'Tissue of lies'
Home Up Shell's lies Shell's Narrative Contact




A matter of days before the proposed transmission (10 February 1994) of a (Carlton) television programme based on my research, Shell produced its sham Narrative of the 7 February 1994.  Shell's fraudulent, sham Narrative was precisely and deliberately manufactured as part of its campaign to kill the said Television programme.  The transmission of the programme would have exposed Shell's nuclear dumping crimes- hence, the Group's panic and lies.  Despite Shell's success in getting the television 'killed', I vowed to carry on researching the truth, or otherwise, of the nuclear dumping allegations.  Five years of research later, my research findings were/are such that Richard Max Wiseman, Shell's legal head, was forced to concede that Shell's 1994 Narrative was a 'mistake'.  However, I informed Shell's legal head, its Chairmen, and their appointed lawyers, in this matter D J Freeman- that the said Narrative was no, 'mistake'.  Rather, it was a deliberate, premeditated 'tissue of lies' from start to finish.

I informed Shell from 1988:

'So, as to avoid any possible misunderstanding, deliberate or otherwise, the 'building'  in question was NOT THE COBALT-60 LABORATORY. The Co-60 Narrative of the 7 February 1994, is a total and absolute lie! None of the dumped nuclear waste, I have previously alluded to, originated or came from, or was part of the demolition of the Co-60 laboratory.'


The position was restated and amplified in my letter to the Shell Group's legal head, Richard Wiseman of the 23 May 2000:

'You will understand, from my perspective, that when (part) my evidence was disclosed to Shell, in 1993, Shell, fabricated, using the supplied evidence, a sham Narrative.  The Cobalt-60 Narrative, of the 7/2/94, signed by your Media Relations Manager and former BBC current affairs broadcaster, Fran (Frances) Morrison, was a tissue of lies from start to finish.  Consequently, I hardly feel it is unreasonable that I now request that Shell, gives verifiable undertakings to behave in a ‘responsible’ manner, before I hand over my evidence.'    


Ms Fran Morrison's (ex BBC Newsnight presenter and Shell's (former) Media Head, and official 'author' of the said 7/2/94 Narrative) response to my informing her that she had constructed an absolute, deliberate, fraudulent sham Narrative, was as follows. (From my letter to Shell Group's legal head, Richard Wiseman, of the  27 June  2000):

'I thank you for the information regarding Ms Morrison’s departure. However, following your failure to answer my questions regarding Ms Fran Morrison, I have spoken to her and obtained the date of her departure.  More importantly, Ms Morrison informs that a number of people were involved in the construction Shell’s Narrative of the 7 February 1994.  As I intend to interview and to name all those responsible for the construction of Shell’s Narrative, in my writ(s), I request you forward their names. Should you refuse I will endeavour to have them named, and if necessary, subpoenaed.  It will be interesting to see if they respond in a similar manner as Ms Morrison. 

You will not be surprised to discover that Ms Morrison’s response to my telling her that- ‘you made a total lie up, a piece of fiction..’ (the Cobalt-60 Narrative), was not disbelief, outrage and shock, she declined to even threaten to counter sue me, rather she replied: ‘I can’t really be accountable for that, I expressed the Company’s view’. 

She claimed and repeatedly emphasised that she was (just) an employee of Shell.  Ms Morrison maintained that my ‘issue’ was with Shell, not her.  She repeatedly stated that she was no longer employed by Shell, and went on, the Narrative, was/is ‘Shell’s views and Shell’s issue, and not MINE (her emphasise).  She further states that all the documents were handed down to Richard Wiseman when she left the Company.

Ms Morrison, further maintained- ‘any work I did on it was on behalf of Shell, as an employee of Shell’.  Ms Morrison states/claims that all she ever was, was a representative and employee of Shell.  Ms Morrison will make an interesting witness.  Her line appears to amount to the classic ‘I was only carrying out orders’, defence.  Further, I believe that Shell will find that in the face of such serious charges, that I believe I will sustain at the trial, that many other witnesses will look to their own self-interests. 

Incidentally, in view of Ms Morrison’s statement that she handed over the ‘Thornton’ files on to you, it follows that any claim by you, prior to her handing down the files, of wholesale client confidentiality will be vigorously disputed, as the files were the ‘property’ of your media public relations set-up, hence were not the legal departments.  Furthermore, your assertion, to me, that you are acting as a (mere) staging post to pass on my mail to the ‘defence committee’ (my words, not yours), will be further grounds for challenging any attempt at wholesale client confidentiality.'