Ford did not tell Government of Transit plans before getting taxpayer hand out

First published in Ford Transit Factory Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Politics and business reporter

Ford has admitted it kept secret plans to close the Southampton plant while negotiating a multi-million pound tax payer handout.

It comes after business secretary Vince Cable exclusively told the Daily Echo he had been kept in the dark about Ford's plans to close the Swaythling plant plan when £10m of Government funding for the motor giant was signed off just days earlier.

Ford said today an earlier briefing of government officials would not have been “possible or appropriate”.

More than 500 staff now face the axe under plans to close the plant next July to cut costs amid a slump in European car sales.

Roger Maddison, Unite’s national officer for the automotive industry at Unite, said a mass meeting of union officials at the Southampton plant had today reached a "unanimous decision" to oppose the closure and warned strike action had not been ruled out.

The union will hold a further strategy meeting in London tomorrow before consulting Ford workers on what action, if any, to take.

Dr Cable told the Echo if ministers had been aware of last Thursday's closure announcement earlier the Government would have gone back to Ford and asked “what on earth was going on”.

He said he felt “let down” Ford had not given more notice of the closure announcement.

The Government has earmarked a £10m grant to Ford through the Regional Growth Fund.

A Ford spokesman said: “Ford's planned European restructuring actions, including those affecting Southampton and Dagenham, were approved by the board of Ford Motor Company shortly before the start of communications with employees and employee representatives, and therefore an earlier briefing of government officials would not have been possible, or appropriate.

“The offer of the grant is a conditional one, that is not yet confirmed, and it would relate to Ford's significant planned investment in powertrain manufacturing and engineering in the UK, which includes the announcement to add a new next-generation, low-CO2, 2.0-litre diesel engine in Dagenham.”

Comments (73)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:59pm Mon 29 Oct 12

sotonwinch09 says...

Should they of?

I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business.
Should they of? I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business. sotonwinch09
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Over the Edge says...

The simple fact is, if the Government wants to stop the £10 million payment to Fords then they stop them, I do not believe for one minute Fords couldn't brief the Government beforehand.

A simple email to CaMoron cc'd the Vince Cable reading something like this. Hi David & Vince, thanks for £10 million but we're closing Southampton and Dagenham plants.
The simple fact is, if the Government wants to stop the £10 million payment to Fords then they stop them, I do not believe for one minute Fords couldn't brief the Government beforehand. A simple email to CaMoron cc'd the Vince Cable reading something like this. Hi David & Vince, thanks for £10 million but we're closing Southampton and Dagenham plants. Over the Edge
  • Score: 0

1:04pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Over the Edge says...

sotonwinch09 wrote:
Should they of?

I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business.
Yes of course they should off, especially when Fords we're just about to receive £10 million of Government money
[quote][p][bold]sotonwinch09[/bold] wrote: Should they of? I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business.[/p][/quote]Yes of course they should off, especially when Fords we're just about to receive £10 million of Government money Over the Edge
  • Score: 0

1:09pm Mon 29 Oct 12

saint61 says...

it's the way Ford carry out their daily business
it's the way Ford carry out their daily business saint61
  • Score: 0

1:13pm Mon 29 Oct 12

southy says...

£10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place.
All for what just to have a USA car brand name.
Nationalise Fords and be done with it.
£10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place. All for what just to have a USA car brand name. Nationalise Fords and be done with it. southy
  • Score: 0

1:14pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Subject48 says...

Ford has already recieved millions of governmenet money for certain "promises".

I would imagine this 10 mil is just a cherry on top of a very creamy pie thats been baked over the last few years....
Ford has already recieved millions of governmenet money for certain "promises". I would imagine this 10 mil is just a cherry on top of a very creamy pie thats been baked over the last few years.... Subject48
  • Score: 0

1:14pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Linesman says...

sotonwinch09 wrote:
Should they of?

I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business.
When you have done so in the past, were you also negotiating a government loan at the time?
[quote][p][bold]sotonwinch09[/bold] wrote: Should they of? I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business.[/p][/quote]When you have done so in the past, were you also negotiating a government loan at the time? Linesman
  • Score: 0

1:26pm Mon 29 Oct 12

hulla baloo says...

Over the Edge wrote:
sotonwinch09 wrote:
Should they of?

I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business.
Yes of course they should off, especially when Fords we're just about to receive £10 million of Government money
Maybe the Government should have asked the questions and put in conditions and clauses.If they are going to throw easy money at Fords, then who would refuse.
[quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonwinch09[/bold] wrote: Should they of? I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business.[/p][/quote]Yes of course they should off, especially when Fords we're just about to receive £10 million of Government money[/p][/quote]Maybe the Government should have asked the questions and put in conditions and clauses.If they are going to throw easy money at Fords, then who would refuse. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

1:34pm Mon 29 Oct 12

George4th says...

Fords Swaythling would have closed anyway.

Given that Europe is on track to lose Fords $1Billion this year you must expect to have to give Fords something as an incentive to remain here!

And if you don't want Fords to invest in new technology in the UK then tell them and I'm sure another government will happily give them £10 million towards their investment in new technology.
Fords Swaythling would have closed anyway. Given that Europe is on track to lose Fords $1Billion this year you must expect to have to give Fords something as an incentive to remain here! And if you don't want Fords to invest in new technology in the UK then tell them and I'm sure another government will happily give them £10 million towards their investment in new technology. George4th
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Over the Edge says...

hulla baloo wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
sotonwinch09 wrote:
Should they of?

I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business.
Yes of course they should off, especially when Fords we're just about to receive £10 million of Government money
Maybe the Government should have asked the questions and put in conditions and clauses.If they are going to throw easy money at Fords, then who would refuse.
Don't get me wrong, this shambolic Government are totally to blame for allowing Fords to cream off more money, all the Government programme I've worked on and received funding for there has been clauses and written guarantees sort, claw back clauses as well, if this Government intends or has handed over money to Fords without insisting on worker retaining their jobs in situ, then they should hang their heads in shame.

I don't believe couldn't tell them, I think Fords deliberately didn't tell them.
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonwinch09[/bold] wrote: Should they of? I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business.[/p][/quote]Yes of course they should off, especially when Fords we're just about to receive £10 million of Government money[/p][/quote]Maybe the Government should have asked the questions and put in conditions and clauses.If they are going to throw easy money at Fords, then who would refuse.[/p][/quote]Don't get me wrong, this shambolic Government are totally to blame for allowing Fords to cream off more money, all the Government programme I've worked on and received funding for there has been clauses and written guarantees sort, claw back clauses as well, if this Government intends or has handed over money to Fords without insisting on worker retaining their jobs in situ, then they should hang their heads in shame. I don't believe couldn't tell them, I think Fords deliberately didn't tell them. Over the Edge
  • Score: 0

1:40pm Mon 29 Oct 12

hulla baloo says...

southy wrote:
£10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place.
All for what just to have a USA car brand name.
Nationalise Fords and be done with it.
Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on?
Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested.
Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: £10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place. All for what just to have a USA car brand name. Nationalise Fords and be done with it.[/p][/quote]Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on? Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested. Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Mon 29 Oct 12

southy says...

George4th wrote:
Fords Swaythling would have closed anyway.

Given that Europe is on track to lose Fords $1Billion this year you must expect to have to give Fords something as an incentive to remain here!

And if you don't want Fords to invest in new technology in the UK then tell them and I'm sure another government will happily give them £10 million towards their investment in new technology.
Stop only half posting, they stand to lose 1 billion out off billions in profits.
Fords have never gone in the nagative, they have all ways been in the plus made more in proffits after costs taking out, proffits even are bigger than a drop in sales.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: Fords Swaythling would have closed anyway. Given that Europe is on track to lose Fords $1Billion this year you must expect to have to give Fords something as an incentive to remain here! And if you don't want Fords to invest in new technology in the UK then tell them and I'm sure another government will happily give them £10 million towards their investment in new technology.[/p][/quote]Stop only half posting, they stand to lose 1 billion out off billions in profits. Fords have never gone in the nagative, they have all ways been in the plus made more in proffits after costs taking out, proffits even are bigger than a drop in sales. southy
  • Score: 0

1:45pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

In other words this ConDem Coalition of unprincipled politicians is so stupid that they got shafted by multi national corporation, Ford.

If anybody expects big businesses to be open and honest then he/she has got to be the resident of some happy farm. With his past background Vince Cable should have know these tricks, but he was probably too busy briefing reporters against his Tory comrades in the government.

As Ford has done dirty on our workers, if those millions have already not been handed over government should tell the people who have cleared the application for money not to issue the cheque.

If Ford has already laid their greedy hands on those millions, government should confiscate Ford’s remaining assets in the UK, like land and buildings in Swathing.

If law is obstacle then surely if there is a will parliament could push through laws for this purpose. That is if our MPs from all the parties are not self serving hypocrite mob, but have loyalty to ordinary workers and the country. (Yes that is a big ask)

Strangely all those who often love insulting unemployed who may be receiving benefits, towards which they contributed before becoming the victims of super greedy bosses, bent bankers and their weak knead puppets in political class, seem to go conveniently when super sharks like Ford claim millions from Britain’s public purse. Is that no double standards?
In other words this ConDem Coalition of unprincipled politicians is so stupid that they got shafted by multi national corporation, Ford. If anybody expects big businesses to be open and honest then he/she has got to be the resident of some happy farm. With his past background Vince Cable should have know these tricks, but he was probably too busy briefing reporters against his Tory comrades in the government. As Ford has done dirty on our workers, if those millions have already not been handed over government should tell the people who have cleared the application for money not to issue the cheque. If Ford has already laid their greedy hands on those millions, government should confiscate Ford’s remaining assets in the UK, like land and buildings in Swathing. If law is obstacle then surely if there is a will parliament could push through laws for this purpose. That is if our MPs from all the parties are not self serving hypocrite mob, but have loyalty to ordinary workers and the country. (Yes that is a big ask) Strangely all those who often love insulting unemployed who may be receiving benefits, towards which they contributed before becoming the victims of super greedy bosses, bent bankers and their weak knead puppets in political class, seem to go conveniently when super sharks like Ford claim millions from Britain’s public purse. Is that no double standards? Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

1:47pm Mon 29 Oct 12

southy says...

hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
£10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place.
All for what just to have a USA car brand name.
Nationalise Fords and be done with it.
Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on?
Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested.
Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.
Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers.
You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: £10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place. All for what just to have a USA car brand name. Nationalise Fords and be done with it.[/p][/quote]Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on? Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested. Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.[/p][/quote]Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers. You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name. southy
  • Score: 0

1:58pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
£10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place.
All for what just to have a USA car brand name.
Nationalise Fords and be done with it.
Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on?
Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested.
Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.
Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers.
You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.
Nationalising what could be an empty factory is an idea not a solution - so you need to start thinking of another barmy idea.

Never. Going To. Happen.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: £10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place. All for what just to have a USA car brand name. Nationalise Fords and be done with it.[/p][/quote]Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on? Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested. Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.[/p][/quote]Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers. You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.[/p][/quote]Nationalising what could be an empty factory is an idea not a solution - so you need to start thinking of another barmy idea. Never. Going To. Happen. Shoong
  • Score: 0

1:59pm Mon 29 Oct 12

hulla baloo says...

southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
£10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place.
All for what just to have a USA car brand name.
Nationalise Fords and be done with it.
Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on?
Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested.
Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.
Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers.
You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.
We had this topic last week. You cannot nationalise Fords. It is an Amercian company and American brand. What you can do is to lease the building to another company, or new investors, to make another vehicle. That is another brand, another trade name and not nationalising Fords.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: £10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place. All for what just to have a USA car brand name. Nationalise Fords and be done with it.[/p][/quote]Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on? Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested. Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.[/p][/quote]Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers. You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.[/p][/quote]We had this topic last week. You cannot nationalise Fords. It is an Amercian company and American brand. What you can do is to lease the building to another company, or new investors, to make another vehicle. That is another brand, another trade name and not nationalising Fords. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

2:20pm Mon 29 Oct 12

George4th says...

southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
Fords Swaythling would have closed anyway.

Given that Europe is on track to lose Fords $1Billion this year you must expect to have to give Fords something as an incentive to remain here!

And if you don't want Fords to invest in new technology in the UK then tell them and I'm sure another government will happily give them £10 million towards their investment in new technology.
Stop only half posting, they stand to lose 1 billion out off billions in profits.
Fords have never gone in the nagative, they have all ways been in the plus made more in proffits after costs taking out, proffits even are bigger than a drop in sales.
In 2006 Fords were on the edge of Bankruptcy when posting a loss of $13 Billion! As I said in a previous comment, Fords went onto being $34 Billion in debt! They had what is called "Junk" status! It was only this year (2012) that they started paying a dividend of 5 cents per share - the first dividend since 2006.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: Fords Swaythling would have closed anyway. Given that Europe is on track to lose Fords $1Billion this year you must expect to have to give Fords something as an incentive to remain here! And if you don't want Fords to invest in new technology in the UK then tell them and I'm sure another government will happily give them £10 million towards their investment in new technology.[/p][/quote]Stop only half posting, they stand to lose 1 billion out off billions in profits. Fords have never gone in the nagative, they have all ways been in the plus made more in proffits after costs taking out, proffits even are bigger than a drop in sales.[/p][/quote]In 2006 Fords were on the edge of Bankruptcy when posting a loss of $13 Billion! As I said in a previous comment, Fords went onto being $34 Billion in debt! They had what is called "Junk" status! It was only this year (2012) that they started paying a dividend of 5 cents per share - the first dividend since 2006. George4th
  • Score: 0

2:21pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Linesman says...

It's a ConDemolition job.
It's a ConDemolition job. Linesman
  • Score: 0

2:22pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
£10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place.
All for what just to have a USA car brand name.
Nationalise Fords and be done with it.
Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on?
Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested.
Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.
Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers.
You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.
So you're telling me that anybody can just walz in there now and start churning out Ford Transits?

You need some basic lessons in how the world operates. Seriously.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: £10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place. All for what just to have a USA car brand name. Nationalise Fords and be done with it.[/p][/quote]Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on? Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested. Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.[/p][/quote]Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers. You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.[/p][/quote]So you're telling me that anybody can just walz in there now and start churning out Ford Transits? You need some basic lessons in how the world operates. Seriously. Georgem
  • Score: 0

2:22pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Rob444 says...

sotonwinch09 wrote:
Should they of?

I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business.
Do you mean "Should the have?" ?
[quote][p][bold]sotonwinch09[/bold] wrote: Should they of? I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business.[/p][/quote]Do you mean "Should the have?" ? Rob444
  • Score: 0

2:26pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Rob444 says...

sotonwinch09 wrote:
Should they of?

I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business.
Do you mean "Should they have?" ?
[quote][p][bold]sotonwinch09[/bold] wrote: Should they of? I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business.[/p][/quote]Do you mean "Should they have?" ? Rob444
  • Score: 0

2:27pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Georgem says...

Rob444 wrote:
sotonwinch09 wrote:
Should they of?

I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business.
Do you mean "Should the have?" ?
Betteridge's Law strikes again.
[quote][p][bold]Rob444[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonwinch09[/bold] wrote: Should they of? I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business.[/p][/quote]Do you mean "Should the have?" ?[/p][/quote]Betteridge's Law strikes again. Georgem
  • Score: 0

2:43pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Cyber__Fug says...

Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
£10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place.
All for what just to have a USA car brand name.
Nationalise Fords and be done with it.
Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on?
Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested.
Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.
Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers.
You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.
So you're telling me that anybody can just walz in there now and start churning out Ford Transits?

You need some basic lessons in how the world operates. Seriously.
Reading some of things that Southy puts on here is incredible..... I bet his peers in the Loony Party (of whatever they are called) must cringe if they ever read any of his drivel.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: £10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place. All for what just to have a USA car brand name. Nationalise Fords and be done with it.[/p][/quote]Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on? Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested. Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.[/p][/quote]Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers. You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.[/p][/quote]So you're telling me that anybody can just walz in there now and start churning out Ford Transits? You need some basic lessons in how the world operates. Seriously.[/p][/quote]Reading some of things that Southy puts on here is incredible..... I bet his peers in the Loony Party (of whatever they are called) must cringe if they ever read any of his drivel. Cyber__Fug
  • Score: 0

2:43pm Mon 29 Oct 12

rightway says...

Isn’t there a law against deception and if so why doesn’t the government take the managers, who asked for the hand-out, to court. Or am I being naïve.
Isn’t there a law against deception and if so why doesn’t the government take the managers, who asked for the hand-out, to court. Or am I being naïve. rightway
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Cyber__Fug says...

rightway wrote:
Isn’t there a law against deception and if so why doesn’t the government take the managers, who asked for the hand-out, to court. Or am I being naïve.
They didn't deceive the Government they just didn't offer the information. Maybe if Cable had thought of asking the question of any proposed closures then he might have got the answer.... and if they lied then that would be deception.
[quote][p][bold]rightway[/bold] wrote: Isn’t there a law against deception and if so why doesn’t the government take the managers, who asked for the hand-out, to court. Or am I being naïve.[/p][/quote]They didn't deceive the Government they just didn't offer the information. Maybe if Cable had thought of asking the question of any proposed closures then he might have got the answer.... and if they lied then that would be deception. Cyber__Fug
  • Score: 0

3:10pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Nicole23 says...

And if they dont give them the money does that mean even more jobs will be lost?
And if they dont give them the money does that mean even more jobs will be lost? Nicole23
  • Score: 0

3:14pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Subject48 says...

I think, withholding key information could be theoreticaly classed as misrepresentation. So you could use this to base a claim through the legal means IF there was a contract in place.

By which I mean something along the lines of someone in the government writing down: "hi ford here is some millions make sure you keep on making your cars here" to which ford says "ok"

Question is: is there/was there a contract in place? I already take my guess.
I think, withholding key information could be theoreticaly classed as misrepresentation. So you could use this to base a claim through the legal means IF there was a contract in place. By which I mean something along the lines of someone in the government writing down: "hi ford here is some millions make sure you keep on making your cars here" to which ford says "ok" Question is: is there/was there a contract in place? I already take my guess. Subject48
  • Score: 0

3:23pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Georgem says...

Subject48 wrote:
I think, withholding key information could be theoreticaly classed as misrepresentation. So you could use this to base a claim through the legal means IF there was a contract in place.

By which I mean something along the lines of someone in the government writing down: "hi ford here is some millions make sure you keep on making your cars here" to which ford says "ok"

Question is: is there/was there a contract in place? I already take my guess.
Given that Ford's lawyers can beat up your lawyers, I'm gonna go ahead and say that, as underhand as this might have been, it's all perfectly legal.
[quote][p][bold]Subject48[/bold] wrote: I think, withholding key information could be theoreticaly classed as misrepresentation. So you could use this to base a claim through the legal means IF there was a contract in place. By which I mean something along the lines of someone in the government writing down: "hi ford here is some millions make sure you keep on making your cars here" to which ford says "ok" Question is: is there/was there a contract in place? I already take my guess.[/p][/quote]Given that Ford's lawyers can beat up your lawyers, I'm gonna go ahead and say that, as underhand as this might have been, it's all perfectly legal. Georgem
  • Score: 0

3:45pm Mon 29 Oct 12

ohec says...

Some of these comments are unbelievable and the people that wrote them must be a brick short of a full load, if Ford wanted too they could pull out of the U.K. lock stock and barrel and then we would be in the mucky stuff, the stamping plant at Dagenham is to close but that still leaves a lot of others employed at Dagenham, only a fraction of what was once employed their but still a significant number not to mention all the other locations. Yes Ford has had a lot of our cash but so has industry in general thats the way it works nowadays, years ago people bought British because that was what was most readily available nowadays its a global market and a market that is growing with new manufacturers from China India Korea producing vehicles at cost levels we can't compete with the market is being flooded and something has to give.
But we are all to blame every ambulance you see is Mercedes and the same goes for the police and many others that were the domain of the Transit for many years if government wanted to support Ford it could have made the use of Transits compulsory by the Ambulance service and the Police etc as other countries do.
Some of these comments are unbelievable and the people that wrote them must be a brick short of a full load, if Ford wanted too they could pull out of the U.K. lock stock and barrel and then we would be in the mucky stuff, the stamping plant at Dagenham is to close but that still leaves a lot of others employed at Dagenham, only a fraction of what was once employed their but still a significant number not to mention all the other locations. Yes Ford has had a lot of our cash but so has industry in general thats the way it works nowadays, years ago people bought British because that was what was most readily available nowadays its a global market and a market that is growing with new manufacturers from China India Korea producing vehicles at cost levels we can't compete with the market is being flooded and something has to give. But we are all to blame every ambulance you see is Mercedes and the same goes for the police and many others that were the domain of the Transit for many years if government wanted to support Ford it could have made the use of Transits compulsory by the Ambulance service and the Police etc as other countries do. ohec
  • Score: 0

3:52pm Mon 29 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Over the Edge wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
sotonwinch09 wrote:
Should they of?

I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business.
Yes of course they should off, especially when Fords we're just about to receive £10 million of Government money
Maybe the Government should have asked the questions and put in conditions and clauses.If they are going to throw easy money at Fords, then who would refuse.
Don't get me wrong, this shambolic Government are totally to blame for allowing Fords to cream off more money, all the Government programme I've worked on and received funding for there has been clauses and written guarantees sort, claw back clauses as well, if this Government intends or has handed over money to Fords without insisting on worker retaining their jobs in situ, then they should hang their heads in shame.

I don't believe couldn't tell them, I think Fords deliberately didn't tell them.
Sounds a bit like Mandelson okaying a loan from a Bank we partly owned to Kraft on the understanding no plant closure in the UK but never had it in writing doesn't it?
A big American company getting a loan then going against word of mouth agreement & did we recall the loan?
What a shambles that was for the people of Bristol.
We must be honest here most of the workers & people in this city knew or had a good idea that Fords would shut one day.
Dop we take back the grant? NO why put two other plants at risk?
Do we strike ? exactly what would that achieve?
Wouldn't that give Fords more reasons to shut it earlier?
How would it effect the Redundancy packages?
Could they rip those up & give only the payments given by government guides ( 1 day a year or something on those lines).
Go on strike get made redundant anyway go for another job put down Fords as your previous post & see how hard it will be to get another job
[quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonwinch09[/bold] wrote: Should they of? I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business.[/p][/quote]Yes of course they should off, especially when Fords we're just about to receive £10 million of Government money[/p][/quote]Maybe the Government should have asked the questions and put in conditions and clauses.If they are going to throw easy money at Fords, then who would refuse.[/p][/quote]Don't get me wrong, this shambolic Government are totally to blame for allowing Fords to cream off more money, all the Government programme I've worked on and received funding for there has been clauses and written guarantees sort, claw back clauses as well, if this Government intends or has handed over money to Fords without insisting on worker retaining their jobs in situ, then they should hang their heads in shame. I don't believe couldn't tell them, I think Fords deliberately didn't tell them.[/p][/quote]Sounds a bit like Mandelson okaying a loan from a Bank we partly owned to Kraft on the understanding no plant closure in the UK but never had it in writing doesn't it? A big American company getting a loan then going against word of mouth agreement & did we recall the loan? What a shambles that was for the people of Bristol. We must be honest here most of the workers & people in this city knew or had a good idea that Fords would shut one day. Dop we take back the grant? NO why put two other plants at risk? Do we strike ? exactly what would that achieve? Wouldn't that give Fords more reasons to shut it earlier? How would it effect the Redundancy packages? Could they rip those up & give only the payments given by government guides ( 1 day a year or something on those lines). Go on strike get made redundant anyway go for another job put down Fords as your previous post & see how hard it will be to get another job loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:55pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Shoong says...

Linesman wrote:
It's a ConDemolition job.
That is brilliant!!!
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: It's a ConDemolition job.[/p][/quote]That is brilliant!!! Shoong
  • Score: 0

4:14pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

The Plant has been walking bones for years!
The Plant has been walking bones for years! Fatty x Ford Worker
  • Score: 0

4:44pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Subject48 says...

@georgem, its legal because some bright spark in the gov has taken the liberty with our money and allowed it to be legal...

If there was a contract with set terms in place then YES of course you could have a legal dispute over it. because thats the nature of contracts.

Only problem is as someone pointed out, Ford would just pack up shop sooner then it will at the moment.

The issue I have is that, we are expected to just accept the fact no one is accountable.

If we accept the fact that Ford in uk was a dead-horse runing, then why make a decision feed a dead bloody horse?
@georgem, its legal because some bright spark in the gov has taken the liberty with our money and allowed it to be legal... If there was a contract with set terms in place then YES of course you could have a legal dispute over it. because thats the nature of contracts. Only problem is as someone pointed out, Ford would just pack up shop sooner then it will at the moment. The issue I have is that, we are expected to just accept the fact no one is accountable. If we accept the fact that Ford in uk was a dead-horse runing, then why make a decision feed a dead bloody horse? Subject48
  • Score: 0

4:45pm Mon 29 Oct 12

sotonwinch09 says...

If I could get £10 million for free then I would too! Close down with 10 million or without? I know what one I would choose!
If I could get £10 million for free then I would too! Close down with 10 million or without? I know what one I would choose! sotonwinch09
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Mon 29 Oct 12

southy says...

hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
£10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place.
All for what just to have a USA car brand name.
Nationalise Fords and be done with it.
Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on?
Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested.
Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.
Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers.
You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.
We had this topic last week. You cannot nationalise Fords. It is an Amercian company and American brand. What you can do is to lease the building to another company, or new investors, to make another vehicle. That is another brand, another trade name and not nationalising Fords.
yes you can nationalist the transit factory Fords is just a brand name, there is nothing stopping for it to happen, you just remove the Ford Brand name and call it some thing else, you can even make the same van there, you just noticify the Italian design company and transfere the UK Ford Licence, to a UK nationalise Licence, its as easy as that, The Uk tax payers own every in at the plant, the plant do not belong to Fords
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: £10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place. All for what just to have a USA car brand name. Nationalise Fords and be done with it.[/p][/quote]Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on? Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested. Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.[/p][/quote]Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers. You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.[/p][/quote]We had this topic last week. You cannot nationalise Fords. It is an Amercian company and American brand. What you can do is to lease the building to another company, or new investors, to make another vehicle. That is another brand, another trade name and not nationalising Fords.[/p][/quote]yes you can nationalist the transit factory Fords is just a brand name, there is nothing stopping for it to happen, you just remove the Ford Brand name and call it some thing else, you can even make the same van there, you just noticify the Italian design company and transfere the UK Ford Licence, to a UK nationalise Licence, its as easy as that, The Uk tax payers own every in at the plant, the plant do not belong to Fords southy
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Linesman says...

rightway wrote:
Isn’t there a law against deception and if so why doesn’t the government take the managers, who asked for the hand-out, to court. Or am I being naïve.
If there was, having read the promises made by Cameron and Clegg when they were electioneering, I think that they would have been charged, found guilty and locked up by now.
[quote][p][bold]rightway[/bold] wrote: Isn’t there a law against deception and if so why doesn’t the government take the managers, who asked for the hand-out, to court. Or am I being naïve.[/p][/quote]If there was, having read the promises made by Cameron and Clegg when they were electioneering, I think that they would have been charged, found guilty and locked up by now. Linesman
  • Score: 0

5:10pm Mon 29 Oct 12

southy says...

George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
Fords Swaythling would have closed anyway.

Given that Europe is on track to lose Fords $1Billion this year you must expect to have to give Fords something as an incentive to remain here!

And if you don't want Fords to invest in new technology in the UK then tell them and I'm sure another government will happily give them £10 million towards their investment in new technology.
Stop only half posting, they stand to lose 1 billion out off billions in profits.
Fords have never gone in the nagative, they have all ways been in the plus made more in proffits after costs taking out, proffits even are bigger than a drop in sales.
In 2006 Fords were on the edge of Bankruptcy when posting a loss of $13 Billion! As I said in a previous comment, Fords went onto being $34 Billion in debt! They had what is called "Junk" status! It was only this year (2012) that they started paying a dividend of 5 cents per share - the first dividend since 2006.
They made a lost of $34 billion, there world wide profit after deductions have not drop below £80 billion, there biggest lost happened this year last mth when sales drop to 47%, that still made a massive big profit for Fords, Fords control the biggest part of the car market in the world, and while they are the biggest they are never going to make a lost, they will all ways be in the plus.
Watch the top man yearly earnings, when that go's below 1 million a year then you know Fords are in trouble
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: Fords Swaythling would have closed anyway. Given that Europe is on track to lose Fords $1Billion this year you must expect to have to give Fords something as an incentive to remain here! And if you don't want Fords to invest in new technology in the UK then tell them and I'm sure another government will happily give them £10 million towards their investment in new technology.[/p][/quote]Stop only half posting, they stand to lose 1 billion out off billions in profits. Fords have never gone in the nagative, they have all ways been in the plus made more in proffits after costs taking out, proffits even are bigger than a drop in sales.[/p][/quote]In 2006 Fords were on the edge of Bankruptcy when posting a loss of $13 Billion! As I said in a previous comment, Fords went onto being $34 Billion in debt! They had what is called "Junk" status! It was only this year (2012) that they started paying a dividend of 5 cents per share - the first dividend since 2006.[/p][/quote]They made a lost of $34 billion, there world wide profit after deductions have not drop below £80 billion, there biggest lost happened this year last mth when sales drop to 47%, that still made a massive big profit for Fords, Fords control the biggest part of the car market in the world, and while they are the biggest they are never going to make a lost, they will all ways be in the plus. Watch the top man yearly earnings, when that go's below 1 million a year then you know Fords are in trouble southy
  • Score: 0

5:20pm Mon 29 Oct 12

southy says...

Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
£10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place.
All for what just to have a USA car brand name.
Nationalise Fords and be done with it.
Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on?
Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested.
Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.
Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers.
You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.
So you're telling me that anybody can just walz in there now and start churning out Ford Transits?

You need some basic lessons in how the world operates. Seriously.
No you need to learn some thing, and that is how Fords operate, they get the countrys where there plants are to pay for it all, so that makes Fords plants owned by that country and are not the properity of Fords.
The word Ford is a trade name and its design is copy righted, the word it self is not, the word transit is a model name and can be used but the design is copy righted and can not be used.
You could call a transit some thing like this.
State Transit or Co-op Transit or National Transit or a person who takes over, who's name is Ford can call it Ford Transit, there is nothing stopping this from happening. Its all legal and all above board.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: £10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place. All for what just to have a USA car brand name. Nationalise Fords and be done with it.[/p][/quote]Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on? Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested. Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.[/p][/quote]Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers. You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.[/p][/quote]So you're telling me that anybody can just walz in there now and start churning out Ford Transits? You need some basic lessons in how the world operates. Seriously.[/p][/quote]No you need to learn some thing, and that is how Fords operate, they get the countrys where there plants are to pay for it all, so that makes Fords plants owned by that country and are not the properity of Fords. The word Ford is a trade name and its design is copy righted, the word it self is not, the word transit is a model name and can be used but the design is copy righted and can not be used. You could call a transit some thing like this. State Transit or Co-op Transit or National Transit or a person who takes over, who's name is Ford can call it Ford Transit, there is nothing stopping this from happening. Its all legal and all above board. southy
  • Score: 0

5:32pm Mon 29 Oct 12

southy says...

If any one offers the Government a better deal than Fords did when they first operated at the Transit plant, They can now take the Transit plant over the moment Fords pull out, and carry on making the Transit van, with the same design that is being produce there now, they can call it what ever they like as long they do not copy the way Fords have there design in how the word Ford and Transit is done.
If any one offers the Government a better deal than Fords did when they first operated at the Transit plant, They can now take the Transit plant over the moment Fords pull out, and carry on making the Transit van, with the same design that is being produce there now, they can call it what ever they like as long they do not copy the way Fords have there design in how the word Ford and Transit is done. southy
  • Score: 0

5:37pm Mon 29 Oct 12

George4th says...

southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
Fords Swaythling would have closed anyway.

Given that Europe is on track to lose Fords $1Billion this year you must expect to have to give Fords something as an incentive to remain here!

And if you don't want Fords to invest in new technology in the UK then tell them and I'm sure another government will happily give them £10 million towards their investment in new technology.
Stop only half posting, they stand to lose 1 billion out off billions in profits.
Fords have never gone in the nagative, they have all ways been in the plus made more in proffits after costs taking out, proffits even are bigger than a drop in sales.
In 2006 Fords were on the edge of Bankruptcy when posting a loss of $13 Billion! As I said in a previous comment, Fords went onto being $34 Billion in debt! They had what is called "Junk" status! It was only this year (2012) that they started paying a dividend of 5 cents per share - the first dividend since 2006.
They made a lost of $34 billion, there world wide profit after deductions have not drop below £80 billion, there biggest lost happened this year last mth when sales drop to 47%, that still made a massive big profit for Fords, Fords control the biggest part of the car market in the world, and while they are the biggest they are never going to make a lost, they will all ways be in the plus.
Watch the top man yearly earnings, when that go's below 1 million a year then you know Fords are in trouble
Maybe you should go to the next Fords AGM and WOW the shareholders with your infinite wisdom.
Explain to them why they went 6 years without a dividend until receiving 5 cents per share earlier this year!
>
From what you are saying, and because it is guaranteed to make a profit, I take it that you have all your pension investments in Fords?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: Fords Swaythling would have closed anyway. Given that Europe is on track to lose Fords $1Billion this year you must expect to have to give Fords something as an incentive to remain here! And if you don't want Fords to invest in new technology in the UK then tell them and I'm sure another government will happily give them £10 million towards their investment in new technology.[/p][/quote]Stop only half posting, they stand to lose 1 billion out off billions in profits. Fords have never gone in the nagative, they have all ways been in the plus made more in proffits after costs taking out, proffits even are bigger than a drop in sales.[/p][/quote]In 2006 Fords were on the edge of Bankruptcy when posting a loss of $13 Billion! As I said in a previous comment, Fords went onto being $34 Billion in debt! They had what is called "Junk" status! It was only this year (2012) that they started paying a dividend of 5 cents per share - the first dividend since 2006.[/p][/quote]They made a lost of $34 billion, there world wide profit after deductions have not drop below £80 billion, there biggest lost happened this year last mth when sales drop to 47%, that still made a massive big profit for Fords, Fords control the biggest part of the car market in the world, and while they are the biggest they are never going to make a lost, they will all ways be in the plus. Watch the top man yearly earnings, when that go's below 1 million a year then you know Fords are in trouble[/p][/quote]Maybe you should go to the next Fords AGM and WOW the shareholders with your infinite wisdom. Explain to them why they went 6 years without a dividend until receiving 5 cents per share earlier this year! > From what you are saying, and because it is guaranteed to make a profit, I take it that you have all your pension investments in Fords? George4th
  • Score: 0

6:00pm Mon 29 Oct 12

mooky9 says...

ohec wrote:
Some of these comments are unbelievable and the people that wrote them must be a brick short of a full load, if Ford wanted too they could pull out of the U.K. lock stock and barrel and then we would be in the mucky stuff, the stamping plant at Dagenham is to close but that still leaves a lot of others employed at Dagenham, only a fraction of what was once employed their but still a significant number not to mention all the other locations. Yes Ford has had a lot of our cash but so has industry in general thats the way it works nowadays, years ago people bought British because that was what was most readily available nowadays its a global market and a market that is growing with new manufacturers from China India Korea producing vehicles at cost levels we can't compete with the market is being flooded and something has to give.
But we are all to blame every ambulance you see is Mercedes and the same goes for the police and many others that were the domain of the Transit for many years if government wanted to support Ford it could have made the use of Transits compulsory by the Ambulance service and the Police etc as other countries do.
But the problem is that Mercedes, BMW, Volvo etc are giving the emergency services a better vehicle for a cheaper price than Ford, though alot of Police still use Fiestas and Focus's I guess.
I'm sure that a deal could have been struck...?
[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: Some of these comments are unbelievable and the people that wrote them must be a brick short of a full load, if Ford wanted too they could pull out of the U.K. lock stock and barrel and then we would be in the mucky stuff, the stamping plant at Dagenham is to close but that still leaves a lot of others employed at Dagenham, only a fraction of what was once employed their but still a significant number not to mention all the other locations. Yes Ford has had a lot of our cash but so has industry in general thats the way it works nowadays, years ago people bought British because that was what was most readily available nowadays its a global market and a market that is growing with new manufacturers from China India Korea producing vehicles at cost levels we can't compete with the market is being flooded and something has to give. But we are all to blame every ambulance you see is Mercedes and the same goes for the police and many others that were the domain of the Transit for many years if government wanted to support Ford it could have made the use of Transits compulsory by the Ambulance service and the Police etc as other countries do.[/p][/quote]But the problem is that Mercedes, BMW, Volvo etc are giving the emergency services a better vehicle for a cheaper price than Ford, though alot of Police still use Fiestas and Focus's I guess. I'm sure that a deal could have been struck...? mooky9
  • Score: 0

6:00pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Cyber__Fug says...

southy wrote:
If any one offers the Government a better deal than Fords did when they first operated at the Transit plant, They can now take the Transit plant over the moment Fords pull out, and carry on making the Transit van, with the same design that is being produce there now, they can call it what ever they like as long they do not copy the way Fords have there design in how the word Ford and Transit is done.
If I were you I would go to the library and read up on intellectual property rights.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: If any one offers the Government a better deal than Fords did when they first operated at the Transit plant, They can now take the Transit plant over the moment Fords pull out, and carry on making the Transit van, with the same design that is being produce there now, they can call it what ever they like as long they do not copy the way Fords have there design in how the word Ford and Transit is done.[/p][/quote]If I were you I would go to the library and read up on intellectual property rights. Cyber__Fug
  • Score: 0

6:07pm Mon 29 Oct 12

mooky9 says...

southy wrote:
If any one offers the Government a better deal than Fords did when they first operated at the Transit plant, They can now take the Transit plant over the moment Fords pull out, and carry on making the Transit van, with the same design that is being produce there now, they can call it what ever they like as long they do not copy the way Fords have there design in how the word Ford and Transit is done.
Please please PLEASE re-read your posts before you post them, half of what you say does not make sense, the other half is plain bizzare! Ford have the copyright for the Transit and the rest of the designs, if they didn't then everyone could make the same car. Likewise alot of the stuff in the actual van is patent protected, such as the quickclear windscreen. They lease old desings out to Kia etc but only once they are done. You can't simply make a transit van using Ford designs and call it a peoples Transit, they would sue and you would not have a leg to stand on. Besides all of that its the same old argument, nationalise something that does not make any money and cripple the good 'ol taxpayer with another white elephant... Oh and as for the unions saying they will strike, I will take a punt and say Ford will just say crack on and save us a few more months wages.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: If any one offers the Government a better deal than Fords did when they first operated at the Transit plant, They can now take the Transit plant over the moment Fords pull out, and carry on making the Transit van, with the same design that is being produce there now, they can call it what ever they like as long they do not copy the way Fords have there design in how the word Ford and Transit is done.[/p][/quote]Please please PLEASE re-read your posts before you post them, half of what you say does not make sense, the other half is plain bizzare! Ford have the copyright for the Transit and the rest of the designs, if they didn't then everyone could make the same car. Likewise alot of the stuff in the actual van is patent protected, such as the quickclear windscreen. They lease old desings out to Kia etc but only once they are done. You can't simply make a transit van using Ford designs and call it a peoples Transit, they would sue and you would not have a leg to stand on. Besides all of that its the same old argument, nationalise something that does not make any money and cripple the good 'ol taxpayer with another white elephant... Oh and as for the unions saying they will strike, I will take a punt and say Ford will just say crack on and save us a few more months wages. mooky9
  • Score: 0

6:21pm Mon 29 Oct 12

southy says...

Save Ford’s Emergency Meeting, Wednesday 31st October, 7.30pm, Goblets Wine bar, upstairs bar. (Junction of Commercial Rd and Above Bar St. SO14 7DW) organised by Southampton Trades Union Council
Save Ford’s Emergency Meeting, Wednesday 31st October, 7.30pm, Goblets Wine bar, upstairs bar. (Junction of Commercial Rd and Above Bar St. SO14 7DW) organised by Southampton Trades Union Council southy
  • Score: 0

6:41pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Dresnez says...

hulla baloo wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
sotonwinch09 wrote:
Should they of?

I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business.
Yes of course they should off, especially when Fords we're just about to receive £10 million of Government money
Maybe the Government should have asked the questions and put in conditions and clauses.If they are going to throw easy money at Fords, then who would refuse.
When I asked a conservative MP during a local election why they were against nationalisation, that if the private sector could make a profit then why can't the government for the benefit of the nation.

He replied it was because Gov was notoriously bad at running business. When I said that perhaps government should be looking to ways to improve their ability to run a business whether private or public he avoided answering specifically and merely repeated that Gov was notoriously bad at running business.

So with all the wherewithal at their disposal MPs are unable to get a contract that is robust and protect the taxpayers interest. They are notoriously bad at franchising out to the private sector as well it would appear.

Very worrying when you think they are supposed to be the party for the business community and are supposed to business savvy.

Unlike the opposition who are only supposed to have understood recalcitrant workers.

We appear to have, across the board in ALL parties a load of very incompetent politicians who have wasted our countries assets by running down nationalised industries and then selling them off and then failing to collect the taxes from global corporations or regulated business.

They don't appear to have the nations interests at heart at all.
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonwinch09[/bold] wrote: Should they of? I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business.[/p][/quote]Yes of course they should off, especially when Fords we're just about to receive £10 million of Government money[/p][/quote]Maybe the Government should have asked the questions and put in conditions and clauses.If they are going to throw easy money at Fords, then who would refuse.[/p][/quote]When I asked a conservative MP during a local election why they were against nationalisation, that if the private sector could make a profit then why can't the government for the benefit of the nation. He replied it was because Gov was notoriously bad at running business. When I said that perhaps government should be looking to ways to improve their ability to run a business whether private or public he avoided answering specifically and merely repeated that Gov was notoriously bad at running business. So with all the wherewithal at their disposal MPs are unable to get a contract that is robust and protect the taxpayers interest. They are notoriously bad at franchising out to the private sector as well it would appear. Very worrying when you think they are supposed to be the party for the business community and are supposed to business savvy. Unlike the opposition who are only supposed to have understood recalcitrant workers. We appear to have, across the board in ALL parties a load of very incompetent politicians who have wasted our countries assets by running down nationalised industries and then selling them off and then failing to collect the taxes from global corporations or regulated business. They don't appear to have the nations interests at heart at all. Dresnez
  • Score: 0

6:47pm Mon 29 Oct 12

southy says...

mooky9 wrote:
southy wrote:
If any one offers the Government a better deal than Fords did when they first operated at the Transit plant, They can now take the Transit plant over the moment Fords pull out, and carry on making the Transit van, with the same design that is being produce there now, they can call it what ever they like as long they do not copy the way Fords have there design in how the word Ford and Transit is done.
Please please PLEASE re-read your posts before you post them, half of what you say does not make sense, the other half is plain bizzare! Ford have the copyright for the Transit and the rest of the designs, if they didn't then everyone could make the same car. Likewise alot of the stuff in the actual van is patent protected, such as the quickclear windscreen. They lease old desings out to Kia etc but only once they are done. You can't simply make a transit van using Ford designs and call it a peoples Transit, they would sue and you would not have a leg to stand on. Besides all of that its the same old argument, nationalise something that does not make any money and cripple the good 'ol taxpayer with another white elephant... Oh and as for the unions saying they will strike, I will take a punt and say Ford will just say crack on and save us a few more months wages.
Fords have copy right over the name design, the design of the van is under licence, which belongs to the factory and not Fords, when a designer issues a licence they issue it to the factory where its going to be produce, and not to Fords as a whole, there are 4 factorys that are allowed to make that design of van, this is how the designers make there money by issuing indevidual licences to the factorys and not the company.
[quote][p][bold]mooky9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: If any one offers the Government a better deal than Fords did when they first operated at the Transit plant, They can now take the Transit plant over the moment Fords pull out, and carry on making the Transit van, with the same design that is being produce there now, they can call it what ever they like as long they do not copy the way Fords have there design in how the word Ford and Transit is done.[/p][/quote]Please please PLEASE re-read your posts before you post them, half of what you say does not make sense, the other half is plain bizzare! Ford have the copyright for the Transit and the rest of the designs, if they didn't then everyone could make the same car. Likewise alot of the stuff in the actual van is patent protected, such as the quickclear windscreen. They lease old desings out to Kia etc but only once they are done. You can't simply make a transit van using Ford designs and call it a peoples Transit, they would sue and you would not have a leg to stand on. Besides all of that its the same old argument, nationalise something that does not make any money and cripple the good 'ol taxpayer with another white elephant... Oh and as for the unions saying they will strike, I will take a punt and say Ford will just say crack on and save us a few more months wages.[/p][/quote]Fords have copy right over the name design, the design of the van is under licence, which belongs to the factory and not Fords, when a designer issues a licence they issue it to the factory where its going to be produce, and not to Fords as a whole, there are 4 factorys that are allowed to make that design of van, this is how the designers make there money by issuing indevidual licences to the factorys and not the company. southy
  • Score: 0

6:54pm Mon 29 Oct 12

southy says...

mooky9 said-
"nationalise something that does not make any money and cripple the good 'ol taxpayer with another white elephant.."
You as a Tax payer have been paying Fords since the day they first set up shop in the UK, It was the Tax payers that paid for the Land, it was the Tax payers that paid for the Factory, It was the Tax Payers that paid for the machinery and tools, and its the Tax payers that pay for all up dates of the Factory and machine tools, so you tell me what part do Fords own, they really own nothing, so it might as well be Nationalise as we are paying for every thing any way, so we might as well have the profits also to help run this country, This how all your Corporations work, the tax payers pay for it but do not get part of the profits
mooky9 said- "nationalise something that does not make any money and cripple the good 'ol taxpayer with another white elephant.." You as a Tax payer have been paying Fords since the day they first set up shop in the UK, It was the Tax payers that paid for the Land, it was the Tax payers that paid for the Factory, It was the Tax Payers that paid for the machinery and tools, and its the Tax payers that pay for all up dates of the Factory and machine tools, so you tell me what part do Fords own, they really own nothing, so it might as well be Nationalise as we are paying for every thing any way, so we might as well have the profits also to help run this country, This how all your Corporations work, the tax payers pay for it but do not get part of the profits southy
  • Score: 0

6:57pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Dresnez says...

loosehead wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
sotonwinch09 wrote:
Should they of?

I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business.
Yes of course they should off, especially when Fords we're just about to receive £10 million of Government money
Maybe the Government should have asked the questions and put in conditions and clauses.If they are going to throw easy money at Fords, then who would refuse.
Don't get me wrong, this shambolic Government are totally to blame for allowing Fords to cream off more money, all the Government programme I've worked on and received funding for there has been clauses and written guarantees sort, claw back clauses as well, if this Government intends or has handed over money to Fords without insisting on worker retaining their jobs in situ, then they should hang their heads in shame.

I don't believe couldn't tell them, I think Fords deliberately didn't tell them.
Sounds a bit like Mandelson okaying a loan from a Bank we partly owned to Kraft on the understanding no plant closure in the UK but never had it in writing doesn't it?
A big American company getting a loan then going against word of mouth agreement & did we recall the loan?
What a shambles that was for the people of Bristol.
We must be honest here most of the workers & people in this city knew or had a good idea that Fords would shut one day.
Dop we take back the grant? NO why put two other plants at risk?
Do we strike ? exactly what would that achieve?
Wouldn't that give Fords more reasons to shut it earlier?
How would it effect the Redundancy packages?
Could they rip those up & give only the payments given by government guides ( 1 day a year or something on those lines).
Go on strike get made redundant anyway go for another job put down Fords as your previous post & see how hard it will be to get another job
Government have the best lawyers at their disposal so one can only assume that the they deliberately avoid ant clauses that protect the tax payer. It seems they are only interested in serving business interests rather than national interests.

Just look at the lies in their manifestos.

Sorry but this global recession was caused by business so maybe business men are just as useless as this government.

So why does the poor old taxpayer have to constantly give hand out for business welfare scroungers?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonwinch09[/bold] wrote: Should they of? I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business.[/p][/quote]Yes of course they should off, especially when Fords we're just about to receive £10 million of Government money[/p][/quote]Maybe the Government should have asked the questions and put in conditions and clauses.If they are going to throw easy money at Fords, then who would refuse.[/p][/quote]Don't get me wrong, this shambolic Government are totally to blame for allowing Fords to cream off more money, all the Government programme I've worked on and received funding for there has been clauses and written guarantees sort, claw back clauses as well, if this Government intends or has handed over money to Fords without insisting on worker retaining their jobs in situ, then they should hang their heads in shame. I don't believe couldn't tell them, I think Fords deliberately didn't tell them.[/p][/quote]Sounds a bit like Mandelson okaying a loan from a Bank we partly owned to Kraft on the understanding no plant closure in the UK but never had it in writing doesn't it? A big American company getting a loan then going against word of mouth agreement & did we recall the loan? What a shambles that was for the people of Bristol. We must be honest here most of the workers & people in this city knew or had a good idea that Fords would shut one day. Dop we take back the grant? NO why put two other plants at risk? Do we strike ? exactly what would that achieve? Wouldn't that give Fords more reasons to shut it earlier? How would it effect the Redundancy packages? Could they rip those up & give only the payments given by government guides ( 1 day a year or something on those lines). Go on strike get made redundant anyway go for another job put down Fords as your previous post & see how hard it will be to get another job[/p][/quote]Government have the best lawyers at their disposal so one can only assume that the they deliberately avoid ant clauses that protect the tax payer. It seems they are only interested in serving business interests rather than national interests. Just look at the lies in their manifestos. Sorry but this global recession was caused by business so maybe business men are just as useless as this government. So why does the poor old taxpayer have to constantly give hand out for business welfare scroungers? Dresnez
  • Score: 0

7:05pm Mon 29 Oct 12

southy says...

Cyber__Fug wrote:
southy wrote:
If any one offers the Government a better deal than Fords did when they first operated at the Transit plant, They can now take the Transit plant over the moment Fords pull out, and carry on making the Transit van, with the same design that is being produce there now, they can call it what ever they like as long they do not copy the way Fords have there design in how the word Ford and Transit is done.
If I were you I would go to the library and read up on intellectual property rights.
I have seems you have not, a word that is in the dictionary can not be copy righted, the word ford and transit have meaning so can not be copy righted, people names can not be copy righted also, all that can be copy righted is the design if it is unique, the Ford Badge is of unique design and can not be copied,
The shape of the Transit van belongs to a designers company that have nothing to do with Fords, Fords buy the licence to be able to produce that design but the copy right for that design remains the properity of the designers they are allowed to sell that design to any one they want under licence, or like in this case sold to a factory that is run by Fords.
And that is all Fords do world wide is run a factory owned by some else.
[quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: If any one offers the Government a better deal than Fords did when they first operated at the Transit plant, They can now take the Transit plant over the moment Fords pull out, and carry on making the Transit van, with the same design that is being produce there now, they can call it what ever they like as long they do not copy the way Fords have there design in how the word Ford and Transit is done.[/p][/quote]If I were you I would go to the library and read up on intellectual property rights.[/p][/quote]I have seems you have not, a word that is in the dictionary can not be copy righted, the word ford and transit have meaning so can not be copy righted, people names can not be copy righted also, all that can be copy righted is the design if it is unique, the Ford Badge is of unique design and can not be copied, The shape of the Transit van belongs to a designers company that have nothing to do with Fords, Fords buy the licence to be able to produce that design but the copy right for that design remains the properity of the designers they are allowed to sell that design to any one they want under licence, or like in this case sold to a factory that is run by Fords. And that is all Fords do world wide is run a factory owned by some else. southy
  • Score: 0

7:09pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Dresnez says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
In other words this ConDem Coalition of unprincipled politicians is so stupid that they got shafted by multi national corporation, Ford.

If anybody expects big businesses to be open and honest then he/she has got to be the resident of some happy farm. With his past background Vince Cable should have know these tricks, but he was probably too busy briefing reporters against his Tory comrades in the government.

As Ford has done dirty on our workers, if those millions have already not been handed over government should tell the people who have cleared the application for money not to issue the cheque.

If Ford has already laid their greedy hands on those millions, government should confiscate Ford’s remaining assets in the UK, like land and buildings in Swathing.

If law is obstacle then surely if there is a will parliament could push through laws for this purpose. That is if our MPs from all the parties are not self serving hypocrite mob, but have loyalty to ordinary workers and the country. (Yes that is a big ask)

Strangely all those who often love insulting unemployed who may be receiving benefits, towards which they contributed before becoming the victims of super greedy bosses, bent bankers and their weak knead puppets in political class, seem to go conveniently when super sharks like Ford claim millions from Britain’s public purse. Is that no double standards?
Always enjoy your posts Paramjit.

When I asked a conservative MP during a local election why they were against nationalisation, that if the private sector could make a profit then why can't the government for the benefit of the nation.

He replied it was because Gov was notoriously bad at running business. When I said that perhaps government should be looking to ways to improve their ability to run a business whether private or public he avoided answering specifically and merely repeated that Gov was notoriously bad at running business.

So with all the wherewithal at their disposal MPs are unable to get a contract that is robust and protect the taxpayers interest. They are notoriously bad at franchising out to the private sector as well it would appear.

Very worrying when you think they are supposed to be the party for the business community and are supposed to business savvy.

Unlike the opposition who are only supposed to have understood recalcitrant workers.

We appear to have, across the board in ALL parties a load of very incompetent politicians who have wasted our countries assets by running down nationalised industries and then selling them off and then failing to collect the taxes from global corporations or regulated business.

They don't appear to have the nations interests at heart at all.
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: In other words this ConDem Coalition of unprincipled politicians is so stupid that they got shafted by multi national corporation, Ford. If anybody expects big businesses to be open and honest then he/she has got to be the resident of some happy farm. With his past background Vince Cable should have know these tricks, but he was probably too busy briefing reporters against his Tory comrades in the government. As Ford has done dirty on our workers, if those millions have already not been handed over government should tell the people who have cleared the application for money not to issue the cheque. If Ford has already laid their greedy hands on those millions, government should confiscate Ford’s remaining assets in the UK, like land and buildings in Swathing. If law is obstacle then surely if there is a will parliament could push through laws for this purpose. That is if our MPs from all the parties are not self serving hypocrite mob, but have loyalty to ordinary workers and the country. (Yes that is a big ask) Strangely all those who often love insulting unemployed who may be receiving benefits, towards which they contributed before becoming the victims of super greedy bosses, bent bankers and their weak knead puppets in political class, seem to go conveniently when super sharks like Ford claim millions from Britain’s public purse. Is that no double standards?[/p][/quote]Always enjoy your posts Paramjit. When I asked a conservative MP during a local election why they were against nationalisation, that if the private sector could make a profit then why can't the government for the benefit of the nation. He replied it was because Gov was notoriously bad at running business. When I said that perhaps government should be looking to ways to improve their ability to run a business whether private or public he avoided answering specifically and merely repeated that Gov was notoriously bad at running business. So with all the wherewithal at their disposal MPs are unable to get a contract that is robust and protect the taxpayers interest. They are notoriously bad at franchising out to the private sector as well it would appear. Very worrying when you think they are supposed to be the party for the business community and are supposed to business savvy. Unlike the opposition who are only supposed to have understood recalcitrant workers. We appear to have, across the board in ALL parties a load of very incompetent politicians who have wasted our countries assets by running down nationalised industries and then selling them off and then failing to collect the taxes from global corporations or regulated business. They don't appear to have the nations interests at heart at all. Dresnez
  • Score: 0

7:21pm Mon 29 Oct 12

southy says...

Dresnez Government have not had our interest at heart for 32 years, and business never.
Dresnez Government have not had our interest at heart for 32 years, and business never. southy
  • Score: 0

8:31pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
£10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place.
All for what just to have a USA car brand name.
Nationalise Fords and be done with it.
Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on?
Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested.
Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.
Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers.
You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.
So you're telling me that anybody can just walz in there now and start churning out Ford Transits?

You need some basic lessons in how the world operates. Seriously.
No you need to learn some thing, and that is how Fords operate, they get the countrys where there plants are to pay for it all, so that makes Fords plants owned by that country and are not the properity of Fords.
The word Ford is a trade name and its design is copy righted, the word it self is not, the word transit is a model name and can be used but the design is copy righted and can not be used.
You could call a transit some thing like this.
State Transit or Co-op Transit or National Transit or a person who takes over, who's name is Ford can call it Ford Transit, there is nothing stopping this from happening. Its all legal and all above board.
Go on then. Start a company, manufacturing vans, and call it Ford, and call the vans Transits. See how far you get.

You really are a plum.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: £10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place. All for what just to have a USA car brand name. Nationalise Fords and be done with it.[/p][/quote]Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on? Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested. Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.[/p][/quote]Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers. You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.[/p][/quote]So you're telling me that anybody can just walz in there now and start churning out Ford Transits? You need some basic lessons in how the world operates. Seriously.[/p][/quote]No you need to learn some thing, and that is how Fords operate, they get the countrys where there plants are to pay for it all, so that makes Fords plants owned by that country and are not the properity of Fords. The word Ford is a trade name and its design is copy righted, the word it self is not, the word transit is a model name and can be used but the design is copy righted and can not be used. You could call a transit some thing like this. State Transit or Co-op Transit or National Transit or a person who takes over, who's name is Ford can call it Ford Transit, there is nothing stopping this from happening. Its all legal and all above board.[/p][/quote]Go on then. Start a company, manufacturing vans, and call it Ford, and call the vans Transits. See how far you get. You really are a plum. Georgem
  • Score: 0

8:45pm Mon 29 Oct 12

southy says...

Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
£10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place.
All for what just to have a USA car brand name.
Nationalise Fords and be done with it.
Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on?
Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested.
Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.
Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers.
You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.
So you're telling me that anybody can just walz in there now and start churning out Ford Transits?

You need some basic lessons in how the world operates. Seriously.
No you need to learn some thing, and that is how Fords operate, they get the countrys where there plants are to pay for it all, so that makes Fords plants owned by that country and are not the properity of Fords.
The word Ford is a trade name and its design is copy righted, the word it self is not, the word transit is a model name and can be used but the design is copy righted and can not be used.
You could call a transit some thing like this.
State Transit or Co-op Transit or National Transit or a person who takes over, who's name is Ford can call it Ford Transit, there is nothing stopping this from happening. Its all legal and all above board.
Go on then. Start a company, manufacturing vans, and call it Ford, and call the vans Transits. See how far you get.

You really are a plum.
If my name was Ford I could legally use it to name a company after my name, I can also use the word as the a meaning as in river Ford crossing and be able to legally use the word Ford.
I can legally use the word Transit, because of its meaning, (The act of passing over, across, or through; passage), there is nothing stopping any one from using those words and it would be legal.
What you can not do is copy the Ford Badge emblem, that is copy righted, in a number of colour arrangements, (there is how ever one Ford Badge that fords do not own, and the is the word Ford in silver with a green backgound in side an oval disc), the type of lettering that Fords use are not copy right also, so you could legally copy the word transit the same way.
Give me the money to buy the Ford Transit factory and I will prove it to you that Fords would not have a leg to stand on.
You can only copy right some thing as your own if its is unique.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: £10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place. All for what just to have a USA car brand name. Nationalise Fords and be done with it.[/p][/quote]Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on? Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested. Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.[/p][/quote]Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers. You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.[/p][/quote]So you're telling me that anybody can just walz in there now and start churning out Ford Transits? You need some basic lessons in how the world operates. Seriously.[/p][/quote]No you need to learn some thing, and that is how Fords operate, they get the countrys where there plants are to pay for it all, so that makes Fords plants owned by that country and are not the properity of Fords. The word Ford is a trade name and its design is copy righted, the word it self is not, the word transit is a model name and can be used but the design is copy righted and can not be used. You could call a transit some thing like this. State Transit or Co-op Transit or National Transit or a person who takes over, who's name is Ford can call it Ford Transit, there is nothing stopping this from happening. Its all legal and all above board.[/p][/quote]Go on then. Start a company, manufacturing vans, and call it Ford, and call the vans Transits. See how far you get. You really are a plum.[/p][/quote]If my name was Ford I could legally use it to name a company after my name, I can also use the word as the a meaning as in river Ford crossing and be able to legally use the word Ford. I can legally use the word Transit, because of its meaning, (The act of passing over, across, or through; passage), there is nothing stopping any one from using those words and it would be legal. What you can not do is copy the Ford Badge emblem, that is copy righted, in a number of colour arrangements, (there is how ever one Ford Badge that fords do not own, and the is the word Ford in silver with a green backgound in side an oval disc), the type of lettering that Fords use are not copy right also, so you could legally copy the word transit the same way. Give me the money to buy the Ford Transit factory and I will prove it to you that Fords would not have a leg to stand on. You can only copy right some thing as your own if its is unique. southy
  • Score: 0

8:57pm Mon 29 Oct 12

southy says...

Georgem
This is what I would do if I was in charge of Government, I would tell Fords fine you want to leave this country, I would tell them to go ahead, and tell them the moment you leave your Factorys will be Nationalise and put in the hands of a workers Co-op, rename the factory say to Co-op and call the van Co-op Transit van, whats the bets Fords would stop in there tracks and rethink what they are doing, they would end up staying and carrying on producing the van here.
Learn this much about all Corporations they black mail governments to do all the paying, while they take all the profits, so call there bluff and see how quickly they change there minds, the why to control Corporations is though there pockets.
Georgem This is what I would do if I was in charge of Government, I would tell Fords fine you want to leave this country, I would tell them to go ahead, and tell them the moment you leave your Factorys will be Nationalise and put in the hands of a workers Co-op, rename the factory say to Co-op and call the van Co-op Transit van, whats the bets Fords would stop in there tracks and rethink what they are doing, they would end up staying and carrying on producing the van here. Learn this much about all Corporations they black mail governments to do all the paying, while they take all the profits, so call there bluff and see how quickly they change there minds, the why to control Corporations is though there pockets. southy
  • Score: 0

9:07pm Mon 29 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Dresnez wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
sotonwinch09 wrote:
Should they of?

I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business.
Yes of course they should off, especially when Fords we're just about to receive £10 million of Government money
Maybe the Government should have asked the questions and put in conditions and clauses.If they are going to throw easy money at Fords, then who would refuse.
Don't get me wrong, this shambolic Government are totally to blame for allowing Fords to cream off more money, all the Government programme I've worked on and received funding for there has been clauses and written guarantees sort, claw back clauses as well, if this Government intends or has handed over money to Fords without insisting on worker retaining their jobs in situ, then they should hang their heads in shame.

I don't believe couldn't tell them, I think Fords deliberately didn't tell them.
Sounds a bit like Mandelson okaying a loan from a Bank we partly owned to Kraft on the understanding no plant closure in the UK but never had it in writing doesn't it?
A big American company getting a loan then going against word of mouth agreement & did we recall the loan?
What a shambles that was for the people of Bristol.
We must be honest here most of the workers & people in this city knew or had a good idea that Fords would shut one day.
Dop we take back the grant? NO why put two other plants at risk?
Do we strike ? exactly what would that achieve?
Wouldn't that give Fords more reasons to shut it earlier?
How would it effect the Redundancy packages?
Could they rip those up & give only the payments given by government guides ( 1 day a year or something on those lines).
Go on strike get made redundant anyway go for another job put down Fords as your previous post & see how hard it will be to get another job
Government have the best lawyers at their disposal so one can only assume that the they deliberately avoid ant clauses that protect the tax payer. It seems they are only interested in serving business interests rather than national interests.

Just look at the lies in their manifestos.

Sorry but this global recession was caused by business so maybe business men are just as useless as this government.

So why does the poor old taxpayer have to constantly give hand out for business welfare scroungers?
How old are you? How can you bang on about Nationalised Industries?
Are you trying to tell me they worked?
Don't you forget the millions we the tax payers pumped into British Leylands?
Do you also forget the way they acted?
The models coming out were old style & not many people wanted them.
They could not invest as most of our money went to pay increased wages & to cover the many strikes that were called for by Red Robbo.
BT was subsidising the Postal service & was being dragged down.
British Rail was running antiquated trains & carriages & the tracks were out of date.
Our Miners,Dock workers were holding this country to ransom as did the power workers or do you not remember that terrible winter?
Why were Labour in the middle of selling of the governments share in the Post office if Nationalised Industries worked?
Did you ever drive a Travant? great car I think not but built by a state car factory.
[quote][p][bold]Dresnez[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonwinch09[/bold] wrote: Should they of? I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business.[/p][/quote]Yes of course they should off, especially when Fords we're just about to receive £10 million of Government money[/p][/quote]Maybe the Government should have asked the questions and put in conditions and clauses.If they are going to throw easy money at Fords, then who would refuse.[/p][/quote]Don't get me wrong, this shambolic Government are totally to blame for allowing Fords to cream off more money, all the Government programme I've worked on and received funding for there has been clauses and written guarantees sort, claw back clauses as well, if this Government intends or has handed over money to Fords without insisting on worker retaining their jobs in situ, then they should hang their heads in shame. I don't believe couldn't tell them, I think Fords deliberately didn't tell them.[/p][/quote]Sounds a bit like Mandelson okaying a loan from a Bank we partly owned to Kraft on the understanding no plant closure in the UK but never had it in writing doesn't it? A big American company getting a loan then going against word of mouth agreement & did we recall the loan? What a shambles that was for the people of Bristol. We must be honest here most of the workers & people in this city knew or had a good idea that Fords would shut one day. Dop we take back the grant? NO why put two other plants at risk? Do we strike ? exactly what would that achieve? Wouldn't that give Fords more reasons to shut it earlier? How would it effect the Redundancy packages? Could they rip those up & give only the payments given by government guides ( 1 day a year or something on those lines). Go on strike get made redundant anyway go for another job put down Fords as your previous post & see how hard it will be to get another job[/p][/quote]Government have the best lawyers at their disposal so one can only assume that the they deliberately avoid ant clauses that protect the tax payer. It seems they are only interested in serving business interests rather than national interests. Just look at the lies in their manifestos. Sorry but this global recession was caused by business so maybe business men are just as useless as this government. So why does the poor old taxpayer have to constantly give hand out for business welfare scroungers?[/p][/quote]How old are you? How can you bang on about Nationalised Industries? Are you trying to tell me they worked? Don't you forget the millions we the tax payers pumped into British Leylands? Do you also forget the way they acted? The models coming out were old style & not many people wanted them. They could not invest as most of our money went to pay increased wages & to cover the many strikes that were called for by Red Robbo. BT was subsidising the Postal service & was being dragged down. British Rail was running antiquated trains & carriages & the tracks were out of date. Our Miners,Dock workers were holding this country to ransom as did the power workers or do you not remember that terrible winter? Why were Labour in the middle of selling of the governments share in the Post office if Nationalised Industries worked? Did you ever drive a Travant? great car I think not but built by a state car factory. loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:10pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

A few lines $$$$$$$$$$$$$.
A few lines $$$$$$$$$$$$$. Fatty x Ford Worker
  • Score: 0

9:11pm Mon 29 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Dresnez wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
sotonwinch09 wrote:
Should they of?

I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business.
Yes of course they should off, especially when Fords we're just about to receive £10 million of Government money
Maybe the Government should have asked the questions and put in conditions and clauses.If they are going to throw easy money at Fords, then who would refuse.
Don't get me wrong, this shambolic Government are totally to blame for allowing Fords to cream off more money, all the Government programme I've worked on and received funding for there has been clauses and written guarantees sort, claw back clauses as well, if this Government intends or has handed over money to Fords without insisting on worker retaining their jobs in situ, then they should hang their heads in shame.

I don't believe couldn't tell them, I think Fords deliberately didn't tell them.
Sounds a bit like Mandelson okaying a loan from a Bank we partly owned to Kraft on the understanding no plant closure in the UK but never had it in writing doesn't it?
A big American company getting a loan then going against word of mouth agreement & did we recall the loan?
What a shambles that was for the people of Bristol.
We must be honest here most of the workers & people in this city knew or had a good idea that Fords would shut one day.
Dop we take back the grant? NO why put two other plants at risk?
Do we strike ? exactly what would that achieve?
Wouldn't that give Fords more reasons to shut it earlier?
How would it effect the Redundancy packages?
Could they rip those up & give only the payments given by government guides ( 1 day a year or something on those lines).
Go on strike get made redundant anyway go for another job put down Fords as your previous post & see how hard it will be to get another job
Government have the best lawyers at their disposal so one can only assume that the they deliberately avoid ant clauses that protect the tax payer. It seems they are only interested in serving business interests rather than national interests.

Just look at the lies in their manifestos.

Sorry but this global recession was caused by business so maybe business men are just as useless as this government.

So why does the poor old taxpayer have to constantly give hand out for business welfare scroungers?
This was done by business? So why has Brown & the rest of the Labour cabinet admitted there part in it?
do you think the guy who's re-matgaged his home to get a business going & now employs several people were at fault?
Do you ever consider a Government spent billions on trying to convince us to vote for them knowing they would have to claw back that money if elected had nothing to do with the deficit?
Get real !
[quote][p][bold]Dresnez[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonwinch09[/bold] wrote: Should they of? I don't tell the government when I'm closing down a business.[/p][/quote]Yes of course they should off, especially when Fords we're just about to receive £10 million of Government money[/p][/quote]Maybe the Government should have asked the questions and put in conditions and clauses.If they are going to throw easy money at Fords, then who would refuse.[/p][/quote]Don't get me wrong, this shambolic Government are totally to blame for allowing Fords to cream off more money, all the Government programme I've worked on and received funding for there has been clauses and written guarantees sort, claw back clauses as well, if this Government intends or has handed over money to Fords without insisting on worker retaining their jobs in situ, then they should hang their heads in shame. I don't believe couldn't tell them, I think Fords deliberately didn't tell them.[/p][/quote]Sounds a bit like Mandelson okaying a loan from a Bank we partly owned to Kraft on the understanding no plant closure in the UK but never had it in writing doesn't it? A big American company getting a loan then going against word of mouth agreement & did we recall the loan? What a shambles that was for the people of Bristol. We must be honest here most of the workers & people in this city knew or had a good idea that Fords would shut one day. Dop we take back the grant? NO why put two other plants at risk? Do we strike ? exactly what would that achieve? Wouldn't that give Fords more reasons to shut it earlier? How would it effect the Redundancy packages? Could they rip those up & give only the payments given by government guides ( 1 day a year or something on those lines). Go on strike get made redundant anyway go for another job put down Fords as your previous post & see how hard it will be to get another job[/p][/quote]Government have the best lawyers at their disposal so one can only assume that the they deliberately avoid ant clauses that protect the tax payer. It seems they are only interested in serving business interests rather than national interests. Just look at the lies in their manifestos. Sorry but this global recession was caused by business so maybe business men are just as useless as this government. So why does the poor old taxpayer have to constantly give hand out for business welfare scroungers?[/p][/quote]This was done by business? So why has Brown & the rest of the Labour cabinet admitted there part in it? do you think the guy who's re-matgaged his home to get a business going & now employs several people were at fault? Do you ever consider a Government spent billions on trying to convince us to vote for them knowing they would have to claw back that money if elected had nothing to do with the deficit? Get real ! loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:37pm Mon 29 Oct 12

mooky9 says...

southy wrote:
mooky9 wrote:
southy wrote:
If any one offers the Government a better deal than Fords did when they first operated at the Transit plant, They can now take the Transit plant over the moment Fords pull out, and carry on making the Transit van, with the same design that is being produce there now, they can call it what ever they like as long they do not copy the way Fords have there design in how the word Ford and Transit is done.
Please please PLEASE re-read your posts before you post them, half of what you say does not make sense, the other half is plain bizzare! Ford have the copyright for the Transit and the rest of the designs, if they didn't then everyone could make the same car. Likewise alot of the stuff in the actual van is patent protected, such as the quickclear windscreen. They lease old desings out to Kia etc but only once they are done. You can't simply make a transit van using Ford designs and call it a peoples Transit, they would sue and you would not have a leg to stand on. Besides all of that its the same old argument, nationalise something that does not make any money and cripple the good 'ol taxpayer with another white elephant... Oh and as for the unions saying they will strike, I will take a punt and say Ford will just say crack on and save us a few more months wages.
Fords have copy right over the name design, the design of the van is under licence, which belongs to the factory and not Fords, when a designer issues a licence they issue it to the factory where its going to be produce, and not to Fords as a whole, there are 4 factorys that are allowed to make that design of van, this is how the designers make there money by issuing indevidual licences to the factorys and not the company.
Copyright refers to logos and designs, yeah, but I'd look at which designer did the transit as I would imagine he would be a ford employee. However you fail to address the patent issues in the van which are very relevant, belong to the company and are very illegal to infringe oh and make the van work. But if you want to build a metal shell, slap southys people in transit on the front and then let it sit on the factory floor as it won't work then fill your boots.
Oh and ok the government may have paid money in the past but that doesn't mean you poor good money after bad. It's called business sense and if you want to nationalise a business that makes no money and land taxpayers with another bill then take a look in the mirror and there's your answer as to why your party won't get to power.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mooky9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: If any one offers the Government a better deal than Fords did when they first operated at the Transit plant, They can now take the Transit plant over the moment Fords pull out, and carry on making the Transit van, with the same design that is being produce there now, they can call it what ever they like as long they do not copy the way Fords have there design in how the word Ford and Transit is done.[/p][/quote]Please please PLEASE re-read your posts before you post them, half of what you say does not make sense, the other half is plain bizzare! Ford have the copyright for the Transit and the rest of the designs, if they didn't then everyone could make the same car. Likewise alot of the stuff in the actual van is patent protected, such as the quickclear windscreen. They lease old desings out to Kia etc but only once they are done. You can't simply make a transit van using Ford designs and call it a peoples Transit, they would sue and you would not have a leg to stand on. Besides all of that its the same old argument, nationalise something that does not make any money and cripple the good 'ol taxpayer with another white elephant... Oh and as for the unions saying they will strike, I will take a punt and say Ford will just say crack on and save us a few more months wages.[/p][/quote]Fords have copy right over the name design, the design of the van is under licence, which belongs to the factory and not Fords, when a designer issues a licence they issue it to the factory where its going to be produce, and not to Fords as a whole, there are 4 factorys that are allowed to make that design of van, this is how the designers make there money by issuing indevidual licences to the factorys and not the company.[/p][/quote]Copyright refers to logos and designs, yeah, but I'd look at which designer did the transit as I would imagine he would be a ford employee. However you fail to address the patent issues in the van which are very relevant, belong to the company and are very illegal to infringe oh and make the van work. But if you want to build a metal shell, slap southys people in transit on the front and then let it sit on the factory floor as it won't work then fill your boots. Oh and ok the government may have paid money in the past but that doesn't mean you poor good money after bad. It's called business sense and if you want to nationalise a business that makes no money and land taxpayers with another bill then take a look in the mirror and there's your answer as to why your party won't get to power. mooky9
  • Score: 0

9:42pm Mon 29 Oct 12

IronLady2010 says...

southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
£10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place.
All for what just to have a USA car brand name.
Nationalise Fords and be done with it.
Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on?
Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested.
Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.
Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers.
You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.
So you're telling me that anybody can just walz in there now and start churning out Ford Transits?

You need some basic lessons in how the world operates. Seriously.
No you need to learn some thing, and that is how Fords operate, they get the countrys where there plants are to pay for it all, so that makes Fords plants owned by that country and are not the properity of Fords.
The word Ford is a trade name and its design is copy righted, the word it self is not, the word transit is a model name and can be used but the design is copy righted and can not be used.
You could call a transit some thing like this.
State Transit or Co-op Transit or National Transit or a person who takes over, who's name is Ford can call it Ford Transit, there is nothing stopping this from happening. Its all legal and all above board.
Go on then. Start a company, manufacturing vans, and call it Ford, and call the vans Transits. See how far you get.

You really are a plum.
If my name was Ford I could legally use it to name a company after my name, I can also use the word as the a meaning as in river Ford crossing and be able to legally use the word Ford.
I can legally use the word Transit, because of its meaning, (The act of passing over, across, or through; passage), there is nothing stopping any one from using those words and it would be legal.
What you can not do is copy the Ford Badge emblem, that is copy righted, in a number of colour arrangements, (there is how ever one Ford Badge that fords do not own, and the is the word Ford in silver with a green backgound in side an oval disc), the type of lettering that Fords use are not copy right also, so you could legally copy the word transit the same way.
Give me the money to buy the Ford Transit factory and I will prove it to you that Fords would not have a leg to stand on.
You can only copy right some thing as your own if its is unique.
Give it a go Southy, Using the 'Ford' name is ok if you want to make brooms.

Also look at The Hobbit pub in Southampton.

Look at the fight between Apple and Samsung.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: £10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place. All for what just to have a USA car brand name. Nationalise Fords and be done with it.[/p][/quote]Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on? Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested. Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.[/p][/quote]Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers. You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.[/p][/quote]So you're telling me that anybody can just walz in there now and start churning out Ford Transits? You need some basic lessons in how the world operates. Seriously.[/p][/quote]No you need to learn some thing, and that is how Fords operate, they get the countrys where there plants are to pay for it all, so that makes Fords plants owned by that country and are not the properity of Fords. The word Ford is a trade name and its design is copy righted, the word it self is not, the word transit is a model name and can be used but the design is copy righted and can not be used. You could call a transit some thing like this. State Transit or Co-op Transit or National Transit or a person who takes over, who's name is Ford can call it Ford Transit, there is nothing stopping this from happening. Its all legal and all above board.[/p][/quote]Go on then. Start a company, manufacturing vans, and call it Ford, and call the vans Transits. See how far you get. You really are a plum.[/p][/quote]If my name was Ford I could legally use it to name a company after my name, I can also use the word as the a meaning as in river Ford crossing and be able to legally use the word Ford. I can legally use the word Transit, because of its meaning, (The act of passing over, across, or through; passage), there is nothing stopping any one from using those words and it would be legal. What you can not do is copy the Ford Badge emblem, that is copy righted, in a number of colour arrangements, (there is how ever one Ford Badge that fords do not own, and the is the word Ford in silver with a green backgound in side an oval disc), the type of lettering that Fords use are not copy right also, so you could legally copy the word transit the same way. Give me the money to buy the Ford Transit factory and I will prove it to you that Fords would not have a leg to stand on. You can only copy right some thing as your own if its is unique.[/p][/quote]Give it a go Southy, Using the 'Ford' name is ok if you want to make brooms. Also look at The Hobbit pub in Southampton. Look at the fight between Apple and Samsung. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

10:36pm Mon 29 Oct 12

southy says...

mooky9 wrote:
southy wrote:
mooky9 wrote:
southy wrote:
If any one offers the Government a better deal than Fords did when they first operated at the Transit plant, They can now take the Transit plant over the moment Fords pull out, and carry on making the Transit van, with the same design that is being produce there now, they can call it what ever they like as long they do not copy the way Fords have there design in how the word Ford and Transit is done.
Please please PLEASE re-read your posts before you post them, half of what you say does not make sense, the other half is plain bizzare! Ford have the copyright for the Transit and the rest of the designs, if they didn't then everyone could make the same car. Likewise alot of the stuff in the actual van is patent protected, such as the quickclear windscreen. They lease old desings out to Kia etc but only once they are done. You can't simply make a transit van using Ford designs and call it a peoples Transit, they would sue and you would not have a leg to stand on. Besides all of that its the same old argument, nationalise something that does not make any money and cripple the good 'ol taxpayer with another white elephant... Oh and as for the unions saying they will strike, I will take a punt and say Ford will just say crack on and save us a few more months wages.
Fords have copy right over the name design, the design of the van is under licence, which belongs to the factory and not Fords, when a designer issues a licence they issue it to the factory where its going to be produce, and not to Fords as a whole, there are 4 factorys that are allowed to make that design of van, this is how the designers make there money by issuing indevidual licences to the factorys and not the company.
Copyright refers to logos and designs, yeah, but I'd look at which designer did the transit as I would imagine he would be a ford employee. However you fail to address the patent issues in the van which are very relevant, belong to the company and are very illegal to infringe oh and make the van work. But if you want to build a metal shell, slap southys people in transit on the front and then let it sit on the factory floor as it won't work then fill your boots.
Oh and ok the government may have paid money in the past but that doesn't mean you poor good money after bad. It's called business sense and if you want to nationalise a business that makes no money and land taxpayers with another bill then take a look in the mirror and there's your answer as to why your party won't get to power.
Not a Ford employed at all, it was done by a Designer Company, who Fords bought a Licience from so they could produce that design. I do have the name of the Design Company so where here in an Transit Brochure.
Good business sense would tell you to Nationalise the Factory, the Transit Van is still the biggest seller in Britian and a number Europian Countrys, its nearest rivival is the Peugeot Van.
The patent issues on the van like the head light lens, Fords have that under licence also, and are allowed to stamp the glass with there logo, which can be replace with the same lens but with a different logo or none, and that applys to other small details that are added to the van on top of the licence design, personally my self I would not use a Ford Engine or its Gearbox that is also not theres, they are to noisey and juicey, but they are very reliable Engines even lo they are the same design as the GMC engine with a different size bore, its like the Zeta engine that belongs to a engine design company.
If you really look at cars and vans theres nothing unique about them any more, there designs are more or less the same, and thats because of economic of running the car or van and that these design companys will sale a licence of one design to all comapanys.
The only ones that use to break that mould was Citreons, but even now other companys are using the same design (Citreon uses a English Design company have done since the old DS and SI modles) at a time when BL and Fords was using a Italian Design company.
[quote][p][bold]mooky9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mooky9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: If any one offers the Government a better deal than Fords did when they first operated at the Transit plant, They can now take the Transit plant over the moment Fords pull out, and carry on making the Transit van, with the same design that is being produce there now, they can call it what ever they like as long they do not copy the way Fords have there design in how the word Ford and Transit is done.[/p][/quote]Please please PLEASE re-read your posts before you post them, half of what you say does not make sense, the other half is plain bizzare! Ford have the copyright for the Transit and the rest of the designs, if they didn't then everyone could make the same car. Likewise alot of the stuff in the actual van is patent protected, such as the quickclear windscreen. They lease old desings out to Kia etc but only once they are done. You can't simply make a transit van using Ford designs and call it a peoples Transit, they would sue and you would not have a leg to stand on. Besides all of that its the same old argument, nationalise something that does not make any money and cripple the good 'ol taxpayer with another white elephant... Oh and as for the unions saying they will strike, I will take a punt and say Ford will just say crack on and save us a few more months wages.[/p][/quote]Fords have copy right over the name design, the design of the van is under licence, which belongs to the factory and not Fords, when a designer issues a licence they issue it to the factory where its going to be produce, and not to Fords as a whole, there are 4 factorys that are allowed to make that design of van, this is how the designers make there money by issuing indevidual licences to the factorys and not the company.[/p][/quote]Copyright refers to logos and designs, yeah, but I'd look at which designer did the transit as I would imagine he would be a ford employee. However you fail to address the patent issues in the van which are very relevant, belong to the company and are very illegal to infringe oh and make the van work. But if you want to build a metal shell, slap southys people in transit on the front and then let it sit on the factory floor as it won't work then fill your boots. Oh and ok the government may have paid money in the past but that doesn't mean you poor good money after bad. It's called business sense and if you want to nationalise a business that makes no money and land taxpayers with another bill then take a look in the mirror and there's your answer as to why your party won't get to power.[/p][/quote]Not a Ford employed at all, it was done by a Designer Company, who Fords bought a Licience from so they could produce that design. I do have the name of the Design Company so where here in an Transit Brochure. Good business sense would tell you to Nationalise the Factory, the Transit Van is still the biggest seller in Britian and a number Europian Countrys, its nearest rivival is the Peugeot Van. The patent issues on the van like the head light lens, Fords have that under licence also, and are allowed to stamp the glass with there logo, which can be replace with the same lens but with a different logo or none, and that applys to other small details that are added to the van on top of the licence design, personally my self I would not use a Ford Engine or its Gearbox that is also not theres, they are to noisey and juicey, but they are very reliable Engines even lo they are the same design as the GMC engine with a different size bore, its like the Zeta engine that belongs to a engine design company. If you really look at cars and vans theres nothing unique about them any more, there designs are more or less the same, and thats because of economic of running the car or van and that these design companys will sale a licence of one design to all comapanys. The only ones that use to break that mould was Citreons, but even now other companys are using the same design (Citreon uses a English Design company have done since the old DS and SI modles) at a time when BL and Fords was using a Italian Design company. southy
  • Score: 0

10:50pm Mon 29 Oct 12

southy says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
£10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place.
All for what just to have a USA car brand name.
Nationalise Fords and be done with it.
Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on?
Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested.
Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.
Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers.
You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.
So you're telling me that anybody can just walz in there now and start churning out Ford Transits?

You need some basic lessons in how the world operates. Seriously.
No you need to learn some thing, and that is how Fords operate, they get the countrys where there plants are to pay for it all, so that makes Fords plants owned by that country and are not the properity of Fords.
The word Ford is a trade name and its design is copy righted, the word it self is not, the word transit is a model name and can be used but the design is copy righted and can not be used.
You could call a transit some thing like this.
State Transit or Co-op Transit or National Transit or a person who takes over, who's name is Ford can call it Ford Transit, there is nothing stopping this from happening. Its all legal and all above board.
Go on then. Start a company, manufacturing vans, and call it Ford, and call the vans Transits. See how far you get.

You really are a plum.
If my name was Ford I could legally use it to name a company after my name, I can also use the word as the a meaning as in river Ford crossing and be able to legally use the word Ford.
I can legally use the word Transit, because of its meaning, (The act of passing over, across, or through; passage), there is nothing stopping any one from using those words and it would be legal.
What you can not do is copy the Ford Badge emblem, that is copy righted, in a number of colour arrangements, (there is how ever one Ford Badge that fords do not own, and the is the word Ford in silver with a green backgound in side an oval disc), the type of lettering that Fords use are not copy right also, so you could legally copy the word transit the same way.
Give me the money to buy the Ford Transit factory and I will prove it to you that Fords would not have a leg to stand on.
You can only copy right some thing as your own if its is unique.
Give it a go Southy, Using the 'Ford' name is ok if you want to make brooms.

Also look at The Hobbit pub in Southampton.

Look at the fight between Apple and Samsung.
yes look at the Hobbit pub funny how Hollywood have now back away from it with out a single penny being paid, and look at Apple and Samsung its a battle that Apple is losing now big time, with people buying the Samsung more than the Apple. Apple might of won in the USA court rooms, but lost in the sales.
There use to be a Ford motors in Austrailia that had nothing to do with Fords Motor Company USA, the Austrailian government took over that Ford Motors in WWII, to make planes.
Get me the money and I will do it, I would still carry on making Transit vans, but I would not call it Fords I would call it some thing else, and I would make it a Workers Co-op, making it a Co-op would drop the price of the van by a few 1,000's, with no high price managerment getting in the way, just 1 good salesman, 1 engineer and the normal front line staff.
none of your coporations would be able compete with it in the same range.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: £10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place. All for what just to have a USA car brand name. Nationalise Fords and be done with it.[/p][/quote]Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on? Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested. Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.[/p][/quote]Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers. You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.[/p][/quote]So you're telling me that anybody can just walz in there now and start churning out Ford Transits? You need some basic lessons in how the world operates. Seriously.[/p][/quote]No you need to learn some thing, and that is how Fords operate, they get the countrys where there plants are to pay for it all, so that makes Fords plants owned by that country and are not the properity of Fords. The word Ford is a trade name and its design is copy righted, the word it self is not, the word transit is a model name and can be used but the design is copy righted and can not be used. You could call a transit some thing like this. State Transit or Co-op Transit or National Transit or a person who takes over, who's name is Ford can call it Ford Transit, there is nothing stopping this from happening. Its all legal and all above board.[/p][/quote]Go on then. Start a company, manufacturing vans, and call it Ford, and call the vans Transits. See how far you get. You really are a plum.[/p][/quote]If my name was Ford I could legally use it to name a company after my name, I can also use the word as the a meaning as in river Ford crossing and be able to legally use the word Ford. I can legally use the word Transit, because of its meaning, (The act of passing over, across, or through; passage), there is nothing stopping any one from using those words and it would be legal. What you can not do is copy the Ford Badge emblem, that is copy righted, in a number of colour arrangements, (there is how ever one Ford Badge that fords do not own, and the is the word Ford in silver with a green backgound in side an oval disc), the type of lettering that Fords use are not copy right also, so you could legally copy the word transit the same way. Give me the money to buy the Ford Transit factory and I will prove it to you that Fords would not have a leg to stand on. You can only copy right some thing as your own if its is unique.[/p][/quote]Give it a go Southy, Using the 'Ford' name is ok if you want to make brooms. Also look at The Hobbit pub in Southampton. Look at the fight between Apple and Samsung.[/p][/quote]yes look at the Hobbit pub funny how Hollywood have now back away from it with out a single penny being paid, and look at Apple and Samsung its a battle that Apple is losing now big time, with people buying the Samsung more than the Apple. Apple might of won in the USA court rooms, but lost in the sales. There use to be a Ford motors in Austrailia that had nothing to do with Fords Motor Company USA, the Austrailian government took over that Ford Motors in WWII, to make planes. Get me the money and I will do it, I would still carry on making Transit vans, but I would not call it Fords I would call it some thing else, and I would make it a Workers Co-op, making it a Co-op would drop the price of the van by a few 1,000's, with no high price managerment getting in the way, just 1 good salesman, 1 engineer and the normal front line staff. none of your coporations would be able compete with it in the same range. southy
  • Score: 0

11:51pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
£10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place.
All for what just to have a USA car brand name.
Nationalise Fords and be done with it.
Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on?
Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested.
Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.
Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers.
You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.
So you're telling me that anybody can just walz in there now and start churning out Ford Transits?

You need some basic lessons in how the world operates. Seriously.
No you need to learn some thing, and that is how Fords operate, they get the countrys where there plants are to pay for it all, so that makes Fords plants owned by that country and are not the properity of Fords.
The word Ford is a trade name and its design is copy righted, the word it self is not, the word transit is a model name and can be used but the design is copy righted and can not be used.
You could call a transit some thing like this.
State Transit or Co-op Transit or National Transit or a person who takes over, who's name is Ford can call it Ford Transit, there is nothing stopping this from happening. Its all legal and all above board.
Go on then. Start a company, manufacturing vans, and call it Ford, and call the vans Transits. See how far you get.

You really are a plum.
If my name was Ford I could legally use it to name a company after my name, I can also use the word as the a meaning as in river Ford crossing and be able to legally use the word Ford.
I can legally use the word Transit, because of its meaning, (The act of passing over, across, or through; passage), there is nothing stopping any one from using those words and it would be legal.
What you can not do is copy the Ford Badge emblem, that is copy righted, in a number of colour arrangements, (there is how ever one Ford Badge that fords do not own, and the is the word Ford in silver with a green backgound in side an oval disc), the type of lettering that Fords use are not copy right also, so you could legally copy the word transit the same way.
Give me the money to buy the Ford Transit factory and I will prove it to you that Fords would not have a leg to stand on.
You can only copy right some thing as your own if its is unique.
Give it a go Southy, Using the 'Ford' name is ok if you want to make brooms.

Also look at The Hobbit pub in Southampton.

Look at the fight between Apple and Samsung.
yes look at the Hobbit pub funny how Hollywood have now back away from it with out a single penny being paid, and look at Apple and Samsung its a battle that Apple is losing now big time, with people buying the Samsung more than the Apple. Apple might of won in the USA court rooms, but lost in the sales.
There use to be a Ford motors in Austrailia that had nothing to do with Fords Motor Company USA, the Austrailian government took over that Ford Motors in WWII, to make planes.
Get me the money and I will do it, I would still carry on making Transit vans, but I would not call it Fords I would call it some thing else, and I would make it a Workers Co-op, making it a Co-op would drop the price of the van by a few 1,000's, with no high price managerment getting in the way, just 1 good salesman, 1 engineer and the normal front line staff.
none of your coporations would be able compete with it in the same range.
I think you should be given the chance to run it and at the 'Save Fords' meeting you should put the case forward for the Union to put up a big share of the cash and the workforce can put in their redundancy pay. Take to the floor and put forward this plan as the Tusc lifeboat for the Southampton workforce, and don't forget to tell us how your suggestion was received.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: £10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place. All for what just to have a USA car brand name. Nationalise Fords and be done with it.[/p][/quote]Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on? Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested. Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.[/p][/quote]Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers. You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.[/p][/quote]So you're telling me that anybody can just walz in there now and start churning out Ford Transits? You need some basic lessons in how the world operates. Seriously.[/p][/quote]No you need to learn some thing, and that is how Fords operate, they get the countrys where there plants are to pay for it all, so that makes Fords plants owned by that country and are not the properity of Fords. The word Ford is a trade name and its design is copy righted, the word it self is not, the word transit is a model name and can be used but the design is copy righted and can not be used. You could call a transit some thing like this. State Transit or Co-op Transit or National Transit or a person who takes over, who's name is Ford can call it Ford Transit, there is nothing stopping this from happening. Its all legal and all above board.[/p][/quote]Go on then. Start a company, manufacturing vans, and call it Ford, and call the vans Transits. See how far you get. You really are a plum.[/p][/quote]If my name was Ford I could legally use it to name a company after my name, I can also use the word as the a meaning as in river Ford crossing and be able to legally use the word Ford. I can legally use the word Transit, because of its meaning, (The act of passing over, across, or through; passage), there is nothing stopping any one from using those words and it would be legal. What you can not do is copy the Ford Badge emblem, that is copy righted, in a number of colour arrangements, (there is how ever one Ford Badge that fords do not own, and the is the word Ford in silver with a green backgound in side an oval disc), the type of lettering that Fords use are not copy right also, so you could legally copy the word transit the same way. Give me the money to buy the Ford Transit factory and I will prove it to you that Fords would not have a leg to stand on. You can only copy right some thing as your own if its is unique.[/p][/quote]Give it a go Southy, Using the 'Ford' name is ok if you want to make brooms. Also look at The Hobbit pub in Southampton. Look at the fight between Apple and Samsung.[/p][/quote]yes look at the Hobbit pub funny how Hollywood have now back away from it with out a single penny being paid, and look at Apple and Samsung its a battle that Apple is losing now big time, with people buying the Samsung more than the Apple. Apple might of won in the USA court rooms, but lost in the sales. There use to be a Ford motors in Austrailia that had nothing to do with Fords Motor Company USA, the Austrailian government took over that Ford Motors in WWII, to make planes. Get me the money and I will do it, I would still carry on making Transit vans, but I would not call it Fords I would call it some thing else, and I would make it a Workers Co-op, making it a Co-op would drop the price of the van by a few 1,000's, with no high price managerment getting in the way, just 1 good salesman, 1 engineer and the normal front line staff. none of your coporations would be able compete with it in the same range.[/p][/quote]I think you should be given the chance to run it and at the 'Save Fords' meeting you should put the case forward for the Union to put up a big share of the cash and the workforce can put in their redundancy pay. Take to the floor and put forward this plan as the Tusc lifeboat for the Southampton workforce, and don't forget to tell us how your suggestion was received. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

12:27am Tue 30 Oct 12

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
£10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place.
All for what just to have a USA car brand name.
Nationalise Fords and be done with it.
Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on?
Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested.
Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.
Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers.
You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.
So you're telling me that anybody can just walz in there now and start churning out Ford Transits?

You need some basic lessons in how the world operates. Seriously.
No you need to learn some thing, and that is how Fords operate, they get the countrys where there plants are to pay for it all, so that makes Fords plants owned by that country and are not the properity of Fords.
The word Ford is a trade name and its design is copy righted, the word it self is not, the word transit is a model name and can be used but the design is copy righted and can not be used.
You could call a transit some thing like this.
State Transit or Co-op Transit or National Transit or a person who takes over, who's name is Ford can call it Ford Transit, there is nothing stopping this from happening. Its all legal and all above board.
Go on then. Start a company, manufacturing vans, and call it Ford, and call the vans Transits. See how far you get.

You really are a plum.
If my name was Ford I could legally use it to name a company after my name, I can also use the word as the a meaning as in river Ford crossing and be able to legally use the word Ford.
I can legally use the word Transit, because of its meaning, (The act of passing over, across, or through; passage), there is nothing stopping any one from using those words and it would be legal.
What you can not do is copy the Ford Badge emblem, that is copy righted, in a number of colour arrangements, (there is how ever one Ford Badge that fords do not own, and the is the word Ford in silver with a green backgound in side an oval disc), the type of lettering that Fords use are not copy right also, so you could legally copy the word transit the same way.
Give me the money to buy the Ford Transit factory and I will prove it to you that Fords would not have a leg to stand on.
You can only copy right some thing as your own if its is unique.
Give it a go Southy, Using the 'Ford' name is ok if you want to make brooms.

Also look at The Hobbit pub in Southampton.

Look at the fight between Apple and Samsung.
yes look at the Hobbit pub funny how Hollywood have now back away from it with out a single penny being paid, and look at Apple and Samsung its a battle that Apple is losing now big time, with people buying the Samsung more than the Apple. Apple might of won in the USA court rooms, but lost in the sales.
There use to be a Ford motors in Austrailia that had nothing to do with Fords Motor Company USA, the Austrailian government took over that Ford Motors in WWII, to make planes.
Get me the money and I will do it, I would still carry on making Transit vans, but I would not call it Fords I would call it some thing else, and I would make it a Workers Co-op, making it a Co-op would drop the price of the van by a few 1,000's, with no high price managerment getting in the way, just 1 good salesman, 1 engineer and the normal front line staff.
none of your coporations would be able compete with it in the same range.
I think you should be given the chance to run it and at the 'Save Fords' meeting you should put the case forward for the Union to put up a big share of the cash and the workforce can put in their redundancy pay. Take to the floor and put forward this plan as the Tusc lifeboat for the Southampton workforce, and don't forget to tell us how your suggestion was received.
I do not have that sort of money, but tell you what you put up the cash, i get it started and hand it over to a workers Co-op.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: £10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place. All for what just to have a USA car brand name. Nationalise Fords and be done with it.[/p][/quote]Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on? Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested. Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.[/p][/quote]Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers. You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.[/p][/quote]So you're telling me that anybody can just walz in there now and start churning out Ford Transits? You need some basic lessons in how the world operates. Seriously.[/p][/quote]No you need to learn some thing, and that is how Fords operate, they get the countrys where there plants are to pay for it all, so that makes Fords plants owned by that country and are not the properity of Fords. The word Ford is a trade name and its design is copy righted, the word it self is not, the word transit is a model name and can be used but the design is copy righted and can not be used. You could call a transit some thing like this. State Transit or Co-op Transit or National Transit or a person who takes over, who's name is Ford can call it Ford Transit, there is nothing stopping this from happening. Its all legal and all above board.[/p][/quote]Go on then. Start a company, manufacturing vans, and call it Ford, and call the vans Transits. See how far you get. You really are a plum.[/p][/quote]If my name was Ford I could legally use it to name a company after my name, I can also use the word as the a meaning as in river Ford crossing and be able to legally use the word Ford. I can legally use the word Transit, because of its meaning, (The act of passing over, across, or through; passage), there is nothing stopping any one from using those words and it would be legal. What you can not do is copy the Ford Badge emblem, that is copy righted, in a number of colour arrangements, (there is how ever one Ford Badge that fords do not own, and the is the word Ford in silver with a green backgound in side an oval disc), the type of lettering that Fords use are not copy right also, so you could legally copy the word transit the same way. Give me the money to buy the Ford Transit factory and I will prove it to you that Fords would not have a leg to stand on. You can only copy right some thing as your own if its is unique.[/p][/quote]Give it a go Southy, Using the 'Ford' name is ok if you want to make brooms. Also look at The Hobbit pub in Southampton. Look at the fight between Apple and Samsung.[/p][/quote]yes look at the Hobbit pub funny how Hollywood have now back away from it with out a single penny being paid, and look at Apple and Samsung its a battle that Apple is losing now big time, with people buying the Samsung more than the Apple. Apple might of won in the USA court rooms, but lost in the sales. There use to be a Ford motors in Austrailia that had nothing to do with Fords Motor Company USA, the Austrailian government took over that Ford Motors in WWII, to make planes. Get me the money and I will do it, I would still carry on making Transit vans, but I would not call it Fords I would call it some thing else, and I would make it a Workers Co-op, making it a Co-op would drop the price of the van by a few 1,000's, with no high price managerment getting in the way, just 1 good salesman, 1 engineer and the normal front line staff. none of your coporations would be able compete with it in the same range.[/p][/quote]I think you should be given the chance to run it and at the 'Save Fords' meeting you should put the case forward for the Union to put up a big share of the cash and the workforce can put in their redundancy pay. Take to the floor and put forward this plan as the Tusc lifeboat for the Southampton workforce, and don't forget to tell us how your suggestion was received.[/p][/quote]I do not have that sort of money, but tell you what you put up the cash, i get it started and hand it over to a workers Co-op. southy
  • Score: 0

12:46am Tue 30 Oct 12

Mr Cynical says...

No mention of thatcher but he stillmanages to talk utter ****.
Southy you will never get elected talking the absolute rubbish that you do. Go and read up on ip and trademarks.

And good luck with your save ford campaign in goblets. You might even get 15 people turn up in there.
You should call your little band Save Our Ford Transit Action Southampton Southy's Help Initiation Team.
No mention of thatcher but he stillmanages to talk utter ****. Southy you will never get elected talking the absolute rubbish that you do. Go and read up on ip and trademarks. And good luck with your save ford campaign in goblets. You might even get 15 people turn up in there. You should call your little band Save Our Ford Transit Action Southampton Southy's Help Initiation Team. Mr Cynical
  • Score: 0

12:49am Tue 30 Oct 12

Mr Cynical says...

What with this loon and Mr obee there seem to an awful lot of nutters putting themselves up for election nowadays.
What with this loon and Mr obee there seem to an awful lot of nutters putting themselves up for election nowadays. Mr Cynical
  • Score: 0

1:22am Tue 30 Oct 12

IronLady2010 says...

Mr Cynical wrote:
What with this loon and Mr obee there seem to an awful lot of nutters putting themselves up for election nowadays.
I feel nutters is being polite ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Mr Cynical[/bold] wrote: What with this loon and Mr obee there seem to an awful lot of nutters putting themselves up for election nowadays.[/p][/quote]I feel nutters is being polite ;-) IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

4:12am Tue 30 Oct 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

Dresnez wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
In other words this ConDem Coalition of unprincipled politicians is so stupid that they got shafted by multi national corporation, Ford.

If anybody expects big businesses to be open and honest then he/she has got to be the resident of some happy farm. With his past background Vince Cable should have know these tricks, but he was probably too busy briefing reporters against his Tory comrades in the government.

As Ford has done dirty on our workers, if those millions have already not been handed over government should tell the people who have cleared the application for money not to issue the cheque.

If Ford has already laid their greedy hands on those millions, government should confiscate Ford’s remaining assets in the UK, like land and buildings in Swathing.

If law is obstacle then surely if there is a will parliament could push through laws for this purpose. That is if our MPs from all the parties are not self serving hypocrite mob, but have loyalty to ordinary workers and the country. (Yes that is a big ask)

Strangely all those who often love insulting unemployed who may be receiving benefits, towards which they contributed before becoming the victims of super greedy bosses, bent bankers and their weak knead puppets in political class, seem to go conveniently when super sharks like Ford claim millions from Britain’s public purse. Is that no double standards?
Always enjoy your posts Paramjit.

When I asked a conservative MP during a local election why they were against nationalisation, that if the private sector could make a profit then why can't the government for the benefit of the nation.

He replied it was because Gov was notoriously bad at running business. When I said that perhaps government should be looking to ways to improve their ability to run a business whether private or public he avoided answering specifically and merely repeated that Gov was notoriously bad at running business.

So with all the wherewithal at their disposal MPs are unable to get a contract that is robust and protect the taxpayers interest. They are notoriously bad at franchising out to the private sector as well it would appear.

Very worrying when you think they are supposed to be the party for the business community and are supposed to business savvy.

Unlike the opposition who are only supposed to have understood recalcitrant workers.

We appear to have, across the board in ALL parties a load of very incompetent politicians who have wasted our countries assets by running down nationalised industries and then selling them off and then failing to collect the taxes from global corporations or regulated business.

They don't appear to have the nations interests at heart at all.
I am not surprised that Tory candidate played his usual anti nationalisation record to you, these robots are programmed.

But they conveniently forget that when private enterprise nearly made even Rolls Royce bankrupt, their Thatcher nationalised it, and it became a viable business once again. But then it was sold.

I am not sure what the situation is now, but one of the world's biggest car manufacturer VW used to be state owned. When privately run Auto Union nearly collapsed it was VW that saved it and turned into Audi.

I think recently VW have even taken over Porsche under some complex deal. But you may find that these days whole of VW may not be state owned, so difficult to say where it could end.

Tories and others don't want to know why 'some' nationalised industries in UK had few problems, it was mainly because governments kept on creating executive jobs for favourite but unfit for the purpose friends of people in power.

Situation not unfamiliar in even private sector. But with the help of media they can always blame workers.

If private sector is really as efficient as some would like us to believe, then why the banks failed, and why even Bush in USA had to use public money to save them?
[quote][p][bold]Dresnez[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: In other words this ConDem Coalition of unprincipled politicians is so stupid that they got shafted by multi national corporation, Ford. If anybody expects big businesses to be open and honest then he/she has got to be the resident of some happy farm. With his past background Vince Cable should have know these tricks, but he was probably too busy briefing reporters against his Tory comrades in the government. As Ford has done dirty on our workers, if those millions have already not been handed over government should tell the people who have cleared the application for money not to issue the cheque. If Ford has already laid their greedy hands on those millions, government should confiscate Ford’s remaining assets in the UK, like land and buildings in Swathing. If law is obstacle then surely if there is a will parliament could push through laws for this purpose. That is if our MPs from all the parties are not self serving hypocrite mob, but have loyalty to ordinary workers and the country. (Yes that is a big ask) Strangely all those who often love insulting unemployed who may be receiving benefits, towards which they contributed before becoming the victims of super greedy bosses, bent bankers and their weak knead puppets in political class, seem to go conveniently when super sharks like Ford claim millions from Britain’s public purse. Is that no double standards?[/p][/quote]Always enjoy your posts Paramjit. When I asked a conservative MP during a local election why they were against nationalisation, that if the private sector could make a profit then why can't the government for the benefit of the nation. He replied it was because Gov was notoriously bad at running business. When I said that perhaps government should be looking to ways to improve their ability to run a business whether private or public he avoided answering specifically and merely repeated that Gov was notoriously bad at running business. So with all the wherewithal at their disposal MPs are unable to get a contract that is robust and protect the taxpayers interest. They are notoriously bad at franchising out to the private sector as well it would appear. Very worrying when you think they are supposed to be the party for the business community and are supposed to business savvy. Unlike the opposition who are only supposed to have understood recalcitrant workers. We appear to have, across the board in ALL parties a load of very incompetent politicians who have wasted our countries assets by running down nationalised industries and then selling them off and then failing to collect the taxes from global corporations or regulated business. They don't appear to have the nations interests at heart at all.[/p][/quote]I am not surprised that Tory candidate played his usual anti nationalisation record to you, these robots are programmed. But they conveniently forget that when private enterprise nearly made even Rolls Royce bankrupt, their Thatcher nationalised it, and it became a viable business once again. But then it was sold. I am not sure what the situation is now, but one of the world's biggest car manufacturer VW used to be state owned. When privately run Auto Union nearly collapsed it was VW that saved it and turned into Audi. I think recently VW have even taken over Porsche under some complex deal. But you may find that these days whole of VW may not be state owned, so difficult to say where it could end. Tories and others don't want to know why 'some' nationalised industries in UK had few problems, it was mainly because governments kept on creating executive jobs for favourite but unfit for the purpose friends of people in power. Situation not unfamiliar in even private sector. But with the help of media they can always blame workers. If private sector is really as efficient as some would like us to believe, then why the banks failed, and why even Bush in USA had to use public money to save them? Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

6:39am Tue 30 Oct 12

Cyber__Fug says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
£10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place.
All for what just to have a USA car brand name.
Nationalise Fords and be done with it.
Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on?
Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested.
Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.
Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers.
You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.
So you're telling me that anybody can just walz in there now and start churning out Ford Transits?

You need some basic lessons in how the world operates. Seriously.
No you need to learn some thing, and that is how Fords operate, they get the countrys where there plants are to pay for it all, so that makes Fords plants owned by that country and are not the properity of Fords.
The word Ford is a trade name and its design is copy righted, the word it self is not, the word transit is a model name and can be used but the design is copy righted and can not be used.
You could call a transit some thing like this.
State Transit or Co-op Transit or National Transit or a person who takes over, who's name is Ford can call it Ford Transit, there is nothing stopping this from happening. Its all legal and all above board.
Go on then. Start a company, manufacturing vans, and call it Ford, and call the vans Transits. See how far you get.

You really are a plum.
If my name was Ford I could legally use it to name a company after my name, I can also use the word as the a meaning as in river Ford crossing and be able to legally use the word Ford.
I can legally use the word Transit, because of its meaning, (The act of passing over, across, or through; passage), there is nothing stopping any one from using those words and it would be legal.
What you can not do is copy the Ford Badge emblem, that is copy righted, in a number of colour arrangements, (there is how ever one Ford Badge that fords do not own, and the is the word Ford in silver with a green backgound in side an oval disc), the type of lettering that Fords use are not copy right also, so you could legally copy the word transit the same way.
Give me the money to buy the Ford Transit factory and I will prove it to you that Fords would not have a leg to stand on.
You can only copy right some thing as your own if its is unique.
Give it a go Southy, Using the 'Ford' name is ok if you want to make brooms.

Also look at The Hobbit pub in Southampton.

Look at the fight between Apple and Samsung.
yes look at the Hobbit pub funny how Hollywood have now back away from it with out a single penny being paid, and look at Apple and Samsung its a battle that Apple is losing now big time, with people buying the Samsung more than the Apple. Apple might of won in the USA court rooms, but lost in the sales.
There use to be a Ford motors in Austrailia that had nothing to do with Fords Motor Company USA, the Austrailian government took over that Ford Motors in WWII, to make planes.
Get me the money and I will do it, I would still carry on making Transit vans, but I would not call it Fords I would call it some thing else, and I would make it a Workers Co-op, making it a Co-op would drop the price of the van by a few 1,000's, with no high price managerment getting in the way, just 1 good salesman, 1 engineer and the normal front line staff.
none of your coporations would be able compete with it in the same range.
I think you should be given the chance to run it and at the 'Save Fords' meeting you should put the case forward for the Union to put up a big share of the cash and the workforce can put in their redundancy pay. Take to the floor and put forward this plan as the Tusc lifeboat for the Southampton workforce, and don't forget to tell us how your suggestion was received.
I do not have that sort of money, but tell you what you put up the cash, i get it started and hand it over to a workers Co-op.
By your own admission, you do not need the cash because the government has paid for everything..... so go on Southy, go for it !!!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: £10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place. All for what just to have a USA car brand name. Nationalise Fords and be done with it.[/p][/quote]Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on? Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested. Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.[/p][/quote]Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers. You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.[/p][/quote]So you're telling me that anybody can just walz in there now and start churning out Ford Transits? You need some basic lessons in how the world operates. Seriously.[/p][/quote]No you need to learn some thing, and that is how Fords operate, they get the countrys where there plants are to pay for it all, so that makes Fords plants owned by that country and are not the properity of Fords. The word Ford is a trade name and its design is copy righted, the word it self is not, the word transit is a model name and can be used but the design is copy righted and can not be used. You could call a transit some thing like this. State Transit or Co-op Transit or National Transit or a person who takes over, who's name is Ford can call it Ford Transit, there is nothing stopping this from happening. Its all legal and all above board.[/p][/quote]Go on then. Start a company, manufacturing vans, and call it Ford, and call the vans Transits. See how far you get. You really are a plum.[/p][/quote]If my name was Ford I could legally use it to name a company after my name, I can also use the word as the a meaning as in river Ford crossing and be able to legally use the word Ford. I can legally use the word Transit, because of its meaning, (The act of passing over, across, or through; passage), there is nothing stopping any one from using those words and it would be legal. What you can not do is copy the Ford Badge emblem, that is copy righted, in a number of colour arrangements, (there is how ever one Ford Badge that fords do not own, and the is the word Ford in silver with a green backgound in side an oval disc), the type of lettering that Fords use are not copy right also, so you could legally copy the word transit the same way. Give me the money to buy the Ford Transit factory and I will prove it to you that Fords would not have a leg to stand on. You can only copy right some thing as your own if its is unique.[/p][/quote]Give it a go Southy, Using the 'Ford' name is ok if you want to make brooms. Also look at The Hobbit pub in Southampton. Look at the fight between Apple and Samsung.[/p][/quote]yes look at the Hobbit pub funny how Hollywood have now back away from it with out a single penny being paid, and look at Apple and Samsung its a battle that Apple is losing now big time, with people buying the Samsung more than the Apple. Apple might of won in the USA court rooms, but lost in the sales. There use to be a Ford motors in Austrailia that had nothing to do with Fords Motor Company USA, the Austrailian government took over that Ford Motors in WWII, to make planes. Get me the money and I will do it, I would still carry on making Transit vans, but I would not call it Fords I would call it some thing else, and I would make it a Workers Co-op, making it a Co-op would drop the price of the van by a few 1,000's, with no high price managerment getting in the way, just 1 good salesman, 1 engineer and the normal front line staff. none of your coporations would be able compete with it in the same range.[/p][/quote]I think you should be given the chance to run it and at the 'Save Fords' meeting you should put the case forward for the Union to put up a big share of the cash and the workforce can put in their redundancy pay. Take to the floor and put forward this plan as the Tusc lifeboat for the Southampton workforce, and don't forget to tell us how your suggestion was received.[/p][/quote]I do not have that sort of money, but tell you what you put up the cash, i get it started and hand it over to a workers Co-op.[/p][/quote]By your own admission, you do not need the cash because the government has paid for everything..... so go on Southy, go for it !!! Cyber__Fug
  • Score: 0

6:58am Tue 30 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Dresnez wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
In other words this ConDem Coalition of unprincipled politicians is so stupid that they got shafted by multi national corporation, Ford.

If anybody expects big businesses to be open and honest then he/she has got to be the resident of some happy farm. With his past background Vince Cable should have know these tricks, but he was probably too busy briefing reporters against his Tory comrades in the government.

As Ford has done dirty on our workers, if those millions have already not been handed over government should tell the people who have cleared the application for money not to issue the cheque.

If Ford has already laid their greedy hands on those millions, government should confiscate Ford’s remaining assets in the UK, like land and buildings in Swathing.

If law is obstacle then surely if there is a will parliament could push through laws for this purpose. That is if our MPs from all the parties are not self serving hypocrite mob, but have loyalty to ordinary workers and the country. (Yes that is a big ask)

Strangely all those who often love insulting unemployed who may be receiving benefits, towards which they contributed before becoming the victims of super greedy bosses, bent bankers and their weak knead puppets in political class, seem to go conveniently when super sharks like Ford claim millions from Britain’s public purse. Is that no double standards?
Always enjoy your posts Paramjit.

When I asked a conservative MP during a local election why they were against nationalisation, that if the private sector could make a profit then why can't the government for the benefit of the nation.

He replied it was because Gov was notoriously bad at running business. When I said that perhaps government should be looking to ways to improve their ability to run a business whether private or public he avoided answering specifically and merely repeated that Gov was notoriously bad at running business.

So with all the wherewithal at their disposal MPs are unable to get a contract that is robust and protect the taxpayers interest. They are notoriously bad at franchising out to the private sector as well it would appear.

Very worrying when you think they are supposed to be the party for the business community and are supposed to business savvy.

Unlike the opposition who are only supposed to have understood recalcitrant workers.

We appear to have, across the board in ALL parties a load of very incompetent politicians who have wasted our countries assets by running down nationalised industries and then selling them off and then failing to collect the taxes from global corporations or regulated business.

They don't appear to have the nations interests at heart at all.
I am not surprised that Tory candidate played his usual anti nationalisation record to you, these robots are programmed.

But they conveniently forget that when private enterprise nearly made even Rolls Royce bankrupt, their Thatcher nationalised it, and it became a viable business once again. But then it was sold.

I am not sure what the situation is now, but one of the world's biggest car manufacturer VW used to be state owned. When privately run Auto Union nearly collapsed it was VW that saved it and turned into Audi.

I think recently VW have even taken over Porsche under some complex deal. But you may find that these days whole of VW may not be state owned, so difficult to say where it could end.

Tories and others don't want to know why 'some' nationalised industries in UK had few problems, it was mainly because governments kept on creating executive jobs for favourite but unfit for the purpose friends of people in power.

Situation not unfamiliar in even private sector. But with the help of media they can always blame workers.

If private sector is really as efficient as some would like us to believe, then why the banks failed, and why even Bush in USA had to use public money to save them?
Or why once Nationalised the left wing nutters think they can strike when ever they like with no fear of losing their jobs.
Or to produce shoddy cars sleep on the job & yes have no fear of the sack as with British Leyland.
Or hold a city to ransom & demand that most of the town centre comes under the docks & only dock workers are employed as our dockie's tried to do.
Bt was failing as money it earn't went into the Post Office or government pockets so never being able to invest in new technologies.
The Coal industry was running at a huge loss yet King Arthur took them on strike after strike & only after de-nationalisation of our Power Industry did we no longer need his coal.
Paramjit I remember the 70's & I also remember certain Unions actions & I never want to go back to those days.
The one thing I'll give you is if that idiot Ted Heath hadn't railroaded us into the EEC ( common market not the EU) maybe the winter of discontent might never have happened
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dresnez[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: In other words this ConDem Coalition of unprincipled politicians is so stupid that they got shafted by multi national corporation, Ford. If anybody expects big businesses to be open and honest then he/she has got to be the resident of some happy farm. With his past background Vince Cable should have know these tricks, but he was probably too busy briefing reporters against his Tory comrades in the government. As Ford has done dirty on our workers, if those millions have already not been handed over government should tell the people who have cleared the application for money not to issue the cheque. If Ford has already laid their greedy hands on those millions, government should confiscate Ford’s remaining assets in the UK, like land and buildings in Swathing. If law is obstacle then surely if there is a will parliament could push through laws for this purpose. That is if our MPs from all the parties are not self serving hypocrite mob, but have loyalty to ordinary workers and the country. (Yes that is a big ask) Strangely all those who often love insulting unemployed who may be receiving benefits, towards which they contributed before becoming the victims of super greedy bosses, bent bankers and their weak knead puppets in political class, seem to go conveniently when super sharks like Ford claim millions from Britain’s public purse. Is that no double standards?[/p][/quote]Always enjoy your posts Paramjit. When I asked a conservative MP during a local election why they were against nationalisation, that if the private sector could make a profit then why can't the government for the benefit of the nation. He replied it was because Gov was notoriously bad at running business. When I said that perhaps government should be looking to ways to improve their ability to run a business whether private or public he avoided answering specifically and merely repeated that Gov was notoriously bad at running business. So with all the wherewithal at their disposal MPs are unable to get a contract that is robust and protect the taxpayers interest. They are notoriously bad at franchising out to the private sector as well it would appear. Very worrying when you think they are supposed to be the party for the business community and are supposed to business savvy. Unlike the opposition who are only supposed to have understood recalcitrant workers. We appear to have, across the board in ALL parties a load of very incompetent politicians who have wasted our countries assets by running down nationalised industries and then selling them off and then failing to collect the taxes from global corporations or regulated business. They don't appear to have the nations interests at heart at all.[/p][/quote]I am not surprised that Tory candidate played his usual anti nationalisation record to you, these robots are programmed. But they conveniently forget that when private enterprise nearly made even Rolls Royce bankrupt, their Thatcher nationalised it, and it became a viable business once again. But then it was sold. I am not sure what the situation is now, but one of the world's biggest car manufacturer VW used to be state owned. When privately run Auto Union nearly collapsed it was VW that saved it and turned into Audi. I think recently VW have even taken over Porsche under some complex deal. But you may find that these days whole of VW may not be state owned, so difficult to say where it could end. Tories and others don't want to know why 'some' nationalised industries in UK had few problems, it was mainly because governments kept on creating executive jobs for favourite but unfit for the purpose friends of people in power. Situation not unfamiliar in even private sector. But with the help of media they can always blame workers. If private sector is really as efficient as some would like us to believe, then why the banks failed, and why even Bush in USA had to use public money to save them?[/p][/quote]Or why once Nationalised the left wing nutters think they can strike when ever they like with no fear of losing their jobs. Or to produce shoddy cars sleep on the job & yes have no fear of the sack as with British Leyland. Or hold a city to ransom & demand that most of the town centre comes under the docks & only dock workers are employed as our dockie's tried to do. Bt was failing as money it earn't went into the Post Office or government pockets so never being able to invest in new technologies. The Coal industry was running at a huge loss yet King Arthur took them on strike after strike & only after de-nationalisation of our Power Industry did we no longer need his coal. Paramjit I remember the 70's & I also remember certain Unions actions & I never want to go back to those days. The one thing I'll give you is if that idiot Ted Heath hadn't railroaded us into the EEC ( common market not the EU) maybe the winter of discontent might never have happened loosehead
  • Score: 0

8:16am Tue 30 Oct 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
£10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place.
All for what just to have a USA car brand name.
Nationalise Fords and be done with it.
Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on?
Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested.
Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.
Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers.
You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.
So you're telling me that anybody can just walz in there now and start churning out Ford Transits?

You need some basic lessons in how the world operates. Seriously.
No you need to learn some thing, and that is how Fords operate, they get the countrys where there plants are to pay for it all, so that makes Fords plants owned by that country and are not the properity of Fords.
The word Ford is a trade name and its design is copy righted, the word it self is not, the word transit is a model name and can be used but the design is copy righted and can not be used.
You could call a transit some thing like this.
State Transit or Co-op Transit or National Transit or a person who takes over, who's name is Ford can call it Ford Transit, there is nothing stopping this from happening. Its all legal and all above board.
Go on then. Start a company, manufacturing vans, and call it Ford, and call the vans Transits. See how far you get.

You really are a plum.
If my name was Ford I could legally use it to name a company after my name, I can also use the word as the a meaning as in river Ford crossing and be able to legally use the word Ford.
I can legally use the word Transit, because of its meaning, (The act of passing over, across, or through; passage), there is nothing stopping any one from using those words and it would be legal.
What you can not do is copy the Ford Badge emblem, that is copy righted, in a number of colour arrangements, (there is how ever one Ford Badge that fords do not own, and the is the word Ford in silver with a green backgound in side an oval disc), the type of lettering that Fords use are not copy right also, so you could legally copy the word transit the same way.
Give me the money to buy the Ford Transit factory and I will prove it to you that Fords would not have a leg to stand on.
You can only copy right some thing as your own if its is unique.
Give it a go Southy, Using the 'Ford' name is ok if you want to make brooms.

Also look at The Hobbit pub in Southampton.

Look at the fight between Apple and Samsung.
yes look at the Hobbit pub funny how Hollywood have now back away from it with out a single penny being paid, and look at Apple and Samsung its a battle that Apple is losing now big time, with people buying the Samsung more than the Apple. Apple might of won in the USA court rooms, but lost in the sales.
There use to be a Ford motors in Austrailia that had nothing to do with Fords Motor Company USA, the Austrailian government took over that Ford Motors in WWII, to make planes.
Get me the money and I will do it, I would still carry on making Transit vans, but I would not call it Fords I would call it some thing else, and I would make it a Workers Co-op, making it a Co-op would drop the price of the van by a few 1,000's, with no high price managerment getting in the way, just 1 good salesman, 1 engineer and the normal front line staff.
none of your coporations would be able compete with it in the same range.
How do you know no money was paid to "Hollywood" by the Hobbit pub?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: £10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place. All for what just to have a USA car brand name. Nationalise Fords and be done with it.[/p][/quote]Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on? Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested. Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.[/p][/quote]Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers. You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.[/p][/quote]So you're telling me that anybody can just walz in there now and start churning out Ford Transits? You need some basic lessons in how the world operates. Seriously.[/p][/quote]No you need to learn some thing, and that is how Fords operate, they get the countrys where there plants are to pay for it all, so that makes Fords plants owned by that country and are not the properity of Fords. The word Ford is a trade name and its design is copy righted, the word it self is not, the word transit is a model name and can be used but the design is copy righted and can not be used. You could call a transit some thing like this. State Transit or Co-op Transit or National Transit or a person who takes over, who's name is Ford can call it Ford Transit, there is nothing stopping this from happening. Its all legal and all above board.[/p][/quote]Go on then. Start a company, manufacturing vans, and call it Ford, and call the vans Transits. See how far you get. You really are a plum.[/p][/quote]If my name was Ford I could legally use it to name a company after my name, I can also use the word as the a meaning as in river Ford crossing and be able to legally use the word Ford. I can legally use the word Transit, because of its meaning, (The act of passing over, across, or through; passage), there is nothing stopping any one from using those words and it would be legal. What you can not do is copy the Ford Badge emblem, that is copy righted, in a number of colour arrangements, (there is how ever one Ford Badge that fords do not own, and the is the word Ford in silver with a green backgound in side an oval disc), the type of lettering that Fords use are not copy right also, so you could legally copy the word transit the same way. Give me the money to buy the Ford Transit factory and I will prove it to you that Fords would not have a leg to stand on. You can only copy right some thing as your own if its is unique.[/p][/quote]Give it a go Southy, Using the 'Ford' name is ok if you want to make brooms. Also look at The Hobbit pub in Southampton. Look at the fight between Apple and Samsung.[/p][/quote]yes look at the Hobbit pub funny how Hollywood have now back away from it with out a single penny being paid, and look at Apple and Samsung its a battle that Apple is losing now big time, with people buying the Samsung more than the Apple. Apple might of won in the USA court rooms, but lost in the sales. There use to be a Ford motors in Austrailia that had nothing to do with Fords Motor Company USA, the Austrailian government took over that Ford Motors in WWII, to make planes. Get me the money and I will do it, I would still carry on making Transit vans, but I would not call it Fords I would call it some thing else, and I would make it a Workers Co-op, making it a Co-op would drop the price of the van by a few 1,000's, with no high price managerment getting in the way, just 1 good salesman, 1 engineer and the normal front line staff. none of your coporations would be able compete with it in the same range.[/p][/quote]How do you know no money was paid to "Hollywood" by the Hobbit pub? Georgem
  • Score: 0

8:18am Tue 30 Oct 12

Georgem says...

I do love the accusation that "all corporations blackmail the government"....from the same person who thinks people should strike to get whatever they want, constantly.
I do love the accusation that "all corporations blackmail the government"....from the same person who thinks people should strike to get whatever they want, constantly. Georgem
  • Score: 0

8:52am Tue 30 Oct 12

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
£10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place.
All for what just to have a USA car brand name.
Nationalise Fords and be done with it.
Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on?
Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested.
Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.
Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers.
You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.
So you're telling me that anybody can just walz in there now and start churning out Ford Transits?

You need some basic lessons in how the world operates. Seriously.
No you need to learn some thing, and that is how Fords operate, they get the countrys where there plants are to pay for it all, so that makes Fords plants owned by that country and are not the properity of Fords.
The word Ford is a trade name and its design is copy righted, the word it self is not, the word transit is a model name and can be used but the design is copy righted and can not be used.
You could call a transit some thing like this.
State Transit or Co-op Transit or National Transit or a person who takes over, who's name is Ford can call it Ford Transit, there is nothing stopping this from happening. Its all legal and all above board.
Go on then. Start a company, manufacturing vans, and call it Ford, and call the vans Transits. See how far you get.

You really are a plum.
If my name was Ford I could legally use it to name a company after my name, I can also use the word as the a meaning as in river Ford crossing and be able to legally use the word Ford.
I can legally use the word Transit, because of its meaning, (The act of passing over, across, or through; passage), there is nothing stopping any one from using those words and it would be legal.
What you can not do is copy the Ford Badge emblem, that is copy righted, in a number of colour arrangements, (there is how ever one Ford Badge that fords do not own, and the is the word Ford in silver with a green backgound in side an oval disc), the type of lettering that Fords use are not copy right also, so you could legally copy the word transit the same way.
Give me the money to buy the Ford Transit factory and I will prove it to you that Fords would not have a leg to stand on.
You can only copy right some thing as your own if its is unique.
Give it a go Southy, Using the 'Ford' name is ok if you want to make brooms.

Also look at The Hobbit pub in Southampton.

Look at the fight between Apple and Samsung.
yes look at the Hobbit pub funny how Hollywood have now back away from it with out a single penny being paid, and look at Apple and Samsung its a battle that Apple is losing now big time, with people buying the Samsung more than the Apple. Apple might of won in the USA court rooms, but lost in the sales.
There use to be a Ford motors in Austrailia that had nothing to do with Fords Motor Company USA, the Austrailian government took over that Ford Motors in WWII, to make planes.
Get me the money and I will do it, I would still carry on making Transit vans, but I would not call it Fords I would call it some thing else, and I would make it a Workers Co-op, making it a Co-op would drop the price of the van by a few 1,000's, with no high price managerment getting in the way, just 1 good salesman, 1 engineer and the normal front line staff.
none of your coporations would be able compete with it in the same range.
I think you should be given the chance to run it and at the 'Save Fords' meeting you should put the case forward for the Union to put up a big share of the cash and the workforce can put in their redundancy pay. Take to the floor and put forward this plan as the Tusc lifeboat for the Southampton workforce, and don't forget to tell us how your suggestion was received.
I do not have that sort of money, but tell you what you put up the cash, i get it started and hand it over to a workers Co-op.
Socialism will always be about taking something that you haven't earned and giving it to someone who won't value it because they don't understand the effort involved in creating it. The Unions are all about the workers and their money along with redundancy pay could generate bright futures if the plan works, but the risks have to be understood. The workers could then look at their own 'co-op' with pride knowing that their money and effort created it.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: £10 million is only a small amount that Fords have recieved from Government, they had £50 million just to change tools a few years ago, every time Fords have change tools they have had tax payers money, every thing was paid for to them to be here in the first place. All for what just to have a USA car brand name. Nationalise Fords and be done with it.[/p][/quote]Nationalise Fords. What planet are you on? Please tell me how the UK can nationalise an American company, as I would be very interested. Then perhaps we could also start with nationalising Microsoft and Google.[/p][/quote]Tell me what Fords really own, they don't own the factory that was paid for by the tax payers, they don't own the machinery and tools that was paid by tax payers, they don't own the designs that is under licence and paid for from sales, so what do fords really own that is the badge that is stuck on and even the making of those badges are paid by the tax payers. You nationalise the factorys keep people working, and just change the brand name.[/p][/quote]So you're telling me that anybody can just walz in there now and start churning out Ford Transits? You need some basic lessons in how the world operates. Seriously.[/p][/quote]No you need to learn some thing, and that is how Fords operate, they get the countrys where there plants are to pay for it all, so that makes Fords plants owned by that country and are not the properity of Fords. The word Ford is a trade name and its design is copy righted, the word it self is not, the word transit is a model name and can be used but the design is copy righted and can not be used. You could call a transit some thing like this. State Transit or Co-op Transit or National Transit or a person who takes over, who's name is Ford can call it Ford Transit, there is nothing stopping this from happening. Its all legal and all above board.[/p][/quote]Go on then. Start a company, manufacturing vans, and call it Ford, and call the vans Transits. See how far you get. You really are a plum.[/p][/quote]If my name was Ford I could legally use it to name a company after my name, I can also use the word as the a meaning as in river Ford crossing and be able to legally use the word Ford. I can legally use the word Transit, because of its meaning, (The act of passing over, across, or through; passage), there is nothing stopping any one from using those words and it would be legal. What you can not do is copy the Ford Badge emblem, that is copy righted, in a number of colour arrangements, (there is how ever one Ford Badge that fords do not own, and the is the word Ford in silver with a green backgound in side an oval disc), the type of lettering that Fords use are not copy right also, so you could legally copy the word transit the same way. Give me the money to buy the Ford Transit factory and I will prove it to you that Fords would not have a leg to stand on. You can only copy right some thing as your own if its is unique.[/p][/quote]Give it a go Southy, Using the 'Ford' name is ok if you want to make brooms. Also look at The Hobbit pub in Southampton. Look at the fight between Apple and Samsung.[/p][/quote]yes look at the Hobbit pub funny how Hollywood have now back away from it with out a single penny being paid, and look at Apple and Samsung its a battle that Apple is losing now big time, with people buying the Samsung more than the Apple. Apple might of won in the USA court rooms, but lost in the sales. There use to be a Ford motors in Austrailia that had nothing to do with Fords Motor Company USA, the Austrailian government took over that Ford Motors in WWII, to make planes. Get me the money and I will do it, I would still carry on making Transit vans, but I would not call it Fords I would call it some thing else, and I would make it a Workers Co-op, making it a Co-op would drop the price of the van by a few 1,000's, with no high price managerment getting in the way, just 1 good salesman, 1 engineer and the normal front line staff. none of your coporations would be able compete with it in the same range.[/p][/quote]I think you should be given the chance to run it and at the 'Save Fords' meeting you should put the case forward for the Union to put up a big share of the cash and the workforce can put in their redundancy pay. Take to the floor and put forward this plan as the Tusc lifeboat for the Southampton workforce, and don't forget to tell us how your suggestion was received.[/p][/quote]I do not have that sort of money, but tell you what you put up the cash, i get it started and hand it over to a workers Co-op.[/p][/quote]Socialism will always be about taking something that you haven't earned and giving it to someone who won't value it because they don't understand the effort involved in creating it. The Unions are all about the workers and their money along with redundancy pay could generate bright futures if the plan works, but the risks have to be understood. The workers could then look at their own 'co-op' with pride knowing that their money and effort created it. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

10:01am Tue 30 Oct 12

freefinker says...

Georgem wrote:
I do love the accusation that "all corporations blackmail the government"....from the same person who thinks people should strike to get whatever they want, constantly.
.. I know, great, isn't it?

Unfortunately, I've never met a Trot who understood irony - so it will be totally lost on southy.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: I do love the accusation that "all corporations blackmail the government"....from the same person who thinks people should strike to get whatever they want, constantly.[/p][/quote].. I know, great, isn't it? Unfortunately, I've never met a Trot who understood irony - so it will be totally lost on southy. freefinker
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree