Freemanreply 7
Home Up new_page_3.htm Freemanreply8 Shell's lawyers

 

 

Marc

 

D J Freeman

43 Fetter Lane

London EC4A 1JU.

20 September 2000 

Your ref   MWR/PAS/011311999 

Dear Mr Rutherford, 

Thank you for your letter of the 19 September.  You state that my failure to accept your clients stated position regarding my ‘Statement of Case’ is becoming tiresome!  You then forward the following quote from your letter of 11 August, as justification that Shell has made its position clear: 

‘You (I) should not however assume that any failure on our part to join issue on the factual allegations, means that we accept the factual basis of the claims you assert- our clients do not for one minute accept that the facts are as set out in the Statement of Case. 

The quote is, with respect, a meaningless piece of gobbledygook, designed precisely to avoid the issue.  For selfevidently, your client cannot take issue with its (Shell’s) own correspondence (to me), as set out in my Statement of Claim.  Your client cannot and does not take issue with the demolition company/personnel it selected to carry out its decommissiong, as set out in Shell’s Narrative of 7 February 1994, and my Statement of Claim.  Your client cannot take issue with my Statement of Claim’s assertion that Shell’s former head of media affairs- Frances Margaret Morrison penned its Narrative of the 7 February 1994.  Your client cannot take issue with my Statement of Claim’s, assertion that I had a meeting with senior Shell personnel, at Thornton Research Centre on 12 January 1999.  That Carlton Television were the said TV programmes commissioners.  That the chairman of Shell Transport & Trading-Mark Moody-Stuart-has written to me on several occasions.  Etc, etc., etc.    

It follows that your client, Shell, does accept many (most?) of the ‘facts’ as set out in my Statement of Case.  Accordingly the issue is WHAT ‘facts’ Shell accepts, and what ‘facts’ your client does NOT accept, as set out(?) or otherwise.  Therefore, when I forward specific questions, from or referring to, or by way of my Statement of Case I expect direct straightforward answers, and not to be fobbed off with ‘You should not however assume that any failure ……’   As you will now be able to understand, your clients ‘position’ could hardly be less clear.  However, I trust this now makes the actual reality of your clients ‘position’ clear.   

You will now see that your clients claimed ‘statement of its position’ is meaningless, as per its design, which was/is, ironically, to avoid actually stating Shell’s position.  Its great attraction being that it leaves your clients ‘position’ open to endless self-serving interpretation as events unfold.  Incidentally, to claim that the said quote sets out Shell’s or anybody else’s position is so ridiculous that one only has to imagine the likely response of any defendant who when asked if he pleaded guilty to the most serious crime imaginable replied: 

 You should not assume that any failure on my part to join issue on the factual allegations, means that I accept the factual basis of the claims against me- I do accept not for one minute accept that the facts are as set out in the Case.’ 

Pardon.

In light of the facts, as outlined, I once again ask how, when, who or where Shell or anyone else has ever disclosed to me Shell’s position regarding paragraphs 51-79 of my draft Statement of Claim?  All that is required is direct straightforward answers, to each specific point, as per my own replies to Shell’s questions.  

I repeat, for I have not yet received answers, does Shell stand by its declarations as per its 7 February 1994, Narrative:  

‘(a) Shell Thornton was not involved in "atomic research" (page 1).’

‘(b) Thornton did not house a "nuclear facility"….  Thornton did not and never has housed a pile or reactor.  (page 2).’

‘(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).’ 

Please answer the above in a non-ambiguous, clear no bull manner.  Specifically does Shell deny they had, and/or Thornton had/housed/utilised a nuclear reactor/testing cell at your clients Thornton Research Centre in the 1960’s, as set out in my Statement of Claim, Yes or No?   Please directly confirm whether or not your client denies that it and/or its employees/agents carried out the military, and other, nuclear research programmes-as set out in paragraphs 51-79.  I repeat it is entirely reasonable, in the absence of specific rejection, to conclude that your client accepts the facts as stated in paragraphs 51-79 of my draft Statement of Claim. 

 Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

John Dyer.