Freemanreply10
Home Up Freemanreply 11

 

 

johndyer@nuclearcrimes.com

 

Marcus Rutherford                                                                                  

D J Freeman

43 Fetter Lane

London EC4A 1JU.

27 December 2000

Your ref   MWR/PAS/011311999

 Dear Mr Rutherford, 

Thank you for your letter of the 20 December 2000. 

 As you are aware, Thornton’s current Managing Director, Graeme Sweeney, undertook, (following our meeting of the 12 January 1999), to ‘check’ a number of supplied facts that would enable Shell to establish the truth of its nuclear dumpings.  After waiting, for over a year, for the promised ‘enquiry findings, I wrote to Graeme Sweeney, on the 5 May 2000, only to discover that he had, apparently, lost the ability to respond.  Instead, Shell’s legal head, Richard Wiseman, wrote to inform, on the 8 June 2000, that Mr Sweeney would not be ‘responding’ i.e. Shell refused to disclose it’s ‘enquiry’ findings, in contradiction of its agreement(s) of the 12 January 1999.  Having been a party to dishonouring the said agreement(s), the same Graeme Sweeney is currently misinforming Shell Thornton’s staff that I have refused to call in the ‘Health & Safety’ authority!  My last letter requested that this misinformation (lie) be corrected, you (Shell) have chosen in your reply to completely ignore the issue.

I now find that Shell’s legal head, when asked to forward a Statement of Truth (that Shell did not have/house or use a nuclear reactor/testing cell at on/at its Thornton/Stanlow site in the 1960’s), has now, apparently also lost the ability to respond.  Instead, on this occasion, Freeman’s (Shell’s lawyers), are instructed to respond.  For the record, this is now the second time that Shell’s legal head and its Chairman have refused to sign a Statement of Truth regarding Shell’s nuclear reactor/testing cell.

 Since Freeman’s ‘official’ appointment in this matter, the Group’s legal head, Richard Wiseman has written to me on several occasions, hence, that old stand by – ‘Mr Wiseman passed my letter on as all correspondence must (now) be conducted by/through the appointed lawyers’- will not wash. 

If I may say so, your/Shell’s attempt to pre-rubbish my (unseen) patents/documents is enlightening.  A piece of advice, it may appear more ‘convincing’ if Shell adopts the policy of actually viewing the evidence, before rubbishing it.  After all, Shell’s legal head not only informs that Thornton’s records, dating from the 1950/60’s are ‘now’ virtually non-existent, he further sought my advice on whether or not, Shell should start its ‘investigation’ via the USA, because (he asserted) the American freedom of information legislation could enable Shell to get ‘Thornton (nuclear/military) information’, unobtainable in the UK.   

Returning to my letter of the 18 December, I requested following Freeman’s statement in its said letters/threats to my WEB providers: ‘The website (nuclearcrimes) contains a number of false and defamatory allegations against our clients including an assertion that they operated a nuclear reactor in the 1960s at their Thornton research centre and that the demolition of this fictitious reactor represented a serious hazard to public safety.’ that Shell’s legal head, and/or its Chairman now forward a Statement of Truth (as per Shell’s 7 February 1994 Narrative), that: 

(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’.  

(d) ‘We have already explained that Thornton was not involved in any atomic research’ (page 2).

 They refused.  Instead, ‘you’ (again) responded by refusing to reaffirm Shell’s Narrative as per my (latest) request.  Instead Freeman’s content itself by restating the ‘our clients continue to deny the truth of the allegations’ line.  It is instructive that ‘you’ did not repeat the ‘….. they operated a nuclear reactor in the 1960s at their Thornton research centre and that the demolition of this fictitious reactor represented a serious hazard to public safety.’ line.  

Precisely who are ‘your clients’, who you claim ‘continue to deny the truth of the allegations’?  Do they, for instance, include Shell Research Limited?  Royal Dutch Shell?  Shell Transport & Trading?  Please detail/state the precise names of all the ‘clients’ Freeman’s represent in this matter.   

Once you have set-out your client list, please detail what ‘allegations’ your ‘clients’ (Shell?) deny?  I need to know, as your ‘clients’ cannot deny my ‘allegation(s)’ that:

Shell’s former head of media affairs- Frances Margaret Morrison signed its sham Narrative of the 7 February 1994. 
that I had a meeting with senior Shell personnel, at Shell’s Thornton Research Centre. 
that Carlton Television was the said TV programmes commissioners. 
that the Chairman of Shell Transport & Trading-Mark Moody-Stuart-has written to me on several occasions,
and so on. 

It therefore follows that your ‘clients’ accepts many (most?) of my ‘allegations’.  Accordingly, the issue is what ‘allegations’ Royal Dutch/Shell accepts, and what ‘allegations’ Royal Dutch/Shell does not accept.   

Therefore, I repeat (and, furthermore, I will go on repeating until the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, directly answer), does Shell stand by its 7 February 1994, Narrative:  

‘(a) Shell Thornton was not involved in "atomic research" (page 1).’  Yes or NO.

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

Again, does the Royal Dutch/Shell Group deny that it and/or its employees/agents carried out the military, and other, nuclear research programmes-as set out in paragraphs 51-79 of my draft Statement of Claim?  Yes or No? 

Yours sincerely, 

John Dyer.