This article on the BBC business news
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56741000
is 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.




--
Clive Page

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

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.Â* Other manufacturers with
more efficient models had no problems.Â* 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.


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

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-a8623591.html


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In article ,
Robin wrote:
On 14/04/2021 10:11, Clive Page wrote:
snip

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.


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

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-a8623591.html


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.

--
*Succeed, in spite of management *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wednesday, 14 April 2021 at 11:19:03 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Robin wrote:
On 14/04/2021 10:11, Clive Page wrote:
snip

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.


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

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-a8623591.html
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.

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.

On 14/04/2021 13:38, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 April 2021 at 11:19:03 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Robin wrote:
On 14/04/2021 10:11, Clive Page wrote:
snip

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.


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

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-a8623591.html
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.

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.


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

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_1430408/fr/

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.




--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 14/04/2021 16:06, Robin wrote:
On 14/04/2021 13:38, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 April 2021 at 11:19:03 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Robin wrote:
On 14/04/2021 10:11, Clive Page wrote:
snip

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.


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

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-a8623591.html

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.

I thought it was because they were measuring power used rather than
air-watts (which dyson preffered)
Â* 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.


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

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_1430408/fr/

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.

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.

In article ,
Robin wrote:
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

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_1430408/fr/

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.

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?

--
*Some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 14/04/2021 10:11, Clive Page wrote:
This article on the BBC business news
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56741000
is 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.Â* There was no questioning of his
astounding claims which means this is not a serious piece of
journalism.Â* You need to post a retraction.

For example: "we can employ people from all around the world".Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* Other manufacturers with
more efficient models had no problems.Â* 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.Â* The success of our vaccine effort is absolutely
nothing to do with Brexit.

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.

On Wednesday, 14 April 2021 at 13:34:57 UTC+1, Steve Walker wrote:
On 14/04/2021 10:11, Clive Page wrote:
This article on the BBC business news
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56741000
is 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.
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.

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.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 1:34:57 PM UTC+1, Steve Walker wrote:
On 14/04/2021 10:11, Clive Page wrote:
This article on the BBC business news
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56741000
is 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.
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.

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

On 14/04/2021 21:40, fred wrote:
On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 1:34:57 PM UTC+1, Steve Walker wrote:
On 14/04/2021 10:11, Clive Page wrote:
This article on the BBC business news
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56741000
is 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.
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.

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

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 €œhumiliating tone,€� so that Ursula von
der Leyen and Angela Merkel could make the €œgrand gesture€� of letting
the EU take charge.

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
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.

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?

--
*A fool and his money are soon partying *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 15/04/2021 11:02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
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.

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?

I've never said that.

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 15/04/2021 11:02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
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.

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?

I've never said that.

Sorry to lump all you types who bring an irrelevant point about the EU
into any discussion together.

But I'm sure you are searching far and wide for such things since the
Brexit Nirvana we were promised seems ever further away.

--
*Can vegetarians eat animal crackers?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 15/04/2021 11:21, Steve Walker wrote:
On 15/04/2021 11:02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Steve Walker wrote:
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.

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?

I've never said that.

Don't worry. Dave will happily put the words in your mouth.

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

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Clive Page" wrote in message
...
This article on the BBC business news
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56741000
is 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.




--
Clive Page

On 14/04/2021 10:11, Clive Page wrote:
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.

I had a Dyson DC01 absolute vacuum cleaner. I had it a long time but
mainly because it was easy to get parts when it broke and easy to
dismantle. It broke a lot. Apart from filters it needed 3 drive belts,
new sole piece, edging rubbers, mains switch, 2 mains cables and a
motor. All that in 18 years.

When we got it we noticed a few things... it was bloody deafeningly
noisy compared to the old cleaner. It sucked like a $20 whore in
comparison to a bagged cleaner. Oh how we were impressed with what it
picked up. Well we were once our hearing returned.

Then many years later Dyson wrote and said "no more parts soon" and so
if it broke again, which I knew it would, it would be time for a new
one. My wife said "don't buy another Dyson and I want a cylinder not an
upright next time" as she was fed up with its over-temp cut-out
triggering regularly.

The day came when it failed again. My suggestion I would go to the
tip/recycling depot and fill the boot with Dysons people had scrapped
and make a good one out of all the bits was met with one of those hard
stares you don't ignore. So I bought an AEG cylinder bag-less cleaner. A
new EU approved one with a smaller motor, I think it's 600W. It was
pricey but had a 3yr warranty. Not as pricey as a new Dyson though.

Oh wow what a difference. For a start you can have a conversation whilst
it is working it is so quiet in comparison. It also cleans ever so much
better. It doesn't suck like a $20 whore but more like a $1000 call
girl. It does a better job and is quieter and I have only had to buy a
new hose for it after the dog attacked it and chewed a hole in it.

Dyson does appear to be full of **** about vacuum cleaners. The new
lower power one cleans better than our Dyson did and is so quiet in
comparison. And it has washable filters so you don't have to keep buying
them from Dyson. I now treat most of what Dyson says with the contempt
it deserves.