Shell Transport & Trading
London SE1 7NA.
5 May 2000.
will recall that I wrote to you on the 4th February 1999. In your 8
February 1999 response to my letter of the, which I thank you for, you
(my) failure to identify the location of the building you allege was demolished
and the site for the waste makes constructive dialogue impossible. Your refusal
to identify witnesses makes further investigation by us extremely difficult.”
“As the tapes, of our meeting
of 12/1/99, demonstrate I offered to hand over virtually my entire body of
evidence, excluding the names of any individuals, who would not authorise
disclosure. That evidence would have included the tens of thousands of pages of
‘documents’ in my possession. Details of the nuclear dumpsites, health
statistics, identification of the building, tapes, etc., etc. Unfortunately you
rejected that outright. So much for your assertion (excuse) that I have refused
to provide the required information, and hence your inability to investigate
matters. This, incidentally, from a Company that has outright refused to supply
me with virtually any information, whatsoever!”
my invitation to jointly interview former employees I have identified, who
could, with Shell’s official sanction, reveal the truth, was rejected
the record I have previous made these offers to Shell’s Legal Director,
Richard Wiseman. Apparently all
fell on stony ground.
you can see, your unfounded statement can now be corrected.