Dyer-Wiseman 4
Home Up Dyer-Wisereply 5 Shell's layers



R M Wiseman

R M Wiseman

Shell UK limited

Shell-Mex House

London WC2R 0XD.

Your Ref.: UKLG 



Dear Mr Wiseman,

                                Reflecting on our telephone conversation, over the weekend, I am concerned,  I trust I have formed the wrong impression, but from the tone of your remarks it could be construed that the present investigation  is centring on, or concerning, the Cobalt-60 building. So as to avoid any possible misunderstand, deliberate or otherwise, the 'building'  in question was NOT THE COBALT-60 LABORATORY. The Co-60 Narrative of the 7 February 1994, is a total and absolute lie! None of the dumped nuclear waste, I have previously alluded to, originated or came from, or was part of the demolition of the Co-60 laboratory. If you are being told differently, you are being lied to.  

In order to understand the magnitude of the lie(s), you may wish to contemplate as to what criteria was employed when it was decided to 'select' XXXXXXX and associates, to carry out the nuclear decommissioning at Thornton Research Centre, in 1968. For 'XXXX' and associates must have had great talents- unfortunately I am saddened to say, their talents still escape me, unless, of course, you include theft, the defiling and robbing of graves, armed robbery, attempted and possible murder, oh and of course illegally dumping nuclear 'waste' as talent- for they were paid a SIX FIGURE SUM (at today's prices) and IN CASH! Well, self evidently, only people having particular qualities, no unique is the word, would surely qualify for such treatment from one of the worlds largest multinationals. It is (was) even more difficult for me, as having meet XXXXX I was to quickly discover that he was unable to open his mouth without a seemingly endless stream of invective coming out. He was and remains the most uncouth and, perceived, dangerous man I have ever meet.

What 'evidence' have I got as to the truth or otherwise of the cash payments, and total amounts paid, I can hear Shell asking. Well, does the fact that I have now tracked down the bank and branch, that dished out the cash count as evidence? The fact that I  have an 'independent' statement concerning the (cash) payments count as evidence?

The fact that XXXXXXX had a winding up order issued against it*, hence could not, and did not, receive any payments from Shell through its account(s), count as evidence? Does the fact that neither XXXX and or his partner or the sub-contractor paid any Shell cheques, into their accounts, count as.... ?  Does the fact that I now have the precise amount of the final (cash) payment count as .......?  Does details of your arrangement, for the cash payments with the banks staff, count as evidence?  Does the sub-contractors  account of the cash payments count as evidence? Does XXXXX partners account of Shell's cash payments, count as evidence? If the total amount of the payments were not enough, does the fact that you paid for almost all of the plant, count as evidence? 

*It is an interesting aside, that while the creditors of this bankrupt company (XXXXXX), were trying to retrieve some of their money,  Shell was at the same time busily stuffing its directors with a cash fortune.

Does the fact that such were the amounts of copper cable retrieved, that the sub-contractor was fully able to pay his workers wages out of the, part, sale of the cable, count as evidence? The sub-contractor 'uncovered' so much cable that he stored a proportion of it for future sale, a most unusual occurrence in the 'demolition game'. The amount of stored cable was such that it came to the notice of the local police, who were unconvinced that a 'demolition' contract/job could yield such quantities of cable. So unconvinced were they that they duly obtained a warrant to confiscate it. Does the fact that Shell were later to issue a letter verifying that the cable came from the 'demolition', in order for the contractor to get the cable back off the police, count as evidence?

This was a contract that in the normal course of events would have been wholly financed, out of its scrap content-cable, steel, 'tin', etc. In fact any number of  demolition contractors would have been prepared to bid/pay for the contract, especially in order to get on Shell's (demolition) selection list. You may be as surprised as I was to learn that the 'boys' were never offered any other Shell work. Now I wonder why?

It may interest Shell, to know that I have the details of the contractors who demolished both the electric sub-station and the telephone exchange at Thornton, just in case someone should be tempted to try an graph these and other buildings on, as per the Co-60 narrative.   

I have written this letter to try and ensure that Shell, faces up to its responsibilities. Should you (Shell) chose to ignore this letter, and continue to try and lie your way out- as per the Cobalt-60 narrative- the consequences will be entirely yours.

Yours sincerely,


John Dyer.