Morality and Integrity – Two things the Pro-Frackers can’t buy!


Mike Hill

Yesterday we were delighted to learn that, after a thorough 18 month investigation,  Mike Hill was totally exonerated by the The Institution of Engineering and Technology with regard to 57 allegations that had been levelled against him. There were in fact two separate complaints brought against Mr Hill. The first claiming that he had brought the engineering profession into disrepute by “overstating his professional competence” and using the IET to enhance his reputation in a way which was damaging to his fellow members, and the second claiming that he used his MIET status to “present false data to the public“.

Whilst, in a bizarrely Kafkaesque twist, the IET did not allow Mr Hill to know the identity of his accusers, the redaction of the second complaint omitted to remove the phrase “I am a graduate engineer with 12 years experience in the oil business” which gives us rather a big clue as to the identity of at least one of the complainants. I believe Mr Hill has a pretty good idea who the other one is as well.

Who could this graduate engineer be? Step forward Ken Wilkinson – AKA “KW”, KennyWPara”, “NimbyMagnet1” and several other IDs on newspaper comments pages throughout the land. Here is how Ken describes himself in an article trying to discredit yet another better informed person than himself:

12-yearsJust in case you remain in any doubt here is what he was goaded into admitting on Facebook earlier this year


So there can be no doubt that our engineer who maliciously and untruthfully maligned Mr Hill, specifically to get him “removed from the IET“, was Mr Kenneth Wilkinson, a rather sad and obsessive ex Physics teacher who lives miles away from the areas targetted for fracking in Bristol.

It would be inappropriate to give more oxygen to the fatuous claims made by Mr Wilkinson and his anonymous co-complainant, but suffice it to say they levelled 57 allegations calling into question Mr Hill’s statements on potential health impacts, the risks of irreparable damage to the environment, the inadequacy of existing onshore regulations, the inadequacy of provisions for monitoring, and severe repercussions for the quality of life of people living in fracking zones.

All of the allegations were considered in depth over an 18 month period by senior members of the IET. It is safe to assume that these people were all rather better qualified to assess the accuracy and veracity of Mr Hill’s various statements, and his level of integrity, than the malicious malcontents who vexatiously attempted to ruin Mr Hill’s reputation and destroy his livelihood. After a hearing at the end of  a full enquiry it took them just moments to completely exonerate Mr Hill on all counts.

Interestingly a lot of the allegations centred around what the complainants suggested were inaccuracies and misleading statements in the Medact Report. Had the IET believed these statements were in any way wrong or mendacious then it is inconceivable that Mr Hill would not have been censured for bringing the IET into disrepute. It is reasonable to infer therefore that the IET has concluded that Mr Hill’s statements on, and involvement with, the Medact report were totally appropriate from a engineering/scientific point of view. Whilst it might be a stretch to say that the IET endorses the Medact Report it is indubitable that they endorse the fact that Mr Hill has the right, based on his qualifications, experience and research, to make the  statements that he did in public and that they were fair and reasonable statements.

So here we have it – Mike Hill and his family have been through yet another bruising battle (many of you will remember the character assassination Mike suffered during his election campaign last year – Mr Wilkinson was heavily involved in that too!).

He was put through this because he had the integrity and vision to stand up and make his beliefs known to protect his family and those who live in the same area as he does. For this he should be applauded, and at very least he can now reasonably claim that his position on fracking has been deemed to be reasonable in engineering terms by his own professional body – remember his detractors left no stone unturned in their 57 allegations, but not one could be made to stick!

Those who attacked Mike wanted not only to destroy him but to destroy his arguments on fracking. Those arguments are also our arguments and are key to why fracking should not be allowed to go ahead and why Theresa May and her Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Sajiv Javid, should not overturn the democratic process to force fracking on the Fylde.

You can be sure the industry and Government would have made huge capital had the decision by the IET gone the other way. They would have used the wiping out of Mike’s credibility to wipe out in turn the credibility of all those opposed to fracking up and down the UK. However, after an extensive investigation, the IET have upheld Mike Hill’s position and the case he made against fracking and why. That is critically important to all of us who oppose this industry.

We use these arguments every day and they will become all the more important over the coming weeks. Let the government, industry and the pro fracking fraternity, with their vested interests,  know that the largest and oldest engineering institution in the world has conducted an independent examination of the arguments, in great detail, over an eighteen month period, and found that its member had used his qualifications, experience and research, to produce perfectly valid and credible arguments based on sound judgements regarding the health impacts of fracking and the risks to the environment. Furthermore it is clearly accepted that Mike had executed his duty under the Codes of Conduct of the IET and had made public his findings for the good of his fellow citizens and the wider country .

“They” can “slap us down” no more. Our case is sound and based on engineering and science.

That just leaves us with Ken Wilkinson and his anonymous accomplice. What can we make of somebody whose self-obsession  leads him to try to ruin the career of somebody who has clearly been exonerated by the IET, and is now shown to have been acting reasonably and in the public interest.

I believe Mr Wilkinson’s behaviour to have been absolutely shameful – his credibility is now forever tarnished by this vexatious (but failed) attempt to spitefully destroy another person’s reputation and livelihood. His arguments were all placed prominently on display and found to be wanting – not a single one, not one,  was upheld by the body of engineers on whom he had called.

He has let himself down and totally humiliated himself. His pro-fracking comrades should now be embarrassed to be associated in any way with him.

Post Script – The Backing Fracking Farcebook page reported on this post but clearly didn’t like my responses, or those of another poster called “Local Farmer”.

They blocked us both which means our past posts are invisible and we can no longer comment. Knowing this Ken Wilkinson has now been “brave” enough to post this

I hope that Ken isn’t planning on complaining again, as I doubt organisations who you accuse of unjustly protecting their own members take too kindly to your subsequent complaints. This is rather typical Ken – he is never wrong – if his nasty and vindictive attempt failed it wasn’t because his complaints were invalid, it was clearly because the world is against him and his truth-telling. You know, he sounds like a bit of a conspiracy-theorist to me!

I can of course imagine your surprise when you find out that Ken has totally misunderstood how the Legal Ombudsman works – he or she is there to mediate between consumers and legal service providers.  If the service provider has broken any rules of professional conduct, the Legal Ombudsman may refer your complaint to the appropriate regulatory body.  This of course means that what he wrote above about the role of an ombudsman is rubbish.


You may also like...