The actual fact is: that MG have been exposed for supplying a potentially dangerous vehicle. And your attitude would change if it was your vehicle or another that caused a serious accident where one your loved ones were injured or killed because of a vehicle roof rail failure.
So, Les or anyone else that brought the issue to the public should be congratulate not rebuked.
@Richie
Are you aware that I thanked Les, for being the voice of change, on page 8 of this very thread, which you can find here?
#150
Please scroll down to the bottom of that post, where you'll see Mr Burrows liked it.
I still stand by that post.
The fact remains -- this is now old news.
In your post, you state as a fact that MG are being exposed for supplying a potentially dangerous vehicle. May I ask, what evidence have you for this? As I said in an earlier post, I don't disagree with you. It is within the realms of possibility, albeit unlikely, that potential danger exists. However, I just haven't seen anyone present evidence for this. To my knowledge, there have been no accident reports of loads coming off the roof. No-one has posted any engineering data, be it good or bad. And there's little other data to go on that is in the public domain.
What is clear is that MG have not prepared the correct documentation to show that the roof rails are load bearing.
It is also a fact that they've installed roof rails on a car that is rated for a maximum roof mass of 0kg. This is fine, if you have no intention of using the roof rails to carry a load, but it is not fine if you do intend to carry a load, or sell it to someone who intends to carry a load.
For this, MG are, quite rightly, being held to account. They will have to answer to this, in less than 28 days time.
Aside from making every effort to resolve this sooner, what more can they now do? And how will it benefit us to drag their name through the mud in the interim?
I would welcome an opposing view, but I would not want to see more bad press on this subject.