dissent, I (John Dyer) was invited to a formal meeting at Shell's Thornton
Research Centre, on Tuesday 12 January 1999, at 2.30 pm.
Sweeney (Dr), MD, Thornton Research Centre.
Lampbet (medical Dr), Occupational Health Unit Stanlow/North West, Head of
Medical Services Shell UK.
(Dr), Shell Research, Thornton.
the meeting, I restated Shell's nuclear dumping crimes. As Shell's official
line is to pretend that it is unaware of the 'events' surrounding its decommissioning,
I informed how Royal Dutch Shell's directors could quickly substantiate the ‘first element of the
story’, -Shell's extensive cash payments to the 'criminals' it hired to carry
out its nuclear decommissioning at Shell's Thornton Research Centre, in 1968.
Once this was verified (it was readily agreed that a six-figure cash sum
(to-days prices), indicted
a most unusual occurrence, to say the least, Progress, Shell were informed,
would quickly follow. As I (John
Dyer) informed the meeting, the bank’s ex-employees would be able to supply
the required corroboration regarding the cash payments. I further detailed to the meeting, the plant and wagons used,
the problems the
‘Lads’ and Shell encountered with the nuclear decommissioning, etc., etc.
any hopes of progress were dashed, for the meeting turned out to be little more
than a ‘fishing' expedition by Shell.
The undertakings, given
by Shell, at the meeting, were
For once Shell had concluded (or feared), that my evidence could
substantiate the nuclear dumping 'allegations', the decision was quickly taken
to rule out even the
pretence of an investigation. Hence, agreements reached at the meeting (that Shell would
follow up the information supplied), hardly had time to dry, when a letter
from (Dr) Hugh Dorans was dispatched. The
said letter was an outrageous, cynical, calculated, face-saving PR move, for
Shell's representatives had embarrassingly (for Shell),
agreed to contact 'Shell's bank' ex-employees in order to establish the truth,
or otherwise, of the alleged 'cash payments' Shell, following the
meeting, aware of the truth, forbid any
such course of action, which could leave the Group in the position of being unable
to continue its policy of denying they are aware of the truth, regarding its
nuclear dumping crimes.
my refusal, to take part in the
Shell's 'we need to know your witnesses' charade, Shell’s most senior directors, in the form of
Legal Head, the Chairman
of Shell Transport & Trading-Mark Moody-Stuart, and Shell Thornton's MD Graeme
Sweeney, all wrote demanding, as per Hugh Dorans, that I make 'my' witnesses available to Shell. Shell's deeply corrupt and
cynical structure was amply demonstrated by this episode.
For having received four letters, one from the Groups actual Head, its
Legal Head and one from Thornton's MD plus (Dr) Hugh Dorans, I decided to 'test' the sincerity
of the demands, by notifying Shell that I would not only reveal my
witnesses, I further offered Shell the opportunity to interview them!
Shell's 'top brass' having made
the demands- as part of their 'we are investigating charade/pr exercise’ -refused, once offered, the very 'conditions' they had
demanded. hence, Shell
are exposed for what they are; a deeply cynical and corrupt orginisation. As
my letter of June 2000
'I have repeatedly offered (Shell), as per my last letter, to jointly interview the
‘lads’ and former Shell employees, and others, who would quickly establish the
truth. You refuse!
offered to interview former Shell directors, who were aware of the sham nature
of the Narrative, prior to its construction.
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’.
seems hardly any point in detailing further examples.’
All 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 (out) 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 (in
order to establish the extensive 'cash' payments) ,
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.'
said meeting, and Shell's subsequent dishonouring of its commitments/agreements
I wrote to Graeme Sweeney (Shell Thornton's MD) on the 5
recall that at the close of our meeting of the 12 January 1999 you undertook on
behalf of Shell, (and I might add following our conversation and subsequent hand
shake, I took it also as a personal undertaking) to investigate and report back
to me, the following:
The cash payments authorised by
Shell in 1968, at director level, and subsequently made via your bank.
You will recall that you (Shell) undertook to contact the bank, in order
that they would forward names and addresses of former employees.
They would, as I indicated, be able to verify the cash payments. Furthermore, they will be able to attest to the fact that
payments, running into hundreds of thousands of pounds (at today’s prices) was
made, to those you chose to employ in order to carry out the nuclear
decommissioning at Thornton Research Centre.
Shell’s desire that such amounts were paid out in cash (not even a
signature of acceptance of the cash was required), would indicate a most
further undertook to contact ex-employees, (whom Shell had interviewed in
1993/4), at director, and other, level. You
stated, at our meeting, that they had recently been contacted, and was surprised
when I informed this was not universally so.
Despite the fact that over one
year has passed, I still await the fulfillment of your undertakings.
There are several other matters you undertook to investigate and report
back, to me. However, these two
will do for now.’
was instructed not to reply. Instead Shell’s legal head, Richard Wiseman,
informed via his fax and letter of the 8
‘Dr Sweeney has asked me to confirm that he will
not be replying to the correspondence sent to him and that he is content that my
letters reflect his views and those of the company.’
Shell policy is now, following the 'collapse' of its previous Cobalt-60 Narrative strategy, to brazen its nuclear dumping crimes out.