Global Technical and its director Gary Bolton, have published even more lies on their website, they have stated the following:
LATEST UPDATE: Contrary to recent misinformation, our equipment trial reports and references provided by the Government are all original documents.
CONTINUED: They are issued by those departments for release to third parties. Approval has not been withdrawn. These reports confirm the effectiveness of the trialled equipment.
So can we take it Mr Bolton that neither you nor your company received the following letter from the Minstry of Defence?
'MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
FLOOR 5, ZONE B, MAIN BUILDING
WHITEHALL LONDON SW1A 2HB
Telephone 020 7218 9000 (Switchboard)
D/MSU/7/4/9/is 24 May 2009
Thank you for your letter of 28 January which you wrote in response to an anonymous letter you received about the promotion of GT200 by Global Technical Ltd and the alleged misuse of an MOD establishment. I am sorry that this reply has taken some time, but my officials have had to go back some ten years into our records and consult UKTI. I am grateful to you for drawing this to my attention and enabling us to investigate this matter.
I should first explain that GT200 is not in-service with our Armed Forces, nor has it ever been. Whilst the MOD is aware of GT 200 it has not been considered to satisfy any of the capabilities we need. Consequently, we have not formally trialled GT 200 and I am therefore not in a position to comment on its effectiveness.
Your second point concerned government involvement in the promotion of the product. In April 2008 the responsibility for delivering government support to defence exports was transferred from the MOD to UKTI. The UKTI Defence and Security Organisation (UKTI DSO), like its predecessor, the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO), includes an Export Support Team (EST), comprising of serving military personnel provided by the MOD. EST provide specialist military expertise and advice to UK-based companies who plan to export their products.
I have established that previously there was a DESO EST based at RSME Chatham. In 1999 that EST undertook an assessment of GT200 on behalf of Global Technical Ltd and produced a report that was described as a ‘trial’. It should not have been described in that way as it did not meet the MOD criteria for a formal trial. Separate Army Trials and Development Units exist for that purpose.
Your correspondent says that the Global Technical website claims government support for their equipment. Evaluations of equipment are carried out by EST personnel for internal company use only and current instruction to the EST emphasises that they are not to be used by companies in any form of marketing. UKTI DSO is taking legal advice to be able to include a form of wording on all reports produced to retain ownership of their contents and to ensure a company cannot use an EST evaluation to promote their product. In this particular case, UKTI DSO will be asking the company not to use the 1999 report to promote their product. They will also request that any reference to MOD or UKTI endorsement in their literature and on their website be removed.
You also raised the matter of the alleged misuse of MOD facilities at Chatham. Notwithstanding the status of the 1999 report, I can find no evidence to suggest that it was inappropriate for an EST to conduct a product assessment on MOD property. However, simply because an assessment took place at an MOD establishment should not be taken to infer that it was a formal MOD trial. I believe that any subsequent use of the evaluation report should have been better controlled. Changes have taken place since 1999 and as I have mentioned, UKTI is taking advice to ensure that the purpose for which its reports are provided is clearly understood.
I hope this is helpful.
[Signed on original]
QUENTIN DAVIES MP'
So you see Mr Bolton somebody is telling lies. So how do we decide who? Well on the one hand we have a company selling a total scam device that has no more credibility than tea leaves, that is your GT200 Mr Bolton. On the other hand we have a large Government Department that has many checks and balances in place and is answerable to Parliament, well this is a hard choice, but I think I will go with the MOD, unless of course Mr Bolton you have other evidence, might be a long wait for that.
Another point Mr Bolton, the report that you are using is dated 1999, that predates the GT200 and must therefore refer to the totally discredited MOLE that you were originally flogging, can you clarify that point also?
So there you have it, Global Technical telling blatant lies (again) so what's new you ask, please contact Global Technical direct for the answer.
2 comments:
This is really easy to resolve. Have the proponent of the detector walk through a dense mine field using only the detector for protection. If he blows up, good riddance.
If he gets through a mile or so, maybe the device might work. Then, it should be properly double blind tested to a better than 1/10,000 probability of working just as it should have been tested and was not to begin with!
Maryyugo has a great idea.
I have a few years experience of mine clearance and detection research and I have witnessed a demo of one of these devices. Once we had established that the piece of string attached to a 13amp plug and there was no solar flares to skew the results (I kid you not) we then tried to evaluate the device by way of the demonstration. Admittedly it was a very crude evaluation based on the fact that we were unable to reliably and consistently reproduce a result - Regardless of the "science" behind the device, in my opinion the most important thing when you're in the middle of a minefield or dealing with IED's is a method or piece of equipment that is reliable and consistent. Even equipment that is consistently wrong is better than a "maybe".
Post a Comment