We wish to explain the precise situation for any reader who may be concerned by your report. This article is extremely damaging to a British company gaining valuable exports for the UK. We believe you are based in Hampshire and could have easily met us to discuss and qualify the article before publication.

Further to your story of last month re: the Ritter tests, you have made an attempt to link a totally separate subject, USCG tests on McMurdo PLBs, to build a story. And your conclusion? All five of our units passed the tests and it is business as usual between the USCG and McMurdo. In fact, as recently as last week, they placed an additional substantial PLB order with McMurdo.

Despite your attempt to portray it otherwise, the USCG are using our products, they have not returned our products and have no intention of returning our products. What we find unacceptable is the manner you reported these facts. Example: "While all five units passed the tests".

Example: "While the USCG has neither taken the McMurdo products out of use, nor returned them?" You are deliberately trying to find a negative where none exists. And you appear to have so little confidence in your story, you can only refer to an "informed American source" who made a "suggestion" to Boating Business. Why was this person unwilling to be named?

And what are their credentials for their "informed" status?

In case you are interested, here are the facts as opposed to your allegations and unattributed remarks.