R M Wiseman
Shell UK limited
London WC2R 0XD.
Your Ref: LSUK
9 June 2000.
Dear Mr Wiseman,
Thank you for your fax and subsequent letter of the 8
“To this point we have been
unable to find anything to collaborate your allegations…..”
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
At our meeting, of the 12 January
1999, I communicated to Mr Sweeney, how Shell could quickly authenticate the
‘first element of the story’, -the extensive cash payments.
Once this was verified, I informed the meeting (Shell), we could move
forward. As I informed Mr Sweeney,
the bank’s ex-employees will be able to supply the required corroboration
regarding the cash payments. If you
had any trouble locating the bank’s former employees, I shall be able to
assist. Consequently, I await your
At the said meeting, I further
detailed the plant and wagons used, the problems the ‘Lads’ and Shell
encountered with the nuclear decommissioning, etc, etc.
‘However, to proceed we need something more
concrete than your allegations alone. This is what Dr Sweeney asked for
following your meeting with him at Thornton last year.’
Following my meeting with Mr Sweeney, Mr. Hugh Dorans wrote, in his letter of the 18 January1999.
‘In addition, we believe that we would be
able to make more progress if we were to discuss the events directly with the witnesses you have interviewed.’
I have repeatedly offered, as per my
last letter, to jointly interview the ‘lads’ and former Shell employees, and
others, who would quickly establish the truth.
I offered to interview former Shell
directors, who were aware of the sham nature of the Narrative, prior to its
construction. You refuse!
I remind you that in spite of your
(Shell) numerous undertakings, I now find that not only does Mr Sweeney refuse
to respond to my letter of 5 May, ‘he asks you’ (Shell) to forward the fact
that ‘he will not be responding’.
There seems hardly any point in
detailing further examples.
In light of the construction of a
your Narrative of the 7 February 1994, you are perfectly well aware, that I am
unwilling to simply hand over my evidence, without reasonable safeguards in
place. Thus, I regard your offers
as little more than rudimentary PR exercises.
Nevertheless, the one thing we can
surely agree on is that this is far too important to allow personnel feelings to
be in any way a significant factor. Consequently,
I am prepared to hand over direct to Shell, a transcript of my interview with
your former ‘Manager’, complete with official, Shell and other documents
conclusively ‘demonstrating’ that Shell Thornton Research Centre and its employees were conducting
the nuclear research programs as per the Managers account.
I have further good news. I
have located some of the personnel involved.
However, not all reside in the UK, some reside in Europe, others are
wider a field.
In return, after inspecting the
evidence you will accept (the evidence) as being such, that you will accept my
proposal(s) to have the remainder of my evidence subjected to the required
scrutiny, as I have set-out. In the
event that you ‘find’ my evidence ‘unproven’ you would give an
undertaking to jointly interview, the said identified personnel, so that the
facts can be established. If I may
quote you ‘What have you to lose?’
So there you have it, further
alternative methods ‘to collaborate (my) allegations’
Bad manners are, of course, never forgivable, however I find that your repeated concern that my publishing indiscriminate ‘allegations’ will cause ‘public panic’, unthinking and truly distasteful. You will have noted that I have not published, why for god’s sake do you suppose that I have not published, if it was not out of my concern for the likely effects of disclosure.
What other possible reason would I be conducting this one-way exercise in futility? If it was not for my endless fears of the effects of disclosure. For I have absolutely no doubt as to the truth of matters.
In view of the fact that we are now
going around the same circle, we have now come to the point that if you were to
turn down my latest offers, then I believe it is entirely fair for me to
conclude that you have, by design, chosen to close this correspondence.
If this is the case, I regrettably
give notice that I will issue a writ, for damages. In light of the undoubted and
worrying problems of disclosure, I shall construct my pleadings in the most
cautious and responsible manner. I
fully expect you to honour your undertakings and should you defend- I will
expect you to behave in a similar responsible manner.