Dyer-Wiseman 23
Home Up Dyer-Wiseman 24




20 December 2000. 

R M Wiseman

UK General Counsel

Shell International Limited

Shell Centre

London  SE1 7NA.

(by post, fax, and e-mail)


Your Ref:  LSUK


Dear Mr Wiseman,

A number of points have arisen.

  1. Thornton Research Centre's staff is being informed (in response to why Shell is not issuing writs as per your threats) that I have refused Shell’s ‘offer’ to call in the ‘Health & Safety’.
  1. As I informed you, I view this ‘offer’ as little more than a crude PR exercise to afford Shell a ‘fig leaf’ defence.  Shell’s strategy (having refused all offers to hand over my evidence) has been to explore/find any avenue that is unacceptable to myself.  Once an unacceptable ‘avenue’ is identified, you then demand that I undertake precisely that which I have refused.  Hence, the repeated ‘Health & Safety’ line.
  1. Repeated that is, until my letter of the 26 June 2000:

‘Dear Mr Wiseman,

 Thank you for your fax of 26 June.  You repeat your line regarding my going to the authorities.

 I will undertake to do this if you will you, now, give an unreserved undertaking on behalf of the Shell Group, as its Legal Head, that the Shell Group of Company’s will make all of the relevant records freely available, and that the relevant authorities will have free and unhindered access to any document or record or Company and or individuals, without reserve! Furthermore, you will hand over your files, as I undertake, as an act of goodwill. 

I now await your undertaking.’

No ‘undertaking’ was received; instead, you responded by faxing an outright refusal!  Accordingly, I now await confirmation that this misleading ‘Health & Safety’ line, given to your Thornton staff, will now cease.

You will further recall that your appointed lawyers in this matter -D J Freeman, opening letter, of the 11 August 2000, closed with Shell’s demand that I include Freedman’s said letter, of the 11 August, with my court fillings.  However, as Freeman/Shell’s said letter contained a number of lies, I requested that either you, Shell’s chairman Mark Moody Stuart, or Freeman’s senior media partner-Marcus Rutherford, forward a statement of truth (as per court requirement) in support of the said letter –you all refused!  

I now find that a junior member of Freeman’s (your appointed lawyers) staff, Sajjad Nabi, has now written several letters, threatening my WEB providers, in furtherance of Shell’s efforts to get my site closed down.  The said letter included the following: 

‘The website (nuclearcrimes) contains a number of false and defamatory allegations against our clients including an assertion that they operated a nuclear reactor in the 1960s at their Thornton research centre and that the demolition of this fictitious reactor represented a serious hazard to public safety.’ 

However, the letter began, by stating that it was written on behalf of ‘Shell International and associates’, consequently, the above, is meaningless.  However, you and/or Shell’s Chairman can now make matters abundantly clear!  As I now afford you and Shell’s chairman the opportunity to restate (as per Shell’s 7 February 1994, Narrative): - 

(a) ‘Shell Thornton was not involved in ‘atomic research’ (page 1).

(b) ‘Thornton did not house a ‘nuclear facility’….  Thornton did not and never has housed a pile or reactor.’  (page 2).

(c) ‘We do not understand what you mean by ‘atomic research for military purposes’.   (d) ‘We have already explained that Thornton was not involved in any atomic research’ (page 2).

Please answer in a non-ambiguous, manner.  Specifically does Shell deny the Shell Group and/or Thornton had/housed/utilised a nuclear reactor/testing cell at Thornton Research Centre/Stanlow site in the 1960’s, as set out in my Statement of Claim, Yes or No?   

Upon receipt of a supporting statement of truth, from either yourself or Mark Moody Stuart, asserting that no Shell, or associated company, housed/utilised a nuclear reactor/testing cell at Thornton Research Centre/Stanlow in the 1960’s, I shall publish via my WEB site a ‘secret’ patent of the actual  ‘Thornton’ nuclear reactor!  Yes that’s correct, the actual reactor!  You will, I am sure, should you believe a word of Shell’s ‘we had no nuclear reactor’ line, be only to eager to swear the required supporting affidavit.  And, of course, now issue Shell’s threatened writs. 

This letter  will now be posted on my WEB site.  You have my postal and e-mail addresses, and my fax/phone number.  I now await your affidavits. 

Yours sincerely,


John Dyer.


cc Mark Moody-Stuart

cc Sajjad Nabi