./nuclear_shell-ezgif.com-resize_1790675781476Brazen it out
Home Up Shell's strategy Money 'slur' Threats (recent) ' Nuclear denial' Contact John Dyer

Shell's official line is that it cannot accept my evidence because of the 'attached conditions'. This is a cynical pretense by people who are determined not to receive my evidence; accordingly, I wrote I wrote::

'All of the above offers (and others), had no conditions attached to them, all were refused.  In the case of the ‘ex-bank employees’, no call received.  The offers were rejected because Shell’s strategy is to brazen its nuclear dumping crimes, and hence the consequences, out.  Consequently, the above offers, and any other offers I make, will be/were rejected, for once Shell, for example, contacted the said former bank employees, as per Graeme Sweeney’s (Thornton’s MD) undertaking, Shell would no longer be able to turn a ‘Nelson’s eye’ and pretend that it is unaware of the truth concerning its nuclear dumping.

However, even the premise on which the assertion is based, is a lie.  For I have supplied your clients (Shell) with detailed evidence regarding ‘Shell Thornton’s’ secret military nuclear research, see for instance paragraphs 51-79 of my draft statement of claim.  Does your client dispute any of the nuclear research programmes, as set out in paragraphs 51-79, were carried out by Shell?  Please answer.' 

Shell again refused my (no-conditions-attached) offer(s).  Furthermore, the Group now refuses to deny that it carried out the secret nuclear research programmes, as set out, despite Shell previously stating in its Narrative of 7 February 1994 that no such research took place at its Thornton Research Centre.

In furtherance of its 'brazen it out' policy, the Group's legal head wrote: “To this point we have been unable to find anything to corroborate your allegations…..” 

I immediately replied to this outright lie: 

             'Wrong, wrong, wrong!   

At our meeting, of the 12 January 1999, I communicated to Mr Sweeney (Shell Thornton's MD), 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 call*.  

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.   

(*No 'call' was made!)

You State: 

‘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.’ 

Misleading, and erroneous! 

After my meeting with Dr Sweeney, Dr Hugh Dorans wrote:

‘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.  You refuse! 

I offered to interview former Shell directors who were aware of the sham nature of the Narrative before it was constructed.  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 your Shell's criminal Narrative, 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. 


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.  If you ‘find’ my evidence ‘unproven ’, you would undertake to jointly interview the decommissioning personnel so 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’ --

The 'Shell Manager' offer was turned down on the grounds of 'costs'.  After turning down the offer for 'cost reasons', Shell appoints D J Freeman, one of the country's most expensive legal firms; enough said! 

In maintenance of Shell's, 'Brazen it out, admit nothing', strategy, their appointed solicitors  (D J Freeman) opening letter, started off with the other arm of its strategy- legal threats.  Here are just two: 

"Our clients have made no attempt to stop you publishing fair and accurate facts and have encouraged you to report your concerns to the relevant authorities.  They would however, have no hesitation in protecting their reputation from defamatory attacks."

'If you believe Shell to have been guilty of a cover up of the events in 1968, you are free to make the allegation public subject to the warning that Shell will take whatever action it sees fit in order to protect its reputation from false attacks.  However, the mere existence of a cover up does not of itself give rise to any legitimate cause of action by y  

Despite the prior sending (multiple copies and updates) of the contents of this WEB site to Shell's legal head, its joint Dutch/UK Chairmen, and their appointed lawyers, no 'writs' have been issued, no answers or rebuffs have been forthcoming.