D J Freeman
43 Fetter Lane
London EC4A 1JU.
20 September 2000
Thank you for your letter of
the 19 September. You state that my
failure to accept your clients stated position regarding my ‘Statement of
Case’ is becoming tiresome! You
then forward the following quote from your letter of 11
August, as justification that Shell has made its position clear:
should not however assume that any failure on our part to join issue on the
factual allegations, means that we accept the factual basis of the claims you
assert- our clients do not for one minute accept that the facts are as set out
in the Statement of Case.’
The quote is, with respect,
a meaningless piece of gobbledygook, designed precisely to avoid the issue.
For selfevidently, your client cannot take issue with its (Shell’s) own
correspondence (to me), as set out in my Statement of Claim.
Your client cannot and does not take issue with the demolition
company/personnel it selected to carry out its decommissiong, as set out in
Shell’s Narrative of 7 February 1994, and my Statement of Claim.
Your client cannot take issue with my Statement of Claim’s assertion
that Shell’s former head of media affairs- Frances Margaret Morrison penned
its Narrative of the 7 February 1994. Your
client cannot take issue with my Statement of Claim’s, assertion that I had a
meeting with senior Shell personnel, at Thornton Research Centre on 12 January
1999. That Carlton Television were
the said TV programmes commissioners. That
the chairman of Shell Transport & Trading-Mark Moody-Stuart-has written to
me on several occasions. Etc, etc.,
It follows that your client,
Shell, does accept many (most?) of the ‘facts’ as set out in my Statement of
Case. Accordingly the issue is WHAT
‘facts’ Shell accepts, and what ‘facts’ your client does NOT
accept, as set out(?) or otherwise.
Therefore, when I forward specific questions, from or referring to, or by
way of my Statement of Case I expect direct straightforward answers, and not to
be fobbed off with ‘You
should not however assume that any failure ……’ As you
will now be able to understand, your clients ‘position’ could hardly be less
clear. However, I trust this now
makes the actual reality of your clients ‘position’ clear.
You will now see that your
clients claimed ‘statement of its position’ is meaningless, as per its
design, which was/is, ironically, to avoid actually stating Shell’s position.
Its great attraction being that it leaves your clients ‘position’
open to endless self-serving interpretation as events unfold.
Incidentally, to claim that the said quote sets out Shell’s or anybody
else’s position is so ridiculous that one only has to imagine the likely
response of any defendant who when asked if he pleaded guilty to the most
serious crime imaginable replied:
‘You should not assume that any failure on my part to join issue on the factual allegations, means that I accept the factual basis of the claims against me- I do accept not for one minute accept that the facts are as set out in the Case.’
In light of the facts, as
outlined, 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:
Thornton was not involved in "atomic research" (page 1).’
did not house a "nuclear facility"…. Thornton
did not and never has housed a pile or reactor. (page
‘(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.