|
|
|
Marcus Rutherford
Marcus Rutherford D J Freeman 43 Fetter Lane London EC4A 1JU. 15 August 2000 Your ref MWR/PAS Dear Mr Rutherford, Thank you for your letter
of the 11 August.
Unfortunately, it contains a number of the errors.
However, before I correct a couple of them, I note that you fail to state
when you were first ‘instructed’ by Shell. Therefore, I need to know if you are/were one of the
‘committee’ and or individuals that Mr Wiseman passed my letter on to.
If so, I shall include you in my claim. You state: ‘You assert that
Shell employed personnel to keep you under surveillance, to tap your telephones,
intercept your mail, posing as debt collectors or postal workers (paras 33-37).
You were invited to complain to the relevant regulatory bodies, but have
failed to do so.’ This is incorrect, at no stage did any Shell (or other)
personnel ever advise regarding the above course of action.
The ‘invitation’ to refer to the ‘relevant regulatory bodies’,
was in connection to the dumped nuclear materials/waste.
Shell’s ‘relevant regulatory bodies’ agenda was part of its cynical
policy, in the event of publication, to enable Shell to mount a ‘we have
behaved responsible’ defence. The
seriousness of Shell’s ‘complain to the relevant regulatory bodies’,
position may be gauged by the following.
On the 26 June 2000 I wrote to Richard Wiseman: ‘Thank
you for your fax of 26 June. You
repeat your line regarding my going to the authorities. I
will undertake to do this if you will now, give an unreserved undertaking on
behalf of the Shell Group, as its Legal Head, that the Shell Group of
Company’s will make all of the relevant records freely available, and that the
relevant authorities will have free and unhindered access to any document or
record or Company and or individuals, without reserve! Furthermore, you will
hand over your files, as I undertake, as an act of goodwill.
I now await your undertaking.’ Needless to say, no such undertaking was forthcoming;
rather it was rejected out of hand, like all of my offers.
However, I replied to Richard Wiseman’s (Shell legal head) faxed
rejection on the same day: ‘Thank
you for your fax of 27 June. You
state that I am imposing unacceptable condition. Why? As I have not only welcomed a full investigation into my
entire body of evidence, I have insisted on it, while Shell is impeccable
opposed to any similar investigation regarding your own records. Others will draw their own conclusions. Incidentally, if you would have accepted any of my numerous
offers all of this could have been avoided.
But no, your ‘concerns’, are I believe exposed for what they are, a
cynical ploy to protect Shell. The
fact that Shell has dumped tens of thousands of tons of nuclear waste, and that
the nuclear waste is ‘buried’ in one of the most densely populated section
of the UK, appears to pose no great moral problems to Shell. I estimate that it is likely that hundreds of thousands, or
possibly even more, will either be affected, or fear that they have been
effected by/from Shell’s nuclear waste.’
You further appear not to have grasped reality for a mere
couple of paragraphs later you state: ‘As a result of
the campaign of vilification and abuse, you say the television programme was
abandoned. We do not know why the
programme was abandoned, but the decision to do so was that of Carlton and/or
the production company and/or the ITC and not Shell.
We would say that had a programme containing the allegations being made
at the time been broadcast, it would have been defamatory of our clients and the
financial consequences for broadcaster and production company could have been
severe.’ This is again incorrect.
My draft claim stated: ‘That the said (Shell’s) Narrative along with the campaign of personal/professional abuse and vilification
against the Claimant and his research resulted in the television programme being
‘abandoned’. For the record I
have since November 1998, repeatedly requested information as to when, the
former Cabinet Secretary, Head of the Civil Service, Lord
Armstrong of Ilminster - Robert Temple Armstrong, was first informed of my
research and the said television programme.
Lord Armstrong was a director of Shell Transport & Trading plc,
Carlton and N M Rothschild & Sons at the time of the proposed television
programme. In spite of Shell’s
undertakings, the requested information has constantly been refused. You
appear to be most keen to avoid the issue.
The issue is that Shell planned to illegally dump (and did) enormous
amounts of nuclear materials/waste, in 1968.
That Shell sought out, selected and employed known criminals, with a
record of illegally disposing of nuclear materials, furthermore paid them cash
to decommission its nuclear reactor/testing cell at Shell’s Thornton Research
Centre in 1968. As stated, the
decommissioning did not go to plan, hence, as set-out, high level (radiation)
nuclear materials were ordered and sanctioned by Shell to be disposed of
(dumped). As I have informed Shell its
nuclear ‘materials/waste’ were
subsequently used in the construction of an housing estate, extensive medical,
shops, leisure facilities and schools have, either been built on the waste and
or its surroundings. That the heath
effects on the effected population have been outlined to Shell.
That I have informed Shell that the rest of its nuclear materials/waste
has proven impossible to locate. Furthermore,
that in 1994, Shell constructed a knowingly fraudulent Narrative to cover
up its crimes. I repeat the nuclear
dumping amounts to ‘war crimes’. I
give notice that I shall be filing this letter with my claim, hence I now give
you the opportunity to ‘take whatever action Shell sees fit in order to
protect its reputation from false attacks’.
Please note that failure to issue proceedings will be noted in my claim.
You
state: ‘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.’ Your assertion that Shell has ‘encouraged you to
report your concerns to the relevant authorities’ is a lie.
In view of your threat that Shell will have ‘no hesitation in
protecting their reputation from defamatory attacks.’, I
await your ‘writ’. Please note that
failure to issue proceedings will be noted in my claim. Furthermore,
I have informed Richard Wiseman, Shell’s Legal Head, that I am mindful to
publish my research via a WEB site, in order to give notice so that Shell could
seek an injunction if it disputed my ‘allegations’. Shell declined to take any such action. I now give you the same notice, so that you may pursue your
threatened legal remedies. Please
note that failure to issue proceedings will be noted in my claim. Incidentally,
can you confirm that Freeman’s is presently representing Channel 4, in
litigation against Shell? The
rest of your letter appears to be a mixture of panic and bad manners, unworthy
of reply. Not withstanding your letter, in view of the serious consequences, I am still willing to hand over my evidence on terms. However, if I do not receive your substantive offer of settlement by Friday 18 August, I shall issue my claim. Finally, in order for me to comply with your apparent instruction, to include your letter with my claim, I require a statement of truth, please forward. Should the statement be signed by anyone other than a Shell director/employee please state which Shell person authorised the statement of truth. Yours sincerely, John
Dyer. |