Dyer-Wiseman 28
Home Up Dyer-Wiseman 29

 

 

Johndyer@nuclearcrimes.com

R M Wiseman

UK General Counsel

Shell International Limited

Shell Centre

London  SE1 7NA.

(recorded delivery)

Your Ref:  LSUK 

21 March 2001 

Dear Mr. Wiseman, 

You asserted via your letter of the 6 March 2001 (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, Shell and/or D J Freeman'.  Consequently, I wrote on the 9 March (copy enclosed), requesting that you either substantiate or withdraw the claim.     

Although I sent my (recorded delivery) request some 12 days ago, Shell has chosen, in your most recent letter of the 20 March, to totally ignore the issue/request.  Having, once again chosen to ignore the real issue, you revert to the trivial i.e. your assertion that my e-mails to Shell’s staff are ‘immensely irritating’ and ‘defamatory'.   Please note that I have yet to receive any such complaints from Shell's e-mailed staff!    

For the record, the Royal Dutch/Shell Group is entirely responsible for the present position, no one else.   All Shell has to do (to stop all my ‘actions’):  

·     (is) stop its systematic lying -the latest example (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 Shell, its legal head (yourself) and/or D J Freeman (the Group’s lawyers).

·     (is) behave in a responsible manner. 

Finally, am I now to understand, following Shell’s inability to substantiate its 'we have previously responded to all your points’ position, that Royal Dutch/Shell has does not have the grace to withdraw?

Yours sincerely,

   

John Dyer.