See this last post raises all of my concerns with Class E in one go. All the books say, you shall not separate VFR from IFR in Class E. You willnot provide a control service to VFR in Class E. So instead you have some ATC's in some parts of the world, suggesting headings, and I guess suggesting separation. Caniplaywithmadness, when you restrict a VFR off to a certain level to drop the IFR down, what happens if the VFR doesn't comply. Have they failed to follow a control instruction, or have they just disregarded a suggestion. If the IFR and VFR get unreasonably close due to the VFR not complying by your instruction/request/suggestion, have you had a breakdown of separation, or since by the very definition of E airspace, is it impossible to have a breakdown of separation between VFR and IFR, since they are not to be separated in the first place.
It is all very grey to me. This is the reason why in Australia, where the ATC's there, believe they are following the ICAO guidelines by not separating and just providing a traffic information service to VFR's on known IFR's are getting called criminally negligent for not stepping and positively separating the aircraft.
A couple of other questions. Do you ever turn an IFR or level off an IFR to "separate" him from an unverified, unidentified VFR paint in E airspace. Finally do you feel safely protected from litigation if you vector/suggest a turn to a VFR and that VFR, does the turn, is thrown off by the turn, loses track of their VFR tracking and hits a mountain. The book is pretty clear in saying that you will not provide a control service to VFR and they are supposed to be tracking purely by visual means, and not under guidance, even quasi guidance of a radar controller, and I would be a little nervous that lawyers would have a field day on that one.