'K for Cornwall' - We Didn't Oppose it.

Today, I received a response from Graham Coomber, following an invitation for the RSGB to answer as to their position during the 'K' regional secondary locator debacle.

Rightly, Mr. Coomber notes the society's "frustration in the extreme" that OFCOM have been somewhat uncertain of their position, and taken a long time to reach a final outcome - having already written to all Cornish MPs that they supported the new RSL in principle.

Handle with care...

I was very surprised to receive, however, the following words from Mr. Coomber, words I think that need to be tested against the evidence:

"The RSGB has not expressed strong opposition to the "K" for Cornwall concept"

Mr. Coomber also says:

"We have shared with Ofcom some of the potential implications if they were to issue a permanent RSL, but have also pointed out that there is recent precedent for allocating RSLs on a temporary basis and suggested that they might take this into consideration in their deliberations."

True enough, there is no explicit statement that says "The RSGB opposes strongly the 'K' for Cornwall concept."

But, what has the overall response from the RSGB been?

If we look at the OFCOM freedom of information request response, we see the following comments:


2014 October 29, RSGB to OFCOM.

"the Poldhu club kindly shared with me your subsequent response to [redacted] of 17th June 2014 in which you explained your reasons why Ofcom “are not prepared to designate “K” as a permanent RSL for Cornwall”. I have to say that I found your arguments at that time entirely persuasive and in line with the views expressed by the RSGB representatives at our meeting."  [my emphasis]

One might reasonably interpret those words as opposition, not support.

From the same, 29/10/14 document, RSGB to OFCOM:

"Our interpretation (and I believe the custom and practice over many years) is that the “different constituent parts” to which you refer are the separate nation states, separated legally and governmentally from England. Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey all meet this criterion. Cornwall, however, will continue for the foreseeable future to be an integral part of England, and so to allocate a permanent RSL to it will set a precedent." [my emphasis]

Again, the overall nature of that part of the response indicates opposition, not support.

Moving on again in the same document:

"We, therefore, do not believe Ofcom was under any legal obligation to accede to this request and indeed the implication in your email that, had there been the risk of other cases, you would have refused this request, confirms that."

Pretty opposed, I'd say.

Coming to the end of the 29th October document, the letter concludes with:

"We believe that if Cornwall is allocated its own RSL this will have repercussions far beyond the boundaries of that county."

Hardly supportive words - which are indeed absent from any of the correspondence I've seen.

In response to the question: has the RSGB ever carried out a consultation of its members on the specific 'K' RSL issue?  the answer from Mr. Coomber is that it has not, adding that, as a result of this, the society:

"has not been in a position to offer a considered response."

As I have pointed out previously, this lack of consultation didn't stop the higher-ups in the RSGB making a case that can only reasonably be described as opposition.  And it did so in a manner that was considered - it uses at least three different lines of argument why the 'K' RSL would cause problems, as it saw things.


Whether it was "strong opposition" or not is rather academic - the RSGB does not seem to have expressed a positive view anywhere, save for supporting the idea of a very different, temporary "special event" RSL similar to the Scottish Homecoming RSL.  That again can only really be said to be opposition to, rather than support for the alternative, permanent RSL.

If we flip this on its side and look at what the RSGB could have said, it might have taken the following stances:

•  the RSGB hasn't consulted its members, is concerned about OFCOM's approach, and has no view to express until the consultation is conducted and complete.

 There is no indication in documents that the RSGB ever took this position.

• the RSGB is sensitive to cultural identity within the UK and beyond, and recognises the importance of National Minorty Status granted to Cornwall, and that this is based on sound arguments based on the culture and history of the area.  We welcome the increased attention this will bring to the region, but wish to canvass opinion amongst our members.

There is no indication of this diplomacy anywhere, and indeed, the society is clear that it views Cornwall as an "integral part of England", suggesting it had little regard for what the competent authority of the government has already granted to the region, and appears insensitive to the importance of identity.

So, sorry Mr. Coomber, but I think  the evidence for opposition heavily outweighs any suggestion that the RSGB was in any way supportive of 'K' for Kernow.

And, in concluding, I should advise readers that in this second round of correspondence with the RSGB, I gave the society another opportunity - which it did not take advantage of - to provide the exact value of the  "significant" number of members it claimed in various publications had expressed concern about the 'K' for Kernow issue (and not the wider RSLs issues.)