Adam Boulton: It’s 40 years since the most gripping news story I have ever worked on
Never mind elections, wars, revolutions, scandals and deaths, this week marks the 40th anniversary of probably the most gripping news story I have ever worked on as a journalist.
Gripping because there were vital economic, political and social issues at stake in this country.
Gripping because two powerful and exceptionally talented political leaders, Margaret Thatcher and Arthur Scargill, faced off.
Gripping because, in their own way, both sides were right.
Gripping that everyone in the country was caught up in the 1984-1985 miners’ strike and conflicted about it.
Gripping above all, for me as a journalist at the start of my career, because the strike reshaped this nation for the future.
On 5 March 1984, 6,000 miners walked out in South Yorkshire at collieries in Cortonwood and Bullcliffe Wood. That day the National Coal Board (NCB) announced there would be “accelerated closure” of 20 pits.
On 12 March 1984, Arthur Scargill, the president of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), called a nationwide strike.
It became the biggest industrial dispute since the general strike in 1926, with 26 million working days lost. It did not come to an official end until a year later, on 3 March 1985.
The NUM and the NCB came into existence after the Second World War. They were part of the consensus, shared by both Labour and the Conservatives, that took much of heavy industry into public ownership.
Arthur Scargill in 1984. Pic: PA
Scargill was a radical left winger who believed a perfect socialist society had never been achieved. Even so, he was right that defeat for the miners would lead to the end of a whole way of life in which the state supported workers and their families, regardless of market forces.
Before the strike he had likened the Thatcher government to “the Nazis” and called for “extra parliamentary action” against “this totally undemocratic government”.
Prime minister Thatcher was right that the deep mine coal industry was uneconomic and subsidised by taxpayers and had been declining in Britain, Europe and North America for decades.
Read more:
Previous strikes and what they achieved
Lessons to be learned from strikes past, present and what they mean for the future
After 200 years, one of England’s last coal mines is closing (2020)
In Britain there were around a quarter of a million coal miners in 1984 compared to a million in 1922. The number of working collieries was down from over 1,000 to 173. Britain was already switching away from coal as the primary source of energy to natural gas and nuclear. Thatcher was subsequently one of the first leaders to recognise the danger of global warming through hydrocarbon emissions but this was not a principle issue at the time of the strike.
Margaret Thatcher visiting Wistow colliery in 1980. Pic: PA
It was a febrile time in British politics. The previous summer, in the wake of military victory in the Falklands conflict, the Conservatives won a massive majority in the general election.
By the summer of 1984, Mrs Thatcher was calling the NUM “the enemy within”. She intended to elaborate on this theme in her party conference speech in Brighton in October, but it was disrupted by the IRA bombing of the Grand Hotel.
Thatcher was committed to confronting trade union power.
She was well aware that a miners’ strike in the early 1970s had effectively destroyed Ted Heath’s Conservative government. During the three-day week in the winter of 1974 there were daily power cuts around the country. Ministers appealed to the public to wash in two inches of shared bath water. Mr Heath lost the 1974 General Election on the question “Who governs Britain?”.
Sheffield in 1984. Pic: PA
In the popular memory the 1984-1985 strike has been sentimentalised almost exclusively in favour of the strikers and their families. (James Graham’s recent TV series Sherwood is an exception).
During the strike the musician Billy Bragg and the filmmaker Ken Loach challenged audiences with the documentary Which Side Are You On?
Popular films since then, such as Billy Elliott, Brassed Off and Pride have centred on the solidarity of the mining communities and the aid they got from other anti-Thatcher movements including Women Against Pit Closures and Lesbians And Gays Support The Miners. The depth of the lingering passions is encapsulated in the Billy Elliot The Musical song Merry Christmas, Maggie Thatcher: “We celebrate today/ ‘Cause it’s one day closer to your death”.
In reality the miners were not united and the country was not united behind them.
Police and strikers at Orgreave Coking Plant near Rotherham in June 1984. Pic: PA
Scargill made the mistake of not holding a national ballot to strike. This meant that the Labour Party, then led by Neil Kinnock, a South Wales miner’s son, did not support the strike.
There was widespread public sympathy for the miners, who faced losing their livelihoods. But opinion polls during the strike showed greater, and strengthening, support for the employers over the strikers. Asked in December 1984 what they thought about the methods being used by the NUM and Scargill, 88% disapproved and 5% didn’t know.
There was near-unanimous backing for the strike in South Wales, Scotland, the North East, Yorkshire and Kent, where many of the richest seams were worked out. Other mining areas, especially Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire in the Midlands, did not go out on strike officially.
Communities were divided. Many angry confrontations took place as local strikers, joined by flying pickets, confronted police protecting those who drove or were bussed into work.
Click to subscribe to Politics at Jack and Sam’s wherever you get your podcasts
In Yorkshire, violence between thousands of police and pickets shocked the nation in the so-called “Battle of Orgreave” outside a coking plant. A miner died in a similar confrontation in nearby Maltby. Official statistics record that 51 miners and 72 police were injured at Orgreave.
It was impossible not to get caught in the existential drama.
A Sky News colleague recalls: “I remember my uncle being on strike when I was a kid and I stayed awake in the nights worrying that he wouldn’t be able to buy any dinner and that he’d starve.
“He’s since told me that he had a great time on the buses to London to protest and they had plenty of beer. He had a police officer pal who asked to stand opposite him during the riots so they wouldn’t kick each other too hard.”
Scargill had also miscalculated by calling the strike in the spring when demand for energy was going down. The government had learnt its lesson from previous strikes and ensured stockpiling for at least six months. Scargill liked to say that the visible mounds of coal were like the hair in his combover – piled high around the edges and bald in the middle. He was wrong.
Miners return to work at Betteshanger Colliery after the strike. Pic: PA
Later coal supplies resumed as more desperate miners went back to work, and their overseers in the separate NACODS union did not join the strike.
The government also tightened the law, including a squeeze on welfare payments to families, to make striking more difficult.
A breakaway Union of Democratic Mineworkers was formed. Working miners, encouraged by David Hart, a shadowy Thatcher advisor, went to court to successfully “sequester” the NUM’s assets, which prevented the union from funding the strike.
Meanwhile journalists exposed NUM officials were seeking financial support from the Soviet Union and Libya, although it is denied that any money was ever received.
The NUM was discredited. A return to work by defeated and desperate strikers became inevitable. Union power was decisively broken in de-industrialising Britain.
Scargill in Barnsley earlier this month. Pic: PA
Today all Britain’s coal pits are closed, although there is still some open cast mining in the reprivatised industry. Active NUM membership in 2022 was just 82.
To the shame of successive governments there is a legacy of social deprivation in many former mining areas. In a spirit of protest, those left behind there voted strongly for Brexit and then made up much of the “red wall” which switched from Labour to Boris Johnson’s Conservatives in 2019.
The Conservatives were elected twice more immediately after the strike, in 1987 and 1992.
At Westminster an early day motion has been tabled marking this anniversary, paying tribute to the men and women of the strike and demanding an inquiry into its policing. It has attracted the signatures of just 27 MPs, including Jeremy Corbyn and Ian Lavery, who succeeded Scargill as an NUM president.
Scargill is now president of the Socialist Labour Party and the International Miners’ Organisation. Aged 86 he is still making speeches, he supported Brexit and recently demanded solidarity with the Palestinians, according to The Socialist Worker.
For me there could have been no more useful education than reporting on, and seeing how others reported on, the personalities, the events and the issues of the great strike which divided the nation.
Cryptocurrency exchange Kraken has partnered with Mastercard to issue crypto debit cards across the United Kingdom and Europe, the company announced on April 8.
The partnership will enable the crypto exchange to expand its payment offerings by launching physical crypto debit cards.
The partnership comes as Kraken continues to pursue a license under the European Union’s regulatory framework, the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA).
The debit card will allow users to spend cryptocurrencies and stablecoins directly. Kraken said the rollout will begin in the coming weeks, with a waitlist now open to customers.
This partnership builds on Kraken Pay’s growth
Kraken said its partnership with Mastercard builds on the rapid growth of Kraken Pay, a new tool that enables customers to send money from their Kraken account.
Launched in January 2025, Kraken Pay allows users to send more than 300 crypto assets to multiple countries worldwide. It also introduces a paylink feature that enables users to send payments through a simple URL.
Since launching the service, Kraken has seen more than 200,000 customers out of its 15 million user base activate Kraktag, a unique user identifier allowing owners to receive money without exposing full bank account details.
Crypto payments on the rise
“Crypto is evolving the payments industry, and we see a future where global commerce and everyday payments are underpinned by crypto,” Kraken co-CEO David Ripley said in a statement shared with Cointelegraph.
“Our clients want to be able to seamlessly pay for real-world goods and services with their crypto or stablecoins,” he said, adding:
“Partnering with Mastercard is a major step toward us bringing that vision to life. Together, we will unlock crypto’s true everyday utility, ensuring it remains undeniably relevant and usable long-term.”
This is a developing story, and further information will be added as it becomes available.
Magazine: 3 reasons Ethereum could turn a corner: Kain Warwick, X Hall of Flame
The early days of the Trump administration saw a flurry of activity that could give the crypto industry an idea of forthcoming crypto regulations, namely that they may not be regulated as securities.
Practitioners have decried a lack of concrete change in the form of new rules and guidance. The skeptics have their reasons. The formation of the crypto task force, Trump’s crypto executive order, crypto czar David Sacks’ lone press conference, and the digital asset reserve has been criticized as mere theater.
The real work of regulating comes not in press conferences but in the guidance, enforcement, and rulemaking that support the structure of rules-based systems.
A faithful account of all of the cryptocurrency decisions from the Trump administration reveals a new approach to enforcement and regulation that could meaningfully affect the rights of operators in the United States.
Trump’s regulatory approach opens up banking to crypto
In the dog days of the Biden administration, a policy known as “Operation Chokepoint 2.0” became a major scandal in certain crypto media channels. The allegations were that, during the Obama administration, the Justice Department developed a program called Operation Choke Point that it used to surveil and curtail certain disfavored businesses like payday lenders and firearms dealers.
Some speculated that the Biden administration adopted the same policies for cryptocurrency companies. There was a lot of back and forth over this issue — some denied it ever happened, but many cryptocurrency firms and individuals lost access to banking services.
Whether this was a directive or simply an unforeseen consequence of other policies, many in the industry were incensed; the issue became politically charged.
Crypto execs went on popular shows and podcasts like The Joe Rogan Experience to discuss debanking. Source: Nic Carter
As a result, one of the first steps the Trump administration took regarding crypto was to fix the industry’s debanking problem. This began only two days after Trump took office with Staff Accounting Bulletin 122 (SAB 122), a directive that repealed the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) SAB 121 — which had effectively prohibited banks from holding cryptocurrencies by making it difficult and inefficient to do so.
On March 7, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) released its own interpretive guidance, Letter 1183, itself undoing Letter 1179. The latter required banks to ask OCC’s permission to participate in certain crypto-native activities like custodying cryptocurrency, holding stablecoin reserve deposits and functioning as validation nodes.
On March 28, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) followed up with its own guidance. It rescinded the Biden era FIL-16-2022, which required FDIC-supervised institutions to notify the FDIC of their intent to dabble in crypto and provide information on possible risks.
Acting FDIC Chair Travis Hill also signaled that “banking regulators should not use reputational risk as a basis for supervisory criticisms” at all.
It may be difficult to separate the effects of these policies so early in the administration because banks are large institutions and move slowly. But across three agencies the rules have changed substantially and dramatically, which could have major effects on cryptocurrency access to banking services in the medium to long term.
Fully dismissed crypto cases
Virtually every pending SEC matter with a cryptocurrency defendant has been dropped. While nice for the targets, it doesn’t create much precedent that anyone can build off of. That said, the result does suggest that the underlying activities in those dropped cases won’t be pursued for enforcement, at least for the immediate future.
Related: Ripple celebrates SEC’s dropped appeal, but crypto rules still not set
It’s helpful, then, to consider what activities have received implied license through this campaign of dropped enforcement.
There are a number of cases in which the SEC filed a complaint and litigated to varying degrees of resolution, which the commission either fully dropped or settled without admissions of wrongdoing on the part of the targets:
-
Feb. 27, 2025 — Coinbase Inc.
-
March 3, 2025 — Payward, Inc. (Kraken)
-
March 25, 2025 — Ripple Labs, Inc.
-
March 27, 2025 — Cumberland DRW LLC
-
March 27, 2025 — Consensys Software, Inc.
These cases revolved around the unregistered sale and offer of securities under the Securities Act of 1933, and acting unregistered as a broker, dealer, clearing agency and exchange. While the allegations and actors are different, the common thread between them is that none would be subject to the laws in question if the underlying assets were not themselves securities.
The sole exception is Consensys, which was accused of providing staking as a service without first registering it as a security. While the texture of this claim is familiar, the activity is somewhat different than the pure offer and sale of securities.
This dismissal, along with the related guidance concerning mining pools, suggests that the current SEC does not consider most token-generating activities to be investment contracts, either.
Crypto firms were quick to celebrate after the SEC dropped cases against them. Source: Bill Hughes
Stayed pending resolution
Other cases have been filed in court and halted through joint motions to pause the suits. This is presumably in anticipation of eventually dismissing them, but since they have not yet been dismissed, it is hard to say for sure.
-
Feb. 11, 2025 — Binance and Changpeng Zhao (CZ)
-
Feb. 25, 2025 — Tron Foundation and Justin Sun
-
April 2, 2025 — Gemini Trust Company, LLC
These cases mostly differ from the ones that have already been dropped in that, in the case of Binance and Tron, the government brought allegations not just of unregistered operation but of actual fraud as well. The pause indicates the government may be conciliatory, but the aggravating nature of these allegations is stalling resolution.
Gemini fits more naturally into the category above, and it is not clear why that case has not yet been dropped.
SEC drops investigations into crypto firms
There are other cases where the SEC opened investigations and even issued Wells notices indicating potential enforcement. However, the commission has reportedly ceased investigations after Trump’s inauguration.
-
Feb. 21, 2025 — Robinhood Crypto, LLC
-
Feb. 21, 2025 — Ozone Networks, Inc. (OpenSea)
-
Feb. 25, 2025 — Universal Navigation Inc. (Uniswap Labs)
-
March 3, 2025 — Yuga Labs
The investigations were focused around allegations that non-fungible tokens (NFTs) were securities, or that intermediaries like Robinhood or Uniswap were operating as unregistered brokers.
While little has come of these actions, on balance they match the trend suggested above.
What the dismissals say quietly
None of the dismissals could be considered an SEC edict that certain crypto activities are legal. But taken together, these dismissals, pauses and dropped investigations paint a clear picture of how the current SEC thinks about cryptocurrency’s place in securities regimes.
The SEC dropped charges where allegations revolved around operating as a broker, dealer, clearing house or exchange. This is consistent with the position that the underlying assets themselves are not securities.
The same is true about cases of issuance. The commission dropped charges alleging that an entity issued securities in the form of cryptocurrency tokens.
Still, claims of fraud and market manipulation have not yet been dropped. This might indicate a reticence among commission attorneys to let these claims go. Still, if the assets at hand are not securities, the SEC will not be the correct agency to bring those claims, and so, if the SEC is consistent, then it will likely drop these cases too.
Furthermore, in three official statements, the SEC notified the public that traditional memecoins, proof-of-work mining, including pooled mining, and traditional “covered” or asset-backed stablecoins denominated in dollars are not subject to securities laws.
Related: Crypto has a regulatory capture problem in Washington — or does it?
This, alongside the chain of dismissals, suggests that secondary market sales of fungible cryptocurrency tokens, NFTs, and staking-as-a-service products are also outside of the scope of traditional securities law.
Some might argue that this is more confusing than clarifying, but applying the principle of Occam’s Razor would suggest the SEC simply does not consider cryptocurrency assets to be subject to securities laws as currently construed.
But what does it all mean?
“Flood the Zone” is a tactic that Trump strategist Steve Bannon made famous during the president’s first term, and it might now apply to the manic flurry of policy and dismissals over the past few months.
Take any one at face value and it would be easy to discount the project as insubstantial, but together they arguably represent a sea change in the crypto policy of the United States government.
Banks, once effectively prohibited from holding cryptocurrencies, are now unrestrained. Companies once bogged down in litigation are now free. They may well be followed by new entrants comforted by their survival.
At a biweekly clip, the SEC is releasing new guidance as to which products exist outside its remit. And Trump nominee Paul Atkins isn’t even in the door yet.
This is a dramatically improved regulatory environment, and there are now affirmatively legal paths through which industry participants can do business onchain.
Magazine: 3 reasons Ethereum could turn a corner: Kain Warwick, X Hall of Flame
Thailand is beefing up measures to combat online crimes involving digital assets by passing new amendments to several national laws.
Thailand’s cabinet on April 8 passed a resolution approving amendments to emergency decrees on digital asset businesses and on measures for cybercrime prevention, the Thai Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced.
As part of the new laws, Thai regulators aim to strengthen measures for combating digital asset mule accounts in banks, restrict foreign cryptocurrency peer-to-peer (P2P) platforms and introduce strict financial penalties of as much as $8,700 and imprisonment of up to three years.
The new laws are expected to be enforced in the near future, and will take effect after being published in the Royal Thai Government Gazette, the announcement stated.
Key measures to combat mule accounts and money laundering
The new regulations include stringent measures for crypto asset service providers (CASPs), requiring them to collect and report information on transactions linked to online scams and suspend them.
The amendments also empower Thai authorities to block foreign CASPs from providing services to local users, further tightening controls against money laundering activities.
Related: Zhao pledges BNB for Thailand, Myanmar disaster relief
The new laws also have significant implications for non-crypto businesses in Thailand, imposing additional joint responsibilities on commercial banks, telecom providers and social media service providers. The SEC stated:
“Requiring commercial banks, telephone and telecommunications network providers, social media service providers and digital asset business operators to take joint responsibilities for damages caused by cybercrimes if they fail to comply with the standards or measures for preventing cybercrimes as specified by regulatory authorities.”
Restrictions for foreign crypto P2P services
The new laws explicitly aim to “deter and prevent” foreign crypto P2P service providers, which are “qualified as digital asset exchanges under the Digital Asset Business Law,” according to the SEC.
Additionally, the laws intended to restrict other types of foreign CASPs from providing services to investors in Thailand, the announcement said.
Source: ChartNerd
Thailand’s latest regulatory developments apparently aim to restrict crypto P2P transactions to only local P2P providers in an effort to avoid additional risks potentially stemming from foreign CASPs.
Cointelegraph approached the Thai SEC and crypto exchange Binance for comments regarding the restrictions but did not receive a response by the time of publication.
Meanwhile, local regulators have expressed interest in growing cryptocurrency adoption by approving crypto payment trials in certain cities like Phuket and considering approvals of crypto exchange-traded funds.
Magazine: New ‘MemeStrategy’ Bitcoin firm by 9GAG, jailed CEO’s $3.5M bonus: Asia Express
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway