|
|
Due to the serious ramifications and ensuing consequences of Shell's nuclear dumping actions/crimes, I requested that Shell reaffirms (following the Group's receiving of the outline of my evidence), its 'we had no nuclear reactor at Shell Thornton' as per its Narrative of 7 February 1994. Consequently, my letter of the 7 September: 'For I have supplied
your clients
(Shell)
with detailed evidence regarding ‘Shell Thornton’s’ secret
military nuclear research, see for instance paragraphs 51-79 of my draft statement of claim.
Does your client dispute any of the nuclear research programmes, as set
out in paragraphs 51-79, were carried out by Shell?
Please answer.' Not even the 'pretence' of an answer, was forwarded, hence I replied: 'You will recall that in my
letter of the 7 September I wrote: ‘Does your client dispute any of the nuclear
research programmes, as set out in paragraphs 51-79, were carried out by Shell?
Please answer.’ Despite this request
you have, once again, declined to supply answers.
However, if Shell stands 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).’ Then Shell will want, no,
need to, confirm that it disputes it carried out the secret military nuclear
research programmes, that it ‘housed’ a nuclear reactor/testing cell- as set
out in paragraphs 51-79 of my draft claim.
I believe that in view of the consequences for countless thousands and
incidentally Shell, you will see that a ‘We note the contents’ reply will be
deemed most unsuitable and irresponsible. Furthermore,
in the absence of Shell’s specific rejection that it had a nuclear
reactor/testing cell and that it carried out the military, and other, nuclear
research programmes-as set out in paragraphs 51-79 (for self-evidently any
organisation that did not would offer immediate rejection), that your client
accepts the facts as stated in paragraphs 51-79 of my draft Statement of Claim.' -- The Shell Group no longer able to maintain that it did not have/house a nuclear reactor at its Thornton Research Centre, forwarded a pretence answer. 'You are, of course, perfectly aware of Shell's position in relation to your allegations......' 'I find your claim that I ‘am
perfectly aware of Shell’s position’, perplexing.
May I 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? Consequently, please
substantiate or withdraw. In light of your expected failure to forward details of
Shell’s disclosure of its said position, I once again ask: Does Shell stands 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).’ I would be most grateful
if you would now supply direct straightforward answers, instead of needless
prevarication. However, I repeat,
in the absence of Shell’s specific rejection that it had a nuclear
reactor/testing cell and that it carried out the military, and other, nuclear
research programmes-as set out in paragraphs 51-79 (for self-evidently any
organisation that did not have a nuclear reactor/testing cell would offer
immediate straightforward rejection), then it is entirely reasonable to conclude
that your client accepts the facts as stated in paragraphs 51-79 of my draft
Statement of Claim.'
-- In response, yet another letter from Shell's solicitors was dispatched, with another point-blank refusal to reaffirm, the Group's previous 'we had/housed no nuclear reactor, at Shell Thornton'. Consequently, I replied: '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. -- Shell unwilling to repeat its 'we did not have a nuclear reactor/testing cell' lies, failed to even offer the pretence of a response. Instead another, rather curt, acknowledgment letter was dispatched: Consequently, I responded: 'Following
your acknowledgement of the 20 September 2000, your client Shell has now
specifically refused, on at least four separate occasions, to re-state that
Shell did not have a nuclear reactor/testing cell at its Thornton Research
Centre in the 1960’s, as per Shell’s Narrative of 7 February 1994*.
Furthermore, your client Shell has now declined to (re)state** that they
did NOT carry out the secret, primarily military, nuclear research programmes as
set out in paragraphs 51-78 of my draft Statement of Claim, and elsewhere. *‘(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). You will see that my WEB site will contain the most
shocking allegations ever made against any multinational, or other, corporation.
Of course, if Shell believes any of the allegations are untrue it will to
quote your letter of the 11 August 2000: ‘….
take whatever action it sees fit in order to protect its reputation from false
attacks.’ ‘They (Shell)
would however, have no hesitation in protecting their reputation from
defamatory attacks.’ I await your ‘writs’, if Shell maintains that it did not hire known
criminals to decommission its nuclear reactor/testing cell in 1968 and order as
per Shell’s prior plan, the illegal mass dumping of its nuclear
materials/waste, if Shell did not carry out the extensive military, and
other, nuclear programmes, as set-out in paragraphs 51-71 of my Statement of
Claim, if Shell disputes that it did construct a knowingly fraudulent Narrative
in 1994, in order to cover-up its nuclear dumping crimes. Your clients, Shell have seven days to
either commence legal proceedings, or forward their proposals.
Should Shell fail to do either, then I shall
‘publish’ via my WEB site, the enclosed CD contents, with immediate
effect. Furthermore, as previously stated, I will distribute leaflets setting out Shell’s wholesale nuclear dumping crimes at Thornton Research Centre, Cheshire and Shell Headquarters, London.'
|
