Beach Ices at Praa Sands
Ice meeting the sand at the base of the low cliff behind Praa Sands Beach, West Cornwall. 6th January 2009....
Icicles at Trewellard Bottoms
Water seeping through a wall is turned to icicles, ate Trewellard Bottoms, where Geevor Mine meets the sea....
Winter Sunset at Levant
A late afternoon scene, at Levant Mine, West Cornwall. 7th January 2009....
Winter at Levant
The old electricity generator building, at Levant Mine, West Cornwall, during the recent cold snap. 7th Jnauary 2009....
Right. so Im really into the whole debate on cornish independance and the percieved contravention of human rights and discrimination by the duchy etc etc.
Ive been trawling these forums for a few days now and reading the relevant research and links youve all provided. and i can tell you that I am SOOOOOOOOO confused because everyone seems to lack the ability to speak english. I aint a law student and i cant disect reams of legislative jargon...
So would someone mind explaining to me in SIMPLE english what your all going on about so i can be part of this movement and give my 2 cents.
As i gather, we have a stannary parliament. so waht rights do they have?
If Charles is the duchy of cornwall. What powers does he have? is he the head of the stannary parliament? if not why cant the stannery chuck him off our soil and stop him nicking our money.
I thought that royalty has no power anymore anyway.
I know legislation can be massively ambiguous and is layered beyond comprehension but really everything can be broken down to its simplistic origins. would someone or some of you mind taking the time to do this for me so i can understand the arguements at hand.
Sorry for being so stupid, i am cornish after all!!! (joke by the way!)
I have to say that im v confused too, and i've been reading about this topic for sometime now lol...
To make matters worse, i have some of my own questions to ask!!!
Can anyone tell me anything about the treaty between Kernow and king Athelstan.... Surely by 936ad, Wessex could have finally taken Kernow for its own? Why didn't they?
But as Kernow was never taken, how did England have the right to make Kernow an Earldom then later a Duchy? None of this makes sense.
No record exists of any formal annexation of Cornwall to England, nor was Cornwall party to the Act of Union in 1707, so how did England get away with it?
It seems it is at this point in time that Cornwall was suddenly painted with the white and red brush of St. George, so what changed??
Sorry guys...im really trying to get my head round this. The research i've found only tells me what happened, not why it happened.
I'm certainly not going to delve into the whole issue yet again.
Coady, a product of the system, who has sworn an oath of allegiance to the Crown is perfectly entitled to hold his sceptical point of view. However, he is perfectly right in his advice to you.
I have given a number of examples of how the law has been either ignored, is biased, is discriminatory etc etc - just go check them out!
If nothing else, you have already summed the situation up in a word - "confused". With this sort of legal background to Cornwall's current situation, it is no wonder that many are similarly inclined to take the same view. The confusion and lack of clarity of the law has facilitated the state to suppress those laws that are not compatible with its interests (i.e. those relating to the Cornish aspect of our Stannaries, our human rights as a national minority etc) whilst rigidly adhering to legal provisions that support the Duchy of Cornwall and its profits (Duchy of Cornwall Management Act and those allegedly discriminatory provisions in its Charters from which its income is derived).
Interestingly, Coady, a former member of the Constabulary, who one might be forgiven for thinking would, of all people on this forum, possess a basic understanding of the law, is clearly sceptical. This scepticism probably has arisen because his former employment, rather than from a position of complete ignorance (some of his postings on this forum are interesting and well-written), in which his statements sometimes reflect acts of blind faith, having swallowed everything that the state has thrown at him in the space of his professional career.
If you're into it, just research it! That's what I did! I have given you many pointers to unearth the conflicting legal arguments to make it so much easier for you.
Start with international charters and conventions relating to the protection of minorities and human rights (frequently mentioned on this site, references provided in most cases). Then look at internationally binding treaty agreements, the anti-discrimination Directive 2000/43/EC, http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2000/l_180/l_18020000719en00220026.pdf , which gives citizens the right to equality before the law but which, in this country, the state has failed to provide.
Then look at the various constitutional/legal benefits and exemptions from the law that are enjoyed both by the Duchy of Cornwall and, to a less extent, by the Crown and see if these are compatible with the same international laws. Any reasonably intelligent person will quickly conclude that they are not! The problem comes when one attempts to challenge these perceived injustices because, for example, the right to an effective remedy, Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/EnglishAnglais.pdf , has been omitted from the Human Rights Act 1998, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--d.htm, without a reasonable explanation.
Bearing in mind that in the UK there is neither a constitution nor a guarantee of equality before the law, http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2000/l_180/l_18020000719en00220026.pdf, look at paragraph 3, page 1, the state has ensured that such things as we are currently discussing cannot, in this country at least, be heard in court.
Then check Race Relations Act Statutory Instrument 1626, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031626.htm, to see if you can find the directive equality before the law requirement. The Statutory Instrument is supposed to incorporate the directive into English Law. Putting it very simply, it misses a substantial section out!
The same as anyone else as European citizens, including yourself! These are the basis of the CSP's arguments. These are the issues currently being lodged in the Court of Human Rights. These are modern, internationally accepted principles and are not in dispute by anybody, icluding the British governemen itself!
The Stannaries historic past do NOT come into this legal argument presently. That's not to say that they won't at some opportunity in the future. However, they are of relatively minimal importance to the current attempts to get the government, the Duchy, whatever into open court.
Were the CSP to instead concentrate upon the historic details, without reference to modern human rights provision, even if they could get these matters into court, there would be an immense legal battle which, at the end of the day, in a biased Crown court, in which the judiciary are politically motivated, the state would be likely to win the day.
The state is very much less likely to win the day when international agreements on human rights are alleged to have been violated.
No, he's the Duke of Cornwall. He has the same powers in Cornwall only as his mother in the rest of the UK.
The Duchy chaters of creation give him the summons of writ and exchequer in Cornwall, making him effectively the government of Cornwall, although you wouldn't know that today as it is never discussed in papers, history books, the national curriculum and the like. His "powers" include the royal prerogative rights of foreshore, wrecks, wines, fish and the highly important right of bona vacantia which includes intestacy.
Halsbury's Laws of England states: "it is illegal for the heir to the throne, out of possession, to excercise the royal prerogative". So, if he does it here and it is legal, what does that make Cornwall?
Technically, I suppose, yes this is the case. He is the government of Cornwall according to his Charters. Since the CSP existed before the Duchy was stolen from us, the CSP, were the Duchy Charters to be declared discriminatory and repealed, could kick him out. It would be great if the CSP could do that now but I am adfraid that the state does not fully recognise its legal basis.
That's what the state has told you! Don't believe it for a second! If you have any doubts, remember that the UK (and a few Commonwealth countries also) still maintain a Privy Council which, under royal authority, issue Orders in Council that can overrule parliament and the High Court. That is power, my friend! How else did Blair commit British soldiers to an illegal war in Iraq without the consent of parliament???
That's precisely what the CSP is doing in the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
As I know it, the "treaty", was an agreement between Athelstan and the indigenous Cornish king, Hywel (I think) that guaranteed Cornish independence. The price required for this agreement was that the Cornish would be subservient to Wessex tyrant, but not be part of it. If Wessesx, could have, as you say, "taken Kernow", they would have done so without the need for a treaty.
Bearing in mind that you are "cautious", perhaps you would be good enough to give us your opinions on my statements concerning the lack of "equality before the law" in English Law and the missing Article 13 of the ECHR (see the online references I gave to Gwrael above) from the Human Rights Act? I have asked you to do this on a couple of other threads but, so far, you they seem to have escaped your attention.
I value your input into these matters since you are a retired former member of the Cornwall and Devon Constabularly and must surely have a point of view. Many thanks in anticipation of your response.
Following the Second World War, which only 21 years after the First World War, had again decimated Europe and led to millions of deaths, there was an understandable wish to do something, anything, to try to prevent wars, genocides and racist victimisation happening again in Europe. (and indeed the world, but thats outside the scope of this post)
One of the means used was the creation of a "European Convention on Human Rights" (put together largely by 'British' lawyers and civil servants!)
Britain (then a common term for the UK) was one of the first countries to sign up to the completed Convention in 1953, and the major countries joined them, but though most of the other countries actually incorporated the Convention into their own individual countries' domestic law, the UK chose NOT to do that until 1998!
As I understand it, most if not all of the other countries signed up to the WHOLE of the Convention, including "Article 13" which states ....
"ARTICLE 13
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
The meaning of that seems totally plain and straightforward to me, and many others. It means what it says. But then I and the rest of us are ordinary people with fairly literal, logical minds!
It SEEMS that the Lawyers, Civil Servants and politicians of the UK decided amongst themselves, (with no reference to the UK Electorate) decided amongst themselves that the UK Courts and legal system, (Civil and Criminal), ALREADY are so good and fair, that they automatically provide the protections rights and remedies offered by Article 13, and with the 'overlap' protections of the other 'Articles' the UK could safely dispense with the need to set Article 13 into UK law.
(I suspect that the inference of Article 13, that there should be an additional level or layer created in UK law would also have proved highly expensive to set up and run, and that might also have been a factor in the decision)
Bearing in mind that people from legal backgrounds or professions intimately connected with law form such a heavy presence in government, and that an article 13 judicial layer or presence would by its nature be mostly engaged in CHALLENGING UK laws, and institutions, I can well understand that the EXCLUSION of Article 13 seems at the least arrogant, and at the worst dishonest to many students of the subject.
It's perhaps a bit like if Moses 'edited' the Ten Commandments to exclude adultery because he fancied a 'bit on the side'.
I think that Article 13 SHOULD have been included in the UK Human Rights Act.
As regards 'equality before the law', many people INVOLVED in "The Law" might look you straight in the eye and tell you that "We have it!"
I would say that many people who have sworn oaths, signed exemptions, or otherwise compromised their personal rights in order to get particular jobs or positions DON'T have it, The very poor have some of it as they can qualify for legal aid, the rich are more equal than anyone as they can pay for the best lawyers, but that a vast bulk of people can't really afford Justice at all!
I think there is essentially no guarantee of equality before the law. In respect of the issue in which Hunlef refers to 'equality before the law' I feel it is rather tenuous.
To qualify what I say, I also believe that to CREATE true equality before the law, though a worthwhile ideal, may be a practical impossibility.
Not necessarily...Atheltan - who as you know was a supporter of the church in Cornwall - had already fought a tough war against the kingdoms of the north. IMO, his resources were probably wearing thin.
Best thing to do then, instead of fighting yet another war against a people who had already shown their fiercely independent spirit, was probably to create a "client" state, or a satellite state.
Although Cornwall was never formally absorbed into England, again in my opinion this became the unwritten law when the Normans invaded in 1066. William quite clearly intended to rule over a united kingdom, shown by his determined savaging of parts of the north.
I don't think he would have got many arguments in Cornwall. If he said Cornwall was part of England, it was part of England.
Or else.
Thank you, Coady, for taking the trouble to put your thoughts down.
You recite almost verbatim, the government's response to the omission of Article 13 ECHR from the Human Righs Act (1998).
However, the government's own special advisor on Human Rights, has stated that, although the government felt essentially the same as you, in her opinion, there was no effective remedy in English Law and that the omission of Article 13 on these grounds was spurious. I have seen a signed and headed letter from this person recently to this effect. I'm sorry that I can't display it here - you'll have to take my word for it that it does exist.
Incidentally, British lawyers had input into the process which was conducted jointly by all parties in that early Council of Europe.
It is very explicit! The government's own special advisor on the Human Rights Act was of similar mind!
In a democracy, that is the whole purpose of the judicial system - to provide a remedy in law. The hypothetical extra layer to which you refer is a complete red herring! All other countries in the Council of Europe have ratified the ECHR and have included without reservation or derogation, Article 13. Why should the UK be so different?
Excellent!
Then they need to demonstrate that that is the case. If it's there, then it should be a simple case of referring one to the approrpiate statute because that is what the Directive requires. Once again, if we have it somewhere, why on Earth is it proving to be so difficult for the state to provide us with a reference?
That's probably true. However, such events relate not so much to a statutory lack of equality before the law but more to a corrupt system which relies on grace and favour personal advancement! It is only when you inspect the top of the grace and favour hierarchy that you first encounter real inequality before the law. It is this aspect of it which interests me as it is this which is directly affecting Cornwall and the Cornish.
I quite agree and this is a situation in most other developed countries which is quite a problem!
However, I would remind you again that we have been talking in a Cornwall orientated discussion. The fact remains that there are a large number of highly iniquitous laws that favour certain individuals (i.e. the Duke of Cornwall) but not the vast majority of others. It surely cannot be justified that the Duke of Cornwall (referred by HM Treasury as a "private property development company), is able to circumvent the Planning process because of special exemptions and privileges, privileges which the rest of us "private" citizens cannot access. In my book that is unfair treatment. However, bearing in mind that this anomaly only applies in Cornwall, it is an act of discrimination.
In its practical aplication, tenuous it might be. However, the situation is much, much worse because, unlike in other EU member states, UK citizens do not have any guarantee whatsoever, constitutionally or statutory. Whereas, in the USA, citizens can invoke the 15th amendment of the Constitution and the people's courts are required to take note, here, there is no requirement and the judiciary can freely i8gnore your rights in favour of supporting the Crown and the Duke of Cornwall, necessitated by their oaths of allegiance and unfair statute law which is to the advantage of those institutions.
I agree with you. However, unlike in all other democracies, the UK has persistently refused to honour its international treaty obligations which has resulted in its citizens being denied their European Community Rights and, in many cases, their human rights also. By installing such measures in the legal system, it would at least provide citizens with genuine claims to have been subject to violations of their rights, the means to seek a judicial remedy.
Thanks again for your help guys...much appreciated!!
Homeruleforcornwall said....
'Although Cornwall was never formally absorbed into England, again in my opinion this became the unwritten law when the Normans invaded in 1066. William quite clearly intended to rule over a united kingdom, shown by his determined savaging of parts of the north. I don't think he would have got many arguments in Cornwall. If he said Cornwall was part of England, it was part of England. Or else.'
So this is why Cornwall suddenly becomes an earldom?
Well, it certainly LOOKS that way, William the Conqueror invaded, battled, won and took control. He made one of his mates, (Robert of Mortain) Earl of Cornwall, and Robert built himself a castle at Launceston, so whatever Cornwall was BEFORE 1066, afterwards William and his Normans probably considered it as an Earldom administered from Launceston. They clearly accepted that it was an area that had its own identity. I wonder to what extent they saw it as just another part of the 'England' of the day, or thought of it as being different (remember the language)
(I presume the 'official language' then became Norman French?)
BUT I think you will find that Cornwall is still mentioned AFTER this time as having an identity SEPARATE from England.
Up until 1066, Cornwall retained its own indigenous Cornish earls. After the Battle of hastings, 1066, the Conqueror installed his half brother, Robert, Earl of Mortaigne, as the Earl of Cornwall. he did this because he recognised the Cornish to be very close to their Celtic speaking brothers across the Channel and Robert was a Breton. This was a skillful appointment because William knew that this would be a relatively popular appointment and one which was less likely to cause him problems. The Cornish were clearly regarded as being different and distinct from England and the English.
For confirmation, refer to the 14th century Mappa Mundi, in Hereford Cathedral, which displays the British isles as consisting of Scotia, Gallia, Herbernia, Anglia ET CORNUBIA.
Even Elizabeth the first regarded her nation to consist of Welsh, English and Cornish speaking people.
What I neglected to mention is that the Anglican authorities in Hereford, who fufill an educational function under the Education Act (visitors, tourists and school children all go to the cathedral to see the Mappa) have published a facsimile reproduction of this very important medieval map that is of World importance
Significantly. two words are missing on this facsimile edition. Can anyone guess which words have been left off?
Rise in county's road death toll
The number of people who have died on Cornwall's roads rises in the last year to 35, police say.
Film con man ordered to pay £100K
The man who swindled almost £2m in a film studio scam is ordered to forfeit £100,000 by a judge.
Triplets survive against the odds
A woman from Cornwall who gave birth to triplets 14 weeks early describes their survival as a "miracle".
Call for inquiry into fire centre
Fire chiefs demand a public inquiry into the delayed opening of the regional fire control centre.
Prison sentence for benefit cheat
A man who admitted swindling more than £51,000 in benefits over a six-year period is jailed for 18 months.
Divers face trial over shipwreck
Three Cornish divers accused of plundering a shipwreck off the coast of Spain are to be tried in a Spanish court.
‘NO’ TO NUCLEAR WASTE IN CORNWALL - MPs
Proposals to bring nuclear waste to Cornwall have been described as ‘absurd and irresponsible’ by Cornish MPs.
Route Partnership Plan for Penzance unnecessary
Their plan having been rejected by the public in the final exhibition in Septmber with 90% against the Route Partnership have decided to try again in mid January after a mailout and poster campaign.The Chamber of Commerce has been at the forefront of this campaign.
