Tesla’s stock (TSLA) is surging by over 3% in pre-market trading today, and it appears to again be due to delivery numbers in China, which seem to be confusing for the market.
Over the last few weeks, Tesla’s stock has had some wild swings, and it has mostly been related to news coming out of China.
Furthermore, the CPCA seemingly started including exports in their delivery numbers for the country, which makes no sense and brings confusion.
Now the CPCA came out with the data from May and reported that Tesla sold 33,463 China-made electric car last month.
However, the number includes 21,936 Tesla vehicles delivered in the country in May and 11,527 electric vehicles that Tesla built in China and exported to other countries in the same period.
The news sent Tesla’s stock rising more than 3% in pre-market trading.
First off, I see a lot of people claiming that it proves the report from The Information was wrong about Tesla’s orders falling in China last week.
While I noted that the report should be taken with a grain of salt, this new data from CPCA doesn’t disprove the report.
CPCA is about Tesla vehicles delivered and produced in China in May while the report from last week discussed net new orders coming in.
Net new order is a better indication of demand since it is not constrained by production, but most of the new orders coming in May would most likely not appear in CPCA data until next quarter when they are delivered.
That said, it doesn’t mean that the report was accurate either.
Again, I don’t think the market should place too much value of Tesla’s month-to-month performance in specific markets because they are just too many variables that don’t mean much on a short-term basis.
At the very minimum, I would stick to quarterly trends.
This year’s famous Super Bowl half-time show needs to be more “family friendly”, a group of critics has said – following what they describe as “vulgar” past performances by Jennifer Lopez and Rihanna, and the infamous Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction”.
Republican politicians and campaigners in Louisiana have written a letter to organisers raising “serious concerns” ahead of this year’s Super Bowl, which is due to take place at the Caesars Superdome in New Orleans in February.
Grammy-winning rapper Kendrick Lamar will headline the half-time show.
In a letter signed by 17 Republican senators and representatives for Louisiana, as well as 15 pro-family organisations, critics called out Lopez‘s performance alongside Shakira in Florida in 2020, saying the star “wore little clothing and was groped by male and female dancers on stage”, and also “made sexually suggestive gestures and performed on a stripper pole”.
Image: Jennifer Lopez performed with Shakira in 2020. Pic: AP
Criticising Rihanna‘s performance at the 2023 half-time show in Arizona – when the star revealed she was pregnant with her second child – they said she was shown “groping herself” while singing lyrics “that were so offensive that few Louisiana adults could read those lyrics before an audience without shame”.
The letter continued: “We realize that these past vulgar performances may have been acceptable to the residents of those states where those Super Bowls were held but, in Louisiana, these lewd acts are inappropriate for viewing by children, objectify women, and are simply NOT welcomed by the majority of Louisiana parents.”
Image: Rihanna headlined in 2023 – revealing her baby bump. Pic: AP/Charlie Riedel
‘It would have violated obscenity law’
Jackson‘s performance with Justin Timberlake in Texas in 2004, during which he exposed one of her breasts, was also highlighted.
“Had that 2004 performance taken place in Louisiana and been proven to be intentional, it would have violated Louisiana’s obscenity law,” the letter said.
CBS, which aired that year’s Super Bowl, was fined $550,000 by the Federal Communications Commission over the incident – but this was later overturned.
Image: Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake’s performance caused outrage. Pic: AP
In 2021, following the release of the Framing Britney Spears documentary, which included details of Timberlake’s relationship with the star and their break-up, conversation around his Super Bowl performance with Jackson was also reignited.
At the time of the incident, Jackson bore the brunt of the criticism, while Timberlake’s solo career flourished. In 2021, Timberlake issued an apology, saying: “I specifically want to apologise to Britney Spears and Janet Jackson both individually, because I care for and respect these women and I know I failed.”
The Republicans’ letter did not mention Timberlake but said Jackson’s “exposed bare breast was excused by one of her fellow performers as a ‘wardrobe malfunction’.”
Super Bowl half-time performances have become “increasingly vile”, it continued, and therefore it could be “reasonably anticipated that the half-time performance this year in New Orleans will be inappropriate for children to watch”.
Sky News has contacted the celebrities for a response to the criticism.
Senator Valarie Hodges, who signed the letter and shared details on X, said: “My hope is that Louisiana can set an example for future hosting states of the Super Bowl in advocating for entertainment suitable for viewers of all ages without needing a content rating.”
It has also been shared by the Family Research Council. President Tony Perkins, a former Louisiana state representative who is also one of the signatories, said their complaint was “not only about protecting children, important as that is, but also upholding community standards”.
The letter is addressed to Phillip Sherman, chairman of the Greater New Orleans Sports Foundation, and Robert Vosbein Jr, chairman of the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District, which oversees the superdrome venue.
In a statement sent to Sky News, Jay Cicero, president and chief executive of the Greater New Orleans Sports Foundation, said: “We respect and value the comments of our legislators, who play a critical role in our ability to secure large events providing an economic boost to our city and state.
“We have shared the letter with the NFL and we are all in agreement that this year’s half-time show will be a family-friendly event befitting New Orleans’ storied history hosting Super Bowls.”
Mr Vosbein told the Louisiana Illuminator news outlet it was “unfortunate” Ms Hodges had waited until less than a few weeks before the event to share her concerns.
Sky News has contacted both organisations for comment.
Love Island winner Jack Fincham has been released on bail pending an appeal – hours after being jailed for his cane corso dog attacking a man while he was running.
The 32-year-old had pleaded guilty at Southend Magistrates’ Court to two counts of being in charge of a dangerously out-of-control dog, with one of the incidents causing injury.
As well as being jailed for six weeks, he was ordered to pay £3,680 in total, including a £2,000 contribution to kennelling costs, a fine of £961 and £200 compensation.
But after being sentenced at the court on Wednesday, it emerged he had successfully lodged an appeal and had been granted conditional bail.
Fincham’s solicitor told Sky News District Judge Williams heard the bail application in open court.
Image: Pic: @jack_charlesf 2021
After the sentence was announced, Fincham gave a thumbs up as he was led to the cells, as a woman in the public gallery cried.
The court heard his dog Elvis bit a runner in his home town of Swanley, Kent, in September 2022.
Fincham was going to be cautioned and take part in a responsible dog ownership course after the man accepted an apology, said prosecutor Erin Peck. Conditions were made including that his dog must be muzzled, she added.
However, in June last year, there was a second incident in Grays, Essex, when the dog was out of control. Fincham was later charged.
Presiding magistrate Anne Wade, sentencing, originally said Fincham was subject to a suspended sentence order at the time of the incident in Swanley. This was for 12 weeks custody, suspended for 18 months, for an unrelated driving matter.
Ms Wade said this order would be activated in part and issued the six-week prison sentence.
“The dog was in a public place not abiding by the conditions to be muzzled and kept on a lead,” she said.
Richard Cooper, representing Fincham, said the defendant had “no savings” to pay the £3,680.
Ms Wade said he could pay in instalments, initially at £400 per month.
She made an order that the dog must be muzzled in public places, be kept on a lead, and not be left alone with anyone under the age of 16.
Image: Fincham won Love Island with Dani Dyer in 2018. Pic: James Gourley/ITV/Shutterstock
Fincham rose to fame after winning the fourth series of Love Island with his then-girlfriend Dani Dyer in 2018. The pair were favourites throughout the series after being “coupled up” from the start.
They announced their break-up six months after leaving the show’s villa in Majorca.
Noel Clarke has accused The Guardian newspaper’s publisher of fabricating and deleting evidence over claims of sexual misconduct against him, the High Court has been told.
The 49-year-old actor, best known for his film Kidulthood and starring in Dr Who, is suing Guardian News and Media (GNM) for libel over a series of articles which began with an investigative feature in April 2021.
Some 20 women who knew him in a professional capacity had come forward with allegations against him, the newspaper reported.
Clarke, who was present in court for the latest hearing, wearing a grey suit and dark-rimmed glasses, vehemently denied any sexual misconduct or criminal wrongdoing in a statement released at the time.
GNM is defending the legal action at the High Court in London on the grounds of truth and public interest.
At a hearing on Wednesday ahead of a full trial, lawyers for Clarke applied for GNM’s defence case to be struck out.
Image: Clarke won BAFTA’s rising star award in 2009. Pic: AP
Philip Williams, representing Clarke, said in a written submission to the court that they believe there is “overwhelming evidence not just of an attempt to pervert… but actual perversion of the course of justice”.
He also alleged there had been “deliberate and permanent deletion of personal correspondence between the three journalists that undertook the purported investigations, as well as fabrication”.
This makes it “impossible for the defendant to legitimately put forward a positive case that it reasonably believed publishing the defamatory articles were in the public interest”, he argued.
Mr Williams claimed two freelance journalists were instructed to “carry out wholesale deletion” of threads on the encrypted messaging app Signal.
He also told the hearing that one of the messages said: “Delete this entire thread. I’ll create a new thread which will likely be disclosable in court.”
Another message allegedly said: “Can we delete all these threads and use the final thread from now on?”
In his written submissions, Mr Williams said the messages illustrated “intent and taking steps to fabricate evidence”.
He described the alleged “destruction of evidence” as “widespread and wholesale”, and added: “It is something which they frankly admit.
“For example, the claimant maintains that four other group chats were set to auto-delete. This is admitted by the defendant.”
Mr Williams said it was “notable” the messages instructed the two more junior journalists to delete messages, and that there was also the creation of a “carefully curated thread”, which would assist the publisher’s case.
He added: “The crux of the strike-out application is whether there had been perversion of the course of justice, or spoliation of evidence which renders a fair trial impossible.”
Gavin Millar, representing GNM, told the court in written submissions that Clarke seeks to deprive the publisher “of its right to the trial of its defences of truth and public interest”.
He described the application as “a poor and opportunistic one for which there is no adequate evidential basis” and said it sought “to smear Guardian journalists and editors without any proper justification”.
Mr Millar added: “There is no evidence either that any evidence was ‘fabricated’.”
He told the court: “None of this ‘evidence’ raises an arguable prima facie case of bad faith, still less criminal conduct against anyone.”
Scotland Yard said in a statement in March 2022 that, following a thorough assessment by specialist detectives, officers decided that the information they received did not meet the threshold for a criminal investigation.
