Dyer-Wisereply 12
Home Up Dyer-Wisereply 13 Wiseman's letter Shell's lawyers




R M Wiseman

Shell UK limited

Shell-Mex House

London WC2R 0XD.

Your Ref:  LSUK

9 June  2000. 

Dear Mr Wiseman, 

Thank you for your fax and subsequent letter of the 8 June

You state: 

“To this point we have been unable to find anything to collaborate your allegations…..” 

Wrong, wrong, wrong! 

At our meeting, of the 12 January 1999, I communicated to Mr Sweeney, how Shell could quickly authenticate the ‘first element of the story’, -the extensive cash payments.  Once this was verified, I informed the meeting (Shell), we could move forward.  As I informed Mr Sweeney, the bank’s ex-employees will be able to supply the required corroboration regarding the cash payments.  If you had any trouble locating the bank’s former employees, I shall be able to assist.  Consequently, I await your call.  

At the said meeting, I further detailed the plant and wagons used, the problems the ‘Lads’ and Shell encountered with the nuclear decommissioning, etc, etc. 

You State: 

‘However, to proceed we need something more concrete than your allegations alone. This is what Dr Sweeney asked for following your meeting with him at Thornton last year.’ 

Misleading, and erroneous! 

Following my meeting with Mr Sweeney, Mr. Hugh Dorans wrote, in his letter of the 18 January1999.

‘In addition, we believe that we would be able to make more progress if we were to discuss the events directly with the witnesses you have interviewed.’ 

I have repeatedly offered, as per my last letter, to jointly interview the ‘lads’ and former Shell employees, and others, who would quickly establish the truth.  You refuse! 

I offered to interview former Shell directors, who were aware of the sham nature of the Narrative, prior to its construction.  You refuse! 

I remind you that in spite of your (Shell) numerous undertakings, I now find that not only does Mr Sweeney refuse to respond to my letter of 5 May, ‘he asks you’ (Shell) to forward the fact that ‘he will not be responding’. 

There seems hardly any point in detailing further examples.  

In light of the construction of a your Narrative of the 7 February 1994, you are perfectly well aware, that I am unwilling to simply hand over my evidence, without reasonable safeguards in place.  Thus, I regard your offers as little more than rudimentary PR exercises. 

Nevertheless, the one thing we can surely agree on is that this is far too important to allow personnel feelings to be in any way a significant factor.  Consequently, I am prepared to hand over direct to Shell, a transcript of my interview with your former ‘Manager’, complete with official, Shell and other documents conclusively ‘demonstrating’ that Shell Thornton Research Centre and its employees were conducting the nuclear research programs as per the Managers account.  I have further good news.  I have located some of the personnel involved.  However, not all reside in the UK, some reside in Europe, others are wider a field. 

In return, after inspecting the evidence you will accept (the evidence) as being such, that you will accept my proposal(s) to have the remainder of my evidence subjected to the required scrutiny, as I have set-out.  In the event that you ‘find’ my evidence ‘unproven’ you would give an undertaking to jointly interview, the said identified personnel, so that the facts can be established.  If I may quote you ‘What have you to lose?’ 

So there you have it, further alternative methods to collaborate (my) allegations’ 

Bad manners are, of course, never forgivable, however I find that your repeated concern that my publishing indiscriminate ‘allegations’ will cause ‘public panic’, unthinking and truly distasteful. You will have noted that I have not published, why for god’s sake do you suppose that I have not published, if it was not out of my concern for the likely effects of disclosure. 

What other possible reason would I be conducting this one-way exercise in futility?  If it was not for my endless fears of the effects of disclosure.  For I have absolutely no doubt as to the truth of matters.      

In view of the fact that we are now going around the same circle, we have now come to the point that if you were to turn down my latest offers, then I believe it is entirely fair for me to conclude that you have, by design, chosen to close this correspondence. 

If this is the case, I regrettably give notice that I will issue a writ, for damages. In light of the undoubted and worrying problems of disclosure, I shall construct my pleadings in the most cautious and responsible manner.  I fully expect you to honour your undertakings and should you defend- I will expect you to behave in a similar responsible manner. 

Yours sincerely, 

John Dyer.