DICTATORIAL PLANNING LAWS FOR CORNWALL

   
With the overriding Duchy of Cornwall interest in land and mineral rights in Cornwall, these exemptions from the law, retain a feudal style planning dictatorship, unless, these exemptions and 'interests' are promptly abolished.

The rejection of basic international human rights provisions, such as a guaranteed equality before the law, must call into question the legitimacy of any modern state.

DICTATORIAL PLANNING LAWS FOR CORNWALL


1. With no written one-stop UK Constitution the public is nevertheless entitled to know everything about the distribution of constitutional rights. There should be no secrets. The public deserves to be given proof that everyone is entitled to the same rights on the basis of equality before the law.

2. The original written constitution was Magna Charta 1215 and 1287 followed by the Bill of Rights 1688 which were designed to control the power and bias of the Crown. Interestingly, ‘The Bill of Rights’ declares:- “That the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal”. It is also noted that there is no Act of Parliament in which the Duchy of Cornwall is declared to be a ‘private’ estate although this ‘private’ claim is made by the government without explanation.

3. Over the centuries the rights and principles of these historic constitutional documents on rights and liberties have not been applied to Cornwall and the Cornish where three Duchy of Cornwall Charters of 1337/8 took precedence. Today, there are still those unexplained instances of Duchy of Cornwall and Crown Estate bias, exceptions and privileges in respect of Cornwall kept in place by an all party Memorandum of Understanding on royal possessions and incomes. (e.g., House of Commons, Hansard, 9th July 2002).

4. Without a normal constitution, Royal Charters or prerogatives or Orders in Council are often given preference to Acts of Parliament and used to prevent and avoid legitimate Cornish objections. In particular, there is no explanation for the denial of the international human rights guarantee of equality before the law. (UN Declaration of Human Rights 1948, Article 7, considered important for the rights of national minorities). This is also the case for the Ministry of Justice. A Freedom of Information request of 30th September 2009 finally received a response on 15th April 2010 (Case No. 61514) after a complaint to the Information Commissioner. (Case No. FS50298951). The Ministry of Justice claimed it held no documents on the commitment of the UK to the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights covering: “all persons are equal before the law” and “national minority rights” or documents on “the exclusion of the Crown Estate from Cornwall”. When objections are made that such exclusions protect the Duchy of Cornwall and discriminate against the Cornish, they are being dismissed as ‘disloyal’ in an apparent attempt to conceal the motivating force behind the creation of the Duchy of Cornwall in 1337 and its relationship with the exclusion from domestic law of impartial international human rights law and an unbiased one-stop written constitution.

5. Nothing could be more ‘disloyal’ to the principles of Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights than the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1982, which provides:- “H.M.Treasury shall have regard to the interests of present and future Dukes of Cornwall”. This innocent sounding priority, to be implemented by the financial centre of government, already provides the Duchy with exemptions from many Acts of Parliament including: Competition (1998), Freedom of Information (2000), Land Registration (2002), Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004), Equality (2006), Planning (2008), and, the Companies Act 1985 at section 654 ensuring that the Duke of Cornwall, Heir to the Throne, receives the assets of bankrupt companies in Cornwall. These undefined, and therefore, unlimited ‘Duchy interests’ which do not exclude racial bias, are now reinforced with protection from public scrutiny by the government claiming for the Duchy the title of a ‘private’ estate. The ‘interests and ‘exceptions’ are all deemed inappropriate for inclusion in a written constitution. With the overriding Duchy interest in land and mineral rights in Cornwall, these provisions, in fact, retain a feudal style planning dictatorship, unless, these exemptions and ‘interests’ are promptly abolished.

6. It is possible that English officials and others, in order to advance, read into the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1982, a royal command to loyalty to: “have regard to the interests of present and future Dukes of Cornwall”. There is then, an implied official call to duty to extract the maximum income from Cornwall for the Duke of Cornwall even if the end result leads to the destruction of the Cornish community and its Celtic identity. Consequently, since the Human Rights Act of 1998, the Duchy of Cornwall Management Acts 1863 to 1982 represent indirect racial discrimination against the Cornish and should of course be repealed.

7. There is every reason to question both the label ‘private’ and ‘constitutional’ since; the first Duchy of Cornwall Royal Charter of 17th March 1337 was published by Her Majesty’s Stationery Office in 1978 as Constitutional Law, Statutes in Force. Three Duchy charters proclaimed ownership of the Stannaries (the legal and administrative organisation of the tin mining industry of Cornwall) and Tintagel Castle etc. There is no record of purchase or compensation. Cornish rights were ignored by two subsequent Duchy charters of 18th March 1337 and 3rd January 1338 which created unmistakably dictatorial powers or “pretended powers” in Cornwall for the Duke contrary to Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights respectively. These acquisitions are referred to as “territorial possessions” in the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858. ‘Territorial possessions’ have never been associated with the concept ‘private’. Priority was given to the maximisation of profits for the Duke of Cornwall from Cornish land, minerals and cultural assets. These dictatorial feudal powers should long since have been repealed by Parliament.

8. Such absolute power prevailed even when an attempt to control royal power was intended by the Royal Mines Act 1688 which declared: “No mine of tin or copper shall hereafter be reputed or taken to be a royal mine”. However, this Act of Parliament has been disregarded and not applied in Cornwall by the Duchy of Cornwall with no sign of government disapproval. It requires skilled manipulation of the English language to associate ‘private’ with a ‘constitutional body’ or ‘planning rights’ with ‘territorial possessions’.

9. The accepted international provision of the separation of powers between the legislature, executive and judiciary to protect the public is very vague in the UK. The personal immunity of the Monarch is being assumed in promoting the ‘interests’ of the Duchy of Cornwall. For example, the Duke of Cornwall has a judicial function under the Supreme Court Act 1981 section 120 as the administrator of bankruptcies in Cornwall for which the Duchy is also the beneficiary.

10. The Duchy of Cornwall therefore, was and remains an emanation of the state and, if private is applicable, Cornwall is the ‘private’ fiefdom of the heir to the throne. The Cornish cannot be expected to vote for their own extinction by tolerating this state of affairs in the twenty-first century, even if the messenger does bear royal insignia.

11. The evidence reveals that the Duchy of Cornwall began life with the assumption that it was not the business of the British public to interfere. Searching for an acceptable definition it was ‘constitutional’ for the acquisition of the pre-England the culturally appealing Tintagel site etc. and the profitable Stannaries. (Sunday Times Rich List, 2000 – “Richest of the Rich” 7th; “The Earl/Duke controlled Cornwall and its lucrative tin mines” c.1300 A.D.). The Duchy of Cornwall is now excluded from the ‘Sunday Times Rich List’ 2010 which includes the details of the private wealth of nine Dukes including; Devonshire; Rutland and Westminster etc, but not Cornwall. Exclusion indicates, in this case, that the Duchy of Cornwall is being excluded from the Rich List on the grounds that it is a public body since its wealth can not be attributed to private initiative. Under “The Queen, Head of State”, The Sunday Times states that it has excluded the Crown Estate from its list. The Crown Estate is a public body, and yet The Queen’s Duchy of Lancaster is also excluded. It is inconceivable that the official UK criteria adopted for the selective allocation of so much state controlled Crown land and property should be excluded from any British Constitution.

12. The Duchy was first labelled under the title “constitutional” and is now presented as “private”. It would appear that modern moves towards a written one-stop world leader constitution could not countenance the inclusion of the Duchy of Cornwall as ‘constitutional’ or ‘a private estate’ or ‘a feudal dictatorship’ or ‘a private fiefdom’ all with unregistered ‘territorial possessions’. Any version would obviously be inundated with the many inevitable international inquiries for an interpretation of Constitutional English. Consequently, an arbitrary change of title and status was deemed necessary in preparation for the exclusion of the Duchy of Cornwall altogether from any proposed one-stop written constitution, hence, ‘private’ but, with no interpretation for the British public on the meaning of ‘private’ exceptions from the law. Without a ‘privatisation’ Act of Parliament, the government’s arbitrary and hasty conversion from ‘an above the law constitutional title’ to ‘a nothing to do with us private title’, appears to be a further exercise in “pretended power”.

13. A policy of a ‘private’ territorial estate with unpalatable powers and unknown wealth from legislative exceptions and privileges would only be complete for international consumption by suppressing the historic state authorised royal abuse of power in Cornwall and the removal of the evidence by denying official recognition of the indigenous British Cornish, of pre-England origins, and claiming that they do not exist. As the director of further education in Cornwall affirmed in rejecting a claimant’s assertion of a Cornish nationality: “With an English address you would be identified as English”. (Letter dated 26th November 2003).

14. The Cornish Celtic national minority then, having been exploited historically by a ‘private fiefdom’, are to be dismissed as ‘off balance sheet’ and ‘off constitution’, an inconvenience for the Heir to the Throne, expanding in England (from Cornish mineral and land profits and unlimited officially recognised interests) a well managed private estate, mysteriously acquired in the depths of history.

15. To complete the deception there also remains, in the twenty-first century: The Crown Estate, who assert:- “The Crown Estate has no holdings within the boundaries of Cornwall. The analogous landowner in Cornwall is the Duchy of Cornwall”. (Crown Estate response to a Freedom of Information Request, 7th January 2005). The Crown Estate Act 1961 creates a public body to provide: “grants for public or charitable purposes”, such as affordable housing and community projects, throughout the UK except Cornwall. Management policies are required to; “exclude any element of monopoly value”. These requirements and restrictions do not appear in the analogous organisation’s Duchy of Cornwall Management Act of 1982.

16. Clearly, the Duchy of Cornwall is obliged to act in accordance with the principles and example of the Crown Estate in respect of Duchy holdings outside Cornwall. On the other hand, the Crown Estate cannot interfere with Duchy of Cornwall monopoly control of Cornwall, and its land, registered and unregistered. The expression ‘Except Cornwall’ applies to the Crown Estate but in Cornwall it means that the Duchy can claim any land “reputed to be Duchy possessions”. (Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863 section 37). This gives rise to the suspicion of Cornwall being set aside for the Duke of Cornwall to exercise absolute control over land and minerals, in effect, to create a planning dictatorship.

17. The inclusion of an entry: ‘Except Cornwall’ in a written constitution would be risible and might well raise some eyebrows in disbelief at the United Nations. So, lets pretend that the Duchy of Cornwall is ‘private’ and leave it out as irrelevant. In any case, a written constitution including a private fiefdom would lay us open to international ridicule.

18. Whichever deception is the preferred option, the abuse of power is patently obvious in the attempt to sweep the history of the Duchy, Cornwall and the Cornish under the carpet. If there were such a Duchy of Cornwall Private Estate Act, it would immediately be in conflict with, or repeal, the original acclaimed ‘constitutional’ Duchy of Cornwall Charters, which have even been claimed as Acts of Parliament. There is little evidence to contest the original feudal motive for the creation of the Duchy of Cornwall.

19. The Duchy of Cornwall was created in 1337 to provide an income in Cornwall from minerals, land and cultural assets for the maintenance of the Heir to the Throne to avoid imposing taxation on the English national majority. (Implied by the ‘Report of the Committee on Crown Lands’, June 1955, Command 9483, para.8, page 16). Clearly, the government’s promotion of a feudal dictatorship places the English national majority in an invidious position. Until the government adopts a policy of transparency, they are placing loyalty to the Crown above the human rights of the Cornish. Compromise is apparently not an option. Official government policy has been, however, one of avoiding disclosure of the on-going legislative and economic support for the Heir to the Throne via the Duchy of Cornwall and non-English Cornwall. There has been no change to this policy except that such arrangements are undertaken by the government ‘in private’ and in secret. Consequently, in matters of constitutional affairs, the government has chosen to remain silent in public. In other words, the absence of open government and transparency is about to be presented as an act of ‘loyalty to the Crown’ in order to create a secret British Constitution for the suppression of the indigenous British Cornish Celtic people whilst, at the same time, satisfying the architectural, pecuniary and planning interests of the Duke of Cornwall.

20. If the Duchy truly were a ‘private’ estate, there can be no justifiable constitutional reason for it to be exempt from the registration of its land. (Land Registration Act 2002, section 84, note 135). The status of Cornwall as a ‘territorial possession’, is clearly intended to be a state secret. If the lands, Stannaries and cultural assets of Cornwall now held by the Duchy had been taken as the result of planned and published nationalisation by the State, rather than by three obscure royal charters, then it could not be presented to the public or the international community as ‘private’. The non-registration of Duchy of Cornwall land and minerals may be intended to present the opportunity to sell unregistered charter land in Cornwall with self-certified deeds (Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863, sections 30 to 33) in order to obtain standard registered deeds through re-investment outside Cornwall.

21. The exemptions from legal enforcement for the Duchy of Cornwall, in particular in relation to the Planning Act 2008 with “the Duke of Cornwall as the appropriate authority” under section 227, confirms the existence of a planning dictatorship for Cornwall and supports the conviction that Cornwall is being racially discriminated against by the Duchy of Cornwall as the creation and lawless political tool of the British government.

22. The Duchy of Cornwall therefore, represents over six centuries of experimentations in increasing profits from Cornwall for the Heir to the Throne to the satisfaction of H.M. Treasury and, disregarding any implied fiduciary role in its charters, there has been no acceptance of any obligation to consider the interests of the Cornish people.

23. The exclusion of the Cornish from the Council of Europe’s human rights Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1998) and central planning schemes for mass building of houses in Cornwall far beyond local needs, is further evidence of a British government inspired planning dictatorship for Cornwall contrary to Protocol 12, (2000) of the European Convention of Human Rights, (ECHR).

24. The Protocol has not yet been ratified by the British government for reasons unknown but, it seems likely that it intends to avoid being brought to account in respect the right that should be available to the individual and minorities to challenge the abuse of power.

25. Protocol 12, ECHR, expects: “No one shall be discriminated against by any public authority on any ground, including: race, language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status”. Article 13 (ECHR) has also been omitted from the Human Rights Act 1998, although it was intended to provide an effective remedy to protect the public from: “violations by persons acting in an official capacity”.

26. The concept of a written one-stop Constitution based on Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights as the means to control people in power and guarantee the rights to justice for all British peoples in their equal relationship with people in power, is but English mythology.

27. The denial of Magna Charta, the Bill of Rights, and the failure to incorporate into English law the complete European Convention of Human Rights and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 reveals that the United Kingdom, in the denial of a written one-stop constitution of equal rights, is, in fact, a one party state with an unwritten manifesto pledging support for a Duchy of Cornwall dictatorship of institutionalised racial bias retained to exploit Cornwall, home of the indigenous Cornish national minority.

28. The rejection of basic international human rights provisions must call into question the legitimacy of any modern state.

© Stannary Information Office, Camborne, TR14 0JG – ‘phone:- 01209-710938

www.[info@]cornishstannaryparliament.org
 

What's Related

Document Options

Trackback

Trackback URL for this entry: http://cornishstannaryparliament.co.uk//resources//trackback.php?id=20100427100517682

No trackback comments for this entry.
DICTATORIAL PLANNING LAWS FOR CORNWALL | 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