Dyer-Wisereply 5
Home Up Dyer-Wisereply 6 Wiseman's letter Shell's lawyers



R M Wiseman

R M Wiseman

Shell UK limited

Shell-Mex House

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 evidence? 

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? 


Papers, correspondence.

Scientific papers.

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.


Yours sincerely,


John Dyer.