Jump to content
The Education Forum

VeriSign demands website takedown powers

Steven Gaal

Recommended Posts

VeriSign demands website takedown powers


link http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/11/verisign_asks_for_web_takedown_powers/



Unrest in streets thus , more media control needed by elites.


UK maximizes pressure on Press TV


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but that video about "PressTV" is full of xxxx.

Distorted and outright misleading on many "facts".

Riots were NOT in response to Cameron's policies. At All. The FIRST peaceful protest was against the police for the death of a convicted felon - drugs and firearms, and when they tried to arrest him, he brandished a weapon at them. Events after that are unclear, but one police was shot at (apparently by one of his compatriots), and the suspect was mortally wounded. Investigations are underway (at least two, the last I heard).

Idiots jumped on the bandwagon, and hijacked that peaceful protest, turning it violent.

ALL subsequent disturbances were less riots, and more retards causing violence and taking opportunity to loot themselves even spankier new gear - TVs, computers, jewellery, light snacks, or just smash shop windows when passing.

Police response to the "riots" was anything but excessive. Quite the contrary - light to non-existent at first, and only after a few days, of shuffling personnel from unaffected areas to the hotspots was it effective. Some of he "rioters" even had firearms, and aimed (if not shot at) the police on several occasions.

I think there was maybe a few occasions of police "beating" up "protesters", but not many, considering.

I have absolutely zero compassion for the idiots - they got everything they deserved : including, but not limited to heavy jail time, heavy fines, and losing their council homes, upon conviction.

Teachers, mechanics, graduate students do NOT have any excuse stealing from stores under the "cover" of "public disorder". At all. Some of those are really damned lucky to still have jobs, let alone escape jail for their actions.

It truly was pathetic.

And if the rest of that PressTV reporting was as ill-presented as the riot part, Offcom was right to pull the plug on them. Murdoch-esque reporting of the very worst kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ PART 1 ===========PART 1


UK's Police Complaints Commission: We may have given misleading information on police shooting that sparked riots

Release of information in early stages of Mark Duggan investigation

Analysis of media coverage and queries raised on Twitter have alerted to us to the possibility that we may have inadvertently given misleading information to journalists when responding to very early media queries following the shooting of Mark Duggan by MPS [London's Metropolitan Police Service] officers on the evening of 4th August.

The IPCC's [independent Police Complaints Commission] first statement, issued at 22.49 on 4th August, makes no reference to shots fired at police and our subsequent statements have set out the sequence of events based on the emerging evidence. However, having reviewed the information the IPCC received and gave out during the very early hours of the unfolding incident, before any documentation had been received, it seems possible that we may have verbally led journalists to believe that shots were exchanged as this was consistent with early information we received that an officer had been shot and taken to hospital.

Any reference to an exchange of shots was not correct and did not feature in any of our formal statements, although an officer was taken to hospital after the incident.



Her Majesty's Democracy": Britain's Parliament demands Violent Repression of Youth Riots

by Julie Hyland

Yesterday’s emergency debate in the British parliament, recalled in emergency session following the eruption of youth riots earlier this week, was a contemptible spectacle.

The disturbances that have swept large parts of London and other cities and towns across England are the direct product of the vast growth in poverty, deprivation and police brutality faced daily by many working class youth.

Everyone knows that these conditions are of the outcome of deliberate policies pursued by Labour and Conservative governments alike over the last three decades, as they have competed to satisfy the financial oligarchy and super-rich at the expense of working people. And everyone is well aware that the current Conservative-Liberal Democrat government’s austerity measures—driven by the self-same class interests—will lead to even greater social devastation and inequality.

But any reference to this reality was strictly off limits. In the face of an unprecedented eruption of raw social anger by young people, the assembled politicians could not muster a serious, intelligent response of any note. With much of London, Birmingham, Manchester, and other inner-city areas on virtual police lock-down, it denounced working class youth and shrilly demanded that the state prepare for violent repression of the population.

In his opening statement, Prime Minister David Cameron rejected that the disturbances were in any way connected to the police killing of 29-year old Mark Duggan last Thursday in Tottenham.

Duggan’s death was “used as an excuse by opportunist thugs in gangs”, he claimed, to carry out “criminality”.

It is now known that Duggan was shot and killed in a pre-planned operation, and that police claims they had opened fire in self-defence are lies. His death was only the latest in the toll of some 340 fatalities that have occurred in police custody over the last decade or so, for which not a single police officer has been convicted.

Cameron is indifferent to police lawlessness, however. The purpose of his statement was to insist that the disturbances were solely the result of “criminality” and “immorality” amongst young people, who must be dealt with ruthlessly.

The riots had shown that “pockets of society” were “frankly sick”, the prime minister said, marked by “mindless selfishness”, and a “complete lack of responsibility.”

Not only is this a slander against working class youth. Such statements more properly apply to the prime minister himself.

After all, it is less than one month since this smug, multi-millionaire old Etonian was implicated in the lawless activities of Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World, which included phone hacking and the bribery and corruption of police officers.

For years, the political establishment had kept quiet about News International’s “criminality on an industrial scale”—all eager to please the multi-billionaire, arch reactionary media baron lest he reveal the dirt he had on them. Even now Murdoch, his CEOs and the corrupt police officers involved have escaped prosecution.

Cameron’s charge, moreover, applies equally to the “pocket” of the City of London, where the greedy, self-serving activities of the banks and super-rich have literally trashed the British economy. Billions of pounds have been looted from public funds and handed over to the City, without any bank, hedge-fund operator, financial speculator, or those supposed to have “regulated” their activities, held to account.

As one young person interviewed on Sky TV noted, “The politicians say that we loot and rob. They are the original gangsters. They talk about copycat crimes. They’re the ones that’s looting, they’re the originals.”

According to the government, however, it is only working class youth—the victims of this criminality on the part of the ruling elite—that should feel the “full force of the law” when their justifiable anger erupts.

Pledging that “nothing is off the table”, Cameron announced that the police swamping operation in the inner-cities—16,000 in London alone—is to be extended to the weekend, and that an emergency reserve of riot police is on standby.

Plastic bullets were already authorised for use, and contingency plans were in place to deploy water cannon at 24 hours’ notice if necessary.

Cameron also insisted that he did not rule out calling in the army in the event of further disturbances. “It is the government’s responsibility to make sure that every future contingency is looked at, including whether there are tasks that the army could undertake that might free up more police for the front line,” he said.

A range of punitive social “sanctions” are to be enforced against anyone involved in the disturbances—including evicting them from council housing, and stripping them of welfare benefits.

Curfews, the interception of electronic communications and “anti-gang” measures are also on the table.

These efforts to terrorise working class youth and their families on pain of utter destitution received the full support of Labour leader Ed Miliband.

“There can be no excuses, no justification” for the rioting, he insisted.

The saturation presence of police in the inner-cities should be extended indefinitely, Miliband urged, until the police were satisfied the situation was “under control”. There must be “swift, effective and tough action to send a message about the penalties and punishment” for anyone involved.

As Miliband spoke, mass arrests continued in London and elsewhere. Police battered down doors and raided homes in some of the most deprived areas of the capital, detaining anyone suspected of being involved in the disturbances.

All-night sittings are underway in several magistrates courts in England to process the 2,000 or so people so far arrested. Amongst the first before the courts was an 11-year-old boy accused of stealing a rubbish bin from a department store; others were charged with similar petty offences, such as stealing cigarettes, clothes, food and electronic items.

Contrary to official claims that those involved in the disturbances were “underworld criminals”, many of those arrested have no previous convictions. Predominantly young people, they include college and university students, unemployed graduates, and many employed in low-wage jobs such as call centres.

Despite the lack of previous convictions, many have been refused bail. Those charged with “disorder”, in particular, are being referred for sentencing at crown courts, where they could face up to ten years in prison.

Even these measures are not enough for some. Earlier, one Conservative Member for the European Parliament had urged, “Time to get tough. Bring in the Army. Shoot looters and arsonists on sight”.

During the parliamentary debate, Conservative Sir Peter Tapsell urged that Britain should take the US approach to disturbances. During the 1960s when demonstrators had protested against the Vietnam War, they were held en masse in a Washington stadium. Those involved in the disturbances in London should be similarly be rounded up and kept in Wembley football stadium, he demanded.

It should be noted that during the inner-city rebellions in Brixton, Tottenham, Liverpool and elsewhere in the 1980s, there was widespread acknowledgement that inner-city deprivation and police brutality were to blame. The right-wing government of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was forced to convene an inquiry under Lord Scarman, who reported that “complex political, social and economic factors” created a “disposition towards violent protest”, and recommended remedial action.

There is no trace of this today. The Labour Party is a corrupt, right-wing, big-business party. The various so-called “lefts” and “liberals”—indifferent to social deprivation and horrified at the spectre of social unrest lest it impinge on their privileged lifestyles and bulging stock portfolios—are no different.

The Labour MP Dianne Abbot was just one of those who gave her full support to the police clampdown. Abbot made her political career on the backs of the inner-city riots in the 1980s, exploiting the legitimate concerns of black workers and youth at police brutality. It was the failure of the police to intervene early enough in the current disturbances that gave the green light to “every little hooligan in London” to go out and loot, she said.

The rottenness and corruption of Labour, the “left” and the trade unions is entirely responsible for the fact that the legitimate grievances of young people have taken the form of an explosion of rage and violence.

These organisations have either become open advocates of big business, in the case of Labour, or experts at directing workers’ struggles into the dead end of an orientation to the Labour Party. Walled off from any role in political life, working class youth have been unable to fight their deepening social oppression, until their anger exploded in response to recent acts of police brutality. The riots are in the final analysis the reflection of the government’s corruption and utter imperviousness to the basic needs of the working class.

Serious lessons must be drawn from the events of the past days. The concerns of young people—poverty, war and state repression—mean breaking the monopoly of the three big business parties over political life by unity with working people in the fight for the building


PART 3 ============ PART 3


Riots in Britain: Back to the Future by William Boles

link http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25961 (go to for links in article)

Exactly thirty years ago Brixton exploded with rage against the de facto occupation of Brixton by the Met police. And, as I write this, all kinds of madness is going down in various parts of London and elsewhere.

The Scarman Report was one of the most influential reports in postwar Britain, yet despite criticism of the police they escaped blame for the events in Brixton. For years black youth had been subjected to intense racist policing. The riots erupted at the end of the first week of an operation called ‘Swamp 81′ in which the area had been flooded with more than 100 plainclothes cops. In two days they stopped more than 1,000 people and arrested over 100–twice the normal weekly average. As the Daily Mirror said, ‘Nobody rules the streets of London, Brixton, or even Railton Road except the Metropolitan Police.’ Riots started after extremely high levels of police harassment. — ‘Can the police be reformed?‘, Socialist Review, March 1999[1]

Predictably, the politicians and the police have been alleging that it was “criminal elements from the outside” or, “copycat criminal activity” that caused the ‘lootin’ anna burnin’ in Tottenham and elsewhere over this past weekend. How true this is or what relevance it has to this working class North London community is not explained. And what does ‘outside’ mean anyway?

“Was Saturday night an orgy of mindless violence or a cry of rage from a marginalised, disaffected part of society?” — ‘Was Tottenham’s riot a cry of rage?‘ BBC News 7 August 2011

But we’ve been here before, many times. Back at the beginning of the 1980s when under the Thatcher government Brixton, Toxteth in Birmingham, Tottenham and other communities exploded with rage, against the ‘sus laws’[2], used primarily against young black people and the deaths of black people at the hands of the police.

A “cry of rage from a marginalised, disaffected part of society”? Why are they ‘marginalised’? Why are they disaffected?

“Police have condemned a wave of “copycat criminal activity” across London in a second night of looting and disorder following riots in Tottenham.” — ‘Copycat crime across London after Tottenham riot’, BBC News, 8 August 2011

Back in 2003 I wrote the following and as things have not basically changed, I see no reason why these words are not as relevant today as when I first wrote them:

Throughout the 1960s and 70s, attacks, especially on Black youth and Asians with the indifference and outright connivance of the police rose to unprecedented levels, with Black resistance stiffening throughout the 1970s, culminating in the ‘riots’ of the 1980-81. And just as now, Afro-Caribbean children suffered the institutional effects of an education policy that imprisoned them in ESN (Educationally Sub-Normal) schools.

“It was clear that the state’s version of ‘multi-culturalism’ had failed because it was directed not at those sections of society that needed support, the Black and Asian community, but at the white power structure. [A]ll…it had done was create a “race relations industry”.

“Multi-culturalism deflected the political concerns of the black community into the cultural concerns of different communities, the struggle against racism into the struggle for culture.


“Underlying the whole of the state’s project was a divisive culturalism that turned the living, dynamic, progessive aspects of black people’s culture into artefact and habit and custom — and began to break up community.” — ‘Communities of Resistance – black struggles for socialism’ by A. Sivanandan, Verso Books 1990


y 1981, under the impact of Thatcherism, the lid blew off and as Sivanandon so succinctly puts it,

“[T]he youth of the benighted inner cities, black and white, Afro-Caribbean and Asian, came together again, not so much in joint struggle as in a blinding moment of spontaneous insurrection against the impossibility of their common condition.”

The state’s reaction was dramatic. Commissions of Inquiry were set up including that of Lord Scarmon’s into the Brixton ‘disorders’ and their causes. Labour’s Urban Aid programme was exhumed and funding for black ‘self-help’ groups increased dramatically. These so-called ethnic projects were in reality, a continuation of those initiated under the Labour government and as Sivanandon puts it, “[T]he Tories were not averse to taking lessons from their masters in social control.”

The core of the approach to the ‘problem’ of British-born blacks had its roots at Bristol University’s Social Science Council on Ethnic Relations that identified the ‘problem’ as one of ‘ethnic identity’. The youth, according to the report of the Home Affairs Committee on Racial Disadvantage were,

“caught between the cultural expectations of their parents (the first generation immigrants) and the social demands of the wider society…. West Indian boys have conflicted identifications with the general representatives of their own ethnicity and the native white population.”

In other words, “Identity is all.” And furthermore as part of the importation of the US approach to the ‘problem’ of ethnic minorities, we read that it’s not institutional racism that’s the problem, but it’s,

“because of the impact of British social conditions on the matriarchal extended family structure of the West Indian immigrants.”

Like I didn’t grow up within an extended family structure along with millions of other working class kids of my generation? The report goes on to list all the ‘problems’ that the black community has including,

“‘Young West Indians…are ‘a people of the street… They live their lives on the street, having nothing better to do: they make their protest there: and some of them live off street crime.’ And this hostility of black youth…has…’infected older members of the community [where they have] time to engage in endless discussion of their grievances.’”

The objective being to excuse the state of its institutional racism and instead blame the West Indian community of an “inherent disability”.

As Sivanandon puts it,

“Racism, for Scarmon, was in the mind — in the attitudes, prejudices, irrational beliefs — and these are to be found on both sides of the divide, black and white. Institutional racism was a matter of black perception, white racism was a matter of prejudice…and so [it shifted] the object of anti-racist struggle from the state to the individual, from changing society to changing people.”

Enter RAT (‘Racism Awareness Training’), an entirely apposite acronym. RAT began its smelly life as HAT (Human Awareness Training) on a military base in Florida as a response to the black rebellions of the 1960s. RAT grew out of the Kerner Commission (1968) that declared that racism was a white problem, and that it was “white institutions that created it, white institutions maintain it and white society condones it.”

An entire, new industry devoted to ‘racism awareness’ was created with a plethora of literature, organisations and businesses to bring about “changing the behaviour of whites” through to “increasing the capabilities of non-white groups. But the principle responsibility was ‘with the white community rather than within the non-white communities.’”

An entire, new range of ‘pathologies’ emerged as a result including racism defined as “prejudice plus institutional power” and finally “cultural racism”. The ‘bible’ of the RAT syndrome was an education thesis of Judy Katz who defined the problem as “Systematic handbook of excercises for the re-education of white people with respect to attitudes and behaviorisms.” In other words, racism was a “psychological problem”.

Widely used in the US in the education system, RAT finally made its way to the UK in a modified form. Under the impact of the RAT syndrome, the entire focus of the state’s ‘fight’ against racism shifted to the psychological domain. So for example, Home Affairs now described racial disadvantage (the UK term for affirmative action) as “it cannot be unfair to give help to those with a special handicap.”

To sum up RAT, Sivanandon describes their psychobabble as follows;

“[Racism] is a combination of mental illness, original sin and biological determinism…. Racism, according to RAT, has its roots in white culture, and white culture, unaffected by material conditions or history, goes back to the beginning of time.”

By on the one hand divorcing racism from class and on the other by personalising the effects of racism, the state absolved itself of responsibility. It also sidestepped the connection between racism and fascism for failing to recognise the link. But Martin Webster of the National Front knew when he said “the social base of the NF is made up of the desperate and dispossessed among the white working class.” — ‘An institutional state of denial‘ By William Bowles, 27 October 2003

The lessons not learned

Clearly nothing at all has changed in the intervening thirty years. The economic deprivations of the 1970-80s has returned with a vengeance and along with it the rise of neo-fascism and the inevitable reactions of those most heavily impacted by the cuts, especially young working class, both black and white. Tottenham which falls under the control of Haringey Council has seen its youth services budget cut by more than 75%. There are more than 50 people for each unfilled job in the borough, 10% more people claiming unemployment benefit this year than last and ten of the eighteen youth clubs in the borough have been closed.

The BBC however, has this to say:

“But if it were poverty alone were the driving factor, one would expect communities in the cities of the north of Britain, not the south, to have been in flames on Saturday night.” — ‘Was Tottenham’s riot a cry of rage?’

As if to answer the BBC’s question, riots broke out in my neighbourhood, Brixton as well as in Enfield, Hackney and other communities but no doubt the BBC puts them down to ‘copycat riots’? More sinister is the allegation that these are ‘Twitter coordinated Riots‘.

For the BBC the only measure of frustration and rage are the unemployment figures but the BBC ignores the impact of policing on working class communities. After all it was the shooting death by the police—allegedly with a machine gun at point-blank range—of Tottenham resident Mark Duggan last Thursday that triggered the initial reaction, followed by the police allegedly batoning a 16-year old girl on Saturday at a protest rally organized by Duggan’s family over the way his death had been handled by the Independant Police Complaints Commission, tasked with investigating Duggan’s death.[3]

The subtle propaganda interplay between the BBC and the police is revealed by how the BBC report, ‘Was Tottenham’s riot a cry of rage?’ shifts the emphasis from the real conditions of working people to “low morale” in a police force that has seen its funding cut by 20%. This is how the BBC report put it:

“Morale among the police officers dealing with this incident [in Tottenham], and within the police service as a whole, is at its lowest level ever due to the constant attacks on them by the home secretary and the government in the form of the Winsor and Hutton reviews into police pay and conditions.”

The inference being I assume that “low morale” and cuts in police funding led to a riot in Tottenham? Clearly the political class fear increasing and spreading ‘social unrest’, especially amongst the BBC’s ‘marginalised, disaffected part of society’, who clearly feel that they have nothing to lose. This is what a resident of Tottenham had to say on the subject:

Having grown up in Tottenham, I’m deeply saddened that it has taken a riot to highlight the complex problems that blight the area. Yesterday on BBC News’s rolling coverage, a local shopkeeper described the scenes as “US-style inequality”. This is an inequality that has persisted ever since I took up residence in Tottenham aged seven, and the kind of inequality that went largely ignored. Tensions between the people and the police have always been known. Yesterday youth worker Symeon Brown perfectly articulated this tension, stating on BBC News that “there is a sense that the police are not for us”. It has taken a riot to put Tottenham’s problems on the national agenda. — ‘Twitter didn’t fuel the Tottenham riot‘, Reni Eddo-Lodge, the Guardian 8 August 2011


1. See the Scarmon Report, an investigation into how the death of Stephen Lawrence was handled by the police that concluded that the “Metropolitan police was institutionally racist”. Nothing has changed. In fact a high-up police officer stated on BBC radio some years back that it was impossible to root out institutional racism in the police, that’s how deep it goes in British society.

2. “Stopping and searching suspects [sus] will become easier for police, the Government promised yesterday. But Home Office changes fall well short of Tory plans to slash red tape. The Government has been panicked into action by David Cameron, who said outdated search laws designed to protect ethnic minorities and the young from harassment must go. — ‘Return of ‘sus’ laws as police are given powers to stop and search without giving reason‘, Daily Mail, 31 January 2008

3. An eyewitness says the girl’s beating was in response to a champagne glass she was holding that she threw at the police.

“After she was hit with police batons, rioters threw missiles back at the police officers, according to other accounts from onlookers.” — ‘London riots: 16-year-old girl and police clash – video‘.

Elsewhere, the Daily Telegraph tells us that,

“The 16 year-old was said by some witnesses to have thrown a stone at a line of officers during the initial protest at Tottenham police station.

“She was then allegedly knocked to the ground, and as the crowds retaliated it led to two squad cars being set alight at the start of a night of violent disturbances and looting.” — ‘‘Attack’ on teenage girl blamed for start of Tottenham riot’.

===================THANKS Steve Gaal

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
  • Create New...