Place an advert
Buy a photo
“End arrogant English rule of our Country now!
Bring back Stannary law!”
Posted: June 18, 2012
Start the discussion
The Cornish Stannary Parliament's next large campaign was in 1989, and related to the introduction of the unpopular community charge or poll tax. They claimed that as the law imposing the charge had not been approved by the Stannary Parliament "all tin-miners and former tin-miners, all descendants of tin-miners, all shareholders in tin-mines and anyone who supplied equipment for tin-mining" were exempt from the tax. Shares were made available for sale in the Royal Cornish Consols United Tin Mines Cost Book Company at one pound each, the claim being that shareholders would not be liable for the charge. The company was owned by Frederick Trull, who had rejoined the group as its clerk. By March 1990 up to one and a quarter million applications for shares had been made. On 22 March the Department of Trade and Industry was granted an injunction in the High Court freezing the company's assets on the grounds that the company was not registered under the Companies Act 1985 and that Mr Trull was not authorised under the Financial Services Act 1986 to conduct investment business. On 27 June the company was placed in receivership, with shareholders potentially facing the payment of costs. On 5 September the receiver announced that Trull had vanished and that there was no trace of the estimated £1 million paid by members of the public. On 12 October Trull was found guilty of contempt by breaching High Court orders to stop issuing shares and for failing to disclose the whereabouts of the money. He was sentenced in his absence to six months imprisonment. The presiding judge, Mr Justice Harman, said "The matter may be based on a genuine belief by Mr Trull in the privileges of Cornish tin miners but has all the appearance of being a con trick." On 22 February 1991, Trull appeared before the High Court, and his sentence was reduced to three months and suspended for two years, on the condition that he undertook to help the Department of Trade and Industry recover the money invested by the public. Mr Trull's counsel, told the court that the money had gone to "the sharks of this world" and that Mr Trull was "fired not by dishonesty, but by obsessive belief in the Stannary laws". Mr Trull remained clerk of the parliament and in November was again before the courts claiming the Bodmin magistrates had no jurisdiction to make orders for payment against him on behalf of Restormel Borough Council as 'a privileged tinner within the Stannaries of Cornwall.' The case was finally settled against Mr Trull in 1994.
What are all the little numbers for and why is the tense of this piece all wrong? Has it been copied and pasted I wonder?
@Gwenonek, It has been 'lifted' from, presumably, wikipedia (without acknowledgement) and the 'numbers' relate to linked endnotes.
Since it carries no comment to justify its being posted, it requires no response.
I wonder how many members of the esteemed Parliament in Westminster up in Engerland have actually not only been arrested for criminal offences but have even ended up in clink? Perhaps that info is on dodgy Wikipedia little numbers and all?
My mother in-law has just found one of these certificates that her mother bought. Do you have anymore info on what happened as I am finding it hard to research.
When are the Stannary Parliament going to use their superpowers to veto "Westminster" law?
They must be such unkind souls as they have the asnwer to Cornish self determination in their hands, but refuse to use it,.
Don't know much about the Cornish Parliament.....but here's their website.....http://tinyurl.com/3ed3guu .....and a lawyer who does.....http://tinyurl.com/cfarhln
Thank you for that handy link TIC.
If I ever find a grampus washed up on the beach, I shall certainly go to Mr Kirkhope in Weston Super Mare for advice.
Royal Cornish Consols United Tin Mines Cost Book Co.
HC Deb 30 November 1995 vol 267 cc826-7W 826W
§ Mr. Harris
To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on factors leading to the Department of Trade and Industry discharging the receiver appointed to investigate the activities of the Royal Cornish Consols United Tin Mines Cost Book Co.; and if he will publish the receiver's report. 
Mr. John M. Taylor
The receiver was appointed by the High Court as part of injunctive proceedings designed principally to bring an end to a misconceived tax avoidance scheme. That receiver has obtained his release from the court, and has not produced any report for this Department.
(Hansard 0 November 1995 vol 267 cc826-7W 826W)
The DTI was granted a series of injunctions against the Royal Cornish Consols United Tin Mines Cost Book Co, pending a full hearing of the case, to freeze the activities of a Cornish pensioner and his friends who had devised a scheme to exempt shareholders from paying poll tax. The scheme is based on a claim that anyone in Cornwall connected with tin mining is not liable to pay English taxes by virtue of a 1508 royal charter. The case is expected to return to the High Court for a full hearing in late April.
For an authoritative read on the Stananries try 'Stannary Law, A History of the Mining Law of Cornwall and Devon' by Robert R. Pennington, published by David and Charles 1973.
"The miners of tin and other metals in Cornwall and Devon lived in a unique and isolated world of their own....."
I should think most local libraries have a copy, or could soon get one.
I think Hansard beats any "read" hands down.
Yeah,Hansard,A book full of our right honourable friends, point scoring,and talking tripe like you Slimslad.
The self-elected Stannary Parliament are such subservient chaps aren't they? They have this superpower of vetoing "Westminster" law, and yet they choose not to use it.
How kind of them.
Dictionary definition. (English, of course).
"Parliament is a national representative body having supreme legislative powers within the state. It is found especially in those countries whose system of government is based on the Westminster system modelled after that of the United Kingdom. In most countries, parliament is a legislative assembly.
I see the pretend Stannary Parliament's website hasn't been updated since 2008. Given up the ghost perhaps.
A lot livelier at this website!
yawn.....a bit like the tory website......snooze
"The body of Stannary customary law has not been systematically repealed. It is likely however that such customary law has been superseded by modern legislation. There were also provisions in 19th century primary legislation relating to the stannaries, but these have largely been repealed" (Hansard 20 May 2009 column 1451W).
"The Convocation for Cornwall last met in 1752/3... ...The Convocation for Devon last enacted legislation in 1600, but it met subsequently to accept proposals for the exercise of the royal right pre-emption of tin, and during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries formal meetings were held though no business was transacted. There is now no possiblity of either Convocation being convened again."
ProfessorRobert Pennington, "Stannary Law, A History of the Mining Law of Cornwall and Devon. Pub: Devid and Charles 1973".
No 'TruroCornwall', that is not from Wiki, read it properly - it is sourced!
"Cornwall is an administrative county of England, electing MPs to the UK Parliament, and is subject to UK legislation. It has always been an integral part of the Union. The Government have no plans to alter the constitutional status of Cornwall."
Hansard 6 October 2008 column 154W.
Cornwall is a Duchy......'Big Ger' is a tory funder.....not much more to say.....other than the Tamar which is the boundary between us and England.....wide as the Amazon was what 'Big Ger's Bullingdon bully boy leader said....another plum
There is a Judge appointed to deal with all Stannary matters. You are correct in what you say. Cornwall is administered as a County but it is indeed a Duchy.
And it would make good reading for Big_Ger and his minions, to study 'Cornwall and its Constitution' co authored by Judge Paul Laity and Drs Alan Kent and Tim Saunders.
Stannaries Court (Abolition) Act 1896Previous: ProvisionNext: Provision4 Reference of certain disputes to arbitration.(1)In the event of any dispute arising between—
(a)any two or more mining companies; or
(b)any mining company and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, or any person having any estate or interest in the mine worked by or leased to that mining company;
a judge of a county court exercising the jurisdiction of the Stannaries Court may, on the application of any party to the dispute, order that the matter in dispute be [F1referred to arbitration before himself or before an arbitrator agreed on by the parties or an officer of the court.].
(2)For the purposes of this section the expression "mining company" shall mean any person or body of persons engaged in or formed for working mines within the stannaries.
you actually have to look more towards Devon Stannary Parliament and acts than Cornwall as a standalone but...
In March 2007, Bridget Prentice, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Justice, stated in a Commons written answer that "there are no valid Cornish stannary organisations in existence" and that there "are no treaties today that apply to Cornwall only
Kernow.....a Duchy.....not a County.....England.....across the big river
Stannaries Court (Abolition) Act 18961896
tAn Act for abolishing the Court of the Vice-Warden of the Stannaries.[14th August 1896]1 Abolition of Vice-Warden's Court.(1) . . . F1 the Court of the Vice-Warden of the Stannaries shall cease to exist . . .
F1 and . . . F1 all jurisdiction and powers of the said court and its officers shall . . . . F1 be transferred to and vested in such of the county courts as the Lord Chancellor may by order direct, and be exercised subject to and in accordance with rules of court for regulating the procedure in county courts.
(2)Provision may be made by order of the Lord Chancellor—
(a)for determining by, to, or before what officer, or in what office, may be done anything required to be done by, to, or before any officer or in any office of the said court of the Vice-Warden;
(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2
(c)for determining the place of sitting for the exercise of any jurisdiction transferred by this Act;
(d)with respect to the use and disposal of any property which at the commencement of this Act is held for the use of the said court or of any officer of the said court, and of any room or building which at that date is appropriated for the use of the said court or of the Vice-Warden, officers, and suitors thereof; and
(e)with respect to the custody of any records which at that date are under the custody of the said court.
Asked by Lord Laird
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord McNally on 11 May (WA 213), whether stannary law can still be used in appropriate courts in Cornwall.[HL9224]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally):
There is no special status for legislation which applies to Cornwall or to Cornish localities. There were provisions in 19th century primary legislation relating to the stannaries, but these have largely been repealed. Stannary customary law was formerly enforced through the Stannaries Court, but that court was abolished and its jurisdiction transferred to the county courts of Cornwall in consequence of the Stannaries Court (Abolition) Act 1896. That body of customary law has not been systematically repealed but it is likely that such law has been superseded by modern legislation.
'Big Ger' quotes from trash produced by the lying and criminal English parliament......who are more interested in their expense claims....and self awarded pay rises....than much else
Kernow.....a Duchy.....not a County.....England.....across the big river
"There is a Judge appointed to deal with all Stannary matters."?
Does the Judge have direct contact with the Stannary Parliament, MapSerpren?
Do you have any contact with the Stannary Parliament?
English parliament TruroCornwall? Last I heard there were 30 Welsh, 52 Scottish and 16 Northern Irish MP's, even a few Cornish ones. Your Celtic cousins not good enough for you?
Oh, that's right, you were the person who claimed that the Cornish were not celtic didn't you.
Are you paid by MI5 to come here and make Cornish nationalists look bad?
Big Ger,who repealed what??...Cornwall,and its people repealed nothing!!
They were not established by the Cornish either, so how would the Cornish have repealed them...
King John granted a charter to the tin miners of Cornwall and Devon in 1201, confirming their "just and ancient customs and liberties". The tin miners of both areas originally met together at Hingston Down and referred to themselves as a parliament. Edward I of England split the stannary institutions between Cornwall and Devon, establishing parliaments and courts for the two counties separately.
Just as in other counties;
Gloucestershire: The Free Miners of coal and iron of the Forest of Dean had their customs confirmed by charter attributed to Edward I, with a miner's court to try cases between the miners, and a miner's parliament.
Derbyshire: The hundreds of High Peak and Wirksworth (an area known as the "King's Field") were divided into eight "liberties" for the purposes of lead mining.
Somerset: The customs of the lead-mining district of the Mendip Hills were encoded under Edward IV. Two courts, consisting of twelve miners, were held annually to enforce the code.
Cumberland: The lead miners of Alston Moor enjoyed legal privileges from the thirteenth century. By the reign of Henry V there was in existence a court of mines, and the miners elected a coroner and bailiff, with the king's officers having no authority to serve writs in the area.
The boorishness and fear shown by the nationalists is very discernible for all to read, failing to recognise there is no appetite for tin miners who must numbers less than them to rule over everyone in Cornwall. Almost everything these nationalists do crashes and burns through a general failure to accept the scales at work, even calling them a small minority is over stating the numbers at play here and they only have themselves to blame for this lack of support during some of the most oppressed times the Cornish have had to injure since stanners met in 1700s, pure desperation from people unable to giveaway beer to a sober drunk.
Does the Judge "appointed to deal with Stannary matters", have contact with the Stannary Parliament?
BradleyJJS,The boorishness,and fear is all from your side..This pathetic ongoing attack from you,and your crew is based on nothing more than a fear of your little England's borders being re drawn!!..The same boorishness,that wants to keep a foreign field forever England,namely Gibraltar!!..Same goes for the Falkland isles!!...Sad boring little Englander's...Land of hope and Glory?? Ha ha!..Mother of the free??Ha ha!..Go rebuild your Empire boys..your bath tub navy,along with its aircraftless carrier is waiting!!
I have no connection with the Cornish Stannary Parliament.
Many years ago, I was aware of two occasions when members of the Cornish Stannary Parliament addressed the Judge with responsibility for Stannary matters in the smallest court room 3 in Truro Crown Court over Stannary issues peculiar to Cornish law.
......'Big Ger'...........back talking the usual 'vile' garbage.....not knowing when to stop.....even though the complaints about his postings.....casting insult upon insult at the Bards.....have been made to many now.....with letters apparently to be sent.......perhaps even to his 'pin up boy'......Cameron himself......?
Are you referring to "Operation Chough"?
Surely a criminal damage case?
Or are we talking of the Cat's National Liberation Army?
Do people still believe in this stannary law nonsense?
Even Mr Cole, of MK, is frustrated with folk who think that these ancient "laws" give them the right to challenge Parliament.
Nonsense, of course.
Not for them the hustings, or actually going out and speaking to voters.
I recall the issues. They concerned tin bounding where individuals can register certain legal rights over land. These issues still arise hence the appointment of a Judge sitting within the Courts to deal with such matters. Members of the Stannary Parliament attended the Court over this. John Kirkhope is a specialist lawyer in this matter together with matters concerning laws applicable only in Cornwall, intestacy and so on, these laws being quite unlike those of England.
Of course, it is a matter of record that no member of the CSP was ever convicted over the English Heritage fiasco. They were bound over which does not count as a conviction and the Crown withdrew their case following a Public Interest Immunity Hearing where legal representatives of Duke Charles were consulted. Since then, it has been fully admitted that English Heritage own no properties in Cornwall. They administer them on behalf of the Duchy.
Indeed, it is pleasing to note that there are now moves to 'top slice' English Heritage's budget and to establish a Cornwall only body. Cornwall Heritage Trust has already taken on some sites and membership of the Trust allows free access to Duchy sites administered by E.H.
Further, civil action was taken against certain individuals who claimed that members of the CSP were convicted. They never were.
Similarly, following letters before action, others were awarded compensation following decisions by the authorities.
Try to keep on topic Slimslad. I do appreciate you have your problems being from far away, but sometimes your snide remarks to tend to fall a little flat.
Here is a link to John Kerkhope's website. He, of course, is a lawyer who's specialist knowledge includes Duchy of Cornwall and Stannary laws.
The link is directly to his Cornwall page:
Further, 'The Reason Why' and outline of laws unique to Cornwall, a paper written in part by Judge Paul Laity, makes interesting reading.
Well there's something to wonder about! I thought people had moved on from grasping at these straws and maybe moved into the realms of reality. It appears I am mistaken, what a shame this nonsense is still being used to further the cause.
I don't 'grasp at straws' hereandthere. I deal with reality. Hence my now albeit dated knowledge of the Courts from when I worked there for two years until 2004. Hardly nonsense either, when the Court has a Judge to deal with these issues, is it? Cause? What would you know of 'cause', young man?
Nope, it is all nonsense and grasping at straws, it's time to move on to something with foundations.
Recent media disclosures concerning the little-known rights and powers of the Duke of Cornwall only touch the surface of this secretive constitutional arrangement. While it has been correctly stated that the Duke has the right to veto Westminster legislation, there is more to this than meets the eye.
The fact that he has this right is a reflection of Parliament's inability to freely legislate in respect of the Duchy of Cornwall. In essence, the Duchy of Cornwall is, in many respects, extra-jurisdictional to the UK Parliament.
Barrister David Gollancz writes: "The Duchy exercises a unique range of legal powers, which elsewhere are reserved for the Crown (in other words, the Government)."
This remarkable situation stems not just from the formal elevation of Cornwall into a duchy in 1337/38, but also from a time much earlier.
The sheriff is the monarch's regional representative. Since time out of mind the monarch has carefully selected his or her own sheriff in counties of England and Wales. Except, that is, in Cornwall, where the Duke appoints his own to represent his interests. The impression is always given that this situation arises from the Duchy Charters of 1337/38. It does not. The Westminster Patent Roll of January 28, 1221, records the right of Cornwall to select its own sheriff; and the first Duchy charter states: "The dukes can exercise their right to appoint a sheriff without interference from us, as has always been the right of that region". In this respect, the charters merely affirm an existing situation.
Bona Vacantia [vacant land] is the right to claim the property of insolvent companies and the estates of people who die without heirs. It is not some archaic concept. It is the basis of modern land law. When Bona Vacantia occurs today, the property falls, or in the case of insolvent companies, escheats, to the absolute owner, usually HM Government. Except, that is, in Cornwall, where Bona Vacantia falls to the Duchy. Again the impression is given that this important difference arises solely from the charters of 1337/38.
When the Office of the Royal Escheator was established in 1230, its purpose was to take control of, and centralise into the monarch's hands, the lucrative process of Bona Vacantia. It was but one part of the process of building the English nation state. However, in Cornwall, this process was resisted. The records of the 1284 Launceston Eyre show the Earl of Cornwall's advocate asserting that his liege lord, "holds Cornwall above the King, and has the office of Escheator throughout Cornwall, so that the Escheator of the King shall not intermeddle in anything belonging to the Sheriffdom of Cornwall". In that same record we hear the King's advocate stating how, "Edmund's Stewards or Bailiffs will not admit any writ of the King concerning the Escheatory" before revealing what he had been told as he entered Cornwall, "The vice-comitatus of Cornwall has custody of the escheats, not any foreign escheator of the King". This constitutional tension remained until the king formally accepted the situation via the charters of 1337/38.
Although kings of England did at times exercise jurisdiction over Cornwall, the origins of the present duke's many rights, and Cornwall's unique constitutional status, are not reliant upon a grant from Westminster. If this was the case, it could be argued that the Duke in right of his Duchy holds Cornwall in fee simple only, with Westminster as absolute owner. We will shortly see that this cannot be the case.
The three Duchy Charters formalised and clarified what had been a fluctuating legal situation. The 1st charter created a duke and confirmed that the shrievalty, or governance, of Cornwall lay in his hands. The 2nd and 3rd Duchy Charters acknowledged that the king's writ did not run in the Duchy, and that the English Summons of Exchequer did not apply to the Duchy.
This is why today, for example, Section 153 of the Natural Environment & Communities Acts states that the Duke has immunity from prosecution in HM Courts. It is also why the Duke cannot be summoned to pay income tax to HM Government. He is, for all intents and purposes, quasi sovereign of Cornwall. It is also why the 1988 Boundary Commission report by Assistant Commissioner G.D. Flather Q.C. into the proposed Cornwall and Plymouth European Parliamentary Constituency could only record Cornwall's, "de facto, if not de jure joinder with England".
The Duchy Charters explain the absence of full legal joinder with England. Even a cursory examination will reveal that both the governance and legal identity of Cornwall lie within the jurisdiction of the Duchy of Cornwall, which itself, for many purposes, remains extra-jurisdictional to the UK Parliament. Therefore in a strictly legal sense, Cornwall is not a county of England but an administrative entity falling within the Duchy of Cornwall. Although for public consumption today both the duchy administration and HM Government insist that the duchy is merely a "private estate", in private, the duchy is not so reluctant to assert its true origins and constitutional status – particularly when its rights and profits are at risk.
For a number of years, leases had been sold to work mines in and around Cornwall's foreshore for which the ownership of the associated minerals was contested. In time, a substantial sum of money had accumulated in a joint Duchy/Westminster, Coutts and Company bank account. Matters came to a head in 1855 after simmering claim and counter claim exploded into a bitter and unprecedented territorial dispute between the Government of the Duchy of Cornwall and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
The legal status of Cornwall's rivers, tidal forsehore and sea beds, which were not specifically mentioned in the charters, had, over time, been assumed to be part of the territorial possessions of the Duchy of Cornwall. As these areas began to generate substantial wealth, they were increasingly eyed with envy by Westminster. In order to resolve the matter it was necessary to enter into an arbitration process to discover which party retained jurisdiction.
Westminster insisted that it had presumptive title to the disputed territory. For its part the Duchy asserted that Westminster had no dominion, jurisdiction or other claim over the land, that only it had presumptive title and that it held the land as part of its existing territorial possessions both by historic right and by Parliamentary Act. The Duchy then invoked Cornwall's separate de jure legal status as evidence of jurisdiction:
"In conclusion, it is submitted that the facts and authorities before referred to are sufficient to establish that Cornwall, like Wales, was at the time of the Conquest and was subsequently, treated in many respects as distinct from England…
So far as Royal Seignory is concerned, it will scarcely be contended that the Duke of Cornwall was placed precisely in the position of King. He had all the Crown lands within Cornwall, was entitled to all feudal services attached to those lands, and to all the prerogative rights …which belonged to the Crown as the ultimate and supreme Lord of the Soil.
A careful examination of the 3rd charter shows that all remaining Crown rights were transferred to the Duke. The Crown of England therefore has entirely denuded itself of any remnant of sovereign authority and territorial dominion which it one enjoyed in Cornwall.
We have seen how, in 1284, Edmund barred the Kings officers from Cornwall. Remarkably, such assertions of Cornish sovereignty are not confined to ancient history. When in 1864 a question arose as to ownership of Treasure Trove at Luxulyan, the Duchy asserted itself in the following terms:
"We think that it would be inconsistent with the terms of the Charters for the Crown to hold inquest of Treasure Trove within the Duchy of Cornwall: and it seems to us to be a legitimate inference from the general tenor of the Charters, and especially from the clauses which exclude all ministers of the Crown from entering any lands of the Duchy to make executions of any writs etc that the Duke of Cornwall and not the Queen is entitled to the Treasure Trove in question."
Although Duchy spokesperson Elizabeth Stuart tells us that, "the Duchy is not the county, it is merely a collection of estates in Cornwall and elsewhere", we find that when it comes to asserting itself the Duchy relies on Cornwall's separate origins. And far from having nothing to do with Cornwall, the Duchy actually owns it – and many government bodies discretely acknowledge this. For example, Treasury Solicitors state: "The Duchy of Cornwall comprises the County of Cornwall". HM Land Registry declare: "The Duchy of Cornwall is broadly the same extent as the modern county".
As the Duchy is, for some purposes, extra-jurisdictional to the law making apparatus for England and Wales, Cornwall must also, for some purposes, be extra-territorial to England and Wales. This can have significant implications for the people of Cornwall. For example, how many solicitors know that people can die domiciled in England and Wales, France, Spain or Cornwall? How many solicitors know that English land law does not operate in Cornwall?
Although the Land Registration Act 2002 is the cornerstone of land law in England and Wales, it's operation in Cornwall is at the very least questionable. Lawyers for Land Registry notified me that the operation of the Act in Cornwall is reliant upon the Duke holding Cornwall in "fee simple" from the Crown, and property owners in Cornwall holding their fee simple freeholds from the Duke. If this situation were true, it would make the Duke an intermediate landowner who practised subinfeudation.
Yet the 1290 Statute of Quia Emptores made subinfeudation unlawful. As Quia Emptores did not apply to the Crown the government can today grant estates in fee simple.
When freeholders die without heirs in Cornwall today, their property passes as Bona Vacantia to the Duchy of Cornwall. While Quia Emptores says that freeholders in Cornwall can only hold their properties from the Government the operation of Bona Vacantia in Cornwall means they cannot be holding directly from central government.
Those charged with this task stated at p.234 of the 2001 LRA "Bill and Commentary" that laws surrounding the Duchy of Cornwall are "mysterious, complex and arcane", and that in so much as the duchy was concerned, it was "particularly difficult" to prepare the Bill. This difficulty arose because legislators categorised the Duchy of Cornwall as a private estate owning the whole of Cornwall on a a fee-simple basis rather than as a devolved constitutionally distinct, part of government.
In such circumstances, when the Duchy purchases property in Cornwall it is, in effect, creating a freehold out of another freehold which is illegal – except, it appears, in Cornwall.
Moreover as fee simple private estates are subject to escheat and Bona Vacantia and the Duchy of Cornwall is not subject to either a question arises as to who or, more appropriately, what instrument of governance has allodial title over Cornwall? From examining all the evidence it would appear that title is shared between HM Government and the government of the Duchy of Cornwall. However the degree of ownership held by each party has yet to be established. As efforts to resolve these issues increase questions are being raised which need answers.
If you do not move on to pursuing ideas with real foundations you will continue to get nowhere. You have learned nothing and will spend the rest of your lives chasing shadows of your own creation.
'hereandthere'.......not too bright......unable to understand laws......which are unique to Kernow.......written for people.........who were here before England ever was
These people despise the unelected "ruler of Cornwall".
Wanting to replace him with the unelected "Stannary Parliament".
This unelected "Stannary Parliament" can only ,( "officially,by ancient law"), be called by....
The unelected "ruler of Cornwall"....
How do you know what "these people" want? You are not one of them, are you?
You know you are making a valid point...
When folk answer only with insults, or off-topic.
I do understand, TruroCornwall, but you can carry on living in cloud cuckoo land if you wish. Learn nothing and get nowhere, your choice.
So, what are they going to do about it all then? The pretend Stannary parliament crowd seem to have given up the ghost. So who will next take up the challenge.
What are they going to do about it all? You ask. Nothing, what can they do with fantasy?
They have learned nothing and will continue to waste their lives getting nowhere because of it.
The confusion caused by language is not common to Cornwall alone, apparently. http://tinyurl.com/3a9ku5w
Those English speaking Welsh folks have something to answer for, don't they?
.....likr a big revelation....'Taxman' posts a five year old article......and expects to impress........but the Welsh language continues......as does Cornish.......thanks to our legal rights......and the question for the Anglo posters'.....'Big Ger'.....and the alter ego 'hereandthere'.........is what are YOU going to do about it?......
"Taxman' posts a five year old article."
To be honest, the article was repeated today, for whatever reason.
But then it is rich, coming from folk that repeat and repeat and repeat...
"Laws" from several centuries ago.
I'm going to do nothing TruroC, as I do not want "Stannary law" to return here. We really don't have enough tin miners to make it a viable proposition. I'll wait for "gwenonek" and his mates to attempt it, but s/he seems to have been very quiet for the past month or more.
sad pointless postings.....on a little forum......what a waste of effort......meanwhile......we slowly move to a properly recognised and funded language......record our status on the census......dual signage.......and more to come.......all with the full support of the Council......meanwhile some say we repeat laws.....from centuries ago......without even looking at the age of many 'English' laws.......what jokers.......so impotent......on their little forum
sad pointless postings.....on a little forum......what a waste of effort......
Said the person who has made the most comments here!
TruroCornwall, learning nothing, going nowhere.
Too true. sick of the Tory party and their pals. Time for home rule and the sooner the better!!!!
.....and you are going where exactly 'hereandthere'.........off to a little forum.....and expecting to change........the world......plum!
TruroCornwall, you are learning nothing and going nowhere. I don't need to change anything, I am not one of a few who believe in a fantasy land and fantasy laws.
"Time for home rule and the sooner the better!!!!"
So what are you going to do about it Mestry?
I think the question is Big_Ger, what are you going to do to stop it? Or to help heal the massive rift in your Conservative Party?
I don't think anyone needs to "stop home rule".
How do you "stop" something that never "started"?
"Stop home rule". I can't. The wife would object!
I'm not going to do anything to stop it. The nationalists are doing a good enough job of turning people away from it on their own.
Look at the steadily declining MK vote.
9421 votes: 2005 county council elections
8919 votes: 2007 district councils elections
7290 votes: 2009 unitary council elections
6824 votes: 2013 unitary council elections.
Why not look.....at the steadily declining tory party which....big boy supports.....
When David Cameron became Leader of the Conservative Party in 2005 there were 258,239 members of the Party. By the beginning of 2010 membership had fallen to 177,000. In the three years from 2010 to 2012 membership fell a further 44,000 to 133,000.
This means that the total Party membership is now approximately 100,000, so we have lost over 150,000 members since David Cameron became the Leader of the Party. The loss of 150,000 is a net loss after taking into account new members joining the Party. Assuming that the Party got say 5,000 new members each year then the loss of members is 190,000.
Membership of the Party has been in long-term decline. At the end of World War II membership was about 250,000. As a result of the magnificent efforts of Lord Woolton membership had risen by 1952 to 2.8 million. Since then the decline has been continuous. By 1979 membership had fallen to 1,350,000 and during the 1980s and 1990s it declined further to 400,000 by 1997.
The decline in membership matters; of the approximately 100,000 Party members 10% or approximately 10,000 are activists. Today those activists consist primarily of councillors, their families and friends. With only 100,000 Party members you can no longer fight a national campaign on the ground and – as the Liberal Democrats have found – you have to target particular seats and put all your resources into winning them. This is what the Conservative Party is doing with its 40-40 campaign (they are concentrating on fighting the 40 most marginal seats held by the Conservative Party and the 40 most marginal seats held by other parties). The problem with this strategy is that it is out dated, only being based on research into the last General Election.
Without change the Conservative Party is heading towards a disaster. By the time of the next General Election it will have ceased to exist as a membership organisation
Is there any reason why one would remain to be a member of the Conservative Party today?
.....the words of a tory boy.......during August 2013......oh dear!
Meanwhile.....Cornish language......Cornish National Archive.....Cornish signs......Cornish written on census.....on NHS forms......in schools......possible Cornish heritage organisation....more powers to Lys Kernow.....not all Nationalists vote MK big boy....although you are thick......some vote Indy......Green.....and for others......hardly 'cricket' big boy.....is it?.....but there.....the decline of your tories.....is fun to watch
With membership of the UK Conservatives having effectively halved in the past seven years, the future is that of a 'zombie party' - parochial, partisan and incapable of providing democratic representation. As Cameron and Osborne continue to court the City, Tory support is increasingly shifting from England as a whole to the South of England.
The Conservative Party was once the party of Britain and a British-wide party. They were the main force of emotional, instinctual, and lest we forget, intelligent unionism, which contributed much of the glue and credos that gave the UK its sense of shared values for so long.
We can no longer say this about the Tories. They are a British-wide party no more, a fact bringing far-reaching consequences for British politics and democracy and with it the future of the union.
This account rose to prominence in the 1980s with Thatcher's English nationalism. In 1979 the Tories won 339 parliamentary seats and an overall majority of 43 seats. In 2010 they managed 307 seats and were 19 seats short of an overall majority. Over the same period in England their parliamentary support remained constant: 306 seats in 1979 and 298 in 2010. In Wales they won eleven and eight seats respectively, with the big difference being Scotland's 22 Tory seats in 1979 and a solitary Tory in 2010.
The props of Tory England are withering and disappearing. Empire has long gone, racism is in retreat if sadly still with us, the association of Protestantism and Britishness no longer holds, and even the new Tory messages are problematic
.....bye bye tories.....and big boy......
Tory votes.......down and down they go......the more big boy blabs his mouth off.....
........3 million votes less....over 30 years.....oh dear.....not so good for the tories......what with a declining membership.....and under 10,000 activists.....across the whole island.....not a very blue (rinse) future.....is it.....big boy?
He cannot even read can he? The Conservative party vote has increased in the since 2005. In the same period the MK vote has fallen by a third.
Things don't look too good for the Tories Big_Ger. The membership seems in terminal decline. Does that mean you will have to pay out more?
The figures above look a bit disastrous for the Tories and my, we have an election just around the corner. Will you be out leafleting or will you give it up as a bit of a lost cause?
Have you spoken to your GP about OCD?
Did you not know that membership of political parties is in decline across the board Truronian? It has been for some time. I suppose someone who is wrapped up in the nonsense of Cornish nationalism would have to narrow a view to know that.
Still as long as we keep beating you at the polls, that's what counts.
I've never been out "leafleting" and don't intend to start now.
You have to laugh though, remember this?
Of the 123 division in Cornwall:
36 seats went to Liberal Democrats (with 23% of the overall vote)
35 went to Independent candidates (with 21% of the overall vote)
31 went to the Conservatives (with 24% of the overall vote)
6 went to UKIP (with 15% of the overall vote)
6 went to Labour (with 7% of the overall vote)
4 went to MK (with 5% of the overall vote)
2 seats went to Labour and Cooperative (with 1% of the overall vote)
1 seat went to the Green party (with 3% of the overall vote)
I vote Independent. My Councillor continues to be a patriotic and true Cornishman. I also think the Conservatives are in for a huge shock at the next election. I always had you down as being in UKIP Big Ger. Well you learn something new every day!
Incidentally Big Ger, I do recall you posting in the past informing you had been out campaigning in local elections. I assumed for UKIP. But so many of your posts disappear, I venture that it has also gone.
I have never claimed to have been out campaigning. I leave the lies to the likes of you Cornish Nationalists.
Let's have a look at what MK says;
"I've been surprised by the lack of Conservative and Liberal Democrat voters I have found. I've knocked hundreds of doors and found no Tories and only 1 Lib Dem. I've found much anger about cuts to public services and the state of the economy. Understandably, people that have voted Lib Dem in the past and won't again due to the alliance with the Tories."
Tin Dwelly, Lab 378
Angela Elliott, Con 124
Mick Faulkner, UKIP 194
Ruth Lewarne, LD 358
Michelle Paine, Green 89
Rob Simmons, MK 91
Ger, you are becoming a tad boring again. I am a member of a political party but not MK. Now, you have claimed in the past to be out campaigning but I expect you started to rant again and the whole post was removed.
Now please try to control your rather odd obsessions in accusing everyone of being a Cornish Nationalist, as though that were somehow unlawful, and do try to stay on topic. Michelle was an exceptional candidate and I believe Rob Simmons is a Councillor in Penzance where he serves on the Town Council. 'Tin' Dwelly is in fact 'Tim' Dwelly and represents the Labour Party. Come the next poll, things might change but do try to desist from thoroughly predictable postings, eh? It would make the site a whole lot more interesting.
The subject of this now dated thread is Stannary Law. Try to stay on subject for once and do calm down a bit. Tou ae getting older and your grandchildren might be impressed with your cricket stories on a rainy day.
"Making 2013 the year Mebyon Kernow "comes of age" to elect a substantial number of members to Cornwall Council was the dominant message at the party's annual conference."
MK going into the electuion had 6 councillors, after the election they had 4.
Missed by a country mile.
And Stannary Law means nothing, it never meant anything the nationalists want to attribute to it, they live the fantasy though.
Fantasy...you use such sweet words pinky...
And you have such amazing fantasies dear chap.
It makes you wonder why these Stannary crowd don't stand for election, too feared to put their money where their mouth is I suppose.
Ger, you are getting a little obsessive again. We have discussed this before, haven't we? Now, as you mention 'putting your money where your mouth is' and since you were rather 'vocal' about the Cornish language website appeal, did you ever get around to pledging? It has now raised over the target of £5,000 so perhaps you could work out a percentage figure for us after you have given a tenner?
The thing I find odd is that some of the nationalists say that Cornwall is experiencing "genocide" while others say Cornwall is becoming more Cornish. Some say Cornish culture is being eradicated by the "English state" others say it is booming.
They are a bit schizophrenic to say the least.
"They are a bit schizophrenic to say the least."
To say the least.
Something about your area!
Copyright © 2015 Local World. All Rights Reserved.