Talk:Revived Cornish Stannary Parliament

message: The article claims these people are "The CSP are campaigning against the lack of a written constitutional text" and "campaigning, for the Cornish to be recognised by the UK Government" Seeing as they appear to have been inactive for some 7 or more years, should the article be changed to reflect that?  Perhaps "campaigned" or "were campaigning for" would seem more appropriate. 03:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: [out of date]

message: Is this organisation still extant? Their webpage hasn't been updated since 2008, and there is no mention of them in the local press. Another "Cornish Nationalist" organisation, (see Cornwall 2000 ) which only seems to exist on Wikipedia.Serpren (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I couldn't agree more. They're not the legitimate parliament, they're a bunch of nationalists pretending to be important. Plenty of us here in Cornwall despise their embarassing shenanigans, and celebrate our Cornish, English, and British heritage equally. 92.23.123.66 (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: There was no English tick-box in the 2001 census. The present wording (instead of chosing English or British) is ambiguous and might be misunderstood as meaning the choice was an English tick-box, a British tick-box, or a Cornish write-in. The simplest way to deal with this is to remove the reference to English. Alternatively: "instead of chosing to write-in English or tick a box for British." Crococolana 13:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, this is quite correct - there wasn't an English, Welsh or Cornish tick box on the 2001 UK Census, only British, Irish, Irish Traveller or the option to write in another identity under the others option. I believe that the English and Welsh options have been permitted a tick box for the 2011 Census by the Office for National Statistics but the Cornish tick box was refused because "insufficient requirement for the data had been expressed by Census users". This seems slightly unfair as organisations such as the Government Office of the South West and Cornwall Council amongst others had requested this data to be supplied. There have been claims that by not including the Cornish option this is institutional racial discrinination against the Cornish and that the government is employing double standards by recognising all the other UK indigenous minorities and many non-indigenous UK minorities, but not the Cornish. The UK government has also made legal undertakings with the Council of Europe to take "resolute action" in support of the Cornish language but in fact does not have an accurate figure for the number of Cornish people or the number of Cornish language speakers. By writing in "Cornish" on the Census 2001, this could be construed as requiring Cornish people to deny their British identity. Persons who did were then re-classified by the ONS as "White British" in published Census data. By having to tick the "other box" it has been claimed that this is psychologically designed to elict a negative response first (in crossing out British and denying British identity) before one's own positive identification can be made. There have been claims that this is deliberate as it intents to make Cornish identity problematic rather than an act or expression of positive and natural identification. The Cornish Stannary Parliament, amongst other Cornish groups, say they support the inclusion of the 2011 Census Cornish tick box as the Cornish are the only UK indigenous language group, UK Census 2001 group and UK ethnically monitored group to be specifically targetted in this way by the UK government - see  Cornish demand 2011 Census tick box 81.78.154.167 11:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OTHER  ACTIONS 

message: The sentence The historic Cornish Stannary Parliament last assembled in at Truro in 1752, and continued until September 11, 1753.[1] The English legal system does not recognise desuetude (laws lapsing through lack of use), and the precedent of the Court of Chivalry, which sat in 1952 for the first time in over 200 years, means that the Stannary Parliament, whilst not in session, still exists. The 1508 Charter of Pardon is still on the statute books, as was confirmed in the House of Commons in recent years. involves a legal interpretation without any reference given. If no reference is given I will delete the sentence. Perhaps the sentence can be re-written. I guess this is the legal interpretation that the interest group "Revived Cornish Stannary Parliament" think is correct. Best regards Pierreback 18:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence without reference 

message: Added the following:- "The CSP are campaigning against the lack of a written constitutional text to protect British 'subjects' from abuse of power by the state and have highlighted the absence of a British constitutional/statutory guarantee of the principle of equality before the law (cf Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution). They have raised concerns with the British government  regarding the failure by the state to include Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights in its Human Rights Act 1998,  the failure by the state to ratify Protocol 12 of the ECHR, the failure by the state to incorporate the European Directive 2000/43/EC on Anti-discrimination into domestic legislation by introducing what the CSP claim is the inadequate Statutory Instrument 1626. They have also raised concerns regarding the retention of an unelected head of state and associated upper chamber of parliament (House of Lords), and the retention of what the CSP claim is an archaic and undemocratic Privy Council of the United Kingdom.---see - Suppression of Cornish identity
The CSP claim that Cornish people are subject to forced assimilation by an education system that fails to provide them with an adequate level of knowledge about their history and, hence, their identity. They also claim that there are persistent attempts by state authorities to deny Cornish people their identity for example in the national census, pupil level annual school census, exclusion from the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, and denial of adequate financial cultural/linguistic resources."
Jeaniel (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Suppression of Cornish identity

message: The article presents, without comments, various legal claims by the CSP which are, to say the least, controversial. For example: 
- that the UK has no written constitution (most scholars would disagree, as indeed does the relevant Wikipedia article)
- there is no British constitutional/statutory guarantee of equality before the law (most authorities would say that the common law provided such a guarantee; the Human Rights Act certainly does)
- that Article 13 of the ECHR (requiring States to provide a remedy for breaches of the ECHR) is not included in the HRA (this is surely a mistake/misunderstanding - the HRA itself *is* a "remedy" for the purposes of article 13)
- the implication that the Privy Council has a significant role in governance (again, this is contradicted by the relevant Wikipedia article)
 
- the idea that the Monarchy contravenes the ECHR (a proposition which is, to say the least, innovative)
- the idea that the Council of Europe is bound by the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination
- the article presents (in the "Status" section) various claims from the CSP that it has legal validity, and then a quote to the contrary from the Government. The mainstream constitutional view also needs to be presented - that the doctrine of implied repeal means that any legislation passed by Parliament which is contrary to historic laws/treaties overrides those laws/treaties. This means that, whilst (eg) the Charter of Pardon (together with many old pieces of legislation) was never formally repealed, it does not need to be.
I am not saying that each of the above claims is definitively incorrect, only that each is contrary to the consensus view of constitutional scholars and lawyers. To present each without criticism cannot be right.
In additional, all the political claims of the CSP also seem to be presented in an entirely uncritical manner. There is little context, no indication of the extent to which the organisation is representative, multiple references to the organisation's own website, and (other than the quote from the Government referred to above) not a single critical voice is referenced. I have no expertise in these issues, so can only be of limited assistance here.
LeContexte (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The UK does not have a proper constitution, only layers of legal documents.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The British constitution is certainly uncodified, but whether it is "proper" or not is a matter of opinion. The claim (as in this article) that it is "unwritten" is often made, but most authorities would disagree. That said, this is probably the least significant of the dubious legal claims in this article. LeContexte (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well please read this then - "Why doesn't the UK have a written constitution, and does it matter?" from the The Independent Feb 2008 - It points out that Britain's arcane hotch-potch of freedoms and rights cannot be defended in the 21st century and a written constitution could help citizens clarify their rights and protect themselves against the state. Most flourishing democracies base their institutions on a written constitution !!  Why doesn't the UK have a written constitution, and does it matter? The Independent Feb 2008and DoCHRAXaquelina (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The author is proposing a codified constitution - he uses the term "written constitution" but, as I said above, most constitutional authorities (i.e. not journalists!) would not use that term in this way. See Constitution of the United Kingdom. LeContexte (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV presentation of claims

message: Im slightly concerned about the title and intro among other things. This article is not talking about a revived Cornish Stannary Parliament.. its talking about something established by a group of people, there is no "revived" about it. There was not a Scottish parliament for 300 years, a campaign group could not just come along and "revive" it.  I find it rather misleading especially as the first mention about a "pressure group claiming" to of "Revived Cornish Stannary Parliament" is in the history section, that obviously belongs in the introduction and in the first sentence to avoid confusion.
Im re adding the tag. Clear bias BritishWatcher (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of the group, organisation, or however you want to describe it, is "The Revived Cornish Stannary Parliament". Therefore, the title is accurate. --Joowwww (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I couldnt even tell that from the introduction.. If "The Revived Cornish Stannary Parliament" is the name of the group why does the intro start by saying... "The Cornish Stannary Parliament"... BritishWatcher (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, and this is one of many problems with an article that presents an extremely fringe viewpoint with minimal context (and indeed few indications to the reader that the viewpoint is on the political fringe). LeContexte (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Two MPs have worked with this group in investigating Cornwall's constitutional status. Hardly "extreme fringe" is it, unless you consider those two MPs to be "extreme fringe". --Joowwww (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who has worked with them, or what they worked on, but the point remains: this is a fringe group making fringe claims, and attracting a very low level of popular support - the article fails to reflect this. LeContexte (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:   "revived Cornish Stannary Parliament"