´óÏó´«Ã½

Graham - if you had made this blog entry along th lines of "Which MPs will swear the oath on the Koran ...." there would have been uproar. So why is it ok for you to ridicule Cornish culture?

Your latest entry is deliberately provocative and displays your mind set. With this sort of self-evident prejudice within the ´óÏó´«Ã½ how can the ´óÏó´«Ã½ ever claim to be fair and proportional?

This seems like non-news. Andrew George took the oath in Cornish on Wednesday. As the ´óÏó´«Ã½ reported on Thursday -

Wake up, Graham.

You appear to have missed the boat on this one (not the first time), Mr Graham "Help!Where Can I Get My Next 'Story'" Smith by 3hrs 55mins:

and 2hrs 39mins:

It's becoming pretty clear where you are foraging for your now explicitly ANTI-Cornish 'inspiration'. It appears to be being noted and recorded:

I am a supporter of MK, and have seen NOTHING wrong with any of Graham Smith's blog posts. I disagree with some of his opinions, but most of the time I think he is doing a very good job of asking difficult questions. As a journalist, it is not Mr Smith's job to pat people on the back and make them feel comfortable.

Every time he 'attacks' MK not only does he have a right to, but I am grateful, as he is asking questions that in my opinion need to be asked, and questions that I think by answering well, MK can also be seen to be doing a good job of standing up to scrutiny.

As for swearing an oath of allegience in Cornish, Mr Smith is making a very good point, in that surely it is the policies that matter, not simply superficial 'Cornishness' that counts.

Personally I feel it is people like Graham Smith who although might look like trouble makers, are actually doing something quite brave in the face of a minority of obsessives.

Again, I must point out that I support MK and their policies, but will defend to the utmost Mr Smith's right to question MK as he does other parties. I repeat, he is doing his job. If you don't like it, then get out of politics, or at least stop moaning.

Actually, Lucy, Mr Smith is not much of a journalist - look no further than the illiterate headline to this 'story':
'Swearing in Cornish' should have read 'Swearing in in Cornish'.
The general impression created at this blog is that Mr Smith is most likely a recently graduated diploma mature student with no previous track record in serious journalism.
Perhaps he was previously a plumber?

AC, "Swearing in Cornwall" is a pun. The candidates SWEAR their allegiance to the Queen. What's wrong with that?

Same with the word "convincing", this could be interpreted in a number of ways, I saw it as "which MP could most convince people they speak Cornish?" Nothing necessarily anti-Cornish about that.

You need to stop taking yourself so seriously and assuming everyone is out to ridicule. If us Cornish nationalists can't take even the slightest bit of questioning or typical British anti-everyone-including-the-British humour then we've already lost. It's clear that Graham isn't a nationalist but there hasn't been anything overtly anti-Cornish or anti-MK in Graham's posts except the usual media scrutiny of all political parties.

Hmmmm ..... the problem is I have seen Radio Cornwall at work during the election campaign. During the Redruth constituency debate the candidates were told that the three main parties would be given more coverage but the smaller parties would also get a chance to come in on things. When a question came up that was a matter that affected Cornwall and that MK had a strong policy on Loveday was not allowed to speak - the next oppertunity she was given was to answer a question about the Human Rights Act. Although the HRA is obviously an important question it's not one that MK are likely to be able to make a big difference on. Now if this is not bias then it is certainly very poor journalism.

Secondly, all of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s policies concerning how much coverage the parties got during the election campaign purportedly revolved around how many votes the party had previously got in various elections leading up to the general election.

Labour had no MPs in Cornwall, they had no Cornwall Councillors and came behind MK in the Europoean elections. How can Labour possibly qualify to get the MOST coverage on Spotlight even under the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s own policy. Yet this is what happened. Labour got by far the most air time on Spotlight. Why? Labour only polled 8% of the vote in Cornwall in the general election - can we expect to see them get coverage on a par with UKIP the Greens and MK in future? I very much doubt it. No doubt the ´óÏó´«Ã½ will change its policy now to justify extensive coverage of the Labour party in the future.

madderdoee.

AccurateChronometer was well aware of the likelihood of cheapskate punning intentions at the top of this story. However, Mr Smith appears to be employed by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ as a 'journalist' NOT a satirist.

You may be too forgiving, madderdoee. During the 2010 General Election campaign the ´óÏó´«Ã½ in Cornwall was clearly intent - systematically - on marginalising significant non-tri-partite-cabal parties in Cornwall. Graham Smith was part and parcel of that London-centric media package of MK marginalisation and diminuation.

These contrived and orchestrated ´óÏó´«Ã½ deficiencies are well highlighted by Stephen Richardson above and analysed in greater detail and depth at:



and at that discussion's incorporated links.

The non sequitur built into the question posed by Mr Smith above:
'Or are you saying that it's OK to cut spending in Cornwall, as long as you announce your intentions in Cornish?'
is yet more evidence of the man's journalistic ineptitude.

madderdoee - AC suggests you take a closer look at the totality of Mr Smith's vapid output to date.

In any case, where's the detailed career history Mr Smith? So we can gauge your pontificator's credentials. You are on the public payroll after all. And accountability and transparency are where it's all at these days - as you keep trying, in your own random poke'nstab way, to point out in the actions of others...

Oh - and another thing ...
Surely the reason that Andrew George or anyone swears the oath in Cornish is to highlight the unique constitutional position of Cornwall. Certainly the ´óÏó´«Ã½ are not capable of distinguishing between a county and a duchy. Swearing the oath in Cornish is emblematic of the Cornish difference and it is one way to bring that difference to the attention of Great Britain as a whole in a way that is actually endorsed by the establishment. Too often questions revolving around the Cornish difference are swept under the carpet.

I take back all my criticisms of ´óÏó´«Ã½ County County County, never realised you were such republicans but I can tell from your spelling that you are, (-:

AC, using a pun in a headline is not satire. This isn't a ´óÏó´«Ã½ news article, it's a blog, and blogs often contain opinion or humour.

Stephen, Labour got more coverage because they got far more votes than MK in the previous general election. People vote differently in general and local elections, there are different priorities and different focuses. It was a national election looking at national issues, not a Cornish election looking at Cornish issues. Cornwall is part of the UK, after all. Results of a local or Euro election can't be used to gauge coverage in a general election. I would expect MK to get more coverage in the next local election, but not at the next general election where it doesn't do as well.

And Andrew George swears the oath in Cornish because a) he's allowed to do so, and b) he supports the language. I don't see how just swearing in Cornish is highlighting the constitutional difference, the existence of a language doesn't automatically guarantee a given right to autonomy.

'the existence of a language doesn't automatically guarantee a given right to autonomy'. You're right, madderdoee - that comes from affirmation, assertion, assurance, strength of argument, appetite,determination, tenacity and solidarity and a few other factors.

Good News: Andrew George, Dan Rogerson and Stephen Gilbert have all now sworn in in Cornish.

Have/will the 3 new Conservative MPs?

Now there's the beginning of a story perhaps for our Mr Smith...

Madderdoee:

I understand that if you accept the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s guidelines for coverage as fair then Labour would get more coverage than MK. My point is that Labour had been behind both the Conservatives and Lib Dems in ALL types of poll (including the previous general election where they gained no seats in Cornwall). Although the general election was a UK wide event Spotlight is a regional programme and Radio 'Cornwall' is supposedly a local radio station. There is no way - according to the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s own guidelines - that Labour should have been given the cover that they got - they got significantly MORE cover than the other 'big three'.

This goes to prove that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ doesn't actually think about what it is doing in Cornwall. It merely reflects the establishment line of the rest of the UK. You can bet that come the next set of elections Labour's coverage will be right up there with Cons and Lib Dems. No doubt it will be justified because Labour are now the 'opposition' to the current government.

This whole policy that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has stinks - it is self perpetuating and designed to maintain the status quo of the 3 main parties and does not take local issues and conditions into account.

I certainly don't consider the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s guidelines for coverage to be fair - but I can see why they don't base general election coverage on local or Euro election results.

Giving most coverage to the main three parties means they have a media advantage, which in turn will give them higher results by locking out minor parties, which in turn will mean the ´óÏó´«Ã½ gives them greater coverage at the next election, and so on, essentially strengthening the three main parties in a vicious circle of coverage for votes for coverage. There is also the issue of a one-size-fits-all approach to the coverage which was inherently unfair to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Swearing the oath in the Cornish language reminds London that, while Cornwall is British (in the true sense of the word - speakers of a Brythonic Celtic language - which doesn't actually apply to the English people), it can never be English. It has a unique status: historically, linguistically, culturally, in ethnic terms and constitutionally. Mr Smith doesn't seem to understand this, and it also seems to be ´óÏó´«Ã½ (the first B stands for British, not English, remember) policy to downplay and even deny this unique status.