I think that's a bit harsh!
In fact turboprop has made some concise valid and accurate points with regard to EMA and cargo. Many posters in these forums forget completely about cargo, and it's importance as both a revenue stream, and employer of many hundred of people - all that seems to matter is bums on seats.
I would say that, contrary to what Eastmids wrote, EMA has a thriving adhoc business, whether it be AN124 carrying RR engines, the F1 business, with 747 freighters, during the season, or relief flights.
I don't know what the tonnage of adhoc cargo us per annum, but I wouldn't mind taking a stab that it is a deal more than BHX, which benefits from many more adhoc flights, but most of them are operated using much smaller equipment (AN26, Saab 340, AN12). As BHX seem incapable of giving the CAA accurate figures we may never know for certain!
I would however agree with Eastmids - there is far too great a dependence upon lo-co and "bucket and spade" passenger services, and this will hold back growth on this sector of the business.