Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Rotating Header Image

Shell Censorship

Screen Shot 2013-05-12 at 09.04.17

Our arch-critic, LondonLad, who has been posting comments on our Shell Blog for many years under his current or former alias, mostly highly critical of our articles, has stated: “I genuinely salute the Donovan’s for inserting comments on the Blog from the likes of myself.” Unlike Royal Dutch Shell, we are receptive to criticism. Sometimes it is justified.

By John Donovan

Our arch-critic, LondonLad, a retired senior Shell executive who has been posting comments on our Shell Blog for many years under his current or former alias, mostly highly critical of our articles, has stated: “I genuinely salute the Donovan’s for inserting comments on the Blog from the likes of myself.” Unlike Royal Dutch Shell, we are receptive to criticism. Sometimes it is justified.

We have published every comment Musaint/LondonLad has supplied for posting.  We also gave him access as a guest author so that he could post articles directly onto the site without our involvement. He has never taken up the facility, probably because he prefers to spend time on more worthwhile pursuits, such as being a fanatical supporter of Manchester United.

Royal Dutch Shell did once set up an uncensored Shell Blog called “Tell Shell” but unlike us, found it impossible to stomach criticism.  First Shell lawyers started to secretly censor postings they did not like – whole postings vanished overnight –  then when this nefarious activity was exposed, suspended the facility indefinitely. That was years ago.

Shell has always been in control of the Wikipedia articles about the company.  Within  minutes of me making my first contribution, authoring a Shell related article, I was contacted by a Wikipedia administrator who tried to have my work deleted. A whistleblower advised me that the administrator in question was a former Shell CEO. Although everything I posted on Wikipedia over a number of years was within editing guidelines (impartial, supported by verifiable independent evidence), it was all censored or removed completely. I stopped adding information because it was a complete waste of time.

Shell staff were also caught editing Shell Wikipedia pages from Shell premises.

And Shell lawyers are still plotting behind the scenes in their quest to close down this website. We know this for a fact.

Eight Royal Dutch Shell companies did once collectively obtain several High Court injunctions in respect of postings on this website under the name of Dr John Huong. Dr Huong may have also made postings on our Shell Blog from time to time under an alias.  Musaint referred to the person responsible for the contentious postings as the “Twaddle Master”. A description used  by LondonLad in one of his recent postings, several years after it was last used by Musaint.

Greenpeace proved to be correct in its campaigning about Shell’s shambolic drilling plans in the Arctic, which Shell tried so hard to silence, including obtaining more injunctions. Shell senior management turned out to be spectacularly wrong. David Lawrence was sacked and Voser decided to take early retirement. He decided to get out of the kitchen.

I fail to understand how Shell’s long-standing policy of silencing criticism by covert activity, or through the courts, is compatible with its claimed core business principle of transparency?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: