IFSEC Insider is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.
Rob Ratcliff was the Content and Community Manager of IFSEC Global.com. He is a self-confessed everyman in the world of security and fire, keen to learn from the global community of experts who have been a part of IFSEC for 40 years now.
Global Technical Ltd is at the forefront of the development of paramagnetic technology for the detection of narcotics, explosives, weapons. and many other substances, according to its website.
Whether or not this is true, this development appears not to have made it through to the company’s GT200 explosives detector, which has landed businessman Gary Bolton a seven-year jail term for fraud.
The GT200 detection system claims to be able to detect explosives, narcotics, weapons, and other substances, but it was described in the Old Bailey as a box with handles and antennae. A judge reportedly said that the devices “had a random detection rate. They were useless.” Bolton apparently made as much as GB pound 3 million (US$4.1 million) by selling the devices for around GB pound 10,000 (US$13,382) each to foreign governments, including the Thai army and Mexican police. They cost him less than GB pound 5 to make from his Kent office.
The devices look utterly ridiculous, and pictures of them in use by officials even more so. But while it is easy to mock the product, it has undoubtedly put lives at risk and done huge reputational damage to the UK as a manufacturer and exporter of high-end, counter-terror equipment.
Greg Stuttle is the Chairman of the BSIA’s Export Council, which promotes the interests of British manufacturers and service providers overseas. He told us:
I hope that the actions of one company will not tarnish the reputation of all British security manufacturers and service providers. The BSIA’s Export Council firmly believes that British security product and services are recognised as world leaders in quality and innovation, and we will continue to fly the flag at forthcoming exhibitions and events around the world.
Reports in the Guardian suggest that human rights campaigners in Thailand have identified at least two fatal bombings where the GT200 was used to check vehicles for explosives.
The GT200 works on the principal of dia/para magnetism. All substances carry a magnetic charge that, when stimulated by an impulse of electricity, (static) creates an attraction between the substance being detected and the GT200 unit itself. This is called EMA or Electro Magnetic Attraction.
Doubts around the validity of the science behind the GT200 detector first emerged in 2010, when a Newsnight investigation revealed that a similar device, the ADE-651, was bogus. The man behind that product, Jim McCormick, was jailed in May after selling an estimated GB pound 50m (US$66m) worth of products to customers including the Iraqi Police force.
Thailand’s Prime Minister ordered a study into the devices in 2010, and despite the Office of Fair Trading finding that it had no moving parts, and therefore had no credibility as an explosives detector, officials were still saying as recently as 2012 that its use would continue.
Now, such a stance has been put beyond any doubt as Bolton was sentenced for seven years for one count of making an article for use in fraud and another for selling an article for use in fraud. The court heard that the device was shown to be inaccurate as long ago as 1999 when the Royal Engineers produced a report claiming the device was only accurate 30 percent of the time. The Guardian has seen a copy of this report, which Bolton allegedly doctored in order to make it appear that his product was effective.
He also allegedly claimed that the devices would work up to 2.5 miles in the air, and could penetrate lead-lined walls.
The judge told Bolton:
You were determined to bolster the illusion that the devices worked and you knew there was a spurious science to produce that end. They had a random detection rate. They were useless.
Soldiers, police officers, customs officers, and many others put their trust in a device which worked n better than random chance. The jury found you knew this but you carried on. Your profits were enormous.
Listen to the IFSEC Insider podcast!
Each month, the IFSEC Insider (formerly IFSEC Global) Security in Focus podcast brings you conversations with leading figures in the physical security industry. Covering everything from risk management principles and building a security culture, to the key trends ahead in tech and initiatives on diversity and inclusivity, the podcast keeps security professionals up to date with the latest hot topics in the sector.
Available online, and on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts, tune in for an easy way to remain up to date on the issues affecting your role.
The Bomb Detector That Got One Man 7 YearsGlobal Technical Ltd is at the forefront of the development of paramagnetic technology for the detection of narcotics, explosives, weapons. […]
Robert Ratcliff
IFSEC Insider | Security and Fire News and Resources
Subscribe
15 Comments
Oldest
NewestMost Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
safeNsane
August 22, 2013 7:42 am
I saw this story earlier this week and besides being angry that someone could sell so many useless devices to various military agencies it makes me sick to think that someone would sell something like this knowing what could happen when it doesn’t work. It blows my mind that not one agency opened one up to see what made it work or did testing with it that came out as more than a random chance. They might as well have been playing Russian Roulette.
JonathanL
August 22, 2013 9:47 am
This is disturbing that these things can be passed off like this and put so many at risk. As far as I see it they knowingly put people in harms way and have two incidents that injuries resulted in their gross neglience. These types of devices need to submitted for testing and independent review.
Bizarre isn’t it that any agency would be so trusting. I agree with your subject line on this message. It’s almost funny it’s so rubbish, but the fact people were really put at risk takes the smirk off your face.
The risk isn’t the only thing that makes me angry, the cost is a huge issue too. We have a good example here of government agencies buying garbage with taxpayer money in many cases to protect those same taxpayers. How would you feel if you found out that your car’s airbag was replaced with a beach ball because the manufacturer bought third party parts? Sadly aside from the guy who sold these devices getting a little jail time not much will be done to address this in the future. it also makes me wonder if there were any attacks that… Read more »
Well, it’s speculative on my part but I suspect the answer is ‘quite a few’. If it were provable then you could theoretically have the people behind them on manslaughter charges in the countries they sold the detectors.
Cant we have something else which can be replaced for these bombs ? A much more less harmful thing ? We should identify the real value of a human life. Loosing a human is a huge loss for the world plus the nature itself. We do not feel it until it happens to someone closer to us.
The Bomb Detectors are mostly used a post mortem equipment, very rarely if at all they are used for searching explosives or bombs about which there is no prior information. The amount of time an explosive detector would take to sanitize a given area encourages such Mumbo Jumbo Stuff to be used. This manufacturer was found to be the rare one who would offer search capability for explosives or Bombs. To my mind even now there are hardly any clear solutions for such search using explosive detectors. Most explosive detectors need closed environment or physical sampling. This so called device… Read more »
That therefore sounds like the buyer hearing what they wanted to believe. As the old saying goes, if a product sounds too good to be true, there’s a good chance it is.
Not in the same way perhaps but we feel the pain for someone else.
SunitaT
August 28, 2013 2:43 pm
Considering the grave threats of terrorism all over the world, it is mind blowing to know that such counter-terrorism devices are never tested credibly and independently before marketing and selling. It is no use now to criticize the person who sold these devices and made money because he got punished for what he did. We need to take serious action against manufacturing and export control related departments.
SunitaT
August 28, 2013 2:44 pm
The most culpable in this issue are the agencies who bought these devices without any real testing. There is no point in believing what seller is telling you about the product and buying it at extravagant price. Lack of credibility and knowledge about such equipment in such agencies aggravate the situation. Thailand’s example of continuing to use these detectors in spite of Office of Fair Trading findings shows their lack of credibility and shear disregard to public safety issues.
Great point, it’s true that there will always be con-artists out there trying to de-fraud people but there needs to be far far stricter controls in place to prevent this ever happening.
I saw this story earlier this week and besides being angry that someone could sell so many useless devices to various military agencies it makes me sick to think that someone would sell something like this knowing what could happen when it doesn’t work. It blows my mind that not one agency opened one up to see what made it work or did testing with it that came out as more than a random chance. They might as well have been playing Russian Roulette.
This is disturbing that these things can be passed off like this and put so many at risk. As far as I see it they knowingly put people in harms way and have two incidents that injuries resulted in their gross neglience. These types of devices need to submitted for testing and independent review.
…and then thrown in the bin, where they belong.
Bizarre isn’t it that any agency would be so trusting. I agree with your subject line on this message. It’s almost funny it’s so rubbish, but the fact people were really put at risk takes the smirk off your face.
The risk isn’t the only thing that makes me angry, the cost is a huge issue too. We have a good example here of government agencies buying garbage with taxpayer money in many cases to protect those same taxpayers. How would you feel if you found out that your car’s airbag was replaced with a beach ball because the manufacturer bought third party parts? Sadly aside from the guy who sold these devices getting a little jail time not much will be done to address this in the future. it also makes me wonder if there were any attacks that… Read more »
Well, it’s speculative on my part but I suspect the answer is ‘quite a few’. If it were provable then you could theoretically have the people behind them on manslaughter charges in the countries they sold the detectors.
Cant we have something else which can be replaced for these bombs ? A much more less harmful thing ? We should identify the real value of a human life. Loosing a human is a huge loss for the world plus the nature itself. We do not feel it until it happens to someone closer to us.
The Bomb Detectors are mostly used a post mortem equipment, very rarely if at all they are used for searching explosives or bombs about which there is no prior information. The amount of time an explosive detector would take to sanitize a given area encourages such Mumbo Jumbo Stuff to be used. This manufacturer was found to be the rare one who would offer search capability for explosives or Bombs. To my mind even now there are hardly any clear solutions for such search using explosive detectors. Most explosive detectors need closed environment or physical sampling. This so called device… Read more »
That therefore sounds like the buyer hearing what they wanted to believe. As the old saying goes, if a product sounds too good to be true, there’s a good chance it is.
Not in the same way perhaps but we feel the pain for someone else.
Considering the grave threats of terrorism all over the world, it is mind blowing to know that such counter-terrorism devices are never tested credibly and independently before marketing and selling. It is no use now to criticize the person who sold these devices and made money because he got punished for what he did. We need to take serious action against manufacturing and export control related departments.
The most culpable in this issue are the agencies who bought these devices without any real testing. There is no point in believing what seller is telling you about the product and buying it at extravagant price. Lack of credibility and knowledge about such equipment in such agencies aggravate the situation. Thailand’s example of continuing to use these detectors in spite of Office of Fair Trading findings shows their lack of credibility and shear disregard to public safety issues.
@Robert Brown: Yes we do feel for others as well but not in a way when something bad happens for us or for someone we are close to.
@Robert Brown: Yes we do feel for others as well but not in a way when something bad happens for us or for someone we are close to.
Great point, it’s true that there will always be con-artists out there trying to de-fraud people but there needs to be far far stricter controls in place to prevent this ever happening.