I disagree its not why ATC do things. Its why Mil units seem to use different rules and methods of controlling to civi units. Are the civi controllers wrong? and the mil are doing it right.
The RAF phrasiology dosn't lend itself to the conveyance of requests. They all sound like instructions.
A civi controller will ask "can you except not above ...." if you say negative its not mentioned again.
mil will be just straight "not above ....." and they really don't like it when you say "negative"
And in my experence mil controllers will always try to move VFR traffic to make room for thier IFR traffic. If you don't like it, don't take any service off them. To be honest it dosn't really effect your safety if flying VFR. They tend not to give you flight info anyway unless it suits them. All IFR traffic will be vectored round you. Better to keep your head out the window and fly unstressed.
And maybe if more GA didn't take a service. Some of the issues discussed here would actually get fixed. Instead of pilots getting pissed off and confused getting some bastardised form of service which does them no favours but in fact makes them work harder constantly having to monitor if the request / instruction is
A) legal under civilian rules (aka not below to VFR traffic)
b) is going to drop them in the poo remaining VMC or suitable forced landing area.
And the couple of times i have phoned LARS units about issues there is definatly a cover the mils arse attitude, keep it in unit and for gawds sake don't produce any paper work.
And maybe if the RAF decided to actually use CAP413 for its RT while working civi traffic it would solve most of the conflicts with interpretations of what both sides are meaning.
tescoapp