Roy, yes, you're quite right in all respects, and hopefully my other post has clarified the point I was trying to make as it would appear that, in the interests of brevity, I must have worded it badly as you and others appear to have understood it to mean almost exactly the opposite of what i intended.

Like Andy, I've come to the point where, though, as you know, I'm personally not in favour of trying to build the value (or perception of value) of I.Eng, I am not averse to your idea of merging the two and scrapping the tiers created, and acknowledge that it may well be an easier goal to achieve, but do long as we do have both registrations in place, I'm keen to discourage employers from demanding C.Eng when I.Eng is perfectly suitable

Roy, yes, you're quite right in all respects, and hopefully my other post has clarified the point I was trying to make as it would appear that, in the interests of brevity, I must have worded it badly as you and others appear to have understood it to mean almost exactly the opposite of what i intended.

Like Andy, I've come to the point where, though, as you know, I'm personally not in favour of trying to build the value (or perception of value) of I.Eng, I am not averse to your idea of merging the two and scrapping the tiers created, and acknowledge that it may well be an easier goal to achieve, but do long as we do have both registrations in place, I'm keen to discourage employers from demanding C.Eng when I.Eng is perfectly suitable