Shell's Responce
Home Shell Research Shell's 'Narrative' Shell Transport Threats (recent) Brazen it out Nuclear Denial Shell's Strategy Contact


Shell’s (present) official position/defence, has now been issued to, amongst others, the Media, local councils, councilors, its own staff, environmental bodies/organisations, and government 'departments'.  Shell's carefully crafted response(s) have been 'endorsed' by Shell's Sustainable Development-Assistant Ms. Joanne Chandler-  the ('hyperlinked') example/reply, to which I responded, was to a certain Mr. Phillip Coe (Mr. Coe is unknown to me).   


Shell's senior management/directors ability to engage in outright lying and deception, is well illustrated by its present line/defence.  Consequently,  I responded.  


However, I received the most unexpected, extraordinary reply.   For, by her reply, Shell's Sustainable Development 'Assistant' (20 plus years with Shell) disowned the Group's defence!   


Although Ms. Chandler claimed that she had 'passed' my letter onto Shell's legal head, a fortnight, or so, later I was still awaiting a response.  Hence, I wrote on the 5th March.


Shell's legal head unable to (truthfully) respond to my letter to the 17 February 2001 penned another lie:  (that):  'All of the points made in my letter of the 17 February 2001 to Joanne Chandler ('Assistant – Sustainable Development' Shell International Limited), have (previously) been dealt with by Shell/Wiseman and/or D J Freeman (Shell’s lawyers in this matter).'     


Unfortunately, for Shell, and its legal head, its (latest) claims/lies are, if true, easy to substantiate.  Consequently, I challenged Shell/Wiseman to substantiate or withdraw. 


Ignoring my request/challenge Shell's legal head forwarded a rather 'strange' letter.  (However, all quickly became apparent).


I responded.


A letter from Shell's lawyers bearing the signature of Sajjad Nabi arrived.  


The reason for Shell's legal heads 'strange' letter, was now apparent.  Shell, having refused to supply (virtually) any of my records, correspondence and/or data held by the Group, as per its lawful requirement under the 1998 Data Protection Act (as amended March 2000), required an excuse not to comply with the law, hence, Wiseman's and 'Nabi's' previous letters.   Clarification as to the 'Exemption' clauses utilised (State security/military) by Shell in refusing to supply my 'Data Protection' documents, and other matters was sought (some hope).


The Group's legal head, unable to sustain his/Shell's lies,  again resorted to deception.


I replied


My request as to the 'Exemption' clauses cited/utilised by Shell in refusing to supply my 'Data Protection' documents, and other matters, was meet with the Group's refusal to sanction any disclosure. 


However, Shell's lawyers recent responses had been fronted by Sajjad Nabi.  Seeking clarification, I wrote.


No more Mr. Naddi.  Instead my very first 'Dear Sir' (not Mr. Dyer) letter.   Now Shell's letter was not signed by any named lawyer!


In the meantime I have written to Thornton Research Centre's MD.


All (nine) Thornton Staff Works Council representatives, have now been advised of the present position.