Woah there, it doesn't work like that. The only people that gives orders to the Royal Navy is the Royal Navy (and the Queen and Defence Minister). Not the Army, not the RAF, and not the USMC. That's why there has to be a Minister of Defence and Chief of the Defence Staff, so orders can be passed from service to service. It's also why joint operations are so difficult, and why the Army and Navy have their own little air forces (Army Air Corps and Fleet Air Arm) instead of relying on the RAF. It doesn't matter what his rank is, if he's not in the same service he can't issue orders. Boss my arse.
The picture is of a USMC 4* being escorted by 2 x RN officers, as a matter of basic courtesy they would be looking to impress on their guest the capabilities of a very new ship. I have lost count of the number of similar visits i've by VSO's I have been involved in and they all follow the same routine.
If anybody infers a conclusion in regards to the chain-of-command from the picture then they are mistaken. Yes, the 4* clearly outranks the other officers but in no scenario would he be issuing orders on their boat. That would be ludicrous.
To give you an example:
Aircrew officer shot down during conflict and is located by a team of SF headed by a Corporal. Do you think for a moment that officer is going to turn round and declare that as he is 6 or 7 ranks higher than anybody else he is going to take charge of their extraction?
Is he hell as like. He's going to shut up and do exactly as he is told by even the most junior rank there because they are the experts relevant to the particular scenario they are in.
The “threat and intimidation” amounts to saying “we will defend ourselves if you take us to court and, if we win, we will seek costs”
It is so very sad. They are very bitter and seeking people to blame
Unfortunately Trump will not allow her back here but to be honest he did afford them a chance to meet to seek explanations and even a small path to reconcilliation but that door is closed now
I am so sorry for them, but I do not see a way forward unless they themselves can see it, maybe and hopefully in time
No. Trump ambushed them and they responded with a lot more dignity than would most in that situation. If, as they say, they have legal opinion saying that the private agreements between the US and UK governments (which extend diplomatic immunity to this case) have no status in law, then it would be wholly inappropriate to seek costs as a sly attempt to warn them off. I do not know if this will affect voters, but if it encourages one voter to abandon Raab it should be used.
In the High Court costs generally follow the event. Not seeking costs would be more unusual
However there is precedent for High Court costs not to be awarded where the court accepts the case raises issues in the public interest. I can think of few cases more in the public interest than testing the legality of private agreements which enable someone to avoid the consequences of causing a death. In such a case it is wholly inappropriate for a government to seek costs and it should waive its right at outset rather than threaten with the obvious intention of avoiding scrutiny.
The principle of diplomatic immunity is well established and as sad as this matter is there is not a public interest issue of law here.
The principle of diplomatic immunity is governed by international law. The family have legal opinion that the private agreements (not treaties) from the 90s between US and UK governments (which are the basis for immunity being extended to her) have no standing in law. Therefore there is a matter to be tested by the courts and it is very much in the public interest to do so.
Labour start from a position of weakness but you correctly identify the ingredients are there to save them from disaster. A very good point that they have avoided the initial danger of leaching votes to the LDs. Swinson has not had a good start to the campaign, she really needed to be racing out of the blocks but the Brexit policy looks to have been a bit of a misfire as it’s crowding out their ability to talk about other issues.
Yes, a mass flight from Lab to LD which would have produced a huge loss of seats seems have been averted - partly, I think, because people have a view on Brexit but the majority aren't all that interested in it - that's perhaps why the single-issue LDs and BXP are both struggling.
Labour still needs LibDems to be doing well in their Tory target seats, and for the Con-Lab gap to narrow to no more than 7. I doubt if the manifestos will change much, but the leader debates are more unpredictable.
The LDs are not a single issue party. They offer competence and pragmatism as opposed to two parties led by people who are not morally fit to be prime minster.
Yawn.
Yes, because the LibDems are so morally superior.
Like your bar charts for starters.
And how about that paragon of virtue Lord Rennard. Is he still involved in the LibDem election campaign?
And if he is, then that makes Jo Swinson a hypocrite of the first order.
Apols if previously mentioned, but Spreadex has a very sharp increase in its mid- spread quote for Tory seats this morning up from 329 to 345, an increase therefore of 16 seats. Sounds as if there has been some pretty heavy buying of the Blue Team for whatever reason ... polling figures imminent perhaps?
Comments
If anybody infers a conclusion in regards to the chain-of-command from the picture then they are mistaken. Yes, the 4* clearly outranks the other officers but in no scenario would he be issuing orders on their boat. That would be ludicrous.
To give you an example:
Aircrew officer shot down during conflict and is located by a team of SF headed by a Corporal. Do you think for a moment that officer is going to turn round and declare that as he is 6 or 7 ranks higher than anybody else he is going to take charge of their extraction?
Is he hell as like. He's going to shut up and do exactly as he is told by even the most junior rank there because they are the experts relevant to the particular scenario they are in.