Shell's appointed lawyers (in this matter) 'D J Freeman', first letter of the 11 August, opened:-
'Our clients have made no attempt to stop you publishing fair and accurate facts and have encouraged you to report your concerns to the relevant authorities. They would however, have no hesitation in protecting their reputation from defamatory attacks.’
'If you believe Shell to have been guilty of a cover up of the events in 1968, you are free to make the allegation public subject to the warning that Shell will take whatever action it sees fit in order to protect its reputation from false attacks. However, the mere existence of a cover up does not of itself give rise to any legitimate cause of action by you.'
'The reason for hiring Freeman’s is simple, mainly their media contacts, now that Shell’s previous media manager-former BBC television current affairs presenter Frances (Fran) Morrison has ‘left’ Shell, following my exposing of the lies in the said Narrative of the 7 February 1994, and other letters bearing Ms Morrison’s name and signature.
The endless threats contained in (Shell) ‘Freeman’s’ letter of the 11 August were aimed at warning/ threatening the media, thus the demand that I lodge, with the Court, the said letter with my Statement of Claim. However, your threats to sue have been exposed, following your refusal to issue proceedings against me, for what they are, empty threats, the actions of the bully. The media and anybody else can rest assured that Shell will not be suing anybody. For Shell are perfectly well aware of the truth of their nuclear dumping crimes, hence the threats, panic and desperation.
With regard to the above, I feel it is correct to inform that I am presently drafting leaflets setting out Shell’s wholesale nuclear dumping. The leaflet will document Shell’s ‘Thornton’ nuclear research programs, it’s hiring of known criminals to decommission its nuclear reactor/testing cell in 1968, the cash payments. In addition, Shell’s fraudulent Narrative, its lies, and criminal actions. I give notice that I am minded to start issuing the leaflets to Thornton’s employees as a first step. The leaflet will contain my proposed WEB address, which shall contain/document the draft Statement of Claim, this correspondence and other letters and evidence. The meeting with Thornton’s management, etc., etc. Of course, if Shell believes any of the above is untrue, it will, to quote your letter of the 11 August- (Shell will) ‘take whatever action it sees fit in order to protect its reputation from false attacks.
Should you now not take ‘action to protect Shell’s reputation from false attack’, others will draw their own conclusions. Please note that I shall be filing this letter with my claim, and should you not issue proceedings noting the fact.'
No legal proceedings have been issued by Shell and 'associates', nor will they. Despite clear prior notice of this WEB site, and its contents, Shell's specific threats- that it 'would not hesitate' to issue 'writs', should I publish my allegations, proved worthless. For the issuing of 'writs' involves the revealing, or the risk of revealing Shell's own documents via discovery (legal process). Hence, Shell will not sue and risk exposing/defeating its 'brazen it out- admit nothing' policy.