大象传媒

I believe Bravd the Hublander is encouraging his disciples to unit around the Duchy path of division, they seem to have there own spin on Kilbandon report, if I recall correctly the term a very small minority was mentioned. The definition of very small would confirm what we all know, a handful of people with little better to do.

It is also woth noting since the report in 1972 the population increase of people moving from other parts of England into Cornwall has reduced the findings of the Kilbandon report as the majority are from or have strong links to the rest of England thus the vast majority in Cornwall are 100% English

The Kilbandon report is very out of date

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

You appear to have got confused in your overly emotional state Mr Tregantle. 'Tamer' is spelled 'Tamar'.
When and how did Kingsand allegedly become incorporated into England and when and how was the Kingsand anomaly corrected and Kingsand rightfully returned to its homeland?
Meanwhile, let's hope Mr Smith is busy ferreting away for evidence of the formal legislative incorporation of all of Cornwall into England as you ferret around the periphery of the issue...

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I only read Peters first comment and saw nothing which broke the rules

Graham, I find it refreshing that you wish to pursue this matter - right or wrong examination of the issue of Cornwall's identity can only be helpful to public understanding.

It would be good also if you could "Use of the designation" (Duchy) "on all appropriate occasions would serve to recognise both this special relationship and the territorial integrity of Cornwall, on which our witnesses laid great stress."

That is when talking about the geographical area of Cornwall you use the term Duchy of Cornwall or Cornwall.

Use of the term County or other terms like southwest or westcountry do not fall into the 'appropriate' category.

Use of 'County' can only really be appropriate (after the demise of the Cornwall County Council) when the identity of 'Cornwall' as the area for which a Lord Lieutenant is assigned - this remaining term for 'ceremonial county' - is appropriate. They would be extremely rare I would think.

Ta!

Ah, of course you picked up on my aside "(after the demise of the Cornwall County Council)" .. and ask .. "are you saying that for all those years when we had Cornwall County Council it WAS appropriate to refer to Cornwall as a county?"

Along the theme that usage should be appropriate ... yes but only when referring the former council.

So you don't dispute that use of County is not appropriate outside of the very limited 'ceremonial' instances. I look forward to your blog being a relatively 'County' free zone!

The Ocean does not care what direction small fishes swim in why should we.

People should ignore the games Cornish Studies Library is not the defacto place for history, Kevrenor would not know this being an Aussie. Graham if you mail me I will show you a site Kevrenor created for the Celtic league and his friend Tony

History being rewritten as if it never existed, even you must see the irony in that Mr Smith.

Really you lay a great amount of emphasis again, on the word appropriate which is after all fairly subjective. I admit that it is not ought, must, should or something much more instructive but the word appropriate is in itself vague. As a testament to this Graham's use of the word in previous blogs and others has been vastly different. That is to say that the 大象传媒 believes Cornwall is "appropriately" a Duchy only in specific circumstances (this blog being the only one I can find.)Whilst those that believe the Duchy is far more than a private estate believe that Cornwall is appropriately a Duchy at all times and never constitutionally or legally a County.

Moreover it is hard to ascertain the context in which the Royal Commission refers to Cornwall and the situation of its constitution vis-a-vis the Duchy.

"More might, however, be done on the question of status. Just as the people of Scotland and Wales tend to resent the description of their countries as regions of the United Kingdom, so the people of Cornwall regard their part of the United Kingdom as not just another English county. The creation of the Duchy of Cornwall in the 14th century may have been in some respects a mark of English overlordship, but it established a special and enduring relationship between Cornwall and the Crown. Use of the designation on all appropriate occasions would serve to recognise both this special relationship and the territorial integrity of Cornwall, on which our witnesses laid great stress."

The obvious equation here is between Wales, Scotland and Cornwall (and its worth noting on this point that these were the only parts of Britain to be considered under the Commission in terms of national identity). As well as the relationship between Cornwall and the Crown or as the writer put it the "Special Relationship". In my opinion also suitably vague, to my mind constitutional equality or similarity is hinted at here between Cornwall and the other Celtic nations. I am willing to bet that nowhere in the Kilbrandon Report is there mention of a Shire County having a "Special Relationship", the simple reason being that no county of England is constitutionally a Duchy.

Perhaps the most instructive part of the passage is the fact that it mentions: "the people of Cornwall regard their part of the United Kingdom as not just another English county." At no time is this challenged in the Report and I think the fact that it is left in there is quite typical of a trend. I agree with you Graham, the report could have been clearer, it could have said Cornwall is a Duchy extra-territorial to England but it didn't, it also could have been clearer and stated Cornwall was an English county which it also didn't but neither were these claims refuted.

Nevertheless both issues were raised, making them of constitutional significance surely if they were of no constitutional significance they would have been left out.....

Rob the royal commission was nearly 40 years ago, much has changed and evolved unlike a few Cornish nationalists trapped in a time zone long since past, like the recent Anti-English flag debacle which saw plenty of red faces within the Cornish nationalists camp.

Here is the news its nearly 2011

Yes Saltash Gaz.
Tibet has been taken over by the Chinese and the Tibetans marginalised in their own land.
The Israelis are busy gerrymandering Palestinian politics in the West Bank via contrived and externally manipulated population growth.
And you appear to want Cornwall and the Cornish to be dis-empowered, marginalised and disappeared and overwhelmed by the English by similar processes and means.
Such violations are not pursued by exclusively military means and violence against minority cultures, populations and territories takes many forms.
Here is the news. It's 2010 - the 10th year of the 1st decade of the 21st Century.
With clarity of thought, understanding and focused determination the future will be bright for The Celtic Nation And Duchy Of Cornwall in the 2nd decade of the 21st Century from when it commences on January 1st 2011.

Let me get this right, AccurateChronometer. You are actually comparing Cornwall to Tibet and Palestine? Why am I not that surprised? After all, your lot have often compared the aftermath of the "Prayer Book Rebellion" to the Holocaust. Not a comparison that made you many friends.

How long does it take for an injustice to cease to become an injustice? The fact is that British Cornwall has become progressively oppressed by Saxon England. This oppression has been so succesful that some Cornish people aren't even aware of the oppression or are very happy with the way that that oppression has worked out. These people are clearly entitled to their opinion. At the same time Cornish nationalists are entitled to believe that Cornwall is a historic nation of its own and have the full weight of the English constitutional legal system to support their argument.

It matters not how old the precedents are - most of the UK constitution is written on the back of a fag packet and based on convention stretching back centuries.

What is needed is a full, impartial and objective review of Cornwall's legally constitutional position. The problem is that this will not happen while there are so many vested financial interests amongst the 'ruling classes' and while an Anglo-centric view of history is taught without regard to the truth.

In the meantime the English propaganda goes unchallenged and the passage of the years means that those years apparently gives legitimacy to the people who nit-pick over the whether a certain form of words does or does not amount to a 'reccommendation'. This is the way the EIS works. It keeps the debate focussed on semantics rather than the facts.

"The fact is that British Cornwall has become progressively oppressed by Saxon England. This oppression has been so succesful,(sic) that some Cornish people aren't even aware of the oppression or are very happy with the way that that oppression has worked out."

Or, alternatively, Cornwall suffered neither more or less "oppression" than any other area of England has over the centuries. It is only the new, biased, interpretation of history that has encouraged a minority to put Cornwall down as a "special victim" of "English Imperialism". Or this new version, (that slightly puzzles), "Saxon Imperialism"? (Must be in "Angharrack's Bible")

The use of the phrase 鈥淓nglish propaganda鈥� alienates you from the audience you are appealing towards. What is it with all nationalists and the use of the written equivalent of keying your own car?

1/ What is with all these posts awaiting moderation? The moderators seem to be able to work a lot quicker on other 大象传媒 sites, or is it a case of this site needing a "Beware of the children" warning on its main page!

2/ Graham, do you not think that it is a bit pretentious to claim that your little blog piece has had the effect you claim?

3/ The whole "Kilbrandon" argument, boils down to the interpretation of a single word "appropriate". In the earlier piece you replied to a point I made by saying "No serious historian would ignore the context of Kilbrandon's remark: the "special and enduring relationship between Cornwall and the Crown." So my guess is that he thought it was OK to call Cornwall a Duchy when talking about the Royals, but even this is hardly a clear cut recommendation" which is your interpritation, you went on to say "At every other opportunity to mention Cornwall, he calls it a county of England", which could be said to show that your interpritation is correct, or merly that he was following what was considered to be the "normal" way of refering to Cornwall at that time. We're back to interpritation again.
Not forgetting that you missed the bit where he says "the territorial integrity of Cornwall", so using your argument regarding it "being OK to call to call Cornwall a Duchy when talking about the Royals", it is equally "OK" to call Cornwall a Duchy when talking about it's geographical teritory, "territorial integraty" could also mean a number of other things as well, including it's politics. Once again, it is all down to interpritation.
But, lets look at this from a diferent direction, the use of the word "County", is it's use "apropreate"? I can think of no ocasion where the word "County" has been used in the media, or many other places, where the word "Cornwall" would not have been just as, or even more, apropreate. In fact, there are many times where the use of the word "County" would seem to be excessive, for example,how many times dose the word have to be used in a short local weather forcast?
Why use the word so much?
Is there an ulterior motive for such use?

Slimslad said: "Or, alternatively, Cornwall suffered neither more or less "oppression" than any other area of England has over the centuries. It is only the new, biased, interpretation of history that has encouraged a minority to put Cornwall down as a "special victim" of "English Imperialism"."

You might be correct to say that other areas of Britain are different to England. However, Cornwall is similar to Scotland and Wales in that when the Saxons invaded Britain these are the areas to which the indigenous Britons retreated. Other areas were colonised and more completely 'cleansed' by the saxons whereas in Cornwall the population was mainly composed of Britons. The whole point is that Celtic Cornwall was not part of England and so was not the same as Saxon England.

Of course it may be true that:

1. The Cornish are now a minority in Cornwall (this is hard to establish as the EIS has always refused to allow the collection of data); and that

2. Many Cornish people may not be aware of their history; and that

3. Some that are aware of Cornish history may want Cornwall to be part of England or believe that this is already an established fact; and that

4. In recent (say the last 100 years or so) times Cornwall has been flooded with English settlers.

So it is hardly surprising that only a minority of people living in Cornwall argue for a seperate identity. Further, people in the UK (other than a few) are hardly likely to be motivated to do any research on the matter or to hold any informed opinion.

This does not mean that the 'minority' in Cornwall are incorrect in their beliefs that and they should be ridiculed when they try to put their case fully, freely and objectively. If this were properly allowed it may well be that the minority would grow very quickly into a majority.

This is my viewpoint and I guess it differs from yours.

I don't think there is anything new about an interpretation of Cornwall being distinct from Cornwall. Surely if your argument that this is a 'new' and 'biased' interpretation it is a fairly weak argument as there many references to Cornwall being distinct (and seperate if you intend to argue about semantics) from all time periods. I suspect that the question that you intend to raise is whether the passage of time and the success of (now) English imperialism means that the colonisation of Cornwall and its incorporation into England is complete. Therefore, I suspect that you would advocate that the starting point for debate should be the scenario that Cornwall is part of England rather than starting from a presumption that it isn't. This, of course, brings us neatly back to the start!

"In recent (say the last 100 years or so) times Cornwall has been flooded with English settlers."

Do you these "settlers" were brought in by the Imperialists?
Similar to the way the Baltic States were colonised by Mother Russia?

Or could it be that the Victorians built a railway and more people could travel?

"You might be correct to say that other areas of Britain are different to England."

I would not be correct, Stephen. Because I didn't say it.

I said;

"Or, alternatively, Cornwall suffered neither more or less "oppression" than any other area of England has over the centuries."

No mention of Wales or Scotland.

Slimslad:

"Do you these "settlers" were brought in by the Imperialists?" - another argument posited on semantics. Often nationalists are accused of being rather extreme and yet anti-nationalists seem to be allowed carte blanche when trying to support their own view point and try to make out that it is a reaction to nationalist extremism.

I think it is clear that, in this case, I was referring to the in-migration of English people combined with an outward movement of Cornish.

I think this movement has been largely due to economic reasons of one kind or another.

"I would not be correct, Stephen. Because I didn't say it." I know you didn't say it - that is why I said that I thought you may have been correct if you had said it.

On the other hand my own opinion is that the statement "Or, alternatively, Cornwall suffered neither more or less "oppression" than any other area of England has over the centuries." is based on the false assumption that Cornwall was part of England and that you can't compare apples to pears as you seem to be trying to do. Just my opinion of course.

Very good, Stephen! You should try politics.9The real stuff, that is). Very smooth.

Do you these "settlers" were brought in by the Imperialists?

Even the bnp would not go this far, I just wish it was not so retarded

Sorry, that should have read:

"Do you think these "settlers" were brought in by the Imperialists?"

Also Stephen,(not "semantics"), but you stated;

"In recent (say the last 100 years or so) times Cornwall has been flooded with English settlers.
So it is hardly surprising that only a minority of people living in Cornwall argue for a seperate,(sic), identity.

So, in the "last 100 years or so", native Cornish people have been "supplanted" by the English and are now in a minority? Is that what you are saying? What about other immigrants, from other nations? Are they "colonists" and therefore unwanted?

It is hard to argue any such thing because of the lack of data.

I am merely saying that the effect of migration of English people to Cornwall is to reduce Cornish people as a proportion of all the people of Cornwall. As I also said above, I think that English people, new to Cornwall, are even less likely to understand the distinct history of Cornwall as the discussion never occurs in English counties. As far as English people are concerned, in general terms, Cornwall is a county of England and no other thought occurs.

It doesn't really matter where the person moves from when they move into Cornwall - what matters is what they have been educated to believe about Cornwall's status. Having said that (and without data this is a best guess) I would say that an extremely high percentage (well into the 90s) of people moving to Cornwall would have been from England during the last 100 years.

Further it is no good saying that any 'colonists' are 'unwanted' as you have termed it - this is another example of an anti-nationalist using hyperbolae to make nationalists appear extreme in their views.

The whole point of what I was saying was that it is hardly surprising in the circumstances that nationalists are a minority of the population of Cornwall and that using the 'small minority' label does not reduce the validity of what nationalists claim.

this is another example of an anti-nationalist using hyperbolae,(sic), to make nationalists appear extreme in their views.

Stephen, you don't need so-called "anti-nationalist hyperbola" to make you "look extreme".
Just by the resentment shown to "English" people makes you look extremist, racist and xenophobic.

I would advise you you to get out more, mix with a wider social group,and stay away from blokes with dodgy hairstyles and a chip on their shoulders.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

And Gary resorts to one of his favorite words, writes it in capitol letters so that no-one can miss it.
Not the first time you've used it on the Internet either, is it!
More of your bile and hate showing through.
As for your being "anti", you're anti everything you disagree with.
You "just wish they would see matters as the majority do..." yeah, 'cos the majority is always right, as long as they agree with you.

I understand, Saltashgaz,. I am not anti-Cornish. I am very much anti-elitist, anti-violence, anti-thick-head and anti-hypocritical. Anyway, you are allowed a "dig" at me. That is democracy at its best.

At least Stephen has the balls to challenge long-held views.

Hmmmm ...

Slimslad - would it surprise you to know that I am English?

Nothing that I had written was based on resentment of the English people. I just believe that when people move somewhere they should fit into the ways and customs of the people that are recognised as being the 'indigenous' people of the area. To my mind this is just good manners.

All of my views are based on an objective and unbiased research of primary source materials.
My opinion now (after doing my research) is that it is a simple fact that Cornwall was aways a seperate entity to England and is still so in a legally constitutional sense. Before I moved to Cornwall I wouldn't have thought twice about it!

If there were a level playing field then Cornish nationalists would have a better chance of getting their view across. Is it too much to ask that nationalist views should be given the same resources that EIS views are given? Cearly the answer is that it is indeed too much to ask - and that is where the injustice is perpetuated.

P_Trembath? For shame!

"capitol" is a building,(I think), NOT upper-case.!

Always trust education. Never trust a spell-check!

Then, Stephen, if you had the power to give Cornwall a "level playing-field" and, with it, the power to give Cornwall what Cornwall doesn't have now.
What would you do?

Slimslad wrote:-
"P_Trembath? For shame!

"capitol" is a building,(I think), NOT upper-case.!

Always trust education. Never trust a spell-check!"

I apolagise, but, being partially dyslexic, the spell checker is a must, at least it means I spell the wrong words corectly.
Now, how about concentrating on what is written.

No need to apologise.

You say tomatoe.

I say tomato.

Slimslad wrote:-
"No need to apologise.

You say tomatoe.

I say tomato."

Actually, I say tomato to, my spell checker does not recognise the word "tomatoe".

It鈥檚 not just the terrorists that MK takes issue with. It鈥檚 the nationalists like Chappell, who take refuge in the small print of constitutional history. 鈥淭hey say we don鈥檛 need to do anything because we鈥檙e already independent,鈥� says Cole. 鈥淭hey take refuge in medieval legalistic rights 鈥� the fact that nobody has acted on them since 1508 seems to be irrelevant to them. But it鈥檚 nice. They don鈥檛 have to knock on doors or write press releases because they鈥檙e already independent. All it takes is the government to recognise our rights.鈥�

Dick Cole

"Passport to Padstow" The Times newspaper

What a refreshing debate and the comments are not being deleted on dubious grounds

At the end of the day the public in Cornwall do not want to listen to MK and the Celtic league (not just Mike, check out his mates Richard and Tony).

Dave the rave with complete respect and thanks for the honesty I have never heard MK speak out against the Celtic league in fact I believe the brains behind the Celtic Talebot is also a founding member of MK youth and often helps formulate MK policy. I stand to be corrected

If anyone can show me a quote from MK denouncing the celtic league when they where cursing the English and the English flag, I promise to apologise for being wrong

Peter Tregantle wrote:-
"Dave the rave with complete respect and thanks for the honesty I have never heard MK speak out against the Celtic league in fact I believe the brains behind the Celtic Talebot is also a founding member of MK youth and often helps formulate MK policy. I stand to be corrected"

There are many things that you "have never heard" Mr. Tregantle.


Peter Tregantle wrote:-
"If anyone can show me a quote from MK denouncing the celtic league when they where cursing the English and the English flag, I promise to apologise for being wrong"

Perhaps, you would first like to show us a quote from the Celtic League where they cursed the English and the English Flag.

That is a quote from the Celtic League, not someone who you wish to lump in a group that you want to call "The Celtic League", or an individual, speaking as an individual, but from the Celtic League.

Isn't it gutting to try and concede and open minds only to have an elephant jump on it with some meaningless tirade about god knows what, I really have not a clue why he bothers I certainly see no value in the long winded comment trembath has just made. It seems to be some play on words without the logic or concise explanation of what it is he is ranting about, oh well guess if we have free speech we are going to have to chose who we debate with

Anything you say Trembath, perhaps yes or perhaps no.

Mr. Tregantles reply above is indicative of the man.
He is completely unable to provide the evidence requested to back up the claim he made, so resorts to insult, abuse, and avoidance.

Mr. Tregantle, I challenge you to provide a quote from the Cornish branch of the Celtic League, in which the Cornish branch of the Celtic League curse the English and the English Flag.

How juvenile!

Is this the face MK wants to see representing them on here Dave the rave?

From the brief study I have just done there are many links between MK and the Celtic league The only differential I can find is MK want Cornwall for kernow and the Celtic league want us to be an Irish state along with the Isle of Man, the core policy and reason for both bodies existing is nationalistic. In fact the word nationalism is so abused with it ranging from a duchy to an assembly it is almost impossible to tell the difference between the various herbs growing in our English county we even have a few wallflowers being independents growing Harry Potter type powers from the word nationalism yet for the diversity of use it has microscopic support and here I agree with all the above people it is not true nationalists that bring contempt on all nationalists it is using the word nationalism as a weapon which sidelines it and makes it seem dirty

Andrew neither has enough support to go it alone, even the jam and Jerusalem brigade of 5th regiment of the Cornish WI's outnumber em 30-1

Peter Tregantle wrote:-
"How juvenile!"

Let the record show, that when challenged to provide proof of the hateful, provocative, and completely incorrect accusations and statements, he resorts to yet more insult.

I will give you one more chance, Mr. Tregantle, I challenge you to provide a quote from the Cornish branch of the Celtic League, in which the Cornish branch of the Celtic League curse the English and the English Flag.

Have the decency to either provide your evidence, or retract your statement.

It was not an insult, thus the reason it was not removed, it was a critique of your behaviour. I am not answerable to you and see no problem with my comment (41), try making a comment rather than pretending you have mastered English, one thing your comment 39 confirms is you are acting like a juvenile, in fact almost every comment you make does this.

Let me teach you a basic of blog life, if you disagree with a comment it is down to you to prove it wrong.

When the right to peaceful protest fails?

Sunday the Tamar

The law provides a specific right to use a public highway: the right to pass and re-pass along the highway (including the pavement), and the right to make ordinary and 鈥榬easonable use鈥� of the highway. To hold peaceful assemblies that do not prevent other people from also using the highway is likely to be seen as a 鈥榬easonable use鈥� of the highway. In addition, the Article 11 of the Convention guarantees the right to assembly, so you have a positive right, both from the common law and from the European Convention on Human Rights, to use the highway to hold peaceful, non-obstructive assemblies.

However, unreasonable obstruction of the highway is a "CRIMINAL OFFENCE". This is a widely drawn offence, so the police have often seen it in practice as a licensing power over public gatherings. The police use it to remove sit-down demonstrators, to keep marchers from leaving the agreed police route, to control pickets and in every conceivable public order context on the highway. Often the police will give a warning to move before making an arrest, although there is no legal requirement to do so. However, if you were not given a warning that you were causing an obstruction, it will be easier to show that you were not making unreasonable use of the highway.

Andrew, wrong thread.

Peter Tregantle wrote:-
"Let me teach you a basic of blog life, if you disagree with a comment it is down to you to prove it wrong."

What a pile of codswallop

As you are clearly unable to provide any evidence to back your malicious claim, you should, if you had an ounce of honour, retract it. Attempting to avoid the issue by making up rules as you go along, in the hope that others believe them, is, unfortunately, the sort of behaviour that we have come to expect from you, and your many aliases that you use, and hide behind, around the Internet.

Please, P_Trembath! I remember Mike Chappell in the press, making a lot of noise about "foreign flags" and hoping England would make an early exit from the World Cup. Perhaps he didn't "curse" them. But there are members of the Celtic League who have short memories, shall we say?

Slimslad wrote:-
"Perhaps he didn't "curse" them."

No, exactly, I can find nowhere where the Cornish Branch of the Celtic League have "cursed" anyone. But Mr. Tregantle claims that they did. It is therefore up to him to provide the evidence, the proof, to back up his claim.
All the Cornish Branch of the Celtic League did was to request that the displays of the "English" flag in supermarkets, and other retail outlets, were "toned down, were made less "in your face".

Mr. Tregantle, and his small group of friends/aliases, have a habit of making statements that are "less than correct", presumably in the belief that if he states them often enough they will be accepted as the truth. The accusation that MK were planning on caring out a policy of ethnic cleansing when/if they get to power, is one of their more despicable ones.
It is such false statements that cause ill feeling, and can lead to events that all right thinking people wish to never see, one has to wonder if such events are Mr. Tregantles intention.

For the record, I am not a member of the Celtic League, and I will be at Saltash on Sunday.

"his small group of friends/aliases"?

"Pot, kettle", P_Trembath ?

Slimslad wrote:-
""his small group of friends/aliases"?

"Pot, kettle", P_Trembath ?"

Mr. Tregantle knows what I was referring to.

"No, exactly, I can find nowhere where the Cornish Branch of the Celtic League have "cursed" anyone".

But I can find somewhere where members of the Cornish Branch of the Celtic League have not acted in a "grown-up manner", shall we say?

I think you will know what I am referring to?

Slimslad wrote:-
"But I can find somewhere where members of the Cornish Branch of the Celtic League have not acted in a "grown-up manner", shall we say?"

Something that could be said about a lot of posters, from all "sides".
However, behaving childishly is a far cry from making false, malicious statements that are designed to stir up hate.

Or,do you feel it is OK to tell malicious lies about those you disagree with politically?

Some of us have long memories, P_Trembath.

That little "joke" in 2007 did not go down well in some quarters.

Slim - The guy seems to have a mental block or been brainwashed. It would seem he has selective vision; it is like banging your head on a wall, why bother he is not even a representative of either MK or the Celtic league.

All I asked was why MK never denounced Mike Chappells comments as being bigoted at best when he started claiming he found the English flag offensive and demanding stores remove them, the guy is an embarrassment and soon to be weight watcher of the year

I see, a "joke" I made 3 years ago that you did not find funny, gives others the excuse to post malicious lies.

The "funny" thing is, I do not recall anyone going by the handle of "Slimslad" ever complaining about any "joke" I have posted in the past, but, as I have been known to make more than 1 "joke" a year, perhaps you would be decent enough to provide a link to this "joke" you find so offensive, and, obviously, the objections you posted to it at the time, so that we actually know what you are rambling on about.

Now, to get back to the point, Do you, Slimslad, feel it is OK to tell malicious lies about those you disagree with politically? Or are you, like Mr. Tregantle, incapable of answering a straight question.

My apologies, P_Trembath.

I thought we were discussing this subject in the context of the Celtic League? Of which you say,"For the record, I am not a member of the Celtic League". I do not do personal attacks,P_Trembath. I do not complain about what others post. I do not do propaganda links. I do not do "malicious lies" political or otherwise. I do not post using many different indentities. How's that,P_Trembath? "Straight" enough for you?

Slim - The guy seems to have a mental block or been brainwashed. It would seem he has selective vision; it is like banging your head on a wall, why bother he is not even a representative of either MK or the Celtic league.

But he thinks he is on a mission, he honestly does, and all I want to know is who 'he' thinks gave him the mission

Slimslad, I am so glad that you do not "do "malicious lies" political or otherwise", but that is not what I asked is it.
So, to recap.

Mr. Tregantle made a statement that the Cornish Branch of the Celtic League had cursed the English and the English flag.
I asked Mr. Tregantle to provide evidence of this, or retract his statement. I did so because it is a statement that deliberately sets out to portray an organization as "racist" and intolerant. It is a statement that, I fully accept, if true should be made public and discussed. But, if it is untrue, it is a statement that is deliberately used to foster a "them and us" situation that some on here seem to think desirable, and as such is malicious, a malicious lie.
My question to you was not do you post malicious lies, but do you think it acceptable, for anyone, to post malicious lies.
Are you afraid of being seen as disloyal to "your side" if you agree with me that such behaviour is unacceptable?

I do not have a "side", P_Trembath. I also have no intention in intervening in a discussion, argument, or debate between yourself and Mr Tregantle. My personal opinion of the Celtic League is that there are some of its present members who have shown their true colours, in the past. "Straight" enough for you?

With regards to my comment that mk failed to denounce this action

Quote from above - MK councillor Andrew Long said he was not offended by St George flags. He stopped short of criticising the campaign

Point two

Quote from above - He added: 鈥楾his is a foreign flag here and can be quite insulting to some.

To call it foreign and pretending people find it insulting is cursing our national flag. I have much harder comments when MC posted comments on an extremist site about him watching various movies on youtube of English flags being attacked and encouraging Cornish people to follow the Scottish example, I have opted not to add those links

Given the second part of this is not the main drive of my comment but the first was. Silly Billy is really driving this in a very undesirable direction; my comment was clearly about DENOUCING. Trembath this is a fine example of why you are so dangerous. I have gone out of my way to continue the path you wanted to go. There is only you who thinks his behaviour was clever, everyone else accepts it as foolish, though MK stop short of saying so.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Slimslad wrote:-
"I do not post using many different indentities"
I am beginning to get the impression that that may not be quite correct.

"I do not post using many different indentities"
I am beginning to get the impression that that may not be quite correct.

I don't do impressions, either.

Do we have a record Graham 70 now?

The moderation on this site is confusing to say the least.

"To call it foreign and pretending people find it insulting is cursing our national flag."Peter Tregantle wrote:-


Mr. Tregantle, to make such a statement tells us a lot about you.
Whether you like it or not, there are a large number of people in Cornwall who do not accept "English" as their nationality, they look on thew Cross of St George as a foreign flag, and on St Pirrians Cross as their national flag. These people do find it insulting to see their nation swamped with a foreign flag.
To claim that their stating their belief in this, whether you feel they are right or wrong, is "cursing" what you consider to be your national flag, is at best, a pathetic political ploy, at worst, an indication of your far right, extreme, political views.

Nowhere in the link you provided is there anything that could be, even remotely, discribed as cursing the English.

So it seems that you have made an incorrect statement. What a surprise.

Now we get to the other part of your statement, the part regarding MK. You said, "If anyone can show me a quote from MK denouncing the celtic league when they where cursing the English and the English flag...". As we have just seen the Cornish Branch of the Celtic League did not curse "the English and the English flag" so a statement from MK denouncing them for doing so is never going to happen. You can not expect anyone/organisation to denounce another person/organisation for something that they have not said or done.
It is quite a nasty little ploy you have tried to use, falsely claim that one group has said or done something, and then use that false accusation to attempt to sully the name of another organisation because they have not reacted to the event that never happened in the way you claim they should have.

Peter Tregantle wrote:-
"my comment was clearly about DENOUCING."
I totally agree with you, it was about denouncing, but it was based on a lie, a deliberate lie. It is you who are dangerous Mr. Tregantle.

Let me truncate Trembaths previous comment

Nobody understands him, Peter supplies the evidence Trembath demands in return we all have to act like Crisis counsellors for Trembaths broken heart, he is still missing the point Peter was making

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Andrew Jacks wrote: Let me truncate Trembaths previous comment.

I prefer the moderation teams truncation method

Look through the blog, you have more "truncated" posts than I.

Come back next month to see if a decision on them has finally been made.

Wtg Andy a true cornish gent