Astonishing Dyson puff piece on the BBC

[Clive Page]

This article on the BBC business news

an astonishing bit of PR for the Dyson organistation, and I've sent in a complaint to the BBC as follows:

This article is nothing more than a public relations piece for Dyson and has no place on the BBC website. There was no questioning of his astounding claims which means this is not a serious piece of journalism. You need to post a retraction.

For example: "we can employ people from all around the world". EU membership had no effect on the UK's ability to employ people from all around the world, only from the EU who could in the past come here freely. The new points-based system may be allowing him to hire highly-paid engineers but that could have been brought in while we were an EU member.

He also claimed 'Dyson's British suppliers "didn't want to expand with us".' - that is an extraordinary claim which should have been questioned.

Many of us know why Dyson is against the EU: it is because it brought in efficiency standards for vacuum cleaners which meant that his models with 1500 Watt motors had to be phased out. Other manufacturers with more efficient models had no problems. Dyson chose to make these inefficient models in the far east from where they could be sold anywhere in the world (now including the UK) except in the EU.

On the vaccine: he claimed "We weren't part of the European development of the vaccine. We had to develop our own... a world record-beating vaccine produced in record time, and that's because we produced it." In fact there was nothing in EU rules that prevented us from doing that and our development started while we were still subject to EU rules in the transition period. The success of our vaccine effort is absolutely nothing to do with Brexit.

His claim that Brexit is boosing innovation is the complete opposite of the truth as funding for research is substantially lower than before. Just ask any scientist or engineer.

[Robin]

On 14/04/2021 10:11, Clive Page wrote: <snip>

Are those claims about efficiency based on the same methodology that the ECJ found against in 2018?

[Dave Plowman (News]

ISTR Dyson being against the power figure as he thought it too high? Higher than any of his models?

I could be wrong, of course.

[Steve Walker]

That is the only thing that you've said that I might disagree with. I think that if we had not been leaving the EU, we would have been persuaded (like Germany [and the Netherlands IIRC] were), to abandon our own efforts to procure vaccine supplies and to rely on the EU procurement effort.

[whisky-dave]

I thought it was because they were measuring power used rather than air-watts (which dyson preffered) which was suction power based. Otherwise you could place a 1KW heater inside the cleaner and people would think that you got 1KW worth of suction.

In which case I agree with Dyson.

[whisky-dave]

Yes I think that was the case and they even said so in that all countries had to agree before proceeding.

Also our govenment (about the only thing they have got correct) paid up front for vaccines around £100m to Oxford for vacines that may not have worked , but the money was needed for R&D. While the EU waited until,all countried agreed with what to do how how to do it.

[NY]

Unfortunately the EU regs tended to produce a lot of vacuum cleaners that were lower-powered but also had correspondingly poorer suction so didn't get carpets clean. The skill, as you say, comes from a cleaner that has lower power without sacrificing the very thing you buy a vac for - suction. If you have to leave the vac on for longer while you go over the carpet again and again and again, you've lost the energy advantage.

There is also the problem of being first to the market (with technology that was current at the time) and then failing to update that technology to match the competitors who were later to the market.

[Robin]

Dyson's case against the EU was that it purported to tell consumers how energy efficient and effective at cleaning a cleaner was in use when it measured them only when clean and empty. Read the link I posted or the press release from the final EU court

Bear in mind that big EU manufacturers are very much inside the tent when the policy and technical details of such measures are prepared. All of course with only the best interests of EU consumers in mind.

[Brian Gaff (Sofa]

Well it depends whether its just his opinion, and I guess it is, but well, I guess there is a disclaimer on the web site like we use, opinions expressed are those of contributors, not necessarily those of the organisation. Brian

[fred]

Not so. There would have been nothing stopping the UK paddling its own canoe within the EEC

[Tim Streater]

Of course. One of the reasons why the EU is a scam. And of course this cosy stitchup is going on with zero scrutiny inside the EU and zero scrutiny from the media.

[Steve Walker]

There was nothing to stop Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy either, until pressure was applied and they fell into line. Indeed it is reported that the German Health minister was forced to apologised for the four-countries' attempts in a ?humiliating tone,? so that Ursula von der Leyen and Angela Merkel could make the ?grand gesture? of letting the EU take charge.

[Fredxx]

Was that an attempt at sarcasm?

What consumers wanted to know is what suck their vacuum clear has, and that is best measured in air-watts. Possibly again with bags etc part full.

If that was done, there would be little need for inefficient motors and would make dinosaur cleaners extinct.

The EU made sure that it was all a compromise and scam; where "the policy and technical details of such measures are prepared" was dictated by EU manufacturers.

[Dave Plowman (News]

Now there's an about face. Thought the EU was run by Germany, in the interests of Germany? Or was that just said when it suited?

[Dave Plowman (News]

If you set a limit on power consumption, decent makers will produce a machine that sucks (works) OK. Others won't. Why would you buy one which didn't work?

[Dave Plowman (News]

Are you saying it is OK to produce vacuum cleaners that don't work properly? And they will sell well?

What ever happened to market forces?

[Steve Walker]

I've never said that.

[Steve Walker]

But that still may mean that the best is not as good as one of equal efficiency, but a little more powerful. The rules should have been about efficiency, not maximum power. We don't set a maximum power for washing machines, dishwashers, microwaves, light bulbs, etc., but grade them on efficiency and even ban the sale of the less efficient models. What makes vacuum cleaners different?

[Robin]

You are swerving to absolute power consumption when Dyson's case was about efficiency.

And if consumers will just buy ones which work once a maximum power is set why do they need the maximum power limit?

I don't understand what market failure you think needs fixing.

PS Does your support for absolute limits on the power consumption of consumer goods extend to cars? If not, why not?

[Dave Plowman (News]

It doesn't. The limit is for domestic vacuum cleaners. So in the same way as you might want a 500 watt light source in your bog, you can buy a vacuum cleaner which uses more power than the domestic limit.