ENGLISH ELECTRIC VALVE CO.

I had been working, and continued to work, on the plan requested by F.C. Thompson.  I sent written drafts for typing to his secretary and had completed it just after Christmas.  I sent it to F.C. Thompson to reach him by 1st January 1968, when the new Quality Assurance Manager took up his appointment, indicated the part that could be implemented immediately and asked if he would let me know when it was convenient for me to come over and discuss it.

Friday 5th January 1968

I had heard nothing by so I rang Thompson who said he had been at Elliot Automation all week.  We arranged for me to visit EEV on Monday 8th January.

In the meantime, I had received several odd 'phone calls, which included one from Winton who said that G. Bosworth was closely connected with and often lunched at EEV.

Friday 6th January 1968

Party at Godwins.  David Jones of E.E. was there.  He asked me who I was going to see at EEV on Monday.  Registered disapproval when I mentioned I was going to see F.C. Thompson and said he thought I might be going to see the M.D. 

Monday 8th January 1968

Arrived at Waterhouse Lane at 10 a.m. approx.  Met by a secretary at top of stairs who said that Mr. Saltmarsh, Assistant Accountant wished. to see me.  He came within seconds and queried my tax code - this he said was why I hadn't received payment.  I pointed out that payment was required without deduction of tax and asked him to speed things up.  I was told they would prefer to pay on a four-week period basis rather than calendar monthly and I agreed. Tomsett was waiting for me outside F.C. Thompson's office.  Thompson was not ready and Tomsett and I talked for about twenty minutes.

When we were together, I asked Thompson if we could discuss the plan and he straightway started to criticise it.  He demanded that efforts be concentrated on calibration and not final products, results were wanted immediately, men were standing by.  He challenged every point I made, with complete lack of integrity.  He brought out a plan of a building and pointed to six units (oblique reference to M.I. Engineering Department at St. Albans?) and said these could be for the calibration man, what would I do with them, etc.  It was deliberately humiliating and undermined any reasonable relationship Tomsett and I might have had.  After about an hour of this, during which I declined lunch since I saw how the land lay, I asked that I should see him alone and he asked Tomsett to leave.

I asked Thompson who had primed him.  He was somewhat flustered (I noticed he was  nervous before he began his attack) then denied any prompting.  I told him I could see the way it had been set up and that I abhorred these manipulative techniques.  He said they didn't take place in the scientific and engineering world to which I replied that scientists and engineers were vulnerable to being "conned" into such malpractices.  I asked him if G. Bosworth was to be present at lunch and he said no.  I left him with the remark that the puppets of this sort of exercise were generally decent chaps but the puppet master was a different kettle of fish altogether.

Thompson said they had just re-engaged D. Marples as a consultant.

(At this meeting I also asked F. Thompson how he had come to engage me.  He said that a letter had arrived from a firm of consultants offering their services in this capacity and one of the directors typed in on the letter heading was a man called J.R. Heap who had worked at English Electric Valve.  He had gone to Young with the letter and Young had suggested me.)

Wednesday 10th January 1968

Arrived at Waterhouse Lane at about 10.30 a.m. to see F.C. Thompson.  Tomsett was ill.  I had decided to make my relationships with Marconi Instruments clearer and showed him a draft press release I had concocted to make my point.  It was not the sort of statement which would ever be published.

DRAFT PRESS RELEASE

Mr. H. V. Beck and Marconi Instruments.

To clear up misunderstandings about the position of Mr. H.V. Beck vis a vis Marconi Instruments, Ltd., the following statement has been agreed between Mr. R.E. Burnett, Managing Director of Marconi Instruments, Ltd, ................ of English Electric Co. Ltd., and Mr. H.V. Beck.

Mr. H.V. Beck joined Marconi Instruments, Ltd. in January 1962 as Chief of Advanced Development and in January 1964 was appointed Research Manager, directly responsible to the Managing Director.  During 1964 and 1965 it became increasingly clear that Mr. Beck was out of sympathy with management practice in the Company and particularly as regards human factors.  In September 1965, Mr. Beck was asked to leave the Company.  This request was rescinded within a few days but over the next three months staff was transferred from the Research Department to the Engineering Department and Mr. Beck's responsibilities reduced.

In December 1965, Mr. Beck was again asked to leave the Company.  He agreed to do so with effect from February 1966 on the basis of a legal agreement providing for six months’ salary as compensation for loss of office, a waiving by him by him of all claims on the Company and an undertaking by the Company that it would not do anything to prejudice his obtaining other employment.

The possibility of transfer to another Company in the English Electric Group was explored but there was no vacancy at the time nor has there been one since.  Equally it was not possible to offer Mr. Beck another post in Marconi Instruments. The parties to this statement wish to make it clear that Mr. Beck parted from Marconi Instruments in February 1966 and any statements to the contrary or pressure to bring about a return or to place Mr. Beck in a Company or other organisation not of his choice represents a gross violation of liberty.

The Company wish to make it clear that during his employment Mr. Beck made a very valuable contribution to the Company and discharged his duties satisfactorily.

Mr. R.E. Burnett, who was Managing Director throughout this period and subsequently, has repeatedly expressed his sincere regret at the unavoidable action and the loss of income and facilities it has occasioned.

Mr. Beck accepts these regrets in the spirit in which they were offered.

I also showed Thompson an extract from Schein's "Management Development" paper and Schein's "Problems of moral education for business manager".  Thompson read them and said he didn't indulge in this sort of thing and that he had thought I had left M.I. because of S. Arms.

Everything that morning (I did not stay to or after lunch) was sweet reasonableness.  There had been a change of plan and calibration was now in an adjacent part of the building, with two screened cages (reference to M.I. Stevenage?).  There was a good deal of apparatus there.  We walked over and I was asked what I wanted done there - it would be done immediately because Mr. Beck had said so!  I was introduced to Dr. Whitfield who was in charge of factory services and we agreed what should be done.  He said he was thinking of putting a lift in from the microwave area.  Instruments were pulled out and shown me.

Before I left, F.C. Thompson referred to my visit “next week”.  It was agreed that the first task was to write a "drill" book for calibration.  He also pointedly referred to drawing up contacts with Litton Industries.

I also saw Evans before I left and asked him (after some discussion) to collect as much information of a certain type as he could.  I wrote out a list of valves for which information would be valuable and handed it to him in the form of a memo.

Tuesday 16th January 1968

I decided to go to SVTL to look at their calibration set-up for valves.  I rang SERL at Baldock and I.A. Harris at E.I.D., Harefield, for information on persons to contact.  I.A. Harris gave me Mr. Lewis's name and the SVTL number.  I telephoned Mr. Lewis, Officer-in-Charge of SVTL and it was agreed I would visit on the 18th.  We fixed up a train which he would send a car to meet (Portsmouth line).

Thursday 18th January 1968

I caught the 8.32 train from Harpenden and Clendon got in at St. Albans.  (Clendon is ex M.I., now working in English Electric House under E.R.L.Lewis but living in St. Albans).  At St. Pancras, I tried to dodge Clendon but clearly he was determined not to let me get away.  He wanted to know where I was going and insisted on my going on the Piccadilly line with him.  He was later then usual, he said, because he had been up late on a visit to Portsmouth.  He spoke about recruiting bright people and how my daughter was brighter than his.  We also mentioned oscilloscopes and Puckle's book on Time Bases.

On arrival at SVTL, I noticed that 2 M.I. Sanders (Stevenage) people had been there the day before.

Well treated by Lewis.  He described SVTL as a measurement establishment.  Spent much of the day with me apart from periods with two of his section leaders.  One, Holton, was nervous, spoke about Prof. Barlow, Don Woods, etc., the British Calibration Service (it would be a good idea if I contacted them), Panel 2 of Min. of Tech., B.C.S.  Showed me noise measurement and microwave gear.  His office had papers on microwaves, an M.I. news sheet and other instrumentation catalogues littered around.  In showing me round, he stopped at an M.I. oscilloscope and said that this was the old valve model which was quite reliable if unexciting but the new transistorised model broke down in the time base whenever there was an excessive impulse.  This caused a good many delays.

Thursday 25th January 1968

Posted letter to W. G. Leslie re payment of fees.

COPY

HVB/SJB

 25th January 1968

W. G. Leslie, Esq.

Company Secretary,

The English Electric Valve Co. Ltd.,

Waterhouse Lane,

Chelmsford,

Essex.

Dear Mr. Leslie,

I am somewhat concerned at the manner of payment of my retaining fees, due under our agreement.  This specifies payment in advance of £400 per calendar month.

I am quite happy that payment should be made of approximately £369 per four-week period if this is administratively more convenient for you but I am unwilling to relax on the payment in advance condition.  I appreciated that payment could not be made on December 7th when the agreement was signed and came into effect and agreed to a delay but I did not expect to wait five weeks for it!

I am sorry to note that payment for the first full four-week period is now overdue.  As I understand the position, you have now made  payment for the period 7th to 31st December 1967.  On the basis of payment on a four week period in advance I would have expected a remittance on the lst January 1968 and another to be made on Monday next (29th).

I would be glad if you would give this matter your personal attention and look forward to receiving your comments.

I confirm that payment should be made without deduction of tax.

              Yours sincerely,

I worked on the drill book for calibration and sent pages for typing.  I rang Tomsett on Monday 22nd.  He said he was tied up until Friday 26th so we fixed that day tentatively.  This was confirmed on Thursday 25th.  I tried to make an appointment with J. Young but he sent a message that he wouldn't have time to see me.

Friday 26th January 1968

Arrived at Waterhouse Lane about 11 a.m.  Shown into Tomsett's office but he wasn't there.  Asked to make myself at home - sit at his desk, etc.  The office was tidy and arranged with microwave journal, Marconi Instruments literature, literature on supervisory control systems and a copy of a memo sent round to Department Heads in my name.  With the references at previous meetings  to senior supervisors and the prominence given to literate on supervisory control systems I had some reason to believe my allegorical article on the need for Ray Burnett to be supervised, which I had sent to Neil Sutherland, had been taken seriously.

Proposed Article on:

The Role of Instrumentation in Supervisory Systems for Electronics Installations

Electronics installations are increasing in complexity at a. time when reliability is becoming more important. Supervisory systems are required to monitor each part of the installation and initiate action or indicate to the controller that action is needed to keep the installation in full working order.

Instrumentation requires especially careful consideration in any supervisory system.  It is a. very sensitive area since its inherent inaccuracies and distortions condition the overall performance of the supervisory system and the reliability of the total electronic installation it is designed to protect.

Most of the difficulties and limitations of the instrumentation stem from the transducer or measurement head.  Clearly, supervisory systems should be designed. to cater for the actual rather than the presumed characteristics of the measurement head, i.e. it should take into account that the measurement head not only collects information but also feeds back spurious signals, is liable to drift and distortion and likely to produce errors due to undesirable couplings with other parts of the electronic installation or even externally (e.g. through the electrical supply).

Supervisory systems that take account of such anomalies are feasible and should be used if no alteration in the measurement heads and associated hardware can be envisaged.  The replacement of an existing supervisory system by a version up-dated to take account of the actual characteristics can be achieved by the principle of preferential duplication. The new system is installed alongside the existing one but does not actually exercise control until deemed expedient.

It is not necessary to duplicate all parts of the supervisory system at once.  The instrumentation side may come first and could be installed in the standby supervisory role while design of, say, the communication side of the supervisory system proceeds.

Care must be exercised if measurement heads are being replaced.  There is some danger from the radioactive types if they are not suitably shielded or neutralised.  If such a. measurement head is to be replaced, it is recommended that a non-radioactive type of U.S.A. design should be used.

A survey of practice to date could be carried out in 3000 to 5000 words.  The subject of the future development of supervisory systems for electronics installations could probably be covered in 6000 to 8000 words of which the instrumentation side would take up to about half.

Tomsett came in and we talked about setting up the calibration service.  He said they wanted a chap to run it.  They were thinking of someone of' about 40 etc. I advised him on the qualities needed and said someone of about 30 would be suitable.  He brought out instruments from cardboard boxes to show me.

Went to lunch.  Sat with Tomsett while J. Young and Departmental Managers were in private room.  Joined by the Sales Manager and a Dr. Pickering.  Sales Manager got up from lunch and said he was now going to conduct another interview (the advert for Assistant Sales Manager had appeared).

After lunch I saw W.G. Leslie about my letter which he said he hadn't received.  I showed him a copy and he agreed wholeheartedly and said he would see to it straight away.

F.C. Thompson said he wanted to see me.  When I got into his office he started criticising me most offensively.  Said he hadn't seen anything for the money I had been paid.  I corrected him and told him what the realities of the situation were on the straight forward basis e.g. - changes of mind, non availability of staff, etc.  The drill book was half written and much work had been going on in the background.

Thompson told me my name was mud in EEV  I told him of the "imperative" notice that had gone out in my name.  He said he hadn't seen it.  I said I wasn't going to leave with my reputation tarnished, etc., and he said "That's the end - we'll finish it here and now".  I think he was convinced by some of' my arguments but was under orders to finish the arrangement.  Indeed, when I said I would like to see J. Young he said that I wouldn't change Young's mind.  Young said he couldn't see me that day but asked me to come and see him on Wednesday, 31st at 11 a.m.

I left F. C. Thompson saying he must do what he has to do and I will do what I have to.  I said "You will be writing to me then?" and left.

Saturday 27th January 1968

I received a letter from J. Young's secretary cancelling the appointment and asking me to 'phone on Thursday or Friday (1st or 2nd February) for another.  I also had copies of my draft report returned.

Saturday 3rd February 1968

 I wrote to Sir Gordon Radley enclosing a precis of events at EEV advising him to be cautious in any action he takes and requesting a meeting.  I called at his home with the letter but he was in the bath.

Wednesday 7th February 1968

I received notice of termination of consultancy with EEV

Friday 9th February 1968

Letter from G. S. Bosworth in reply to mine of the 3rd to Sir Gordon.  "We would appreciate it if you would let the matter rest".

Wednesday 21st February 1968

I received a cheque for the fees due up to 7th March. In a phone conversation the Commercial Manager of M.I., John Brodrick, commented "You have been topped up".

8a