Shell's 'rubbish' the messenger policy, has been apparent from the start. Unable to defend its '1968' actions, it resorted, from the beginning, to the well-trodden path of personalising and vilifying the messenger, rather than face the up to the consequences of its criminal acts.
As part of this strategy, Shell's legal head wrote on the 24 May 2000.
“You told me in our telephone conversation that you will be making a personal claim against the Company. You implied (but later withdrew the suggestion) that settlement of your claim might be a pre-condition to your making your "evidence" available. I assume that there is no question of this being a condition of your offer.”
I replied to Shell's legal head on the 26 May 2000:
suggestion that I proposed, as a pre-condition for handing over my body of
evidence that Shell had to agree a
personal settlement with me is ‘inaccurate’. You assert that I later withdrew
the suggestion. This is misleading,
for as soon as you asked if it was a pre-condition, you will recall my immediate
response- ‘No, I haven’t said that.’.
This is correct. Again, you
will recall asking me if I was saying ‘no
evidence without a settlement’,
I again replied: ‘No, I haven’t said that.’ I believe I repeated this fact several times.
will further recall your response when I asserted; ‘you are trying to trick me,
aren’t you Mr. Wiseman?’ you assured me that you were not!
Now I find you are repeating this ‘misconception’ in print.
could, of course have drawn your attention, both in conversation and letter, to
the fact that it was only after I had informed you that I was setting out my
pleadings and was about to commence High Court proceedings, that you suddenly
alluded to the ‘fact’ that ‘I
had imposed unacceptable conditions for supplying my evidence’.
will recall, in Monday’s conversation that you repeatedly demanded, following
my informing you of impending High Court writs, that I define what I mean by the
term ‘responsible’, having failed to enquire on a single previous occasion, despite
having had well in excess of one year to seek such clarification.
However, I withheld any such response, as I frankly, felt this is rather small beer, compared to the real issue. Consequently, following Mark Moody-Stuart’s letter, I replied, despite our conversation, some of which was frankly gratuitously offensive, in the most conciliatory and constructive manner. I am therefore saddened, I wish I could say surprised, to find Shell responds in such a cynical fashion. If the purpose is to seek a means of closing communications, please do so in a civilised manner.'
Shell's 'money for evidence' lie,
'If I misinterpreted what you told me, so be it. I thought it was important to make our position clear on this. There was no question of my trying to trick you, as you allege.'
In view of the weasel words used to construct Shell's reply, I wrote back:
' The purpose of my quoting from our conversation of the 22/5/00 was, in part, that I candidly could not see how you could have possibly misunderstood the position following our conversation. Since you now fully accept what I had previously told you, by my exclusively quoting from the same conversation, I am at a loss to understand how the ‘misunderstanding’ could have arisen in the first place.'