Richard King

Code of Conduct

Outlined below are those parts of the Code of Conduct of a Chartered Engineer which, in my view, Havant breached.

(These are quoted from the Institutions of Electrical Engineers' version. Those of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, my own Institution, are very similar.)

Visitors to this Web Site can compare the Rules with Havant's behaviour and come to your own conclusions.

Rule 2: A Member shall take all reasonable steps to avoid waste of natural resources, damage to the environment, and wasteful damage or destruction of human skill and industry.

The fruits of my "skill and industry" over a five year period were wrecked.

Rule 4: A Member shall not undertake responsibility as an electrical engineer which he does not believe himself competent to discharge.

For other disciplines in engineering "electrical" would become mechanical, manufacturing, materials, civil engineering and so on.

My Proposal, which won the funding, was based on technology diversification in the materials field, particularly advanced materials and composite materials. I hold a Masters Degree in Non-Metallic Materials, have extensive experience of materials in the aerospace industry, was a Member of the Materials Committee of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and the Composites Society, and had successfully developed business in the advanced materials sector.

To the best of my knowledge, Mr Marshall has an electrical engineering and business background rather than materials. The person put in charge of my project, or their version of it, had an electrical and electronics background, not material or business development.

Rule 5: A Member shall accept responsibility for all work done by him or under his supervision or direction, and shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that person working under his authority are competent to carry out the tasks assigned to them and that they accept personal responsibility for work done under the authority delegated to them.

I am unaware of Havant accepting any responsibility. As mentioned above, the person put I charge of my project, or their version of it, had an electrical and electronics background, not material or business development.

Rule 10: A Member shall not recklessly or maliciously injure or attempt to injure, whether directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects or business of another.

My professional reputation was damaged.

My prospects have been very seriously damaged.

My business was extremely seriously damaged.

I sustained very large financial losses, both actual and in prospect.

(That is quite apart from the damage inflicted on my family by financial losses and very considerable stress.)

If you are considering bringing your business to Havant, or near Havant:

Do you still want to do so?

Are you strong enough?

Could you cope with what we went through?

More importantly, is it worth the risk?

Because of the above I filed a formal complaint against Mr P.G. Marshall, Managing Director of Havant Borough Partnership, with the Institution of Electrical Engineers. Although Mr Marshall's Havant Borough Partnership business card carried the designatory letters "MIEE", the Institution of Electrical Engineers informed me that he was not a Member and, therefore, they could take the matter no further.

Regrettably, Havant finds the above acceptable.

Anyone wishing to do so may check my qualifications with the Institution of Mechanical Engineers or the Council of Engineering Institutions. They will be found to be valid.