “You just have to embrace it,” he said. "It’s the will of the people. What happened should have happened, and they’ll be stronger for it.” 

Farage on Friday said Britain’s exit from the EU could ultimately jeopardize the organization’s existence. “I think we’ve changed not just the future of British history, I’m sure the European Union project itself will come tumbling down. People power can beat the establishment if they try hard enough."...

http://thehill.com

Obama’s credibility takes a beating after Brexit vote

June 24, 2016 | 11:21pm President Obama ate a serving of humble pie Friday after Britain ignored his advice and voted to leave the European Union. “Yesterday’s vote speaks to the ongoing changes and challenges raised by globalization,” Obama said while attending a tech conference in Silicon Valley. 

“The world has shrunk. It is ­interconnected . . . It promises to bring extraordinary benefits, but it also has challenges,” Obama said. One of those challenges is to the president’s credibility, which is taking a beating after he heavily advocated for the Brits to remain in the EU. Conor McCann, a Dublin-based political-affairs analyst, wondered if Obama’s lost Europe. “Obama, with his great status in Europe — if he couldn’t sway it, it’s an indication things have changed,” McCann told Bloomberg News. 

In April, Obama traveled to the UK in part to advocate that it remain in the EU. He even threatened the UK directly, saying it would have to go to the “back of the queue” in trade negotiations with the United States because the EU is so much bigger. On Friday, the president’s language was far more deferential. “Based on our conversation, I’m confident that the UK is committed to an orderly transition out of the EU,” he said...

Presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump rubbed salt in the wound on his trip to Scotland. “A lot of people don’t like him,” Trump said of Obama. Trump, who backed the “Leave” campaign, added, “I was actually very surprised that President Obama would’ve come over here and he would’ve been so bold as to tell the people over here what to do.” 

http://nypost.com

German chancellor Angela Merkel is in no hurry to see Britain go Reuters

Jun. 25, 2016, 6:52 PM - Germany (Reuters) - German Chancellor Angela Merkel called on Saturday for clear-headed negotiations with "close partner" Britain over its departure from the European Union. Foreign ministers of the EU's six founding members had earlier said Britain should leave the bloc as soon as possible after Britons voted on Thursday to quit the 28-member bloc. However, Merkel struck a more conciliatory tone. 

"The negotiations must take place in a businesslike, good climate," Merkel said after a meeting of her conservative party in Hermannswerder, outside Potsdam, to the west of Berlin. "Britain will remain a close partner, with which we are linked economically," she said, adding that there was no hurry for Britain to invoke Article 50 of the EU treaty - the first step it must take to set in motion the exit process. 

"It should not take ages, that is true, but I would not fight now for a short time frame," Merkel said, in contrast with the more urgent call by the foreign ministers of Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, who were meeting to the north of the German capital... 

https://www.yahoo.com

RELATED ARTICLES

British And American Journalists Call President Obama A ‘Hypocrite’ For Meddling In Brexit

British Government Addressing Affordable Housing Requests In London

Britain's Benefits Part 2

Britain's Benefits

British Government Employees Need To Quickly Move Forward After Brexit

David Cameron

To reassure Britons and consumers worldwide, the British government needs to move forward quickly after the historic Brexit vote last week, regarding leaving the European Union. Though British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has resigned stating he will leave in October 2016, he is still Britain’s leader until a suitable replacement is appointed. Therefore, Britain is not and has not been without a Prime Minister during this transition period. Britain is not without governance. 

There have been other resignations in the respective Conservative and Labour parties (mainly the latter). Those positions need to be quickly filled, to get back to the business of serving the British people. The government needs to eschew public discord and remember, “Keep calm and carry on.” 

No one in government unhappy with Brexit or anyone else outside of Britain, should act vindictively (*looks at mean spirited, threat issuing Barack "push you to the back of the trade queue" Obama, whom world leaders are blaming for Brexit*), because at the end of the day, the United Kingdom has a large, influential economy and there is money to be made in the country. Britain is still a good place to do business, as the British people are great consumers. Foreign businesses with stores/locations in Britain, such as Nandos, Pret-a-Manger, Nero and Costa (immigrant owned),  among others, are companies making big money in the United Kingdom. 

For others listening to the fear mongering, it would be unwise to pull out of Britain, one of the richest nations in the world, with a population of 60,000,000, all potential consumers for your businesses. Britain has the 5th largest economy in the world. To discount Britain would be an unwise business decision, as there are enormous sums of money that can be made in the United Kingdom. 

In the area of finance, many businesses require financing and would pay interest on loans. Parents need loans for children to go to university. Britons by food, clothes, cars and household goods. It is a very viable, big market. The sports industry is also worth a fortune in Britain.

RELATED ARTICLES

 

British And American Journalists Call President Obama A ‘Hypocrite’ For Meddling In Brexit

 

British Government Addressing Affordable Housing Requests In London

 

Britain's Benefits Part 2

 

Britain's Benefits

David Cameron Will Not Seek Third Term As British Prime Minister

David Cameron and Boris Johnson

British Prime Minister David Cameron has announced he will not seek a third term in office as political head of state (The Queen is the sovereign head of state). Cameron made some tough decisions while in office, that some may not have agreed with, but it benefited Britain. Cameron made necessary budget cuts that have helped to turn Britain’s fortunes around. The nation is now posting positive economic growth, after the devastating 2008 financial crisis that began on Wall Street.

A popular conservative frontrunner for Prime Minister is London Mayor, Boris Johnson. When I was in London in 2012, I saw a gathering featuring him on Victoria Street and the public treated him like a rock star. People connected with the sometimes goofy, well educated politician. As goofy as he can be at times, Johnson has implemented a number of successful programs regarding transportation, recycling and housing.

RELATED ARTICLE

The British Economy Is Now 'Bigger Than Any Time In History'

18-Year-Old African-American Girl Becomes The Youngest Person To Pass The Bar Exam In Britain

Gabrielle Turnquest

A super intelligent 18-year-old from Windemere, Florida, Gabrielle Turnquest, who is of Bahamian descent, has become the youngest person to pass the bar exam in Britain. That is amazing. What an extraordinary young woman. The Judiciary Report takes its hat off to you. Well done. The White House should give her an award for this wonderful feat.

People online sometimes refer to females who act out and show out, as a "bad b****" calling it a compliment. Well, this young lady, Gabrielle, isn't a "bad b****" - she's a brilliant young woman, who is the real deal. She is a young woman that used her mind and not her behind and has achieved something great.

Teens today should aspire to such greatness, not getting their boobs and butts out online, mimicking debauched reality stars and untalented singers for attention from thirsty males objectifying them, then tossing them aside for the next new famous bimbo. 

STORY SOURCE

Gabrielle Turnquest, Florida Teen, Becomes Youngest To PassBar Exam In UK

London Is Burning (The Summer 2011 Riots)

Firefighters battling a blaze in England, where buildings have been set on fire by rioters

The riots that have taken a hold of London, England and now northern city, Manchester, England, have gone on for four nights in a row. The trouble began when a senior police official refused to speak to a community activist and the family of a slain man, Mark Duggan, who was killed in a taxi cab by an officer. What began as a peaceful protest in Tottenham, East London, turned into full on riots, where buildings were looted and set on fire. Vehicles were also torched.

Firefighters fighting the blaze as police stand by

The police are going to have to work on how they interact with the populace, especially young Britons, who feel they are being targeted. Regrettably, with the police's credibility with the public at an all time low, thanks to revelations in the News International/News Corp phone hacking scandal, tensions have boiled over, as the average citizen, once again, especially young males, believe they are not being treated fairly.

Police officers standing in front of blazing buildings

Many young and old people are out of work, due to the global economic downturn, which began in America. The British economy has begun to show growth, on its way to a recovery. Due to university cuts, some that wish to go to school, can't afford to do so.

Londoners look on at a building in Tottenham that was set ablaze the previous night

Cuts are quite necessary, because in all nations, there will be abuses, but the poor and middle class must always be protected, as the most vulnerable in society, when it comes to finances. By all means, pay one's taxes, but the government should also do its part to ensure Britons have every opportunity available to them. More compromises need to be struck regarding university tuition.

Mark Duggan

All and all, the British government does do a lot for its citizens and should be commended for that. Over the years, I've been quite impressed at what I have witnessed. However, there are a few areas that need to be reassessed, such as police issues. Community cooperation is also needed, between the public and the police, if these very serious issues are to be properly resolved.

Football Games In England Are Being Cancelled Due To Riots

You Know It's Serious When Football Games Are Being Cancelled

Due to the rioting in England, several English Premier League football matches have been abruptly cancelled. The measure was taken out of concerns for public safety. This development has saddened many in Britain, a football loving nation, as the new season is scheduled to kick off shortly.

David Cameron Addressing Benefits Fraud

British Prime Minister, David Cameron and wife, Samantha Cameron

Over the course of the 12-years the Labour Party were in office, the British taxpayer potentially spent 84 billion pounds on exorbitantly doled out benefits, that often profited foreigners ahead of native born citizen, causing Britons to feel displaced.

The benefits should be granted only when necessary and in an even, equitable and prudent manner. Certainly, help those that need it, such as the disabled and the elderly, but those who are able to work, should not be bankrolled and underwritten by the State.

The British taxpayers cannot continue to foot such a hefty benefits bill, taking from working families to give to those that do not wish to work. This will also benefit the economy, as more people will be working and being productive.

It is good that Prime Minister Cameron has begun addressing benefits waste and fraud, as it has the potential to completely wipe out and destroy the British economy. Britain has too much going for it to let that happen.

The British people need to remember their history and legacy, as one of the most prosperous empires that has ever existed and work to keep the tradition going.

RELATED ARTICLES

Britain's Benefits

Britain's Benefits - Part 2

Muslim Protesters Attack British Soldiers

This week, anti-British, Muslim protesters in England, Muslims Against the Crusades (MAC), booed and spat at returning UK soldiers, who were stationed in Afghanistan.

The protest at the homecoming parade for the soldiers erupted into violence. Protesters should have had the decency to stay away from this particular event.

While the Judiciary Report does not agree with the wars in the Middle East, as George W. Bush lied to everyone about their true purpose, disrespecting soldiers by booing and spitting at them, is completely inappropriate and disgraceful.

Conservatives And Liberal Democrats To Form Government

British Prime Minister, David Cameron and wife, Samantha Cameron

With the pending political formation of a Conservative led, Liberal Democrat backed government on the horizon in United Kingdom, it gives both parties the chance to brainstorm and come up with ideas in the best interest of Britain.

Liberal Democrat chief, Nick Clegg

Though they share contrasting views, it could afford Britons the best of both worlds, if the most useful and beneficial ideas are distilled into one governing format.

Gordon Brown's Bigotgate

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown: woops!

A radio microphone betrayed British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, as he forgot it was on after he left a public engagement and it picked up embarrassing conversation between the incumbent and an aide. He referred to a citizen, Jillian Duffy, as a "bigoted" woman that used to support his Labour Party.

As a general rule, live microphones should be removed by a member of staff, when speaking engagements are over, as one day it could jeopardize the national security of a world government.

David Cameron

Next Thursday, May 6, 2010, is the British national election and based on polls, Conservative party chief, David Cameron, who has the better ideas for Britain, is currently the frontrunner, with Liberal Democrat, Nick Clegg, a close second.

Obama's Snubbing Of Britain

U.S. President Barack Obama

Persistent public criticism of U.S. President Barack Obama's snubbing of America's top ally, Britain, in his less than considerate treatment of accommodating British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has made its way into the current U.K. elections, set to take place on May 6, 2010.

It is now being said, challengers, frontrunner David Cameron and newcomer Nick Clegg, could scale back Britain's ties with America, if ether wins, in light of the perceived Obama snubs that have become "embarrassing." Britain certainly is not an enemy of America, supporting the nation for decades. Therefore, Obama's behavior is quite puzzling to many.

Liberal Democrat, Nick Clegg (left) Conservative, David Cameron (center) and Labour's Gordon Brown

Other high ranking British officials spoke out last month, seeking a reevaluation of relations between the two nations, deeming the "lapdog" image the Labour Pary, under former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, saddled Britain with, is unacceptable and harming Britain's image and interests in the world.

Could Britain's three-way end the "special relationship"?

Saturday, April 24, 2010 - Mr. Clegg's stance on those issues could
make some in Washington nervous. In a speech this week he called for a shakeup
in relations between the United States and the United Kingdom and described as
"embarrassing the way Conservative and Labor politicians talk in this kind of
slavish way about the special relationship." He added that there were "profound
differences" between the two countries and argued that the Obama administration
had already written off the idea that Britain was a special ally. "If they are
moving on, why on earth don't we?" he said.

Intentionally or not, Mr. Obama has offered support for Mr. Clegg's
argument: His relatively chilly relationship with Mr. Brown, including several
perceived snubs, has been a persistent theme of British news coverage. Yet the
United States can hardly afford a weaker or less friendly Britain at a time when
it is still fighting two wars and when diplomacy with states such as Iran, North
Korea and Syria is failing. Other longtime American allies, from Brazil to
Turkey, have begun opposing the Obama administration on Iran and other issues.
Though the next British government is unlikely to follow their course, Mr. Obama
would be wise to reaffirm the "special relationship."

http://www.washingtonpost.com

David Cameron's Political Platform Of A New Britain

Video: David Cameron's vision for Britain

British Conservative Party chief, David Cameron, is pledging a new Britain, in the event he and his contingent take the elections on May 6. 2010.

Cameron is vowing to make many positive changes to Britain, such as improving the economy and tax system, correcting MP finance issues and revamping the the currently broken benefits program and MP finance issues.

Britain could do with a change, to correct some of the financial deficiencies that have occurred over the last several years, as the nation has so much going for it that it would be a shame to not capitalize on that. The government should seek to build on that foundation.