Be very when the US Navy's around

Indeed. I believe the correct term is "occupied territory".

You don’t think that implies a lack of consent by the populus? Of an 88% turnout in their referendum (2002), a staggering 99% voted against shared sovereignty with Spain, the alternative to the existing British sovereignty. It would be absurd to call that an occupation.
 
You don’t think that implies a lack of consent by the populus? Of an 88% turnout in their referendum (2002), a staggering 99% voted against shared sovereignty with Spain, the alternative to the existing British sovereignty. It would be absurd to call that an occupation.

I think it's the Spanish who consider that some of their territory has been occupied ;)

Pete
 
I think it's the Spanish who consider that some of their territory has been occupied ;)

Pete

Of course: silly me, I guess that’s what the Cap’n meant.

Perhaps the Spanish shouldn’t have signed Gibraltar in perpetuity to Britain in the treaty of Utrecht then [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Utrecht ], and also confirmed its British sovereignty in two subsequent treaties.
 
You don’t think that implies a lack of consent by the populus? Of an 88% turnout in their referendum (2002), a staggering 99% voted against shared sovereignty with Spain, the alternative to the existing British sovereignty. It would be absurd to call that an occupation.

Shock/horror, why has the 1% not insisted on a 2nd referendum, which would be the option oft suggested on here?
 
Shock/horror, why has the 1% not insisted on a 2nd referendum, which would be the option oft suggested on here?

Perhaps because Spain is doing the job for them - except that it doesn’t care about the overwhelming will of its inhabitants not to become part of Spain or even of a shared entity with Spain.
 
You don’t think that implies a lack of consent by the populus? Of an 88% turnout in their referendum (2002), a staggering 99% voted against shared sovereignty with Spain, the alternative to the existing British sovereignty. It would be absurd to call that an occupation.

It is the territory which is being occupied, hence the term "occupied territory".
 
The merchant ship was the overtaking vessel albeit from starboard.

I’m confused about your comment. The overtaking rule explicit takes precedence over the crossing rule so whether the ship was approaching from starboard would only be relevant if there was any doubt and the rules are explicit in this aspect too. In any doubt as to which rule applies, then you give way. This is before you get anywhere near the catch all of Rule 2 with its no excuses for collision.
 
The reason I mentioned the starboard aspect was that the obvious answer was that the warship had to keep clear but a closer look at the various reports shows that the merchant ship approached from more than 22.5 degrees abaft the beam and was still the overtaking vessel at the time of the collision. Obviously, the warship should have seen what was happening and taken avoiding action when a collision was likely but did not.
 
Top