7th November 2007
The Chief Constable,
Devon and Cornwall Constabulary,
The apparent toleration of unequal rights in the English legal system
It is contended that the British public has been denied the otherwise world wide constitutional or statutory public right to enforce compliance with the principle of equality before the law upon those “performing functions within the public administration”. This is not merely a republican aspiration since, the Constitution of the Monarchy of Sweden, Chapter 1 Article 9, provides, “Courts, public authorities and others performing functions within the public administration shall observe in their work the equality of all persons before the law and shall maintain objectivity and impartiality”....
Without offering any explanation to the Cornish Stannary Parliament in respect of applications made to the European Court of Human Rights of April 2006 and to the European Court of Justice of July 2007 concerning attempts to have introduced into the domestic law of the United Kingdom the United Nations right to an enforceable guarantee of equality before the law as laid down in the Universal Declaration, Article 7, have been rejected. The rejection of equality before the law, it would appear, was based on an unchallengeable interpretation of the opt outs from fundamental rights by the government of the U.K. in respect of the Revised E.U. Treaty and Article 36 of the European Convention of Human Rights. (undisclosed written comments by member states).
This omission of equality before the law, which can now be classified as intentional, since, it fits in with the exclusion of Article 13 of the Convention (“right to an effective remedy for violations by persons acting in an official capacity”) from the Human Rights Act. In the UK, emphasis is given to the rule of law. Without being subjected to the discipline of equality before the law, the rule of law was, as is well documented, successfully applied in South Africa to maintain Apartheid, an internationally condemned system of privileges for all the component parts of the group in power based on inflicting upon an indigenous people the deprivation of their human, intellectual and property rights.
Around the globe, most legislatures are subject to equality before the law. This would mean a legitimate public expectation of a statement of reasons to explain and justify any exceptions. The evidence suggests there is a tacit acceptance, by those acting in an official capacity in the UK, of the convenience of: ‘no law is good law ‘, for those in power.
“The Guide to Legislative Procedures” published by the Cabinet Office, October 2004, reveals at para. 14.6 that consideration will be given to: “the nature of the legislation and the potential impact it may have on Duchy (of Cornwall) operations and / or privileges”.
Duchy of Cornwall operations and privileges are not itemised. Lack of information, or silence, clearly prevents the public from determining whether or not they are directly or indirectly the victims of racially discriminating operations or privileges, and therefore, they are effectively blocked from taking action for the repeal or abolition of any alleged illegal operations or privileges, under Article 14 (Compliance) of EU Race Directive 2000/43/EC.
It would appear that the operations and privileges of the Duchy of Cornwall are commercial and constitutional. On behalf of the heir to the throne, they include income from, intestate estates, bona vacantia, the acquisition of the assets of bankrupt companies in Cornwall, (supported by the “rights, property and profits” of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, section 40 (2g) and exceptions under section 120 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 ); the private right to exercise the King’s Writ and Summons of Exchequer and Attachments in Cornwall; the ownership of the Stannaries and foreshore of Cornwall as territorial possessions; (Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858) the exemption from calling elections to the Duchy of Cornwall Council and no obligation to provide affordable housing or cultural support in Cornwall, an operation performed by the Crown Estate in the remainder of the United Kingdom.
The Duchy Estate has achieved the appearance of economic independence through state aid in the form of authority to claim a private income from territorial possessions in Cornwall for the heir to the throne to reinvest in Anglo-Saxon England with the ultimate objective of avoiding the imposition of statutory taxation on the English national majority which would provide an income subject to public accountability as is the case with the Crown Estate. The feudal legacy of the Duchy of Cornwall was inaugurated by charters of 16th , 17th and 18th March 1337, and confirmed as the only exception in the Civil List Act 1760. It apparently still operates the privilege of the selective application of racial equality rights in order to suppress the national identity of the indigenous Cornish people. Questions arise in an attempt to establish whether or not the heir to the throne is in fact authorised to oppose Human Rights, a subject on which he has been widely reported. Are undefined and unwritten operations and privileges, unsupported by publicly stated reasons for their extent and use, evidence of a secret constitution? If so, would that constitute a conspiracy?
Under the title “A sharp little piece of honesty getting under Whitehall’s skin” The Sunday Times article of 28th October 2007 reveals that Assistant Commissioner John Yates of the Metropolitan Police has declared, with regard to his: “oath of allegiance to the Queen,- there were four guiding principles, fairness, integrity, diligence, impartiality”. These principles do not appear to be enforceable by the public as a statutory right and sadly, equality before the law is conspicuous by its absence. The evidence suggests that equality before the law is officially outlawed as being incompatible with a secret constitution.
May I respectfully enquire as to whether it is nevertheless possible to consider that the four guiding principles of the Assistant Commissioner may constitute sufficient authority for the Devon and Cornwall Police to implement the right of suspects to self-identify? Are the appropriate operational procedures in place to enable individual police officers to faithfully record, and have stored for statistical reference, all declarations of Cornish identity, ethnicity or national minority status that may be affirmed by a member of the public? This would support parallel attempts by other official bodies in Cornwall.
Thank you for your time and patience.
Stannary Information Officer.