Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Indeed. If he genuinely didn't know about the restrictions on the use of this vehicle, why didn't get a reminder in the first instance? If he did, but kept on using it, that's a different matter. But if he didn't know of the restrictions, then a quick "Ooops, sorry - thanks for letting me know" would have sufficed.
The words 'up' and 'stitch' come to mind....
The words 'up' and 'stitch' come to mind....
I'm a bit confused about the gentleman's rank. Lots of reports refer to him as 'Commodore' yet his photos appear to show 4 rings, which I had always assumed was Captain. Have I missed some nuance of RN ranks?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I believe this a tradition of what is called a reverse brevet.
His actual rank is Commodore, but as he was filling a Captain’s role he followed the tradition of wearing a Captain’s rank.
This has the practical effect on ensuring that there would be no confusion in the chain of command if the carrier was part of a flotilla where another officer was breveted as a Commodore in command, and probably accommodated along with his staff on board the carrier.
His actual rank is Commodore, but as he was filling a Captain’s role he followed the tradition of wearing a Captain’s rank.
This has the practical effect on ensuring that there would be no confusion in the chain of command if the carrier was part of a flotilla where another officer was breveted as a Commodore in command, and probably accommodated along with his staff on board the carrier.
I cannot but think there is more to this than meets the eye. What was the Captain's Sec or the Head of the Supply Dept up to, someone should have been watching his "6", or someone was out to get him, IMHO of course. Where was Williamson.......only asking.......
QE Captain Sacked - A thread of its own ?
....
Does this (to my mind) extraordinary event deserve a thread all of it's own ?
Being ‘Dismissed one’s Ship’ was, in my simple Supplementary List day, something of a shameful punishment for a significant offence – like negligently putting the ship on the putty, or causing a collision, or worse, but only following a Court Martial (which BTW was, ISTR, always required if you suffered a ‘collision or grounding.’
This seems at the moment to be an outrageous and so far wholly unjustified administrative reassignment by some unaccountable ‘faceless makeweights’ (does that date me
?) who do not seem to realise that while the ship belongs to Brenda, everything aboard belongs to ‘Father’ unless or until there is a gross transgression
It will be interesting to see what comes out of this, including the time-line.
I wonder what his crew and his relief might have to say.
I hope this is not going to go away until the Dismissal is properly explained.
I hope the new Sub Lt Defence Secretary will be asking questions.
LFH
...........
.......
Does this (to my mind) extraordinary event deserve a thread all of it's own ?
Being ‘Dismissed one’s Ship’ was, in my simple Supplementary List day, something of a shameful punishment for a significant offence – like negligently putting the ship on the putty, or causing a collision, or worse, but only following a Court Martial (which BTW was, ISTR, always required if you suffered a ‘collision or grounding.’
This seems at the moment to be an outrageous and so far wholly unjustified administrative reassignment by some unaccountable ‘faceless makeweights’ (does that date me
?) who do not seem to realise that while the ship belongs to Brenda, everything aboard belongs to ‘Father’ unless or until there is a gross transgressionIt will be interesting to see what comes out of this, including the time-line.
I wonder what his crew and his relief might have to say.
I hope this is not going to go away until the Dismissal is properly explained.
I hope the new Sub Lt Defence Secretary will be asking questions.
LFH
...........
.......
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it hard to believe that he did not know of the restrictions of use of the vehicle.
Unless he believed he could authorise its use outside of said restrictions as "captain".
Seems incredibly small minded to dismiss an officer of his proven caliber, unless of course this is the tip of the proverbial iceberg??
Unless he believed he could authorise its use outside of said restrictions as "captain".
Seems incredibly small minded to dismiss an officer of his proven caliber, unless of course this is the tip of the proverbial iceberg??
This is very very odd .... a quiet word surely would have been enough
There must be something else - and that has to be something very different.
As he's still in the RN (for now) it has to something related to the ship I suspect rather than some generic "failing" (wine , women, song would be out of the service)
He probably expressed some strong thoughts on a pet subject of someone closer to the top (I doubt it would be the SecDef who got involved here) - and that is why he was stitched up
There must be something else - and that has to be something very different.
As he's still in the RN (for now) it has to something related to the ship I suspect rather than some generic "failing" (wine , women, song would be out of the service)
He probably expressed some strong thoughts on a pet subject of someone closer to the top (I doubt it would be the SecDef who got involved here) - and that is why he was stitched up
QE Captain Un-sacked
..........
QE Captain Un-sacked
According to the Telegraph etc. today, May 21st. Captain Cooke-Priest had to be unsacked, because the Navy has no-one else available to drive the boat back to Pompey from Rosyth.
Tuesday night, May 21st, HMS Queen Elizabeth is anchored above the Forth bridges with Tug Hopetoun in attendance. Perhaps waiting for her escort, or the tide – low 11pm. Next high – 5 am Wednesday. Destination showing as Portland.
Presumably, on completion of the voyage, he will have to be re-sacked, unless his new Sub Lieut Boss has developed a more sensible idea.
LFH
...........
QE Captain Un-sacked
According to the Telegraph etc. today, May 21st. Captain Cooke-Priest had to be unsacked, because the Navy has no-one else available to drive the boat back to Pompey from Rosyth.
Tuesday night, May 21st, HMS Queen Elizabeth is anchored above the Forth bridges with Tug Hopetoun in attendance. Perhaps waiting for her escort, or the tide – low 11pm. Next high – 5 am Wednesday. Destination showing as Portland.
Presumably, on completion of the voyage, he will have to be re-sacked, unless his new Sub Lieut Boss has developed a more sensible idea.
LFH
...........
Last edited by Lordflasheart; 22nd May 2019 at 02:43. Reason: clarity
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: -
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From RT
"Let me borrow your ride: US gets UK carrier, while her captain gets the boot".
Would appear that the Septics will be lodging for a while.
"Let me borrow your ride: US gets UK carrier, while her captain gets the boot".
Would appear that the Septics will be lodging for a while.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank God for men of NCP’s calibre. If it had been me (ruled out on grounds of specialisation, expertise and looks) in command - relieved of command - then asked to park the barge because no one else could - I’d have told ‘them’ to wedge it. Petulant I know - but humbling that he turned to.
I have to come clean. When we (FW FAA) became part of 3 Gp they gave us CS95 because Crabs couldn’t do exercises unless dressed like soldiers. (Or other tenuous reason to give us camo clothing and rucksacks). Never wore the stuff on duty but used it at the weekend for rough shooting and fishing. I also wore the fleece with thumb holes when washing the car. I never deployed with the rucksack- preferring a grip, but it is currently doing very well on a DoE exped with my youngest. Using a defence asset that pusser gave me to help defend the realm in such frivolous - weekend - circumstances was and remains deplorable. I apologise and am very much grateful that my behaviour didn’t cost me command of my small but perfectly formed, AMRAAM toting, sea based bumper gun jet.
I have to come clean. When we (FW FAA) became part of 3 Gp they gave us CS95 because Crabs couldn’t do exercises unless dressed like soldiers. (Or other tenuous reason to give us camo clothing and rucksacks). Never wore the stuff on duty but used it at the weekend for rough shooting and fishing. I also wore the fleece with thumb holes when washing the car. I never deployed with the rucksack- preferring a grip, but it is currently doing very well on a DoE exped with my youngest. Using a defence asset that pusser gave me to help defend the realm in such frivolous - weekend - circumstances was and remains deplorable. I apologise and am very much grateful that my behaviour didn’t cost me command of my small but perfectly formed, AMRAAM toting, sea based bumper gun jet.
Order - Counter Order - ***ing Disorder
........
Order - Counter Order - ***ing Disorder
While the QE idly swings around her anchor above the Forth Bridges, according to Sky - if you believe it - https://news.sky.com/story/sacked-ca...rrier-11726533
It might be just that he had to 'dramatically' attend a routine meeting ashore, but the fact remains that a miserable set of wheels provided for the Captain, to make his official life ‘a little less complicated’ seems to have lost him his job.
The Navy would be the first to claim and require that while he is Captain in Command, he is considered to be on duty 24 - 7 - 365, thus he has no unofficial life unless on formal leave with a designated relief.
I await the real truth with interest. The crew of the QE will probably be more interested in when they're going to get home leave.
LFH
............
Order - Counter Order - ***ing Disorder
While the QE idly swings around her anchor above the Forth Bridges, according to Sky - if you believe it - https://news.sky.com/story/sacked-ca...rrier-11726533
It might be just that he had to 'dramatically' attend a routine meeting ashore, but the fact remains that a miserable set of wheels provided for the Captain, to make his official life ‘a little less complicated’ seems to have lost him his job.
The Navy would be the first to claim and require that while he is Captain in Command, he is considered to be on duty 24 - 7 - 365, thus he has no unofficial life unless on formal leave with a designated relief.
I await the real truth with interest. The crew of the QE will probably be more interested in when they're going to get home leave.
LFH
............
This is very very odd .... a quiet word surely would have been enough
There must be something else - and that has to be something very different.
As he's still in the RN (for now) it has to something related to the ship I suspect rather than some generic "failing" (wine , women, song would be out of the service)
He probably expressed some strong thoughts on a pet subject of someone closer to the top (I doubt it would be the SecDef who got involved here) - and that is why he was stitched up
There must be something else - and that has to be something very different.
As he's still in the RN (for now) it has to something related to the ship I suspect rather than some generic "failing" (wine , women, song would be out of the service)
He probably expressed some strong thoughts on a pet subject of someone closer to the top (I doubt it would be the SecDef who got involved here) - and that is why he was stitched up