8 February 1999
Dear Mr Graeme Sweeney,
Thank you for your letter dated 28 January 1999. I note that it was not, second class, post stamped until 4 February 1999. The letter contains any number of inaccuracies. I shall just deal with, perhaps, the most glaring examples.
First, you seem to have forgotten the (old?) Party line, i.e. the Cobalt-60 narrative of the 7 February 1994. Why was this long, long narrative constructed, if you were unable to find evidence to support my allegations, in 1993/4, ‘in spite of extensive research’? There, I fear, goes the ‘It was an honest mistake GUV’ defence-for the explanation/construction of the Cobalt-60 narrative. I wonder why the phrase Freudian slip, suddenly comes to mind. Freudian thought (belief) in Castration Anxiety, Counter-transference, Death Instinct, Defence Mechanism, Ego/Super Ego, equally come to mind when I ponder Shell’s repossess.
You state that ‘We have taken the matters which you have raised very seriously,’
Well, your (Shell’s) definition of ‘taking matters.. very seriously,’ is I would venture to suggest at variance with the facts. In his letter of the 20 October 1998, the Legal Director of Shell UK, Mr Richard Wiseman, apologised ‘for the delay in replying to your (my) letter of 5 October 1998.’ He was, he assured me, ‘now awaiting for a response from Shell Research Limited to the technical points you (I) have made…..’
Yet four months later, at our meeting of the 12 January 1999, you informed me that, up to the meeting, you were unwilling to authorise an investigation, into my claims, for monetary reasons. You further stated:
‘We (Shell) are weary of undertaking the type of investigation you have described’ And you went on to state that ‘I don’t have, to hand, sufficient evidence to convince me, that we should conduct a large scale investigation you are looking for. That is not to say that couldn’t be done. You are quite right that could be done.’
It follows that prior to the meeting of the 12 January 1999 you (Shell) had not, by design, instigated a ‘large scale investigation’ into my ‘allegations’.
However, your letter states that two investigations were undertaken one in 1994, the other, low key, in 1998, it follows, seeing that the investigations undertaken were in 1994 and 98, that you (Shell) have not undertaken any meaningful investigation following our meeting of the 12 January 1999.
In view of this it would appear somewhat difficult to
explain Richard Wiseman’s letter of the 20 October 1998, in which he stated
that he was awaiting a response from Shell Research Limited. Awaiting a response
to an investigation that was never undertaken. Perhaps, that explains why
Shell’s Legal Director has been unable to answer my questions.
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!
I wonder how Shell will be able to square its inability,
‘in spite of extensive research’, to find any evidence regarding my
‘allegations’, with a detailed interview I had, and which I will shortly be
publishing, with a senior Shell Research/Thornton (technical) Manager, and I do
mean senior. In which he not only recalls the demolition, he correctly
identifies the site which housed, according to him a ‘research reactor’. He goes on to state the
reason/purpose for the Sr-90, at least five times if memory serves me right.