Further response to the FCPNM

Additional response to:- “The United Kingdom’s Draft Second Report to the Council of Europe under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities”.

Seneth an Stenegow Kernow
Stannary Information Office
9, coombe park, bal lake, camborne, tr14 ojg kernow , G.B.
phone - 01209-710938
The Stannaries are part of the territorial possessions of the Duchy of Cornwall by Charters of 1337/8

18th January 2007
The Secretary of State,
Department for Communities and Local Government,
7th Floor, Eland House,
Bressenden Place,
London SW1E 5DU Fax:-020-7944-8974 1 of 11

Dear Madam,

Response to:- “The United Kingdom’s Draft Second Report to the Council of Europe under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities”.

Thank you for our copy of the Draft Second Report received 10th December 2006.

After over five years of what appears to have been the submission of futile appeals by various Cornish organisations to government bodies asserting the conviction that we all consider ourselves to be indigenous Cornish of Celtic ethnic origins and, under Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights, to be members in association with a national minority, we now find ourselves confronted with a RRA formula which appears to be selectively applied to the Cornish in order to deny us the provisions of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. The facts reveal the Cornish as an indigenous people of Britain with a recognised Celtic language having derivative surnames and place names, a UNESCO Cornish Mining World Heritage status based on pre-Christian exports of tin, our flag of St. Piran and our Stannary traditions, the source of five centuries of income in support of the heir to the throne in place of general taxation. This method of providing resources for the culture and heritage of the English national majority shows no sign of reciprocation in support of the culture and heritage of the Cornish national minority.

The suspicion of bias against Cornish culture is aroused by the exclusion of positive aspects of Celtic and British history from the English national curriculum for history, in particular, the subject of royal wealth generated from Cornish minerals. Transparency in the teaching of history has yet to materialise. The government as a whole is concealing the facts about Cornwall and attempting to achieve English cultural advantage despite exercising the role of an undeclared interested party in any decision regarding the Framework Convention.

Should the government yet again choose to ignore the historical record, we would consider that it represented the final and conclusive statement, by representatives of the permanent English national majority, amounting to an irrevocable denial of the right of the Cornish people to exist as a national minority. Consequently, you would present us with no alternative but to investigate our legal options.

We are concerned that the limitations imposed on the English schools curriculum for history may reflect a fundamentalist approach by the government of the United Kingdom in its refusal to even entertain acceptance of the international principle of equality before the law as a statutory guarantee in British law with applicability throughout the administration as is the case in the Monarchy of Sweden.

Equality before the law would be of benefit to all citizens of the United Kingdom in helping to create effective accountability throughout the administrative system. The Cornish would be in a position to raise the question of the failure to provide proportionate automatic funding for Cornish traditions and culture to compare favourably with the automatic funding currently available for English traditions and culture.

The suspicion is aroused that government policies in respect of the Duchy of Cornwall would require complete modernisation if subjected to an open and objective examination of their impact on Cornwall. Aspects of the ruthless self-interest of the feudal system evident within the legacy of the Duchy of Cornwall would be swept away under the principle of equality before the law in compliance with E.U. Race Directive 2000/43/EC whether transposed into English law or not. (The European Court of Justice, Simmenthal Case 106/77).

The government has clearly been involved in ensuring that the right to equality before the law is included in the present Constitution of Iraq to prevent exploitation of minorities by the Shiite majority. At home there is a distinct reluctance on the part of the authorities to even consider the impact of equality before the law in respect of the RRA formula. Ian Naysmith, 5th January 2007 , dismisses equality before the law in the Race Directive as a mere recital, but, in this case the recital clearly assumes that the provision already exists in the laws of the Member States. In the case of Britain this assumption is not correct. The recital (3) of Directive 2000/43/EC states:-

“The right to equality before the law and the protection against discrimination for all persons constitutes a universal right recognised by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women, the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination and the United Nations Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law”.

Has the government informed the European Commission and the Council of Europe that there is no statutory guarantee of equality before the law in United Kingdom law?

Many U.K. “laws, regulations and administrative provisions contrary to the principle of equal treatment” (Directive 2000/43/EC, Article 14) should long since have been “abolished”, especially those in violation of equality before the law; race equality; and those covering provisions for:- planning; environmental protection; conditions of human life; cultural sites; public participation and access to justice.

Official anti-Europeanism towards the transposition into English law of European Community Directives imposes tangible disadvantages upon persons defined by: (a) their Cornish national or ethnic origins, or, persons with pre-Christian and pre-England roots: (b) the area of Celtic culture as defined by the National Geographic Magazine of March 2006; (c) an area in which the Duchy of Cornwall Estate is the beneficiary of intestate estates (Inland Revenue Form RE2152); bona vacantia (HM Treasury Form BVC3); Treasure Trove (The Treasure Act 1996) and is the statutory owner of the foreshore as “part of the soil and territorial possessions of the Duchy of Cornwall” (Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1958); (d) an area where the Crown Estate has no holdings, (CE letter dated 7th January 2005); (e) the area in which the Land Registry recognises bounding as a Cornish custom of overriding interest. (Land Registry, Plymouth, letter 4th October 2004); (f) the area being the beneficiary of European Community Objective One funding on the grounds of: below average E.U.GDP and its “distinct cultural and historic factors reflecting a Celtic background”; (Office for National Statistics ‘European Classification of UK Geographic Areas’, News Release, 29th June 1998); (g) the area where pre-England archaeological sites are posted and claimed as English Heritage and, (h) the area where the people were described by the Greeks in 300 AD as: “those who produce tin from rocks and are civilised to strangers” (The Extraordinary Voyage of Pytheas the Greek, Professor Barry Cunliffe, Walker & Co., New York, 2002).

Reference was made to the Pytheas record in the documentation submitted to UNESCO in respect of the Cornish Mining World Heritage application. At the last minute the observation that the Cornish were civilised was deleted. Clearly, persons acting in an official capacity, possibly English Heritage, found it necessary to tamper with the facts. In so doing, a preconceived institutional bias has been exposed, and thereby, demonstrating their own self-assessed racial superiority and the non-achiever label considered by them to be applicable to the Cornish.

It is not, in many ways, surprising that the government refuses to recognise the Cornish as a national minority. For 200 years, the government, along with the education system, the teachers’ trade unions, the media, the political parties and the royal family all declined to recognise the Cornishman, Richard Trevithick as the inventor of the steam locomotive. Promoted, in Trevithick’s place, even alongside Her Majesty on a five pound note, has been the Englishman, George Stephenson. The un-edifying rush to stage an ego trip for the English subject has all too often displaced the truth. Secrets are kept by being officially declared to be a subject not in the national interest. The use and abuse of power by persons acting in an official capacity to deny the facts, even when clearly stated in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, betrays a system trapped in a feudal master race syndrome with the reprehensible added attraction of assuming the power to downgrade the Cornish to second class citizenship: A case of the thief accusing his victim of having nothing. In Canada, the indigenous people rightly consider themselves to be the “First Nation” people.

On the basis of the reaction to Pytheas and Trevithick, by persons acting in an official capacity, it is reasonable to conclude that the government of the United Kingdom, as far as the Cornish are concerned, is part of the problem.

The suspicion has long since been aroused that the extensive privileges accorded by the legislature, executive and the judiciary to the heir to the throne, the Duke of Cornwall, is made on the condition that he reciprocates by giving priority to the promotion of English traditions and culture and assist in the assimilation of the Cornish into Anglo-Saxon society. This is intended to eliminate or usurp the first nation origins of the Cornish. The plan is revealed in the transfer to English Heritage of the castles in Cornwall granted to the Duke in the Duchy Charters of 1337/8 and including Tintagel of Celtic Arthurian fame. (The lure of royal association with Cornwall’s Arthurian heritage is reflected in the personal names of the Duke of Cornwall:- Charles, Philip, (Father) “Arthur”, George, (Grandfather)). An example that the absence of a statutory provision of equality before the law has facilitated the development of institutional racism and bias within the decision making process of the United Kingdom in respect of Cornwall and the Cornish.

It is contended that the vacuum created by the exclusion of equality before the law from English law has been exploited by the abuse of the status, powers and duties conferred by the taking of the oath of allegiance to the Crown and the heir to the throne, the Duke of Cornwall, by members of the legislature, executive, police and judiciary. A web of subliminal control prejudices access to justice and informed public participation is negated through limitations on access to information. This raises questions regarding the integrity of claims to the “independence and impartiality” of administrative decisions to determine, by an undeclared interested party, whether the Cornish, of pre-England origins, have the right to exist as an indigenous national minority, a minority that is, which is actually in situ and in residence in their historic traditional territory.

The Duke of Cornwall, heir to the throne, is designated part of Her Majesty in her private capacity. (Crown Proceedings Act 1947, s.38 (3)). The oath of allegiance to the Crown and the heirs and successors therefore, includes the Duke of Cornwall and has been extended to the preservation of the Duchy of Cornwall estate based on inequitable feudal laws.

The public landed property (Land Registration Act 2002, Explanatory notes, para 4, “The Crown is the only absolute owner of land”) arbitrarily retained for the Duke is designated as “private”, clearly, to avoid public accountability. There is even an injunction in the House of Commons to prevent questions regarding the role of the Duchy of Cornwall in Cornwall. (House of Commons Library letter to Andrew George M.P. 16.6.1997).

The commercial affairs of the Duchy of Cornwall Estate are, however, being given priority by government officials who appear to believe that the oath of allegiance creates a racially superior club with the divine right of Kings to control access to information even for the sovereign Parliament.

A deliberate policy of obscuring legal clarity is diametrically opposed to the principles of open government and equality before the law and may be related to the fact that the Duke of Cornwall has expressed his opposition to European human rights law. (The Times, 2nd March 2006 and The Independent on Sunday, 29th November 2002).

The Crown Proceedings Act 1947, section 40 (2g) also reveals that the Duke of Cornwall, the heir to the throne, as part of Her Majesty in Her private capacity, has the right: “to control or otherwise intervene in proceedings affecting his rights, property or profits”. This application of the Anglo-Saxon rule of law protects only one individual not all individuals as claimed in the Draft Second Report para.22. There is, therefore, an assumed right that the legislature and public servants can assume the cloak of Crown rights as a privilege and a barrier behind which to indulge in an ideological abuse of power by discriminating against the Cornish national minority at will.

The bestowal of prerogative rights upon the public body known as the Duchy of Cornwall which has adopted a “private” estate status under the management of the heir to the throne, are entirely for “profit” not for the benefit of Cornish subjects. The democratic audit trail appears to uncover a strategy involving the deliberate suppression of evidence of England’s feudal legacy of obtaining a permanent income for the heir to the throne from Cornwall without a public debate in the sovereign Parliament. On inception in 1337/8 under the feudal system, an enforced Cornish contribution through the pre-England Stannaries was considered preferable to imposing taxation on the English national majority. The system has been retained but, as a state secret supported by governments ever since, despite other positive developments in the evolution of democracy.

The Cornish have inadvertently become part of the unpalatable evidence, which apparently, should also be suppressed and eliminated; even statistical exclusion of the Cornish from the Census, has been arranged by the Office for National Statistics in deference to the Duke. The official reason why Cornwall was chosen as a Duchy in 1337 is regarded a taboo subject. However, the subject of royal wealth from a double Duchy tax imposed on the minerals of Cornwall, as if it were a “foreign” country, was partially included in the documents accepted by UNESCO in its inclusion of Cornish Mining on the World Heritage list.

For unexplained reasons of history the Duchies have there own senior officers. There is a Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and a Lord Warden of the Stannaries of the Duchy of Cornwall. The Lord Warden collected the profits of the Stannary Court for the Duke as stipulated by the Duchy Charters of 1337/8. The Lord Warden also ensured that double taxes were paid on tin production by the Cornish on account of their being classified as “foreign” by the English government, (G.R. Lewis, The Stannaries, Harvard University, 1908). Treatment of the Cornish as “foreign” for the purposes of taxation on tin production should point in the direction of “national” or “ethnic” credentials. In conjunction with the classification of the first nation Cornish as “foreign”, there is the claim to “territorial possessions” belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall in Cornwall in 1858. (Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858). Since “territorial possessions” involved the acquisition of the foreshore of Cornwall by the Duchy it would appear to be interchangeable with: “territorial acquisitions”.

The minerals of Cornwall are the historic Stannaries which, as a “territorial possession” of the Duke, by charters of 1337/8, covers the whole of Cornwall, and therefore, it is possible to conclude that “territorial” and “foreign” in relation to Cornwall indicates a Cornwall of Cornish people outside the normal borders of the state, and would, in itself appear to denote Parliamentary recognition of Cornwall as a non-English territory without reference to the suspect RRA formula. In addition, there is no indication or proof of “acquisition” of a “private” estate.

Racial discrimination against the Cornish people is highly visible in the differences between the legislative provisions for the Crown Estate, (The Crown Estate has no holdings in Cornwall, Letter, 7th January 2005) and the provisions of the Duchy of Cornwall Management Acts 1863 – 1982. There is, as yet, no attempt to instigate a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to give real meaning to the empty promises that England is a land of cultural diversity.

There is no explanation as to why these policies of privilege and dedicated laws for a collection of public property, detached from the Crown Estate, are deemed to be Duchy of Cornwall property requiring handling with secrecy as a “private” estate to avoid public accountability. No reason is available as to why Crown land under Duchy of Cornwall management is treated as if it were “private” property in Cornwall while Crown land managed by the Crown Estate in the rest of the United Kingdom is treated as public property.

It is considered that a Race Equality Impact Assessment is long overdue in order to highlight the direct and indirect discrimination put in place by this Crown/Duchy separation. Cornish people, no longer the source of a vast fortune from tin for the heir to the throne, are being pushed into oblivion on the grounds of: “political or other opinion, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status”. (Article 14 ECHR). Non-recognition of the Cornish national minority can be understood, from the standpoint of an objective observer, as the clandestine extra-judicial act of collective punishment imposed to prevent objections to the past and present feudal property ambitions in Cornwall on the part of the leading institutions of the English national majority.

The alleged institutional bias, discrimination and deception by public bodies on behalf of a pseudo “private” body is explicit in such Acts of Parliament as the Tamar Bridge Act 1998, section 41, which demonstrates evidence of an established government policy in that there is the revealing provision; “Nothing in this Act affects prejudicially any estate, right, power, privilege, authority or exemption of the Crown including the Duchy of Cornwall”. The concept “Crown” has been so widely exploited as the badge of unchallengeable authority by departments of state, and certain “private” estates, that it has become associated with totalitarianism.

There is no official explanation as to why these legislative rights are in fact nothing but confirmation of prerogative rights being transposed into “profits” by the alleged “private” estate, the Duchy of Cornwall. Collateral prejudice is being engendered towards the legitimate cultural interests of the Cornish people by the secrecy surrounding Duchy historical and contemporary activities effectively suppressed by its exemption from the Freedom of Information Act 2000, section 37, or s.35 and s.36.

The dexterity of a legislative grant of Freedom of Information to cover up a scheme to legalise official silence is clearly intended to elevate all those exercising “power” and “control” to be above and beyond the reach of English law by exercising an assumed “right” to conceal their actions and property from the public.

The Duchy of Cornwall Estate, the pseudo “private” estate, is provided with the “right” to claim: castles, intestate estates, bona vacantia, (Supreme Court Act 1981, s.120) foreshore, mineral rights, gold and silver, treasure trove and regalities in Cornwall supported by the Charters of 1337/8 (First Charter published by HMSO 1978 as Statutes in Force, Constitutional Law) which grant the Duke throughout Cornwall: “the Kings writ and summons of exchequer”. No official document describes this as the original source of the Duke’s “power. The Duke’s constitutional “public power” is now evidently exercised as a “private power” for profit as confirmed by the Tamar Bridge Act 1998 and elsewhere.

The inalienability of Crown and Duchy property “rights” compares unfavourably with the property of the Cornish people, which may be claimed as the “reputed” property of the Duchy. (Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863, section 37). The Cornish were dispossessed of the Stannaries by royal charter of 1337 without compensation contrary to Magna Charta(1215), Article 52; (1297), Article 29.

The evidence suggests that the three Duchy Charters of 1337/8 effectively ensured that the Magna Charta (1215 and 1297) did not apply to Cornwall. Access by the public to information concerning this English legacy of official and “private” Crown power is currently considered unsuitable and sensitive, even unpalatable for the public domain. Herein may lie the reason for the creation of the modern “private” disguise in respect of Cornish property of pre-England origins.

The “duty” of HM Treasury in respect of the Duchy of Cornwall has been regulated by law. “The Treasury shall have regard to the interests of both present and future Dukes of Cornwall. (Duchy of Cornwall Management Acts 1863-1982, section 8 of the 1982 Act). With its position at the centre of state finances, the “duty” appears to have been made applicable to all branches of the establishment. This “duty” entails the maximisation of the income from the Duchy of Cornwall Estate in Cornwall, often for investment outside Cornwall which may have contributed to the necessity of two European Objective One funding programmes.

It is at least written into the constitution via the above Acts at section 37 that the Duke’s right to “regalities” are included as part of his unpublished possessions. This retention of feudal ideology represents an abuse of the oath of allegiance as well as the abuse of political power in the provision of an alleged “private” income from public property, for the heir to the throne. It is apparently thought necessary to avoid public interest that might generate public control and criticism in the case of a salary from taxation as in the case of Her Majesty Herself. Ducal “power” was exercised when The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee accepted a refusal by the Secretary to the Duchy to provide a list of Duchy properties repeatedly requested in February 2006 by Members who are generally recognised as the sovereign Parliament at Westminster.

If the Duchy of Cornwall were truly “private” then its claim to “private” property would never have been described as “part of the soil and territorial possessions of the said Duchy” (Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858). This would appear to indicate that the property is being used by the Duchy rather than actually claimed as being in the ownership of either the Duchy or the state. If the validity of the Duchy Charters of 1337/8 were beyond question, then, the endless list of supporting legislation would hardly be necessary.

Through anonymity, construction projects, on public land connected to the public properties on the unpublished list of the public properties of the Duchy of Cornwall pseudo “private” estate, are likely to be in a limbo which would avoid European Community Environmental Impact Assessment laws and in addition to the avoidance of a Race Equality Impact Assessment, especially, if the Cornish are deemed to be English by their exclusion from the Framework Convention.

It is contended that the widespread abuse of the oath of allegiance would not have been possible without suppressing the history, traditions and national minority identity of the Cornish people especially, in the modern context, through the socially irresponsible construction of second homes on land compulsorily purchased by government bodies across Cornwall. The construction of second homes under the pretext of a regeneration policy constitutes an infringement not only of European Community Environmental Impact Assessment and Race Equality Impact Assessment laws but also the Framework Convention itself in giving priority to English people to live in second homes in Cornwall while Cornish people are priced out of the housing market. This relegates to a farce alleged compliance with the “public participation and access to justice” requirements of E.U. Directive 2003/35/EC and Article 3 of Directive 2000/43/EC.

To obtain recognition as a racial group the Cornish are extraordinarily required to present an allegation of racial discrimination in an English court. The global economy may soon make it possible to assess the level of objectivity available in an alternative “control” free legal system. The process is referred to as the “RRA formula” as proposed by the Commission for Racial Equality and recommended by your Department in the Draft Second Report para.17. This usually involves a private court action undertaken by an aggrieved individual in the case of one alleged act of racial discrimination.

Cornwall is more than one individual. Freedom for the Cornish requires more than one individual case of alleged racial discrimination. Freedom is the right to proportionate equal funding for Cornish culture and traditions.

Its realisation would appear to require the exposure of the abuse of power and the abuse of the official oath of allegiance by a number of public bodies and clandestine “private” bodies who would appear to have exempted themselves from compulsory purchase of land and property and given themselves freedom from prosecution under English law. (Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, section 111, Part 8).

Since the Duke of Cornwall is still in a position to exercise: “the right to control or otherwise intervene in proceedings affecting rights, property and profits ”, it remains an active provision capable of being exercised to frustrate any attempt by a Cornish individual, or the representatives of the Cornish people who might use English courts, subject to such “control”, in an attempt to obtain recognition of their Celtic ethnic origins and national history. Ministers appear anxious to conceal, again for undisclosed reasons, the extent of Duchy of Cornwall “power”. Duchy “private” and public power is an unknown quantity yet to be revealed to the public, but, it is sure to include its claims to be “the government of Cornwall” in control of “territorial possessions”. (Cornwall Foreshore Dispute 1854-1858 culminating in the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858).

The legislative Audit Trail provides its own source of evidence. There have been approximately 180 Acts of Parliament dedicated in whole or in part to the promotion of the interests of the Duchy of Cornwall. Any Act connected with land usually has a section on “Crown application” or “Crown rights” which includes the Duchy. There is the “Application to the Crown and the Duke of Cornwall” at section 37 of the Limitation Act 1980, and the “Disapplication of requirements re Duchy land” of the Land Registration Act 2002, section 84 note 135; the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 293, “Application of Act to Crown Land”, includes Duchy land, and section 50 of the Cornwall County Council Act 1984, “Saving for Duchy of Cornwall”.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000, creates an impenetrable barrier against the dissemination of public information to the public under sections 35; 36 and 37 which includes communications with the royal family or household, and declares: “The duty to confirm or deny does not arise”.

The extensive list of privileges contained in the Acts of Parliament mentioned above on behalf of the Duke of Cornwall and his pseudo “private” estate, constitutes such conclusive evidence as to render inconceivable the proposition that the Duchy of Cornwall is not consulted or not permitted to “otherwise intervene” at the draft stage of legislation. It is difficult to find evidence in support of any restriction on the Duke of Cornwall, heir to the throne, to prevent his royal prerogative intervention in any of the executive, legislative or judicial departments of government, especially, since the Duke is a Member of the House of Lords.

Consequently, it is contended that the history of Cornwall’s relationship with the Duchy over a period of 650 years would be taken as sufficient justification for the Duke to “otherwise intervene” in matters concerning the Cornish. Unfortunately, Cornish matters are currently considered to warrant negative interventions by yet another undeclared interested party.

This conclusion is drawn from that fact that no evidence can be found of positive interventions by a Prince of Wales/Duke of Cornwall in support of the Cornish identity although he frequently makes his views known on a variety of matters of public interest and no doubt on other matters involving exempt information in respect of “private” “rights, property and profits” in the national interest.

“The duty to confirm or deny does not arise” is an unmistakeable act of censorship. It would appear, in respect of matters concerning the role of the Duchy of Cornwall in Cornwall, that unpalatable questions might arise if public attention were directed towards the history of the Cornish people through their inclusion within the terms of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Majorities.

The extant grace and favour feudal system, active in Cornwall, thrives on an unwritten constitution and the exclusion of a statutory guarantee of equality before the law from English law. There would appear to be a policy of ensuring that: where there is no law there can be no violation by certain persons whether acting privately or in a public capacity.

The mysteries behind the application of the Anglo-Saxon rule of law, and no law, are being exposed as policies to promote English nationalism and any other expression of cultural diversity may be arbitrarily silenced through enforced assimilation as not being in the public or national interest.

Although there is no law against the Cornish right to claim their self-assessed national minority status, in practice, it is rejected because in the national interest has come to mean in the English national interest rather than in the British national interest.

That the Cornish national minority, their culture, traditions and history apparently do not exist, resembles the situation of the people of the Chagos Islands. In that case, the government was exposed, in the High Court Case No.CO/4093/2004 of May 2006, as deliberately falsifying the record and the facts, by claiming the islanders were temporary workers, in order to obtain control over their land and property without paying compensation. The people of Cornwall are not being recognised by the government as a nation separate from England for fear of exposing the long overdue need to modernise the dogmatic attitudes inherent in the preservation of the feudal Duchy of Cornwall Estate. At least recognise the Cornish as being the victims of feudalism and bring the Duchy estate into line with the Crown Estate. It is to be hoped that the government does not intend to repeat the mistakes of the Chagos case in respect of the Cornish.

In a former case in an English court in 2000, involving the removal of 18 English Heritage signs appended to Cornish heritage monuments, a court hearing, to establish Cornish intellectual property and cultural rights, which may well have been sufficient to satisfy the obtuse “RRA formula”, was prevented by rules which permitted a public interest immunity certificate: “to intervene in the proceedings”.

Clearly, this is further evidence of some form of extra-judicial “control” over due process exercised by, what must finally be recognised as: an unconstitutional, uncontrollable and feudal Duchy dictatorship permitted by the government to continue its dubious right to make “profits” in Cornwall.

“What is invidious about the position of the Duchy (of Cornwall) is It’s compromising
of the original principle of English constitutional law, that the monarch should be dependant on Parliament for finance”. (Who Owns Britain, (page 91) Kevin Cahill, Canongate, Edinburgh, 2001).

The Cahill evidence suggests that the claim to the ownership of a “private” estate by the Duke of Cornwall is unconstitutional. The deviation from Magna Charta standards is clearly intended to avoid imposing taxation on English people and to avoid the payment of compensation to the Cornish people in respect of the deprivation of property in particular, the former double tax on Cornish tin production, and the current mineral rights, customary rights and cultural rights.

Failure to include royal history in respect of Cornwall and the Duchy of Cornwall in the schools curriculum for British history exposes solid government reasons for retaining the unwritten constitution, including for reasons of its unsuitability as the subject for an oath of allegiance. It is the foundation of government by official declarations of such mal-administration processes as: RRA formula; constitutional “private” estates; exempt information and not in the public interest immunity certificates to control education and other sectors of the system. The accelerating frequency of such acts of discrimination and censorship appears to be indicative of preparation for the introduction of a new age of the secret constitution. It is this failure to relinquish control over access to information and apply the principles of open government through a statutory guarantee of equality before the law that stands out as threatening to become the cause of the long feared break-up of the United Kingdom recently the subject of Ministerial speeches.

The evidence suggests that centuries of officially sanctioned suppression by the Duchy of Cornwall of the identity of Cornwall and the Cornish, an indigenous British nationality, for the unconstitutional benefit of the Crown, Heir to the Throne, Parliament and the English national majority should be discontinued. Uncovering the truth as to how we arrived at the present situation should pave the way for the inevitable recognition of the Cornish as a national minority of Britain within the provisions of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.

Yours faithfully,

The Speaker
for and on behalf of
The Cornish Stannary Parliament.


What's Related

Document Options


Trackback URL for this entry: http://cornishstannaryparliament.co.uk//resources//trackback.php?id=20070123225203795

No trackback comments for this entry.
Further response to the FCPNM | 0 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
copyright CSP 2006 ..... Designed and hosted by FTI