Billionaire James Dyson loses libel claim in UK

Originally published at: Billionaire James Dyson loses libel claim in UK | Boing Boing


Headlines read “Dyson can suck it”.




loser GIF


I had a Dyson once and it was shit. The entire thing is made of plastic so the heat from the motor will eventually warp the plastic. The result is that air is sucked in through various gaps that start to appear as the parts loose their original shape. This lessens the suction power of the tube and creates an infernal noise. Dyson refused to take responsibility for it.
The plastic is also brittle so it takes very little to damage it. For example, crashing it into a table leg while in use is sure to chip or crack it.


Me too. I’ve had to superglue parts of my Dyson back together several times and buy two replacement parts. Never before have I had defective parts on a vac. No more Dysons for me.


And yet last week’s episode of The Secret Genius of Modern Life included a clip where a Dyson was dropped from 2m then 3m onto a hard surface and - no cracks.
(Also here entirely coincidentally.)

Maybe they’ve improved their plastics since then?

1 Like

Dyson, along with many other entitled rich shitheads, seems to believe that it’s defamatory if someone writes something about him that upsets him a bit. For all UK defamation law’s vast array of faults, it’s good to see that in this case he was rightly told to go piss up a rope.

I’m hoping that his fellow fevered ego Laurence Fox is about to learn the same lesson.


I have two gen’s of Dysons and they both work like a dream with zero damage to either after 7+ years. And I have five cats, so those sucky-sticks get USED. Not saying he’s not a twat but his products are truly superior shrug.


We had a Dyson for a while. We never had a problem with it. Is it possible that users in the UK find the plastic adequate while those in countries with more extreme temperatures find it brittle? The thing I liked best about it was that all the fiddly extra bits clipped onto it somewhere, so you were not furtling in a cupboard for an attachment. I should add that we have also had other vacuum cleaners which operated on similar principles but with a different brand name. Currently we are operating a Shark. There’s a bag of attachments somewhere… (sigh!)




This is not the Hoover I am looking for?



+1 for enjoyably alliterative title


Furtle is a verb that means to search for something in a disorganized or careless manner. It is often used to describe someone who is rummaging through a messy drawer or searching for a lost item without any clear plan or strategy



But when used to describe trying to extract some early potatoes from the ground beneath a still-growing plant while leaving others to grow on, it sort of means to find by feeling carefully with fingertips.

This thread has some other more interesting definitions that are neither of the above!


So perhaps it has the same root as “furtively”?


Almost certainly, I feel.


Very hard to believe. I am talking cracks and breakages from pulling the thing along behind me and it accidentally bumping into a table leg, and putting it back into the cupboard and accidentally knocking it into the door frame. Both happening with the same energy you normally use when you do household chores.

1 Like

Hannah met with Dyson’s Head of Technology Development, Rachael Pink, to demonstrate the durability wand slap and drop tests our floorcare machines are put through – she even dropped the Dyson Gen5 Detect from 3 metres high to see if it could take the impact (the industry standard test requires 1m).

During development, each Dyson product will be dropped onto a hard floor over 5,000 times and cover 1,000km of flooring in push-pull tests. Cumulatively, new vacuum designs will be subjected to 500,000 cleaner head joint swivel tests, charging and discharging batteries up to 6,000 times, and running digital motors for up to 20,000 hours. It takes around 120 Dyson engineers 50,000 hours to be satisfied a product is tough enough, testing to the point of failure.

Skip to exactly 40 minutes in to this video to see it.

The judgement is utterly damning - just one excerpt:

“What Mr Reade may be taken to have said is something along the lines that the Claimant [Dyson] got what he wanted, namely Brexit, and one would have thought that he would now be signed up lock, stock and barrel to the future of the UK. Instead, by moving part of his business to Singapore, or even just by relocating the head office to Singapore, he has hardly cast a vote of confidence in UK Plc. Given the Claimant’s status as a leading inventor and entrepreneur, his hypocritical and highly symbolic actions could undermine the confidence of others in the UK and harm the country thereby, and hypocrisy of this sort does not set one up as other than a poor moral example to young people.”

That is a judicial kick in the kidneys with steel-capped boots.