We have a received a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for the following:
“I have now received a reply from Rob Coleman, dated 2 November 2006, in reply to my letter dated 13 October 2006. This confirms that I have understood correctly the position being taken by the Home Office regarding beam spread effects. The Home Office position is not correct - this has been indicated by the device’s inventor, and I have also cross checked it by testing an LTI 20.20 myself.
Therefore, in my letter dated 13 October 2006, I also asked the following question:
“Please could you also confirm whether you would be prepared to allow me to demonstrate this to you with a Home Office Type Approved LTI 20.20.”
This question remains unanswered. Please could you answer it.
In the past I have asked for details of the information source the Home Office are relying on for the LTI 20.20. So far I have been told the Home Office contact is a Mr. Lewis, who in turns relies on information from “the manufacturer”.
Could you please clarify details of “the manufacturer”. Please could you supply the name of the Company, its address, and the name or names of the technical contacts you get your information from.
Given that you have stated that you rely on the manufacturer for technical information on these devices, I was surprised that Mr. Coleman wrote in his letter:
“…it is not appropriate for us [to] comment on the manufacturer’s statements.”
The US manufacturer of the device has actually provided a different position to the Home Office regarding this matter. They have done so in Court proceedings. I have confirmed that their statement is accurate by testing two different LTI 20.20 devices. This proves the Home Office position is incorrect. So who exactly is the Home Office getting their information from?
There is clear contradiction taking place in Court cases. Somebody, somewhere must be wrong and misleading the Courts. I am very surprised the Home Office does not seem the least bit concerned.
Please could you supply copies of correspondence from the manufacturer regarding this discussion.
Thank you for your time in this matter.”