The number of immigrants living in Britain has crossed seven million for the first time.

According to the Office for National Statistics, 7,040,000 immigrants account for one in eight people in the United Kingdom.

Immigrants increased by 21 percent to 575,000 in the United Kingdom, while emigrants numbering 336,000, have dropped to a lowest figure in six years.

Net immigration figure stood at 239,000 in 2010, which was the fourth highest level on record.

Eastern Europe immigrants' net inflow was 39,000 in 2010, which marked an eight-fold increase since 2009.

The figures also showed over a quarter of babies born in 2010 were born to foreign mothers.

According to the Office for National Statistics, foreign- born mothers, especially Polish migrants, had led to a rise in the birth rate for England and Wales as they comprised a large proportion of the childbearing-age population.

The figures are a setback for British Prime Minister David Cameron's pledge to cut net immigration to the "tens of thousands" by 2015.

Council leaders and head teachers have warned that rising birth rates have contributed to an unprecedented surge in demand for places in primary schools.

"The Coalition Government will have to face down some vested interests if they are to get anywhere near their target of tens of thousands," the Telegraph quoted campaign group, Migration Watch UK chairman, Sir Andrew Green, as saying.

Green described the current immigration figures as "completely unacceptable" but said it would take time for measures to bring levels down to take effect.

"Over the period of the previous government, Britain became addicted to immigration and any programme of weaning someone off an addiction does take time and patience and persistence", he said.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has defended the UK's human rights laws, saying they have done much to protect the vulnerable and the powerless.

Writing in the Guardian, he said governments had "belittled" and "trashed" such laws in recent years.

However, Mr Clegg said the Human Rights Act was often manipulated and called for a "sensible discussion" about how it should be interpreted in future.

The Conservatives want to scrap the act and replace it with a Bill of Rights.

However, in his article, Mr Clegg rejected repealing the act and said the Liberal Democrat position was that any potential Bill of Rights would bolster current laws and "protect other British liberties, such as the right to jury trial."

Last week Prime Minister David Cameron pledged to "get a grip" on cases where the current laws were used inappropriately.

The prime minister said that people should "understand the real scope of these rights and not use them as a cover for rules or excuses that fly in the face of common sense."

Agreeing with Mr Cameron, the Lib Dem leader said the "biggest problem" was that the Human Right Act is sometimes "manipulated not just by the media but by over-cautious officials" who use it to justify their decisions.

"It was, for example, of no help to anyone when police spokespeople blamed human rights for a decision to deliver a KFC meal to a fugitive on a roof," said Mr Clegg.

Responsibilities 'myth'
But, despite this, the deputy PM argues that human rights legislation in the UK has done much good and should be protected.

"[It has] been instrumental in preventing local authorities from snooping on law-abiding families, in removing innocent people from the national DNA database, in preventing rapists from cross-examining their victims in court, in defending the rights of parents to have a say in the medical treatment of their children."

Mr Clegg also rejected as a "myth" the view that people should lose human rights protection in some cases.

"[It] panders to a view that no rights, not even the most basic, come without responsibilities", he said, and that "criminals ought to forfeit their very humanity the moment they step out of line."

The European Convention on Human Rights protections - such as the right to a private and family life and freedom of expression - became directly enforceable in UK courts in 2000 via the Human Rights Act.

In his article, Mr Clegg also said the UK would seek to reform the European Court of Human Rights when it takes over chairmanship of the Council of Europe in November - in order to improve the speed and consistency of the court's decisions.

Campaigners have welcomed Mr Clegg's words.

Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti said: "This is a welcome intervention from the deputy prime minister and certainly not before time.

"The coalition was stitched together on a civil liberties ticket. You can't talk human rights in the Arab spring whilst trashing them at home all year round."

The chancellor's cover story for this lack of action is simple: the UK may be in a tight spot, but elsewhere looks worse

We are in "the most dangerous time for the global economy since 2008", George Osborne has rightly observed. And yet the chancellor also told MPs that the government would not do anything soon or directly to tackle the risks. Oh sure, he has plans to lower corporation taxes, and hack away at red tape and obstacles to entrepreneurs – which chancellor doesn't? But there is not a hope that such measures will boost growth in the short term. When it comes to keeping the economy afloat, that task has effectively been outsourced to the Bank of England. As for the mandarins at the Treasury, their sole job appears to be to cross their fingers and hope for the best.

This is the curious paradox of the coalition's economic policy: ministers will admit that things look dicey, but they plan to do effectively nothing to protect the UK from another sharp downturn, let alone improve its growth prospects. Make no mistake: the economic outlook is grim indeed. Just listen to the warning from the Bank's governor, Mervyn King, on Wednesday, as he slashed the forecast for GDP growth this year to around 1.5%: the "headwinds" buffeting Britain's fragile economic recovery are becoming "stronger by the day".

The chancellor's cover story for this lack of action is simple: the UK may be in a tight spot, but everywhere else in the west looks terrible. Here, Mr Osborne does have a point. Starting at Calais, there is a debt crisis that has paralysed northern Europe and crucified governments in the south. On the western flank, Barack Obama has been floored by a tag team of Republicans and credit-rating agencies. Even in the former bright spots of Asia, there are doubts about the sustainability of China and India's boom. At a time when credit ratings for governments are being slashed and bond investors are shunning any but the safest bets, the chancellor can for now claim that the UK is a safe haven.

But there are two serious problems with this. First, there is no guarantee that the financial waters around the UK will remain placid. If there is a string of defaults in the eurozone – a prospect that no longer looks unlikely – a run on British banks may follow. Alternatively, the worries over the UK's growth prospects may get so intense that investors flee for other markets. Second, beyond stability there remains no plan for growth. The chancellor made clear that he would like the Bank to launch another round of quantitative easing, or pumping money into the financial system. Trouble is, there's no guarantee Mr King will play ball or that QE will work. In Washington, Berlin and London, heads of state are now relying on their central bankers to rescue the economy. That is neither democratic nor confidence-inducing.

 

How U.S. would deal with UK-style riots... by sending the Army to areas with 'large numbers of minority groups

As thugs have wreaked havoc with riots throughout the UK, many have speculated about what authorities should have done to put the violence to a swift end.

And it appears the U.S. has already got detailed plans in place should similar uprisings sweep across the Atlantic.

Experts have revealed that the military would immediately be drafted in - patrolling the streets with police officers and securing important buildings, landmarks and bridges.


Up in flames: Rioters have wreaked havoc on the streets of Great Britain

The operational plans, named CONPLAN 3501 and 3502, are said to have been drafted to combat mass outbreaks of disruption.

 


The Article states that 'Congress shall have power... to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions'.

THE 'INDICATORS OF POTENTIAL VIOLENCE'
1) High unemployment rate among minority groups

2) Increased crime rates among minority groups

3) Protests arising from income disparities between minority and majority groups

4) Declining rapport between local officials and minority groups

5) Migrations of large numbers of minority groups

6) Protests by minority groups to such conditions as slum conditions, segregation in housing and schools, lack of jobs, lack of recreational facilities, police brutality, and local overpricing practices.

The National Journal's White House correspondent, Marc Ambinder, first suggested the plans would be put into place in the eventuality of a riot with a tweet.

'If what happened in London ever happened in the US, the military has plans -- CONPLAN 3501 and 3502 -- to suppress the insurrection,' he wrote.

The plans, which are often referenced by conspiracy theorists and critics of martial law,  are rumoured already to have been activated after widespread looting following Hurricane Katrina.

They are also thought to have been used during the 1992 Rodney King riots in Los Angeles and the World Trade Organisation riots in 1999 in Seattle.

Graphics show how they would be implemented, with specific army officers in charge of different areas of the country.

The historic plans are accompanied by indicators as to when rioting might be predicted.

 

Tories on riot policing: too few, too slow, too timid

David Cameron is on a collision course with the police after the government used an emergency Commons debate on the English riots to issue a point-by-point dissection of the police's "insufficient" tactics during the week.

The prime minister praised the bravery of the police but said they had made a major miscalculation when violence first erupted in Tottenham on Saturday night after a demonstration over the shooting of Mark Duggan. Cameron said: "Police chiefs have been frank with me about why this happened. Initially the police treated the situation too much as a public order issue – rather than essentially one of crime. The truth is that the police have been facing a new and unique challenge with different people doing the same thing – basically looting – in different places all at the same time."

But a few hours later, home secretary Theresa May, who opened the lengthy Commons debate on the riots on Thursday, warned that the failure of the police to contain violence in the early part of the week jeopardised a core British tradition. "Policing by consent is the British way," May told MPs. "But the police only retain the confidence of the wider community if they are seen to take clear and robust action in the face of open criminality. On Monday night it was clear that simply there were not enough officers on duty."

May identified a series of mistakes. These included failing to put enough officers on the streets of London until Tuesday night, leading to the police losing control of some areas; appearing reluctant to be "sufficiently robust" in breaking up groups; containing suspects in a "specified area", rather than arresting them, thereby allowing them to commit criminal damage and steal; and failing to do enough to harness and share intelligence gleaned from social networking services such as BlackBerry Messenger.

The government also refused to reconsider plans to cut £2bn from police funding over the next four years – despite calls from London mayor Boris Johnson, the Police Federation and Labour.

Senior police officers quickly made clear their anger with ministers. "David Cameron blamed the police for not having a crystal ball and not anticipating the most serious set of circumstances ever seen," one senior police source said. "The confidence of the police leadership in the government is at an all-time low. Cameron dumps on the police when it suits him, to deflect blame from himself."

The Met defended itself in response to the criticisms. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steven Kavanagh said in response to criticisms of the policing on Monday night: "It certainly stretched us. It is clear we did not have the numbers on duty to deal with that despite having mobilised the same number of officers as the total staff of West Midlands police. Our officers did the very best that they could, they did it bravely and they put themselves in danger to do what they could for the safety of London. They showed discipline and professionalism, which should never be seen as a sign of weakness."

The tensions flared after Cameron delighted the Tory right by announcing to avoid a repeat of the "most appalling scenes" in English cities:

• Police will be given discretion to remove face masks from people on the street "under any circumstances where there is reasonable suspicion that they are related to criminal activity".

• No "phoney human rights concerns" about publishing CCTV images of suspects involved in rioting would be allowed to "get in the way of bringing these criminals to justice".

• Rioters could face eviction from social housing as rules on benefits are tightened. At the moment tenants can be evicted if they riot in their locality. This will be widened to include other areas.

• The government would work with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be possible to stop people communicating via social websites to plan disorder, violence or criminality.

• Police should be allowed to examine "all available technologies", the prime minister said, after the Tory MP Andrea Leadson asked for rioters to be sprayed with indelible chemical dye.

• May will work with Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary,, the work and pensions secretary, to produce a cross-government action programme on gangs. This would be a "national priority". May would report to parliament in October amid evidence that gangs co-ordinated some of the attacks on the police and some of the looting.

• The army could be used for guarding duties if there were a repeat of such widespread riots in order to free up police to deal with violence.

• Any homeowner or business person whose property was damaged could seek compensation under the Riot Damages Act even if they were uninsured.

The home secretary said: "I know that [MPs], like members of the public, are concerned about the speed and quality of the police response. That response has changed over the course of the last five days and has been different in different parts of the country. We need to appraise it honestly, bluntly and learn the lessons where things have gone wrong."

The country's most senior police officers were furious at the criticism of their operational tactics on the ground. As well as May's comments about the Met, it is understood Cameron made open criticism of Greater Manchester police during a Cobra meetingon Thursday, suggesting their decision to withdraw officers who were faced with 1,000-strong gangs in Salford on Monday needed to be examined to see if lessons could be learned. Chief Constable Peter Fahy had already made clear publicly that the rioters in Salford were very different to those elsewhere in the city or the rest of the country, as they were largely made up of organised crime gangs seeking payback after major operations against them by the police and that his officers withdrew in order to regroup and tackle the gang again. But senior officers have been surprised also by May seemingly offering them support - commenting on the police's bravery and commitment in private and in public. Some sources see this as more positive than what they say is Cameron's "political posturing."

Paul McKeever, president of the Police Federation, said Cameron's stance on police cuts was indefensible. "He is like a scientist who has a pet theory which has been completely debunked by exposure to reality. But he refuses to face that. The 16000 officers who have been on the streets in London are the number he wants to cut - that is the reality."

But Cameron was adamant that the cuts, which he said would amount to 6% in cash terms, would go ahead. Introducing efficiencies would ensure no fall in the number of frontline officers.

He said: "Over the next four years we are looking for cash reductions in policing budgets. Once you take into account the fact there is a precept, that helps fund the police, [the actual cash reduction of 6% over the next four years] is totally achievable without any reductions in visible policing. A growing number of police chiefs are making that point.

"Today we still have 7,000 trained police officers in back office jobs. Part of our programme of police reform is about freeing up police for frontline duties. That is why I can make this very clear pledge to the house. At the end of this process of making sure our police budgets are affordable, we will still be able to surge as many police on to the streets as we have in recent days in London, in Wolverhampton, in Manchester. I do think it is important people understand that."

Nick Clegg endorsed the prime minister's stance on police cuts. But there were signs of tensions within the coalition as Liberal Democrat sources indicated they felt uncomfortable with the prime minister's decision to revive his pre-election theme of "broken society". The Lib Dems are also uncomfortable about plans to introduce elected police commissioners, though they recognise this is in the coalition agreement.

Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, accused ministers of unsettling the police by declining to say whether the extra police costs over the last week would be funded from the reserve or from existing police budgets. It is understood that the costs will be funded from the reserve, though the Treasury and Home Office are squabbling which of their reserves will be hit hardest.