| Poll |
|
Should the Cornish have a legal right to exist as a national minority? YES/NO
335 votes | 0 comments
| |
| |
Is a constitution for everyone necessary?
156 votes | 0 comments
| |
| |
Do you agree with the Cornish Stannary Parliament's policy of removing English Heritage signs?
863 votes | 2 comments
| |
| User Functions |
|
Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
Lost your password?
| |
|
| |
|
 |
Monday, May 11 2009 @ 05:12 PM BST
Contributed by: Admin
Views: 274
|
CORNWALL IS SOMETHING SPECIAL
The British constitution may well be unwritten to protect the state secret that Crown, or public land, is divided into two parts. One part is for public benefit and the other part is for private benefit. As the original owners of the ‘private’ part, the indigenous Cornish national minority should be entitled, in international law, to reclaim their ancestral land to at least regain control of, and income from, such Cornish heritage sites as Tintagel Castle. Coveted pre-England Cornish archaeological sites arbitrarily taken as ‘private’, and handed over to English Heritage reveals an example of a routine political act exposing an underlying biased constitution, unfit for purpose. |
|
|
|
|
Friday, February 26 2010 @ 10:54 AM GMT
Contributed by: Admin
Views: 6
|
These powers and rights have been applicable to Cornwall and the Cornish by Charters from 1337 (Published by HMSO 1978 as Statutes in Force, Constitutional Law) now extended to the whole of the United Kingdom by Acts of Parliament and Orders in Council.
(Also serves as the Appendix to REFORM THE DUCHY OF CORNWALL) |
|
|
|
Thursday, February 25 2010 @ 07:00 PM GMT
Contributed by: Admin
Views: 11
|
Royal Wealth status from Cornish Mining wealth
"The tax of the King of Spain is said to be very ill paid, and that of the Duke of Cornwall very well". 'The Wealth of Nations", Adam Smith, 1776. |
|
|
|
Saturday, November 21 2009 @ 10:44 AM GMT
Contributed by: Admin
Views: 62
|
Letter sent to Mr Pascoe, The West Briton, 28th september 2009, not published
by 24th November 2009.
In view of past experiences, I note with grim humour that the West Briton defends the right of those who believe the polar opposite to have their say.
As a person who deals with fact not fiction and having studied Mr Pascoe's offering of 10th September 2009 and various replies of 17th September 2009, I feel it time to introduce some factual information into this debate. |
|
|
|
|
Monday, March 30 2009 @ 07:24 PM BST
Contributed by: Admin
Views: 414
|
CORNWALL – THE TERRITORIAL POSSESSION
On 17th October 2008, in response to a public consultation programme by the Government Office for the South West, a complaint was submitted under the title:-“The exclusion of Cornwall from the Marine Stewardship project and Marine Communities Fund of the Crown Estate”. Receipt of the complaint was confirmed on 29th October 2008, Ref:- 2086. No answer has been received.
Crown land is the land originally claimed by William the Conqueror (1066) as Crown property which has since been divided into two parts. |
|
|
|
|
Monday, March 30 2009 @ 06:27 PM BST
Contributed by: Admin
Views: 344
|
A. The Duke of Cornwall and the legislature
(1) The Duke of Cornwall enjoys the right to intervene in legislative procedures.
1. Westminster:- Guide to Legislative Procedures, Cabinet Office 2004, for
“legislation regarding the potential it may have on Duchy operations” –
“Draft Bill to be sent to The Duchy of Cornwall”. (para.14.6).
(The Crown Estate is similarly covered by the Guide).
2. Scottish Parliament – “where a Bill may require the consent of Her Majesty or
the Duke of Cornwall” – Standing Orders – Rule:- 9.11.
3. Welsh Assembly:- “where a measure may require the consent of Her Majesty
or the Duke of Cornwall” – Government of Wales Act 2006, section 98 |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, January 07 2009 @ 05:53 PM GMT
Contributed by: Admin
Views: 438
|
1. Anti-terrorist laws
The rules for the British Constitution are quite different from all others, it is officially described as ‘flexible’. ‘Flexible’ rules for a Constitution ignore the public’s right to be consulted, at least, in respect of amendments. We do not have a one stop comprehensive easy reference document detailing constitutional rights for the citizen and laying down corresponding responsibilities for politicians in power.
A written constitution would be a statement of the clear cut parameters for the responsibilities and limits of power for persons acting in an official capacity. This is a matter or urgency in an age when the British government can invoke its anti-terrorist laws when in dispute with an Icelandic Bank. What next? Who next?
It is time for the international basic standard of a guaranteed and enforceable right to “equality before the law” to be adopted as the qualifying test for true democracy.
When British people realise the extent of the deception inherent in an unwritten constitution, they will naturally be dismayed at the absence of consultation or Public Inquiries regarding the content of the British constitution. Basically, people will want to know, and should have the right to know, “Where do I stand in relation to people in power?
2. The search for information
Requests for information are denied or the response is ambiguous. (Refer Duchy of Cornwall letter of 22nd February 2005, in response to an Freedom of Information request regarding the transfer of Tintagel Castle (of Celtic Arthurian legend) from the Duchy to English Heritage – response:- “The Duchy is not itself subject to the Freedom of Information Act”). This appears to be an attempt to claim King Arthur as English on the grounds that whatever has happened since a part of Britain was renamed England, must be English. Such assertions of English cultural supremacy by virtue of numerical supremacy over the Celts are not repeated to claim Roman baths. By section 37 of the Freedom of Information Act there can be no information provided regarding contacts between Ministers and members of the Royal family. So, who makes the final decision, Minister or Royal family? The Crown has many faces. The government comes under the heading of “The Crown” and there are also Crown Courts; The Crown Prosecution Service, The Crown Proceedings Act; The Crown Estate, Crown rights; Crown Immunity and Crown prerogatives.
The Department for Culture Media and Sport has recently refused to answer questions regarding the implementation of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. The UNESCO Convention provides, at Article 3/3, “The protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions presuppose the recognition of equal dignity of and respect for all cultures, including the cultures of persons belonging to minorities and indigenous peoples”. |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, November 23 2008 @ 07:38 PM GMT
Contributed by: Admin
Views: 431
|
Objection by:- The Cornish Stannary Parliament, 9 Coombe Park,
Bal Lake, Camborne, Cornwall TR14 0JG
e-mail:- info@cornishstannaryparliament.org
(Recognised by the Courts in Case No. 6TRO2285
Truro Crown Court, 2nd January 2007)
Closing date:- 21st November 2008 Date:- 19th November 2008
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government,
The National Unit for Land Acquisition,
Planning and Housing Division,
Government Office for London,
Riverwalk House,
157-161 Millbank,
London SW1P 4RR
Dear Sir/Madam,
It is requested that the Secretary of State reject the Order
on the following grounds:-
RCPO 4.5 Emerging Core Strategy and Area Action Plan Position
4.5.3 There is no reference to “The Statutory Code of Practice on Racial Equality in Housing” (CREH) – “areas of potential discrimination and disadvantage”, section 3.28 “audit of housing needs in the area it serves”. “Failure could amount to indirect discrimination” .
The plans with no reference to local needs and affordable housing constitute, it is contended, an infringement of section 19A (land use) of the Race Relations Act 1976, (CREH 2.58) and the Race Directive 2000/43/EC. (CREH 2.5).
The proposals need to give consideration to:- “conditions of human life and cultural sites” (Directive 2003/04/EC, Article 2 (f)).
The CREH at section 2.2 quotes Sir William Macpherson’s definition of institutional racism:-
“…the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origins. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping”.
(Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, February 1999, Cm 4262 - 1).
It is respectfully considered appropriate to inform the Secretary of State that the Cornish language, now officially recognised, is a very important cornerstone of Cornwall’s Celtic culture and ethnic origins.
|
|
|
|
|
Monday, November 17 2008 @ 10:28 PM GMT
Contributed by: Admin
Views: 402
|
1. The ability to self -correct.
With the election of a black president in Anglo-Saxon America has proved that it can self-correct while, at the same time, it poses many questions regarding the state of Anglo-Saxon English democracy.
Writing in ‘The Sunday Times’ of 28th September 2008, Andrew Sullivan observes:- Dictator Bush’s great illusion exposed - The President thinks he is above the law”; and explains: “There is a core principle behind Anglo-American democracy as it has evolved in the past few centuries. Which is that you cannot rely on the judgement of one man or woman, unchecked by the law, or by parliament or Congress or the press to govern a country. The reason is that human beings - all of us – are fallible. We get things wrong; our egos get the better of us; our self-interest blinds us; power corrupts us. So America’s founding fathers set up a system of checks and balances to ensure that deliberation and debate would precede action. They believed that deliberation was essential to sound governance”.
2.Who voted for Tax-havens
Although English people comprise the largest sub-division of British, they have never expected to decide, or been asked to vote, on whether or not they want tax havens on British territory. The continuation of tax havens will excuse the few from the discipline to which everyone else will be subjected in order to overcome the personal, national and global problems of the ongoing credit crisis.
The representatives of the English majority claim many pre-England British monuments as English Heritage, presumably to attract support from the English majority. This is an outward sign of the retention of the perceived psychological advantages associated with the rights of feudal conquest retained to keep the original indigenous Celts of Britain under uniform central control. It has been top down control claiming the support of superior numbers passed off as democracy. Various popular methods have been employed ranging from transfers of population to the Celtic areas of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Cornwall to the unchallengeable Crown immunity claims to the property of the individual.
Recognition of the facts, open debate and modernisation is long overdue. |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, October 29 2008 @ 01:59 PM GMT
Contributed by: Admin
Views: 604
|
To:- Government Office for the South West, Bristol.
e-mail – rssconsult@gosw.gsi.gov.uk
Subject:- Public Consultation - period ending 17th October 2008.
Date:- 17th October 2008
Dear Sirs,
Complaint – The exclusion of Cornwall from the Marine Stewardship project and the Marine Communities Fund of the Crown Estate.
The Crown Estate Act 1961 covers only land held by the Crown Estate. (Ian Mills, Coastal Manager, Crown Estate, 16th October 2008).
“The Crown Estate has no holdings within the boundaries of Cornwall. Foreshore and other property that would in most counties be the property of the Crown Estate are, in Cornwall, not owned by the Crown Estate. The analogous landowner in Cornwall is the Duchy of Cornwall”. (Tim Riley, Librarian, Crown Estate, 7th January 2005).
Under the Articles of Agreement between the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall, made law by the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858, the mineral rights beneath the foreshore of Cornwall became, “vested in the Duchy of Cornwall as part of the soil and territorial possessions of the Duke of Cornwall”.
“The Duchy of Cornwall is vested in the Prince of Wales (who is) entitled only to the annual income”. (The Prime Minister, Hansard, 27th March 1996). It would appear that ultimately, only the government is in a position to ‘vest’.
“The Duchy of Cornwall is not itself subject to the Freedom of Information Act”. (Elizabeth A. Stuart, Duchy of Cornwall, 22nd February2005).
The Duke of Cornwall does not offer a Marine Stewardship project or a Marine Communities Fund as might be reasonably expected of the owner of the foreshore of Cornwall in light of the Crown Estate example. The suspicion is aroused that the separation of the Crown land of Cornwall from the original Crown land or estate of William the Conqueror appears to be based on racial grounds connected with the Celtic ethnic (non-Anglo-Saxon) origins of the Cornish.
Recent meetings of the ‘Save our Sand Hayle’ and the ‘Hayle Towans Partnership’ have expressed serious concern at the accelerating depletion of sand caused by commercial exploitation. They have not contacted either the Crown Estate or the Duchy of Cornwall as a landowner.
The Hayle Harbour is a World Heritage site under threat of the speculative construction of water’s edge blocks of flats emulating the failed coastal second home policies of Spain. The South West Regional Assembly has recommended that the current housing policy be scrapped. (Western Morning News, 11th October 2008).
An independent evaluation and professional projection of both natural population limits as well as a global warming and tidal trends impact assessment etc., in respect of Cornwall’s peninsula coastline, is urgently required.
Clear administrative responsibilities are, however, not immediately apparent.
It is the duty of HM Treasury to give unquestioning priority, under section 8 of the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1982, to ensuring that it: “shall have regard to the interests of both present and future Dukes of Cornwall”. In its function as the source of funding for departmental budgets, it would be impossible to conceive that HM Treasury has not imposed its own priorities on such departments as the Department for Communities and Local Government; the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, (DEFRA).
Furthermore, the Cornwall County Council is expected, “not to alter or take away any of the rights, powers, privileges or authority of the Duchy of Cornwall” under section 50 of the Cornwall County Council Act 1981.
In addition, the Ministry of Justice has asserted that the Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate. (9th October 2008). However, it has neglected to explain why so much departmental assistance, or, in effect, ‘state aid’, is made available, directly or indirectly, to enhance the profitability of just one ‘private estate’. The existence of this Duchy of Cornwall enigma may, in itself, offer an explanation as to why the Department of Justice has failed to provide the British public with a statutory guarantee of the internationally accepted basic human right of equality before the law.
As a result of the credit crunch the government has taken on the role of ‘bank owner of last resort’. The public has been assured that this is only a temporary measure. ‘Temporary’ has yet, however, to be applied to the Duchy of Cornwall. Since 1337, it was, and still is, ‘vested’ with the feudal rights of, ‘landowner of last resort’ in Cornwall. (Treasury Form No. BVC5 and IHTA84/s230). This anomaly has long since required correction.
Consequently, we would be very much obliged to be informed as to:-
Who is legally responsible for ensuring the protection and survival of the foreshore and natural coastline of Cornwall in compliance with European Union Decisions and Directives in a manner that will ensure the discontinuation of the demonstrably evident institutionalised feudal legacy of racial discrimination against the Cornish people?
Yours faithfully,
E.R.Nute,
Keeper of the seal,
for and on behalf of
The Cornish Stannary Parliament. |
|
|
First | Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next | Last |
