Why are the British Army's Parachute Regiment not called commandos, although they are the British Army's equivalent to the Royal Marines?
To start with your surmise is incorrect. Royal marines are the infantry section of the Navy, They are serving in a section of The Royal navy. The nearest equivalent is The RAF Regiment - who are the infantry section of The Royal Air Force, indeed RM and Gunners have exchange postings with each other and are both eligible for various specialised postings.In order to be an Army Commando one must pass the All arms commando course. Royal Marine recruits I am told now do this at the end of basic training thus becoming Royal Marines commando. Age and memory may be failing me but I thought that at one time RM finished training and then completed the All Arms course to become command trained, hence some ex RM who wear blue berets not green on Nov 11th.Note they are both commando it s merely the parent unit / arm that is designated differently.Para Reg. are exactly as the name states soldiers who have passed both P Coy and a jumps course. The same applies to RAF Regt Airborne troops, although they may take either all arms P coy or the RAF Regt equivalent. Note there is a difference between being a paratrooper (airborne) and Para Reg. 7RHA being a case in point.Whilst soldiers and RAF Reg. personnel as a matter of pride take and pass the commando course if they are to go on exchange with RM units, most if not all RM use the “having passed an arduous selection course” clause and avoid P coy and do a jumps course without passing P coy if posted on exchange. This is no different from the top junior Leaders taking a jumps course back in the early 70’s.This is what gives rise to 0ne of the Para T shirts, on the front it states“God is a Royal Marines Commando”on the back“Because he failed P Coy”.I am sure the RM have an equivalent.Note the colour of beret as stated elsewhere is a misnomer, 16 Air assault Brigade wear a maroon beret (including some personnel who are not airborne, BUT only whilst serving in the brigade on return to parent unit you cease to wear the maroon (unless you are in para reg.) even if para qual. you do however keep your wings.
If there is a spelling mistake in a contract, is it still legal?
Generally speaking, as long as the intent of the word is clear, the fact that it is merely misspelled will not invalidate the term of the contract in which the misspelling is found. This is a principle known as a “Scrivener’s Error” dating from the days when contracts were written entirely in longhand and the likelihood of some minor and meaningless error was significantly higher.In your particular case, if you’re worried about the effect on your specific contract, you should consult with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for their legal opinion on the matter.
What exactly does a monologist do in Improv shows?
A monologist tells monologues, of course! As Clayburn mentioned, most monologists tell stories. However, some read poems, sing songs, or even read excerpts from books, articles or other literature.Improvisers improvise off of the monologues. The majority of the time the monologue (or specific details in the monologue) acts as inspiration to the improvisation piece. However, originally monologues were part of more blended piece of improvisational art called a monologue deconstruction. Originally created by improv legend Del Close, the monologue deconstruction is a long-form improv show, wherein the improvisers pull apart various aspects of the monologue, monologist, or monologue delivery (thereby incorporating the actual monologist deeper into the overall show). The improvisational acting part of the show - consisting scenes, games, bits, songs, etc. - is inspired directly and indirectly by the monologue. The monologue deconstruction (the actual long-form show) is based more in metaphors, themes, and other, various tangential twists and turns than direct interpretations of the monologue.
Why does Arvind Kejrival have a bad boy image?
Depends a lot on what "bad boy" means to anyone.If the traditional "bad boy" context is an unruly school boy, Arvind is definitely not in that mould. In fact, Arvind as a school child was a study focused nerd, hardly someone who will fit that bad-boy image.A large section of media has branded him as a bad-boy or someone who doesn't follow expected norms of a politician. Who set these rules, nobody knows! Nehru was a statesman for 60 years, suddenly Modi conveys he is root of all our problems. Perspectives are dime-a-dozen. Arvind's a bad boy to anyone clinging to stats or power by corrupt means. His one consistent target has been corrupt and corruption. That's not changed a bit at all. Arvind will be a bad boy for corrupt for the rest of his life. He is stunningly honest as Rahul Bajaj once said and thinks and acts as if all corrupt everywhere in India are his enemy No. 1There are systems that survive on a corrupt India. Media, politicians, business houses, police and bureaucracy. A brilliant link exposed by Arvind Kerjiwal is between communalism and corruption. The politicians create riots to polarize voters and their vote-banks, they fund their campaigns by corrupt money, they earn their money by corruption and complete cycle by investing this money to do more riots and win more elections.So yes, for corrupt, Arvind will forever be a bad boy.
Why do some people get panic for everything?
There can be any reasons for that. It can be either psychological or due to health related issues. People get panic when they are scared of that situation and doesn't know what to do and how to react. Their brain sends them signal to escape from that situation. This creates panic. This can be resolved though if the exact reason of that panic attack is identified.
If cancer sometimes becomes resistant to treatment like chemotherapy, what about immunotherapy? Are the mechanisms different?
Simply put,Chemotherapy is blanket bombing.In standard chemotherapy you burn the whole forest down so that no rats remain to reproduce anymore. This is because you don’t know where the rats (oncogenes) are hiding so there will be collateral damage in the form of burned trees (rest of the human body)Immunotherapy is drone attacks:Using the same analogy that I used above, You get to know where the rats (oncogenes) are hiding, You design traps that targets to kill that particular rat species only. This trap will not work on any other plant or animal in the forest. So no collateral damage.However, the downside to this targeted approach (immunotherapy) is that some of the rats (oncogenes) mutate and by natural selection the mutant rats start to proliferate in the forest and we have no idea what traps these new rats are susceptible to.So, sometimes,we need to burn the forest down (standard chemotherapy) even if it means burning the trees to make sure that all the rats are killed.Mechanisms of action are different and different cancers have different drugs they are sensitive to and for immunotherapy to be effective we need to test the tumour to know if potential targets exist. Many tumors do not have those very specific targets so in those the immunotherapy approach does not work and we have to use standard chemotherapy in that case. Having said that, cancers can become resistant to both standard chemotherapy and Immunotherapy. Some type of cancers are resistant from the start. We then have to find other modalities of treatment - Surgery, Radiotherapy, Lasers, Cryotherapy,etc- when that happens.Cancers can be a tough nut to crack!Image Sources:25 Years of Bombing Iraq, The Burning of Indonesia , What are drones?, Rats Destroying the Vegetable Garden
Why do British troops and officials still swear loyalty to the monarch in their oath of allegiance?
For three reasons, really.Firstly, after the English Civil War (when Cromwell took over the Army and turned it against the King), I think that the monarchy became very scared and started to force troops, MPs (some of which also rebelled in the Civil War), policemen, judges etc. to swear loyalty to the monarch in order to try and prevent an uprising happening again. Whilst this may not mean much now, in the 17th, 18th, 19th century worlds of honour and duels etc., a solemn oath was something that a gentleman would not wish to break. Furthermore, I suppose it made it easier for rebels to be prosecuted for high treason, because they had broken a sworn oath.Secondly, because if you are going to swear loyalty to anyone, it is probably best to swear it to a completely neutral, apolitical, and essentially powerless figure than to a powerful, partisan politician (hence why in the US, for example, they pledge allegiance to the flag and the Constitution etc not to the President). That way, if a politician becomes out of control, the armed forces etc. can just ignore them because they are technically only loyal to the Queen. This is intended to stop a Hitler-like situation in which everyone is loyal to one evil dictator.Thirdly, because it reflects the symbolism of the monarchy. The Queen is nominally the head of the Army, she is nominally the fount of honours and of justice (all prosecutions are brought in her name), and she is nominally the head of Parliament.As such, it makes sense that soldiers, judges, and MPs should pledge allegiance to her. It is really more tradition than anything else.