Nuclear denial
Home Up Shell's lies Contact Censorship 'Evidence' Censorship

 

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 replied:

'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).

As per my informing Shell, its legal head and yourself, that I reserve the right to publish my findings via the WEB.  Consequently, I confirm that I have a WEB site.  My WEB site is presently ‘empty’.  However, I enclose a CD containing its proposed contents. ................

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.'