-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Jaff
Active Member
What was supplied in the second vid that we didn't get in the first?
I'd think these Tomtoms would be collectors items since they've effectively been banned. Also, I don't really see what the big deal is. Clarkson's voice on a satnav is better than Mr. T's. "Turn left, Fool!!" Ok, I take that last part back.
I'd think these Tomtoms would be collectors items since they've effectively been banned. Also, I don't really see what the big deal is. Clarkson's voice on a satnav is better than Mr. T's. "Turn left, Fool!!" Ok, I take that last part back.
Jaff
Active Member
Not a big deal really Doug... just fufilling a desire to smack a lying, smarmy w*nker for pure childish pleasure...that's all! :biggrin:
Looks like Tesla lost on the libel claim lawsuit:
Tesla also sued for "malicious falsehood" and that verdict will be given in a few weeks, according to the guardian.
Tesla also sued for "malicious falsehood" and that verdict will be given in a few weeks, according to the guardian.
I disagree with the judge in this matter. I believe that the statement "This is because there is a contrast between the style of driving and the nature of the track as compared with the conditions on a public road […] are so great that no reasonable person could understand that the performance on the [Top Gear] track is capable of a direct comparison with a public road." is simply wrong. I don't believe that people do understand that there is a difference. I imagine that, because there is no stop-start traffic on a track, some would assume even better fuel efficiency! This is evidenced by countless incidents of people asking me if I would get anxious about range if I were stuck in traffic; they don't understand that at EV is at a very low power state in traffic. And, in addition, as many cars achieve better mpg on the EPA test cycle than on the road, there is an expectation that cars on "test tracks" do better than on the road.
So, in summary: Wrong wrong wrong.
So, in summary: Wrong wrong wrong.
From Wikipedia "Michael Tugendhat is the son of Dr Georg Tugendhat, an immigrant from Austria who founded a petrochemical refinery"
Not saying that this colored his judgement but where we come from often frames our life view.
Not saying that this colored his judgement but where we come from often frames our life view.
Mycroft
Life happens
I think it was a stupid suit from the beginning. They would have had to prove that TG produced the story to intentionally harm Tesla specifically. Very, very difficult to do unless they had a smoking gun.
I believe they did with the script, that showed the car was going to fail before the show ever started!
Yes but it was one guy's word against another. He said he'd seen it, I'm not sure they had a copy.
What's interesting is that under English libel law, the defendant has to prove that their libelous statement(s) are true to mount a succesful defence. So to get this judgement the BBC must have convinced the court how they arrived at 55 miles range, for example, unless that isn't in dispute.
What's the strike rate now on EM's court cases?
What's interesting is that under English libel law, the defendant has to prove that their libelous statement(s) are true to mount a succesful defence. So to get this judgement the BBC must have convinced the court how they arrived at 55 miles range, for example, unless that isn't in dispute.
What's the strike rate now on EM's court cases?
But did they do that out of malice or comedic value?
(I know we don't think it was funny, but someone might...)
Mycroft
Life happens
Right, even if it's in the script, unless the script has a note that the reason they're doing it is to harm Tesla, then I don't think it would be considered libelous.
Jaff
Active Member
Similar threads
- Article
