R M Wiseman
R M Wiseman
Shell UK limited
London WC2R 0XD.
Dear Mr Wiseman,
Thank you for your letter of the 24 November If I may first
correct you, my 'allegations' have never had anything to do with the Cobalt-60
labyrinth. You may very well be 'at cross purposes', and as a mater of fact I
personally following our conversation, believe this. However, Shell are not. The
narrative of the 7 February 1994 was a calculated, deliberate, planned, lie from
start to finish. Those who were behind its construction knew the full truth of
my 'allegations' that's why they constructed the narrative. Unequivocally, I
will show page by page line by line the magnitude of the lies contained in that
and other Shell letters concerning this matter.
So that you personally, as head of legal affairs, can be under no
misapprehension, I can state with absolute certainty that people within Shell
know the truth about the Thornton Nuclear Decommissioning. I trust I have made
the point clear.
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 'XXX' 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 XXXX I was to quickly discover that he was unable to open his mouth without a seemingly endless stream of the most disgusting 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
The fact that XXXXXXXXXXX, 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 XXX's 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?
Does the fact that such were the 'vast'
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 the
cable 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?
I will demonstrate the reasons for the amount of cable present. It may
interest Shell, to know that I tracked down 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 graft these and other buildings
on, as per the Co-60 narrative.
I wonder if the following counts as evidence?
Patents (including secret).
Details and statements as to the 'nuclear facility', by 'Thornton' and other personnel. Details and statements as to the 'decommissioning/demolition' by Thornton and other personnel (excluding the 'demolition workers' accounts).
Also please read my previous letters carefully.
On 'publication', I will narrate
Rothschild's central role and the subsequent security concerns. Incidentally,
the British State has, or had, a very low opinion of Shell, as per your
trustworthiness, believing that you are essentially a Dutch outfit. I will show
how Shell's pre-planned policy of deception, deceived both the UK and US
Governments, with regard to these matters. How perceived important commercial
results were secretly 'off loaded' from one Shell company to another Shell
company. I will show how Dutch Government bodies acted as Shell 'receptors'.
TREE, Gaseous Diffusion, OMRE,
Scintillation, Nuclear Coolants,
Explosive's, Hardening etc.
How and why the Head of Thornton-Theodore Morris Sugden, was subsequently chosen to be Chairman, honest, of an enquiry into the 'Safety of Nuclear Installations'. Rothschild's investigation into the security of 'nuclear bases', while Head of Shell Research Limited, working out of Shell Thornton. You may or may not know that Malcolm Muggeridge resigned as editor of Punch, as he felt he could not out parody life. I know the feeling!
A little quote in a pamphlet of your very own Chris Fay, caught my eye as I twilled away the long lonely months awaiting Shell's replies; 'Confident assertions of environmental cause and effect are easily made.' Is it a direct consequence of the nuclear 'waste' being dumped, in the four sites I have managed to identify, that the incident rate of osteosarcoma, in and around the four sites identified, is of the order of magnitude that the term staggering is, I believe, not inappropriate, as compered to the national and international rate. Does this count as an 'assertion of environmental cause and effect'? The selection of the incident rate of osteosarcoma, was undertaken after the nature of the likely dumped waste was 'discovered'. You will appreciate, especially as the result of my experience of Shell, my desire to 'keep my powder dry'. This is but a fraction of my research findings, which runs into tens of thousands of pages. I will not engage in any silly games, such as you (Shell) trying to tease out how much I really know and can prove. Should you (Shell) chose to ignore the details of this letter, or pretend that you do not understand what went on at Thornton Research Centre in 1968, and continue to try and lie your way out- as per the disgraceful Cobalt-60 narrative- the consequences will be entirely yours.