|
|
|
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. |