Dear Mr. Wiseman,
you for your letter of the 6 March. However,
I again find that Shell, unable to address the issues, resorts to deceit.
state (that)- ‘All of the points made in my letter of the 17 February 2001
to Joanne Chandler ('Assistant – Sustainable Development' Shell International
Limited), have (previously) been dealt with by either yourself of D J
Freeman (Shell’s lawyers in this matter).
I wrote (in my
letter to which you ‘responded’):
completed the interviews of the personnel who had carried out Shell’s secret
reactor decommissioning (along with former Shell employees and others), the
television programme was virtually complete. On the 7 February 1994, a matter of
days before the proposed transmission date (10 February), Shell produced its Narrative. The said Narrative
was/is a tissue of lies from start to finish, knowingly fabricated precisely
because Shell was/is aware of its nuclear dumping crimes. Shell’s said Narrative and its other actions
‘killed’ the television programme. I
note you fail to mention the former cabinet secretary (Lord) Robert
Armstrong’s role in this matter. Perhaps,
you could now write and confirm, his role?’
view of the outright, and shameless lie (that) -‘All of the points have been
dealt with at length by yourself and D J Freeman (Shell’s lawyers)’, I
challenge you to forward one single occasion (never mind ‘at length’) when
either yourself, Shell and/or Freeman’s have answered the ‘Armstrong’
question? Please, for once
directly answer a question, don’t ignore it, pretend you don’t understand
it- now either substantiate or withdraw your slur.
Failing that, perhaps you would like me to send you copies of
correspondence in which yourself, Shell and its lawyers are directly asked to
answer the ‘Armstrong’ question-this complete with (all) the outright
refusals to address, never mind answer the question!
assert that Carlton’s ‘Big Story’ ‘producers decided not to
proceed with a programme’- what producers are these? I can assure you, with absolute certainty, that the
television programme (‘Big Story’) producer has no doubt’s as to the truth
of Shell’s wholesale nuclear dumpings. Consequently,
I would be pleased if you would forward the name of the ‘producer(s)’, whom
you assert ‘decided not to proceed with the programme’.
view of your statement that -‘All of the points have been dealt with at
length by yourself and/or D J Freeman (Shell’s lawyers)’, I am at a loss
to understand how this can be, for I have never raised this issue (this being
the first time I have ever heard this particular Shell line), hence, it is
difficult to see how, why or when you, Shell or Freeman’s have answered the
above question, as I have never previously posed it.
I await your answer with some interest.
Of course, you will not reply, as per usual, for self-evident reasons!
than detailing further examples of Shell’s copious rejections of (it
receiving) my evidence-would you please forward a single occasion (never mind
‘We have repeatedly asked Mr Dyer to provide… ) when Shell asked me ‘to
provide Shell, or any independent third party with specific evidence to enable
further investigations to take place’
Now that is the challenge, don’t duck it, pretend you don’t
understand it, ignore it. Just for
once answer a straight question with a straight answer.’
view of your statement that -‘All of the points have been dealt with at length
by yourself and/or D J Freeman (Shell’s lawyers)’, please forward (just) one
single occasion when either yourself, Shell and/or Freeman’s have
requested/asked me-‘to provide Shell,
or any independent third party with specific evidence to enable further
investigations to take place’? Just
one! That’s the
challenge, don’t duck it, or ignore it. Just
for once try directly answering the actual question posed, instead of engaging
in fanciful flights of the imagination, in an effort to cover-up Shell’s
nuclear dumping crimes.
your ‘letter’ I again ask Shell to re-affirm its 7 February 1994
Narrative’s declarations that:
(a) Shell Thornton were not involved in "atomic
research" (page 1). Does the Royal Dutch/Shell Group still
stand by this- Yes or NO?
(b) Thornton did not house a "nuclear
facility"…. Thornton did not
and never has housed a pile or reactor. (page
2). Does the Royal Dutch/Shell Group still
stand by this- Yes or No?
(c) We do not understand what you mean by
"atomic research for military purposes". We have already explained that Thornton was not involved in
any atomic research (page 2). Does
the Royal Dutch/Shell Group still stand by this-
Yes or No?
Specifically, does the Royal Dutch/Shell Group
deny they and/or Thornton/Stanlow had/housed/utilised a nuclear reactor/testing
cell at its Thornton Research Centre/Stanlow site in the 1960’s, as set out in
my Statement of Claim? Yes or No?
does the Royal Dutch/Shell Group deny that it
(‘Thornton’) and/or its employees/agents carried out nuclear/military
and other research/work for:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)
United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA)
United Kingdom military and others
United States Atomic Energy Commission (USAEC)
United States of America Air Force (USAAF)
United States of America Army
United States of America Navy
Westcott Rocket Propulsion Laboratory.
Yes or No?
view of your claim (that)-‘All of the (above) points have been dealt with at
length by yourself and/or D J Freeman (Shell’s lawyers)’, please forward one
single occasion when either you, Shell and/or Freeman’s have supplied answers
to the above questions? Or
perhaps you would rather that I forward copies of correspondence, to both
yourself/Shell and Freeman’s, requesting answers to the above? As you are perfectly well aware, Shell, yourself and
Freeman’s have repeatedly refused to address, never mind answer, the above
questions, for self-evident reasons.
1. Who, if and when, authorised Shell International
Limited, to speak on behalf of Shell Research Limited and or the Royal
2. At what level was authorisation given?
3. Have you made the owners/directors of Shell Research
Limited (a Royal Dutch Company) aware of the position.
If so when, and at what level?
4. Have the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, granted
you authority to speak on their behalf concerning these matters. If so when, and
at what level was authority given?
5. Can you confirm that The Shell Transport and
Trading Company p.l.c. -has granted you authority to speak on this matter?
If so when, and at what level?’
view of your claim that -‘All of the points have been dealt with at length by
yourself and/or D J Freeman (Shell’s lawyers)’, please state, one instance
(never mind ‘at length’) when you or Freeman’s have answered the above
questions? Please answer, or
back to your ‘evidence (required)
to justify allegations’. If
Shell’s assertions that its personnel did not lie, are correct, then your own
Narrative of 7 February 1994, provides the ‘evidence’, Shell require. For at
virtually every point the Group’s Narrative vindicates the ‘witnesses’
accounts of events. For example:
light of your letter, I would be obliged if you would forward a single instance
when you/Shell and/or Freeman’s have answered the above questions.
Failing that, would like me to forward endless examples/copies of my
correspondence, to both yourself/Shell and Freeman’s, requesting answers to
the above? Along with your/Shell/
are some of the many questions raised in my letter which Shell, in pursuit of
its ‘brazen it out, admit nothing strategy’, refuses to supply answers.