Wednesday, 30 November 2011



No, in this case we are returning to our friends from a few posts ago. From their very own website:

'A|D|S is the trade organisation advancing the UK Aerospace, Defence, Security and Space industries. Farnborough International Limited (FIL), which runs the Farnborough International Airshow, is a wholly-owned subsidiary.

A|D|S has offices in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, France and India with new offices planned in China and the Middle East.  A|D|S was formed from the merger of the Association of Police and Public Security Suppliers (APPSS), the Defence Manufacturers Association (DMA) and the Society of British Aerospace Companies (SBAC) in October 2009. A|D|S also encompasses the British Aviation Group (BAG).

Together with its regional partners, A|D|S represents over 2,600 companies.'
You will recall that we invited Major General Alan Sharman (retd. the poor dear!) to comment on why he took Gary Bolton of GT200 infamy to Parliament to whinge about the need for more Export Credit Guarantees for his fake explosives device.

Now, as you know, due to our dissection and detection, the Major general tried to neatly sidestep any responsibility for his actions whatsoever. It was all such a long time ago! How was he to know who he took with him to Parliament? The Defence Manufacturers Association (ADS as was) can not be held liable in any way for not thoroughly checking out its members, even when they did go to Parliament with the DMA bigwigs, including Major General Alan Sharman (retired of course!)?

Anyway, you can see how we tore Major General Alan Sharman apart in our previous postings on the subject.

However, just as interesting was a response to our questions to Major General Sharman (retd. don't forget!) from:

Brinley Salzmann
Director – Overseas & Exports

ADS, 'ShowCentre', ETPS Road, Farnborough, Hampshire GU14 6FD

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7091 7822 Mob: +44 (0) 7717 173670 Switchboard: +44 (0) 20 7091 4500
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7091 4545 Email: Web:


(The Fake Explosives Detectors Campaign does not know of any legal reason why, in the Public Interest, we should not publish this. If anyone wishes to correct us please feel free to do so. We did in fact offer Brinley the chance to avoid us publishing his letter - see below for details!! Publish and be damned. That's what we say!)

Dear Mr Robinson,

I have been passed your e-mail message of 22nd November which was addressed to Major General Alan Sharman, CBE, concerning the inclusion of Mr Gary Bolton, of Global Technical, in our Industry team giving oral evidence on ECGD funding to the House of Commons' Trade & Industry Committee on 9th November 1999. 

(Who passed you my e-mail to Major General Alan Sharman, CBE - Covering Backside Every time?)

Major General Sharman has, in fact, long since retired (back in the summer of 2007, to be exact), and the DMA no longer exists, but was merged with the Society of British Aerospace Companies (SBAC) back on 1st October 2009, to form ADS Group Ltd.

(2007 is not really long since is it? In fact it is recent history in many people books. Even if not tactically speaking, certainly strategically! Decisions he and you and others took many years ago are still unwinding today. I mean I bet if we look back at some of his procurement activity in the 1990s that it is still impacting now, just as decisions he took at the DMA probably still resonate, like the echos of explosions, down the years. And let's face it. he is hardly fully retired when he holds at least 4 Company Directorships we know of, plus no doubt other honorary positions. Just because the DMA no longer exists, as you yourself are proof, many of the same people are still around an in charge, so you can hardly divorce yourselves from the past just because you changed your name, now can you!)

However, whilst I was not actually one of the Industry witnesses giving evidence before the Committee on that day, I was present in a supporting function, which is why I have been asked to respond to your query.
(Interesting. Can you be more specific about your role in advance of that meeting and during it? For example, were you solely or partly responsible for selecting Gary Bolton to go with the Maj Gen (retd.) and you before our august Parliament? How was he selected? How many times had you met Gary Bolton before that meeting at the House of Commons' Trade & Industry Committee? Had you ever been introduced to the MOLE or the GT200 prior to the Committee meeting? Are you aware of anyone else at the DMA who had been introduced to the MOLE/GT200 at that time? Did Gary Bolton exhibit the MOLE or GT200 at any DMA sponsored or supported events either before or after 1/10/1999? From/To what dates was Gary Bolton/Global Technical, a member of the DMA? Was Gary Bolton/Global technical ever a member of ADS? Did Gary Bolton serve any official function for the DMA/ADS while a member? We may have more questions later but that will do for now!)

Whilst we now know that Global Technical were one of the commercial entities behind the now thoroughly discredited electrostatic bomb detector phenomenon, this was far from being their only product, (SO WHAT?) and they are also active in the provision of a range of electronic countermeasures systems, digital CCTV systems and training courses, etc, etc which have been successfully sold to customers around the World (some of them Government Embassies, etc), with, to our knowledge, absolutely no reported concerns on the performance of their products and services. Therefore, they were not a single product commercial entity, although now their electrostatic bomb detectors are, of course, what they are particularly synonymous (and infamous) for, but a multi-faceted one, with a wide portfolio of products and services. (BLIMEY READER, I AM BREATHLESS AFTER THAT, ARE YOU? LEGALISTIC BOVINE SCATOLOGY (Thanks to:
General Herbert Norman Schwarzkop, also known as "Stormin' Norman" and "The Bear", is a retired United States Army General ! WHO WROTE THAT FOR YOUR YOU BRINLEY? CARTER PLUCK OR A.N.OTHER BUNCH OF STITCH UP MERCHANTS?)

(AGAIN SO WHAT. As we keep saying to David Vollmar at Unival in Germany who sells the HEDD1 (formerly SNIFFEX) variant of the same fraud, he could be an angel otherwise but that does not excuse the major crime he is committing selling known fake explosives detectors! That is such a weak diversionary tactic Brinley! Honestly!! And the main reason they are famous/infamous for their fraudulent - you missed that word out Brinley! You naughty boy!! Spank Spank!! - electrostatic 'explosives' detectors is because we helped expose them in the UK. BUT, someone back in 1999 should have spotted this fraud if anyone who came anywhere near Gary Bolton had a brain that is!)

I am afraid that we lack the in-house technical expertise (and resources) to be able to test ALL of the products (and services) offered by ALL of our Member Companies, to enable us to satisfy ourselves that they all work as advertised, and have to rely on the technical assessments and testing which is undertaken by relevant technical experts from the British Government (eg the UK MoD and/or the Home Office). Their assessments of a range of electrostatic bomb detectors then being marketed by a number of UK firms were only privately provided to us in c.2008/09, when this whole issue came sharply into the public spotlight, and long after the evidence session to which you have referred took place.

(Who bought the issue sharply into the public spotlight? We did! But see also James Randi below. You Poor Things! Thousands of members selling billions of arms and they can't do some simple background checks on their members, even when they take them to Parliament to whinge for money! Ho Ho!! What information did the MOD/British Government provide you privately in 2008/2009? Why do you think they did so privately? Who provided that information? Why did it then take until 2009 for MOD/ADS etc to request Global Technical remove all references to accreditation? There was plenty of evidence of the swivelling aerial fraud available on the Internet even back in 1999. See James Randi and the Quadro Tracker. Doesn't it seem odd to you that no one in the Defence Industry, MOD, Government, Royal Engineers apparently spotted this for a long time? We can't identify when the UK Government/MOD/Royal Engineers/DMA actually pulled the rug on Bolton, but it looks like it coukd have been 2004 when the support stopped. We ask why? And if someone had discovered it was a fraud back then why didn't they say something? Either way a lot of lives could have been saved by now! See where we are coming from Tweedledum and Tweedledummer?)

We had been seeking to include in our evidence team at least one representative of the UK's Small and Medium-sized Enterprise (SME) sector, who was actively involved in the exports arena, so that this vitally important sector of UK Industry's voice and views could be seen to be heard on the issue of ECGD financial export support, and Gary provided that view.
(see above i.e how was Bolton selected/by whom etc?) Given that almost all of our other SME Member Companies would have made exactly the same comments to the Committee (BUT, most if not all would have been selling stuff that worked, even if it doesn't always come in on time and on budget! There is a subtle difference mate!), and he was not there as part of our Industry team to promote his electrostatic bomb detectors, but was almost certainly airing his comments relating to his practical experiences with marketing his other commercial products around the World, there was nothing within his evidence to alert us to the controversy in which he and his company have now found themselves embroiled, or to give us any cause for concern.

(RUBBISH. LIAR! Funny you should say that! It's on the record of the meeting of the House of Commons' Trade & Industry Committee on 9th November 1999 as follows:

During the session Bolton was addressed directly by the chairman, Baron O'Neill, the following is direct from the minutes:

 Mr Bolton -following on immediately from major General Alan Sharman (retd.)) Basically my experience of my first contact with ECGD, was the sum involved was not large enough to be considered so I was put on to the private sector. They were not interested in considering my potential order, they were more concerned in providing cover for the year for every type of order I have. I am not interested in that because there are countries I would not give credit to, I would only deal with on a cash basis. I would prefer it to be on a case by case basis and push the costs on to the client. They really failed completely. We did not get an order and it was back to the drawing board.

 48. You would like to be able to be covered by ECGD?

 (Mr Bolton) We would like to have some sort of cover. I think ECGD seems to be the way forward. I accept it would be on a case by case basis because there is a risk with small companies.
I think that would help us a lot.


 (Major General Sharman) Some of the small companies do export a niche product which does not fall naturally into the cascading down from a major platform—low level equipment, hand held equipment and so on. What, I suppose, would be possible, although it might be resource demanding for ECGD, would be, perhaps, to pull together a number of small companies' efforts and give cover to a package of support. I could envisage that from our own experience and some of our special interest groups where companies with comparable and complementary products work together. We have a very good example in a subgroup within the DMA called NBC UK, which make respirators and masks, hand held detectors and so on. They found that actually they are more effective if they go and market together than if they try and do it apart and compete with each other. I could imagine ECGD having the flexibility to cover a package like that.


49. Mr Bolton, can you tell us the kind of sums that you were talking about, which seem not to reach the glass ceiling, as it were? What does your business do? Global Technical covers a multitude of activities, one would imagine.
(Mr Bolton) Basically the main push we have now is a new type of drugs and explosives detection system. We had a potential order for £60,000 for a number of units, that would have kept me going for a couple of years, but because the only way forward for funding was through letters of credit that were discounted by the bank it got extremely complicated and that is not what the client wanted. It is a relatively small amount and, okay, I accept that there are ceilings with that amount of work that have to be involved in getting to that stage. Small amounts are what keep us in business for a long time and help us expand our market. Because most of it is export it is extremely expensive, so an order of that size would help us market a much wider area and therefore generate more income.

YOU SEE FOLKS!? DO YOU SEE? Both Major General Alan Sharman (retd. thank goodness!) and Brinley Salzmann try to suggest that the meeting had nothing to do with products. Even strongly suggesting that products were not even mentioned! See BOLD UNDERLINE ABOVE Ho Ho Ho! And just as amusing in a funny peculiar way, is that he complains that letters of credit were not what the client wanted!! Possibly because it made the bribery and corruption part of the deal more difficult?

See where Brinley says that Bolton " was not there as part of our Industry team to promote his electrostatic bomb detectors, but was almost certainly airing his comments relating to his practical experiences with marketing his other commercial products around the World", Brinley is being deliberately vague. setting up the old "I DON'T RECALL A THING" defence if needed for later, but he is lying as you can plainly see, and as a quick search of the Committee records, easily available online would have reminded the slippery bugger! But no, in his desperation to try to defend himself and his gallant ex-leader, Major General Aland Sharman (retd.) he makes the same basic errors of fact that ll the dumbasses do. Sorry Brinners, but you are a dumbass mofo!

Of course, given the advantage of 20:20 hindsight with which we are all blessed, the inclusion of Gary on our evidence team might be viewed now as having been unfortunate.

Unfortunate! Blimey. That's an understatement considering the amount of corrupt money and blood that has flowed under the bridge eh! Brinley! Wally boy! Funny how he refers to Gary Bolton, the killer fraudster, as "Gary"? Bit friendly don't you think, only now knowing what he has done? And as I said in an earlier email reply to this nonsense from you, a bit of foresight sometimes helps, especially regarding the Company you keep! I would have checked out anyone I took with me to such an important meeting, but then perhaps the DMA/ADS likes to play fast and loose. Naturally a good stance for such a serious industry with such heightened moral and ethical requirements rightly upon it. OOOOPS, sorry Maj. Gen. (retd.) Forgot your old pal Pinochet or should we call him Pinnochiochet?
There you go Brinley. Told you we would publish. OH DEAR. Almost forgot about the chances we gave Brinley and the ADS/DMA and Major General Alan Sharman (retd.) to make up for having helped a murderous bloody trade take hold. I'll tell you about that in my next post. Till then, au revoir mes amis et mes enemies! Bon Nuit!