[zb]
anorak:
Carryfast:
No insults were thrown his way unlike mine.
He clearly and unjustly trashed the memory of a qualified engineer who was good enough to make the rank of Leutenant REME in WW2 with spurious aspertions which the dates and the Marathon itself prove weren’t true.
If Stokes was guilty of what Gingerfold said ironically the Marathon would never have been produced and AEC would have closed down before 1975.
He obviously heard some biased bs and then ran off crying like a girl when he was called out on it.
Hahaha!!! No insults then, two sentences of silly ■■■■■■■■ later, the sort of insult which normally summons it’s target’s fists. What a beaut you are.
Why don’t you start a thread dealing specifically with your ideas on corporate management, like you did with engine design? Then, all the foolishness is kept in one place, no one who can’t stand it abandons the Forum and, eventually, you learn a lesson.
If you remember I actually abandoned the engine design topic ‘which I started’ for the same reasons.
Stop making the case for Eagle v TL12 because the ‘special’ ones are getting upset hearing the truth. 
So far it’s been a case of mustn’t trash the TL12 v RR let alone the V8.
Don’t even think of calling the F88 overrated even though ERF proved that it was with the NGC.So I also left the Paul Gee topic so as not to upset Dean even though he also rates the NGC which is an oxymoron.
Then don’t dare argue with gingerfold’s claim that Stokes was out to ‘get’ AEC.
When it was Stokes who put the Marathon into production while Edwardes closed down the firm almost 5 years after Stokes had stepped down from the job.
While AEC was still producing trucks, in the form of the Marathon at least, around 3 years after Stokes had left the job.
Then it’s supposedly my fault for telling it like it was not biased bs hearsay.
It’s not me that ran away crying.
[zb]
anorak:
Carryfast:
No insults were thrown his way unlike mine.
He clearly and unjustly trashed the memory of a qualified engineer who was good enough to make the rank of Leutenant REME in WW2 with spurious aspertions which the dates and the Marathon itself prove weren’t true.
If Stokes was guilty of what Gingerfold said ironically the Marathon would never have been produced and AEC would have closed down before 1975.
He obviously heard some biased bs and then ran off crying like a girl when he was called out on it.
Hahaha!!! No insults then, two sentences of silly ■■■■■■■■ later, the sort of insult which normally summons it’s target’s fists. What a beaut you are.
Why don’t you start a thread dealing specifically with your ideas on corporate management, like you did with engine design? Then, all the foolishness is kept in one place, no one who can’t stand it abandons the Forum and, eventually, you learn a lesson.
I regard CF’s posts as I do life in general. That is, not to be taken too seriously. I enjoy seeing what he comes up with next and always trying to see the funny side. Not always easy I know, but some of what he spouts really is hilarious.
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
stargazer148:
Hi I think it goes back to various threads which carryfast (who thinks he’s better qualified 
)hi-jacked and gingerfold got fed up arguing with him and simply gave up.I to miss his very interesting & informative posts. cheers Ray
I’ve often argued with many people on one post and agreed with them on another including gingerfold.It’s called discussion it’s what forums are for.
The ‘various threads’ in question mostly came down to Gingerfold being happy to trash the memory of one person in the form of Stokes in blaming him for the closure of his beloved do no wrong AEC.
But then seems to have thrown his toys out of the pram because I dared to suggest that AEC’s problems originated closer to home and was then finished off by hatchet man Edwards.
The inconvenient facts, that AEC were still manufacturing trucks well after Stokes had stepped down and signing off the Marathon for production isn’t the mark of someone supposedly out to ‘get’ AEC, made no difference to his irrational assertions in that regard.
He seems to have decided to make an immature drama rather than explain how Stokes supposedly ran down AEC when the run down only started after Stokes had gone.
I see it quite differently , a man who has spent years researching AEC and speaking to people high up in the company and finding out first hand what went on in the boardroom and decisions made by the Leyland top brass is quite right to feel enough is enough when his posts are belittled by someone who seems to want to cause an argument for the sake of it. Not just Graham though many others on here have had to read your replies where you write about a subject you clearly know nothing at all about but want to stir up an argument , not a discussion. Many on here liked to read Grahams posts and i for one have bought many of his books , some of which my late father mislaid and Graham was kind enough to send me copies free of charge as they were out of print.
So i would like to congratulate you give you a big pat on the back and say well done CF you’ve made your day , because lets face it thats what you’re all about.
No insults were thrown his way unlike mine.
He clearly and unjustly trashed the memory of a qualified engineer who was good enough to make the rank of Leutenant REME in WW2 with spurious aspertions which the dates and the Marathon itself prove weren’t true.
If Stokes was guilty of what Gingerfold said ironically the Marathon would never have been produced and AEC would have closed down before 1975.
He obviously heard some biased bs and then ran off crying like a girl when he was called out on it.
So what dont fit with your way of thinking is biased bs. This is exactly what i was getting at. People who worked at Southall and were actually involved with the running of the place knew nothing whereas you who has probably never been to the place never mind worked there is an expert on what was going on. The Marathon everyone knows was designed on a shoestring budget , this wasnt a gift from Stokes it was down to bad management from Leylands top brass in the first place for not investing in development . AEC stopped producing true AECs in 1976 , the Reliance and Marathon which in itself was a stop gap for the Roadtrain were the only things being built there. Edwards didnt work at BL until 1977 when the Marathon 2 was launched. Leyland were already offering Mandator , Marshall and Mammoth Major alternatives with the L12 engine being offered in the Leylands but AEC customers didnt want them . The Leopard was offered with a 6 speed ZF to lure Reliance workers , it didnt work . Does this sound like decisions Edwards made on his first day at BL. He was far too busy trying to sort industrial action out. The AECs of 1965 were little changed to the very last ones produced in 1976 , apart from putting leftover Lynx grilles on the front on the last ones. AEC was run down , the V8 was ridiculously under funded the same with the Marathon. Whereas the fixed head 500 the Gas Turbine and the semi automatic boxes Leyland spent millions on were all expensive dead ducks. Stokes was in charge and the decisions were made by his board , Edwards arrived to clean up the mess but it was too late. But all this is irrelevant , the people who have spent vast amounts of time researching the events and had accurate accounts of what went on from well respected former board members are just biased because you dont like what you read
Dipster:
[zb]
anorak:
Carryfast:
No insults were thrown his way unlike mine.
He clearly and unjustly trashed the memory of a qualified engineer who was good enough to make the rank of Leutenant REME in WW2 with spurious aspertions which the dates and the Marathon itself prove weren’t true.
If Stokes was guilty of what Gingerfold said ironically the Marathon would never have been produced and AEC would have closed down before 1975.
He obviously heard some biased bs and then ran off crying like a girl when he was called out on it.
Hahaha!!! No insults then, two sentences of silly ■■■■■■■■ later, the sort of insult which normally summons it’s target’s fists. What a beaut you are.
Why don’t you start a thread dealing specifically with your ideas on corporate management, like you did with engine design? Then, all the foolishness is kept in one place, no one who can’t stand it abandons the Forum and, eventually, you learn a lesson.
I regard CF’s posts as I do life in general. That is, not to be taken too seriously. I enjoy seeing what he comes up with next and always trying to see the funny side. Not always easy I know, but some of what he spouts really is hilarious.
I agree with your sentiments Dipster,but the Pratt doesn’t know when to stop!..consequently he ends up
putting contributors noses out of joint!
David
Just standing back a pace to survey the scene, a couple of points should be borne in mind. Any initial post that offends some people is made by choice. Any response to that post is also a choice.
All posters are entitled to express their opinions and beliefs within reason. If you profoundly disagree with a post, using the TN rules, you can try any of the following:
-
Ignore the post altogether and dismiss it in your mind as rubbish
-
Patiently and thoroughly dismantle the offending poster’s argument
-
Respond angrily and become embroiled in an online verbal brawl
-
Press the Report button on the upper right-hand side of the post and tell moderators why you object to the post, taking care to point out which particular rule you think it breaks (like attacking the poster instead of the subject, for example - or if the post contains a lot of irrelevant random crap, it can be removed if the team think it contravenes the rules on random crap)
-
Take a few days off TN and breeze in again refreshed
Ro
EDIT to add that when you go on social media, you are dealing with faceless people, most of whom are benign. There are also people who struggle with conditions like autism and bi-polarism; or disabilities like alcoholism and any number of complaints. My personal policy is if it looks like a troll or a keyboard warrior, walk round it!
ramone:
So what dont fit with your way of thinking is biased bs. This is exactly what i was getting at. People who worked at Southall and were actually involved with the running of the place knew nothing whereas you who has probably never been to the place never mind worked there is an expert on what was going on. The Marathon everyone knows was designed on a shoestring budget , this wasnt a gift from Stokes it was down to bad management from Leylands top brass in the first place for not investing in development . AEC stopped producing true AECs in 1976 , the Reliance and Marathon which in itself was a stop gap for the Roadtrain were the only things being built there. Edwards didnt work at BL until 1977 when the Marathon 2 was launched. Leyland were already offering Mandator , Marshall and Mammoth Major alternatives with the L12 engine being offered in the Leylands but AEC customers didnt want them . The Leopard was offered with a 6 speed ZF to lure Reliance workers , it didnt work . Does this sound like decisions Edwards made on his first day at BL. He was far too busy trying to sort industrial action out. The AECs of 1965 were little changed to the very last ones produced in 1976 , apart from putting leftover Lynx grilles on the front on the last ones. AEC was run down , the V8 was ridiculously under funded the same with the Marathon. Whereas the fixed head 500 the Gas Turbine and the semi automatic boxes Leyland spent millions on were all expensive dead ducks. Stokes was in charge and the decisions were made by his board , Edwards arrived to clean up the mess but it was too late. But all this is irrelevant , the people who have spent vast amounts of time researching the events and had accurate accounts of what went on from well respected former board members are just biased because you dont like what you read
You do know that Edwardes didn’t take over the reigns from Stokes.There was an interim CEO.
Marathon production was shifted from AEC to Leyland on Edwardes’ watch long after Stokes had gone.
If Stokes was really supposedly out to ‘get’ AEC knocking the TL12 and Marathon project on the head would have been the perfect time to do it.Then move Scammell into AEC’s facilities.Which would have ironically saved the truck division.
It was Edwardes who ran down not only AEC but also Scammell and Rover and Triumph.
That’s not bias on my part that’s a fact.The dates and timeline prove it.
As for the V8, 500 and the TL12 they were all design lemons from the drawing board stage not a funding problem.There was no way that Stokes could have fixed that nor could any amount of good funding thrown after bad.
His only options at that point were sign off what the designers had given him or resign.His only and biggest mistake being that he didn’t choose the latter at that point.
The facts as to who was responsible for what happened next are all there in the Ryder Report in which Edwardes trashed it obviously on Thatcher’s orders with the DAF stitch up obviously already being a done deal from the point when she took office.
Remind me which part of the uk truck manufacturing industry that you were actually working in in 1975-80.
The knotweed is rife again. Would it be possible to remove Graham’s username from the thread title? If he’s walked away from the lies and insults, it’s not fair that he has his name on a bucket of it. Put the Loon’s name in the thread title, and I’ll shut him up again. 
Carryfast:
… Edwardes trashed it obviously on Thatcher’s orders
Some proof or a citation please…
Carryfast:
… with the DAF stitch up obviously already being a done deal from the point when she took office.
Some proof or a citation please…
Carryfast:
Remind me which part of the uk truck manufacturing industry that you were actually working in in 1975-80.
A fair question if you’ll also provide an answer as regards yourself at the same time.
If you choose to reply to my post, please don’t use obfuscation or waffle. 
ERF-NGC-European:
Just standing back a pace to survey the scene, a couple of points should be borne in mind. Any initial post that offends some people is made by choice. Any response to that post is also a choice.
All posters are entitled to express their opinions and beliefs within reason. If you profoundly disagree with a post, using the TN rules, you can try any of the following:
-
Ignore the post altogether and dismiss it in your mind as rubbish
-
Patiently and thoroughly dismantle the offending poster’s argument
-
Respond angrily and become embroiled in an online verbal brawl
-
Press the Report button on the upper right-hand side of the post and tell moderators why you object to the post, taking care to point out which particular rule you think it breaks (like attacking the poster instead of the subject, for example - or if the post contains a lot of irrelevant random crap, it can be removed if the team think it contravenes the rules on random crap)
-
Take a few days off TN and breeze in again refreshed
Ro
EDIT to add that when you go on social media, you are dealing with faceless people, most of whom are benign. There are also people who struggle with conditions like autism and bi-polarism; or disabilities like alcoholism and any number of complaints. My personal policy is if it looks like a troll or a keyboard warrior, walk round it!
This^^^, many times over and twice on Sundays!! 
dieseldave:
Carryfast:
… Edwardes trashed it obviously on Thatcher’s orders
Some proof or a citation please…
Carryfast:
… with the DAF stitch up obviously already being a done deal from the point when she took office.
Some proof or a citation please…
Carryfast:
Remind me which part of the uk truck manufacturing industry that you were actually working in in 1975-80.
A fair question if you’ll also provide an answer as regards yourself at the same time.
If you choose to reply to my post, please don’t use obfuscation or waffle.
Will the question why would the Brit PM, in the form of Thatcher, have felt the need to sign over Leyland Truck division to DAF with her Dutch counterpart, do as evidence.Rather a strange level of government required for such a simple commercial transaction don’t you think.Why was 1979 such a key date in the closure of Park Royal and AEC.Why not 1978 let alone 1975.
I’ve made it clear where I was and what I was doing during that period learning how to build trucks and then looking for/reporting any flaws found in them.I also spoke to relevant people in my dealings with Leyland Truck division ( Scammell ) who took a totally opposite view to gingerfold’s along similar lines as mine.
The idea that Edwardes was parachuted in as a hatchet man, who wrecked Leyland Group, while Stokes was rightly well respected, isn’t just my view and the timeline and dates prove it.
Strange double standards as to why gingerfold’s hearsay within the industry in the day should be worth more than mine.
To make it clear I’d welcome gingerfold back to continue the discussion but the inconvenient dates are non negotiable and set in stone and he knows it.
If Stokes was really out to ‘get’ AEC he could/would have done it while he was actually in the position to do it and with good reason after the V8 debacle and the fact that the TL12 was never going to match the RR Eagle.Rather than leaving a still going concern behind him when he stepped down.Which was then closed down by Edwardes almost 5 years later no surprise also followed by Scammell.
Hope that’s good enough evidence for you.But no doubt it will still all be my fault and Stokes’ fault.
Bewick:
This thread really is riveting stuff worthy of a “Star Chamber” or a Kangaroo court appearance by “CF” ! I am not surprised that CF is about to go “on the Lam” before he gets a “tug” from the TNUK Thought Police !!! I just bet that “GF” is ■■■■■■■ himself laughing when reading this thread. So can I ask why is “CF” taken seriously ? He is just a comedy act and should be treated as such so why anyone would seriously “take a powder” at the bollox he spouts is beyond me it really is ! 
But of course we are now living in a PC World and individuals such as “CF” have to be treated with due respect and taken seriously regardless ! It wouldn’t surprise me if “CF” was to file suit ( with one of the Lefty law firms) claiming that he was being victimised and verbally abused on TNUK ! I reckon he could be awarded damages of not less than 2p and not exceeding 50p. So leave "The Leatherhead One " alone ! Cheers Bewick.
Leave it out.I’m the one on pre mod for supposedly upsetting all the snowflakes on here.It ain’t me who ran off crying because the dates and facts don’t match what I’ve said.
OK. Well you’ve all given this subject a jolly good airing. I feel bound to make the observation that neither the objectors on here nor the mods have at any time served as ‘thought police’. Quite the contrary. At no time on here has anyone suggested that all opinions should be respected; and quite right too: why should I respect a bx opinion?
HOWEVER, the rules do quite rightly suggest that we should respect the holder of opinions, even if we don’t respect his opinions. This isn’t rocket-science: separating the behaviour from the perpetrator is simple, basic, good psychology.
This thread has not really got to grips with the issues of sorting out differences of opinion, as I hoped it would. Rather, it has become bogged down with old issues and old arguments that simply open old wounds instead of mending them.
Therefore, it is pointless to go on. If you wish to re-open this discussion on the Feedback Forum (where it has already been done to death) then feel free to do so.
Meanwhile, I am locking this thread for good as of now. I considered moving it into storage out of sight and out of mind. But I’d quite like this thread to linger longer as it floats down the page, as a reminder of the options open to us when we profoundly disagree with another’s post.
Happy Easter!
Ro