|
Graeme Sweeney Shell
Research Limited PO
Box 1 Chester
CH1 3SH. 5
May 2000 Your ref: TSS/50
Dear Mr. Graeme Sweeney, You
will recall that at the close of our meeting of the 12 January 1999 you
undertook on behalf of Shell, (and I might add following our conversation and
subsequent hand shake, I took it also as a personal undertaking) to investigate
and report back to me, the following: 1)
The cash
payments authorised by Shell in 1968, at director level, and subsequently made
via your bank. You will recall that
you (Shell) undertook to contact the bank, in order that they would forward
names and addresses of former employees. They would, as I indicated, be able to
verify the cash payments. Furthermore,
they will be able to attest to the fact that payments, running into hundreds of
thousands of pounds (at today’s prices) was made, to those you chose to employ
in order to carry out the nuclear decommissioning at Thornton Research Centre.
Shell’s desire that such amounts were paid out in cash, not even a
signature of acceptance of the cash was required, would indicate a most
'unusual' occurrence. 2)
You
further undertook to contact ex-employees, (whom Shell had interviewed in
1993/4), at director, and other, level. You
stated, at our meeting, that they had recently been contacted, and was surprised
when I informed this was not universally so. Despite
the fact that over one year has passed, I still await the fulfilment of your
undertakings. There are several other matters you undertook to investigate and
report back, to me. However, these two will do for now. On
the 4 February 1999, I wrote to the Managing Director of Shell Transport &
Trading, Mr. Mark Moody-Stuart. In
reply, Mr Moody-Stuart, as per your letter of the 28 January 1999, indicated my
unwillingness to co-operate in this matter. This unfounded smear can now be
corrected. As I informed, and your colleagues, at our meeting, to quote my
letter to you of 8/2/99: “As
the tapes, of our meeting of 12/1/99, demonstrate I offered to hand over
virtually my entire body of evidence, excluding the names of any individuals,
who would not authorise disclosure. That evidence would have included the tens
of thousands of pages of ‘documents’ in my possession. Details of the
nuclear dumpsites, health statistics, identification of the building, tapes,
etc., etc. Unfortunately, you rejected that outright. So much for your assertion
(excuse) that I have refused to provide the required information, and hence your
inability to investigate matters. This, incidentally, from a Company that has
outright refused to supply me with virtually any information, whatsoever!” Your
(Shell’s) considered response, dated 19 February 1999, consisted of twelve
words: “Thank
you for your letter of 8 February. We note the contents of your letter.”
So
much for your inability to investigate matters, as a result of my ‘failure to
supply information’. As an act of gross irresponsibility, showing complete the
disregard Shell displays for the consequences on the countless thousands of
individuals who have been victims of your illegal disposal of nuclear waste is,
well to mis-quote George Steiner ‘language is, at best, an inadequate bridge
to convey meaning’. The fact that the dumped material included high level
(nuclear) waste only serves to expose the gravity of the situation. For
the record, prior to our meeting I had made the same offers to Shell, via Shell
Legal Director, Mr. Richard Wiseman.
John Dyer |