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....
There are a number of problems with the government's RRA "formula" for implementation of the FCPNM.
The government admits that there is no formal list of minorities covered by the convention, despite the Welsh, Scottish, English, Gypsy, Irish Traveller, Sihk and, I think, one other group, having RRA caselaw history.
The government is misleading the Council of Europe with the RRA "formula" which is being portrayed as an equitable and fair means of applying the Convention. The reality, as we all know, is very, very different and the Cornish, who have been trying for years to bring a RRA case, have been prevented from so doing by the CRE and the judiciary on a number of separate occasions. These failed attempts, naturally, are not included in the draft Report. Instead, the impression is created that all the Cornish group need do, under this seemingly wonderful RRA “formula”, to achieve recognition under the Convention, is to trot round the corner, see a friendly judge, and all will be well from then on. That, as I have repeatedly indicated all over this forum, is what appears to be the case in theory. However, in practice the Cornish have been denied access to even one hearing, let alone a fair one. We must remember that it is ONLY the Cornish minority that is being treated in this way.
It is clear from the Draft Report that a number of minorities are in receipt of FC benefits (e.g. specific funding for their educational needs), even though few of them (apart from Gypsies and Irish Travellers) have any RRA caselaw precedent. I would like to know why it is that only the Cornish are being subject to a requirement to submit their ethnic/national credentials for judicial scrutiny, when others are not subject to such a condition prior to receiving their benefits? Look at the copious references in the Draft Report to the completely undefined “minority ethnic” group (a term which for the state includes a multitude of legally undefined groups such as the “Black British”, “Indian”, “Pakistani”, “Bangladeshi”, “Black Carribean” etc etc ad nauseum,) which, together with the “Chinese”, receive what must amount to millions of pounds in support of their education and culture. These are basically the Census 16 + 1 groupings that even the ONS itself admits have no RRA caselaw history! It is only the Cornish that have to fight tooth and nail for every penny they manage to get. Why are the Cornish being treated so differently?
To me, it appears that the government is lying to the Council of Europe as it knows full well the legal pressure that has been applied to it by various Cornish groups. It also knows that the groups receiving benefits are not only non-indigenous minorities but they are also deficient in the RRA department.
Bearing in mind also that the UK does not recognise legally the term, “national minority”, I would be particularly keen to know the reasons why the Council of Europe has allowed the UK government to get away with this openly discriminatory approach, the so-called RRA “formula”, when the Convention is all about protecting NATIONAL MINORITIES!
Trevor Philips is to be the head of the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights that will replace the Commission for Racial Equality.
I quote:
What we have to ask today is how do we create a society based on common values such as democracy, the English language and a respect for the culture of the British isles, for Shakespeare and Dickens.
I can see where he is comming from, all societies need a sense of community, of belonging, of shared values after all i want people who move to the Duchy to respect its culture and heritage whilst engaging with the community, bascially to intergrate and not to swamp.
But what model of "British culture" is Mr Philips thinking of? Does the Cornish national minority have a place in his program or is the "British culture" that will be forced on us chosen by the establishment ie a good little English county?
Trevor Philips has certainly come up in the world after starting out presenting The London Programme and hanging out with his cousin in humble Haringey! From rags to riches, Haringey to Highgrove. I totally agree that people moving in to the Duchy should respect the culture and constitution and not try to make this land into Islington, or haringey, on sea. This is why we need sensible media input, like doing a series of articles about the past, present and potential future governance issues. Many people, particularly those who have moved down, just do not understand the significance of cornwall being a Duchy. I would have thought HRH may even be interested if there was a truly united movement towards building the Duchy charters and historic rights into a modern political context. Afterall, he hasn't got the throne yet, and if the Queen lives to the age of her mother, he may never get it. You'd have thought he'd have liked to be head of state for the Duchy. But maybe that's just wishful thinking.
There is a distinct possibility that any RRA action could be initiated by declaring war on Wikipedia where some wikipedians are plastering the Cornish pages with English referencing, English flags and deleting text that seeks to present the disputed nature of the external repression of the Cornish Identity.
Their justification for this is that Cornwall was legally constituted as "a county of England" in 1889. The latest is relating to Richard Trevithick who is labelled as English nationality (with flag) and, of England with flag. There will invariably be others given 'the treatment'
I have simply deleted the text and images [probably already reinstated!]but we need more people on the ground to actually declare war and maintain it. This ultimately would lead to some action which could be taken to the courts for a decision and hoped for judicial review.
Are there enough people out there, with enough money, to show that we are not just so much hot air and truly mean business? If there is not, then C24 may as well go off the air, MK should buy some mothballs and the CSP forget Strasbourg!
Wikipedia informs the world! Ignore what is going on, and reap the consequences!
And what would such a specific action achieve, TGG?
Although the behaviour of Wikepedia and its Anglo-lackeys is wholly unacceptable, it is merely symptomatic of a much more general malaise within society. A successful RRA action against Wikepedia would only serve to affect change on Wikepedia and it, in my opinion, would be far better if we were to direct our activities against the higher echelons that are the source of all of this anti-Cornish hostility and resentment.
In other words, we need to cut off the head of the snake! In our case, the snake happens to be a royal one and so the problem is so much more difficult for us to resolve. However, and very fortunately, the CSP, having identified the the snake and its lair is now tackling this issue in one seemingly much fairer arena, the ECHR in Strasbourg. This it is doing at relatively little expense. Together with other similar RRA actions, apparently in progress in the UK courts as we speak, the move for recognition and justice for the Cornish is already well underway.
The significance of the government's intended application of the FCPNM for the Cornish should not be lost on such organisations as Wikepedia, to name but one, who, should this administrative decision not to include the Cornish be successfully challenged in the courts, it will be forced to change its anti-Cornish policy. It is much more important to challenge the government's decision (when it comes) to not include the Cornish in the FCPNM than it is to challenge any number of much more insignificant areas that are merely symptomatic of a widespread disease.
As in medicine, it is far better to treat the cause of an illness than to concentrate upon its symptoms!
So, rather than identify one relatively minor discriminator, it is well to recognise that the government itself (the Duchy of Cornwall is a government department, despite its claim to be a private estate) is responsible for this situation. Without doubt, this is the source of Wikepedia's confidence. You will never successfully challenge private organisations on Cornish issues since the state, via the courts, will always find in their favour by fair means or foul. You must challenge the source of the discrimination - in this case, (a) government department(s).
Hunlef, I could not agree more with everything you say in your reply but we are failing to reach grassroots opinion (the general malaise?) with what is going on and what the arguments are. If we do not reach out to win hearts and minds, then this will eventually be used against us by the head(s) we wish to metaphorically chop off, as we are undermined and kicked into touch by the unshod foot.
As a recent convert to wikipedia, I feel that it offers an opportunity to reach a much wider audience and make our presence felt, and situation, known, because of what has been edited and discussed - even if, as now, it is all a bit one-sided and we are being marginalised. This will only work for us if we have a substantial presence.
If we get to the point where wikipedia, as a facilitator, attempts to ban our input then we seek some form of arbitration to establish our right to participate. I can't help feeling that every action we take will be an added bonus on the day of reckoning when the final arbiters ask, 'what have you done about this, and that?'.
the Anglo-lackeys are fixated on what they see as the 'legal' position (especially 1889) and the need for anything remotely 'Cornish' to be clinically examined and disected to the nth degree. They are in complete denial that it is the presumed 'legality' that is being challenged and we have too few having the knowledge and ability to meet the challenge. That knowledge needs to be shared!
TGG - I, too, agree with what you are saying. However, we seem to disagree on tactics.
Whereas you feel that tackling Wikepedia will lead to greater publicity (and I cannot disagree with that point), I personally feel that greater publicity will be gained from a competent challenge to the authority of the state and other institutions which will, inevitably with success, have to be carried in the press. That might be pie in the sky, bearing in mind the corrupt nature of the English courts in this regard but who knows? It is reasonable to assume that one spin off of a successful high profile victory in the courts would be an affect on Wikepedia and other similar outfits.
A sole challenge to Wikepedia is probably something that would not make the 6 o' clock news, whereas a knock in the teeth to the state is more likely to be covered!
Unfortunately, there are neither the resources nor enough of us with competence to effect such a challenge to each and every unequitable situation regarding the Cornish and I therefore think it essential to prioritise our efforts to maximise the effect.
From a strategic point of view, all tactics have their merit and these, possibly, can only be judged in retrospect.
What is seriously missing from the Cornish Case is the inability to achieve any sort of strategy or a consensus for priority of action (mooted in the past on C24). The nearest thing to achieving this was the Kescusulyans Kernow 1983-1994, twice yearly conferences on Cornwall, that achieved a lot in raising the Cornish profile. Operated by Cowethas Flamank, acting as facilitators and secretariate, it failed, as always, by a lack of willing bodies to maintain its structure once it achieved its own independent status.
I support 100% (with money if necessary) the idea of going for 'heads' as being essential but this will not be without its contrived (expensive) delaying tactics by the EIS or, indeed, the bureaucratic inertia of Strasbourg. Not forgetting the build-up and let-down of the current scenario. Time, now, is very much a factor in meeting the challenges in the 21st century before we are completely marginalised and asphyxiated.
My tactic is the 'in your face' approach on a daily basis. Those privileged enough to have known the late Paul Laity will also be aware that Paul believed in "doing something 'Cornish' every day". A motto for all?
Perhaps, now is the time to attempt, again, to bring individuals and groups together for the greater good of our Cornish Duchy under such a broad-based group as Cornwall 2000 or a new single function coordinating secretariate which could be called, for example, "Cornwall 21"?
The best way of dealing with this is through the ECHR but we all know that this could be an extremely long process and with no guarantee of success. As TGG says time is running out and perhaps in the meantime people would like to get involved in other ways ?
This WILL be an extremely long process - perhaps as much as 4 years away from now.
Agreed - that is why the CSP (as a body or legal association) has instigated a RRA case in the local courts. I can say this because my contact in the CSP has informed me this evening about it.
The case, another complex one involving no less than 7 defendants, icluding the CPR, English Partnerships, GOSW, SWRDA, Kerrier District Council, HM Treasury (aka the Duchy of Cornwall) and 1 other, has already been dismissed by District Judge Mitchell, without once mentioning a single detail of the argument. he declared the case dismissed, on entirely spurious grounds because 1) the applicant (i.e. the CSP) wasn't democratically elected. This argument has never been applied to "Liberty" and "Amnesty International" who launch human rights cases in the English courts routinely. 2) the applicant's representative wasn't legally qualified, despite it being clear in the Directive that persons and legal associations can instigate such actions without the assistance of professional representation.
The case involved multiple accusations of racial discrimination against the Cornish that was facilitated by the absence in English Law of a statutory gurantee of equality before the law, contrary to Article 3 of Directive 2000/43/EC.
Case history, Berkely (House of Lords) and Simmenthal v. the Italian Government (1978) was quoted and ignored by the judge.
These two cases make it absolutely clear that EEC Enforceable Community Rights (such as equality before the law) MUST be made available in the courts (i.e. the courts must provide a remedy) where it can be demonstrated that the Directive concerned has not been implented properly by the legislature. Cf the Directive and Statutory Instrument 1626 which "incorporates" the Directive into English Law.
Following a number of correspondences between the CSP, court administrators and the newly established Office for Judicial Complaint, it now appears that the CSP must attend a hearing in Truro on January 2.
Quite why a hearing should be necessary after the application has been dismissed, is not clear. It should be born in mind also that, for the purposes of the RRA, the local court becomes the High Court for the process and if the judicial authorities consider this to be an appeal, then it is completely unsatisfactory since the appeal is being be heard in the same court (i.e. the High Court) before the same judge who made the original decision to dismiss. (i.e. contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights).
i would strongly urge those who are interested in so-called "British justice" to avail themselvers of a fine opportunity to be present in the court on that day in order to witness it.
So, if there is anybody out there who would like a go at Wikepedia at this moment, please feel free.
So, clearly, there seems to be a problem for the state authorities.
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.
