Posts under ‘John Donovan’

By John Donovan

On 31 March, Richard Wiseman, the Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc will be making a speech at a seminar in London: “Best Practice in Combating Corruption Extortion and Bribery“

“The event will examine new developments and tools in fighting corruption and providing practical methods for addressing and investigating extortion and bribery.”

We can only surmise that Mr Wiseman is present on the basis of being a poacher turned gamekeeper.

When he was Legal Director of Shell UK Limited we brought to his attention irrefutable evidence of corrupt practices inside Shell.  A Shell executive on the make had plotted with colleagues on how to deceive companies participating in what they foolishly thought was an honest tender process for a major Shell contract. The companies in question were enticed into confidentiality agreements under false pretenses, so that Shell could steal intellectual property from them and prevent them offering it to rival oil companies.

The contract was eventually given to a company which never took part in the tender. A company with whom the Shell executive had a close personal relationship. Evidence shows that he had an offshore bank account and had recorded in his diary a devious plan to set up his own business inside Shell and then retire from the company at the age of 35.

We also brought the extensive documentary evidence of this ruthless conspiracy to the attention of all directors of Shell UK, Shell Transport and Royal Dutch Petroleum. We invited Malcolm Brinded to disassociate himself from the thoroughly dishonest Shell executive in question. Instead of doing so, Shell senior management, including Wiseman, gave him its full backing.

It is therefore the height of hypocrisy that Wiseman was appointed to his current position and even more outrageous that he has the audacity to make another speech on the subject – unless he is giving tips on predatory conduct against small companies lulled into a false sense of security by sham business principles.

By John Donovan

Visitors may be interested in extensive comments made just weeks ago by Shell about this website and the “Donovans”.

We assume it was prepared by Shell in-house lawyers for the misinformation of Shell senior management, as it is full of spin, distortion and outright fiction.

More evidence that Shell is so twisted internally that it is incapable of admitting the unpalatable truth, even to itself.  The culture of deceit, self-delusion, cover-up and over-promise and under-delivery, which led to the reserves fraud, continues to this day.

Shell was compelled to supply the confidential document to us in accordance with our most recent application under the Data Protection Act.  The “xxxx’s” denote where Shell has censored/deleted names of third parties.

SHELL INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT DATED 21 JANUARY 2010

Confidential                                                                                  Focal Point: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Donovan Campaign Against Shell

CONTEXT
Alfred Donovan and his son John, long-time critics of Shell because of a dispute over a marketing promotion in the UK
many years ago, run a website http://royaldutchshellplc.com critical of the Shell Group. They also are a main driver of a
Wikipedia site ‘Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell’. In the past they have promoted allegations from eg Shell
xxxxxxxxxxxxx over North sea safety and from xxxxx over alleged nuclear activity at a former Shell terminal at Earley outside Reading in the UK, and a number of Shell Malaysia related issues. An article about them in the 19 July 2009 Sunday Times was headlined ‘Two men and a website mount vendetta against an oil giant’. Recent posts on their “Shell Blog” have discussed Transition 2009 and some of the Shell people involved. John Donovan has recently been publishing material received following a second Subject Access Request to Shell under the UK Data Protection Act for personal information relating to him, and has been distributing leaflets outside Shell Centre.

KEY MESSAGES
• We are familiar with the activities of Messrs Alfred and John Donovan, who are longstanding critics of Shell. We are disappointed that they continue to seek to use any recent Shell developments to try and draw attention to their longstanding but unjustified grievances.
• Our general policy is not to comment on specific issues raised by the Donovans. Although we disagree fundamentally with the factual basis and interpretation of much of the information on which they base their various allegations, our past attempts to have a constructive debate have been unproductive.

SUPPORTING FACTS
• Shell took pains to ensure that Mr Donovan’s claims were fully investigated and settled many years ago.
Notwithstanding the impression he likes to give, he failed in the only case of his against Shell that went to court. It is therefore disappointing that the Donovans continue their long-running and acrimonious campaign against Shell on a wide range of subjects.
• Our position, as conveyed to the RDSplc website, is: “The lack of a rebuttal from, or comment by, Shell does not in any way constitute an acceptance on Shell’s part of the accuracy of any of the points made by you whether now or in the future, and whether on this or on any other matter, and we continue to reserve our position accordingly in respect of those matters.”

BRIDGING
If asked whether the Sunday Times’ statement, that “When a new [Shell] executive took over marketing, he used several of their [the Donovans’ schemes but refused to pay for them”, is true:
• Absolutely not. Shell took pains to ensure that Mr Donovan’s claims – about a marketing promotion in the UK many years ago – were fully investigated and properly dealt with. The fact is that Mr Donovan failed in the only case of his against Shell that went to court. The Judge not only completely exonerated the character of the Shell executive in question, but also was highly critical of Mr Donovan’s actions throughout the process of litigation.
If asked about the alleged nuclear reactor at Earley:
• We have given a categorical written assurance that Shell has never been involved In “atomic’ or ‘nuclear” research at Earley or elsewhere in the UK, and that no nuclear bunker is buried under the former Shell terminal. According to the European Commission, the data show radioactivity levels substantially below those considered harmful to human health. Any radioactivity found on the site has nothing to do with Shell’s activities.
Did you avoid disclosing certain information in response to the Donovans’ Data Protection Act requests?
• We complied fully with the Data Protection Act request while making legitimate use of the ability under the Act to withhold information in certain limited circumstances, for example where It is legally privileged or to protect the identities of third parties. We did the same for the previous request.
Why do you not sue the Donovans for libel?
• The experience of corporate defamation plaintiffs is that, even when successful, such cases draw far more attention to the untrue allegations that they would receive without the case having been brought. However, we do not exclude this as a possibility.
Why do you not edit the Wikipedia site ‘Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell?

• Other companies have been strongly criticised for editing entries about themselves, and doing so would only serve to draw attention to the site. We prefer to focus on making our own Shell sites as good as possible.

21 January 2010

ENDS

ORIGINAL DOCUMENT SUPPLIED BY SHELL

SOME COMMENTS IN RESPONSE (ALREADY KNOWN TO PEOPLE WHO REGULARLY VISIT THIS WEBSITE)

ALLEGED RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION AT FORMER SHELL TERMINAL IN EARLEY, NEAR READING:

See our recent article

THE LITIGATION:

We had to issue High Court proceedings against Shell six times: The litigation was long and drawn out over many years, exactly as Shell lawyers had threatened. Shell says that our claims were “fully investigated”. It does not say that the “investigations” included undercover activity involving a fake company, fake credentials and fake documents, nor that we and our witnesses were subjected to intimidation and by coincidence or otherwise, illegal conduct, including a series of burglaries in which Shell related documents were tampered with. Shell failed to disclose to the police its then extremely close association with Hakluyt & Company Ltd a private spy firm. Titled Shell directors were the ultimate spymasters and major shareholders in Hakluyt. Shell was a client and Hakluyt carried out undercover investigations/missions against perceived enemies of Shell. Recent Shell documents show that “invisible” investigations/operations are still being directed at us, by now on a global basis, targeting over 100,000 Shell employees. All six High Court actions and a County Court case were settled in our favour by Shell. All of our legal costs were paid by Shell. This includes the last claim.

The only claim which went to Court: Shell issued a so-called “joint statement” announcing a “stalemate” outcome saying that I had abandoned the claim and Shell had withdrawn allegations against me. I made NO compromise settlement proposals to Shell during the trial. Shell made TWO to me. I rejected the first and accepted the second. Shell paid my entire legal costs. As confirmed in writing by Richard Wiseman, Shell’s Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer, the full terms of the settlement were not disclosed to the trial Judge, Mr Justice Laddie.  I also received a secret payment, which was not disclosed to Laddie. Thus he was kept in the dark about the true terms of settlement. Since the trial was settled out of court, there was no verdict. Laddie did make unfounded comments, which further confirmed his blatant bias in favour of Shell. He allowed the Shell legal team in Court, which included Wiseman, to get away with engaging in deception and attempted entrapment. He displayed not the slightest interest in the aforementioned Shell undercover activity and intimidation, which had completely undermined any prospect of a fair trial: Hence my reluctant acceptance of Shell’s second attempt to settle the case.

The Shell executive whose misdeeds led to all seven court actions, was on the make, as it plain from the evidence, including his diaries. Shell made its second settlement offer while the thoroughly dishonest Shell executive in question was in the midst of his cross-examination. The case was settled before he was asked about his offshore bank account and his setting up of his own business inside Shell, with a recorded ambition to retire from Shell at the age of 35.

Complaint lodged with the Lord Chancellor: After we subsequently wrote to the then UK Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, making a 14 page formal complaint against the Judge, Laddie resigned – the first High Court Judge to do so in decades. Laddie had failed to disclose a connection with the Moody-Stuart family despite being aware that Sir Mark Moody-Stuart was the then Group Chairman of the Royal Dutch Shell Group and that he and his wife, Lady Judy Moody-Stuart, had become personally involved in the litigation. We later wrote to the Judge raising the matter, but he refused to comment. He had also failed to disclose that his life long friend and unofficial spokesperson, Tony Willoughby, had founded an IP consultancy, which had Shell as a client. After his resignation in controversial circumstances, the Judge took up a consultancy position at the same firm. He was also involved in a commercial venture involving Richard Wiseman. Tragically, the Judge is now deceased.

Shell asked itself in the briefing document: “Why do you not sue the Donovans for libel?
• The experience of corporate defamation plaintiffs is that, even when successful, such cases draw far more attention to the untrue allegations that they would receive without the case having been brought. However, we do not exclude this as a possibility.

This is another deception. Shell has already excluded the possibility. Extract from Shell internal email dated 19 June 2009:

Hi Xxxx – Indeed I have been following this (you might also add xxxxxxxxxxx as one of the site’s favourite targets). ?????????????????????????????????????????????

??????????????? My previous advice to xxxxxxxx has been to ignore it – any Shell reaction would merely encourage Donovan to think we take this seriously and would likely stimulate more comment on/interest in the site. Also, eg we have long decided not to take legal action against the site (although Donovan would probably welcome this) – eg they often refer to xxxxxxxxxxx as xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Mr White

We safety received the Shell internal documents/emails and your covering letters, all delivered to us by motorbike messenger on Monday evening.

With reference to the documents and emails, we note that Shell has changed the method of censoring the information so that we sometimes have some visual clue to which parts have been removed. However, the censor appears to have got carried away with one Shell internal email, where even the date has been deleted.

All we can see is:

From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Subject: Re:

Donovan has posted a message that                                                      . There is no truth to this.

2

seems to have given rise to speculation among staff, and this is what Donovan seems to have picked up.

3

Bearing in mind that in answer to our SAR applications, Shell has supplied us with documents and emails stretching back into the 1990’s, it would be helpful if you would supply a date so that we can try to deduce the subject matter and therefore have the opportunity to correct any mistake regarding information attributed to us.

We also note that Shell is now camouflaging the uncensored text in an apparent effort to prevent copying and publication on the Internet. The censorship, camouflage and related cover-up tactics all designed to defeat transparency, are of course directly at odds with Shell’s claimed core business principles.

With regard to the Shell spying operation involving our website and over 100,000 Shell employees, I see that Shell (I assume Richard Wiseman) contacted the UK police on 10 December 2009 offering to ensure that “… enquiries are dealt with expeditiously”.

On the same subject (Shell Corporate Affairs Security spying), the following are extracts from email correspondence involving Shell and an unidentified person/party posing questions on the matter.

Some extracts:

Undated email with no information about sender or recipient (censored):

One email dated June this year appears to show Shell asked a privately funded anti-fraud agency, NCFTA, to target Donovan. Could you please comment?

Dated email with no information about identity of sender or recipient (censored)

Tuesday 1st December 2009
Subject: ncfta

Hi

The first email in the attachment appears to show a Shell employee asked NCFTA to monitor Donovan. I guess my questions are:

Are the emails attached genuine.
Did a Shell employee have discussions with National Cyber Forensics and Training Alliance regarding Donovan
Did Shell give funds to NCFTA to target Donovan/Royaldutchshellplc?
What did Shell want the NCFTA to do to Donovan?

Separately, Donovan says another email released by Shell has a Shell employee telling Fox News in March 2007 that “royaldutchshell plc.com is an excellent source of group news and comment and I recommend it above what our own group internal comms puts out”

Thank you

EXTRACTS END

Can you please let us have a date for the first email and any comment you wish to make on the emails relating to CAS/NCFTA?

Being the target of Shell’s “invisible” investigations, we would certainly like to know the answers to these questions.

Regards

John Donovan

REPLY FROM RICHARD WISEMAN

From: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Date: 11 March 2010 14:22:41 GMT
To: john@shellnews.net, Gavin.White@shell.com
Subject: RE: Shell internal docs/comms supplied 8 March 2010

Registered in England and Wales number 4366849
Registered Office:  Shell Centre, London, SE1
Headquarters: Carel van Bylandtlaan 30, 2596 HR
The Hague, The Netherlands

EMAIL TO MR RAY FOX FROM JOHN DONOVAN

Re: RAY FOX NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE

Hello Ray

Thank you for your email.

I note with interest your news about the imminent return of Professor Dr Chris Busby to the land adjoining the former Shell Terminal at Earley, Reading, to carry out tests using new equipment. Please be advised that I received last night, a confidential Shell internal document dated 21 January 2010 containing the clearest denial yet by Shell on “the alleged nuclear reactor at Earley“.

It says…

“We have given a categorical written assurance that Shell has never been involved in “atomic” or “nuclear” research at Earley or elsewhere in the UK, and that no nuclear bunker is buried under the former Shell terminal. According to the European Commission, the data show radioactivity levels substantially below those considered harmful to human health. Any radioactivity found on the site has nothing to do with Shell’s activities.”

Please feel free to pass this information to Professor Dr Busby as it is at variance with the report he prepared in July 2009.

So who should the residents of the housing estate built on the former Shell terminal believe? Shell, which has an international track record of deadly pollution, or Professor Busby BSc, PhD, C.Chem, MRSC, the renowned scientist, who is one of the worlds leading experts on radioactive contamination?

We have to bear in mind the evidence that Shell was unsuccessful in at least the initial and second attempts at decontamination of toxic chemicals at the site, otherwise there would not have been a third attempt.

By Alfred Donovan

Appeal: Peter Sutcliffe, shown here after an attack in prison, has launched a High Court bid to be released.

EXTRACT FROM A DAILY MAIL ARTICLE PUBLISHED 2 MARCH 2010:

The Yorkshire Ripper is using taxpayers’ money in an attempt to win his freedom.

Peter Sutcliffe, who murdered 13 women and tried to kill seven more, claims doctors believe he is ‘on the way to being cured’ and no longer poses a risk to the public.

Now 63, he has received legal aid to fund a team of leading barristers in his High Court battle to be released from the secure Broadmoor Hospital. This is likely to run up a bill of £200,000.

In June 1999, at the age 82, I was a defendant in the High Court action brought against me by Shell for alleged breach of contract.  I had no legal representation. I had already sold my home to pay my lawyers.  After my funds evaporated completely, I applied for Legal Aid which was granted, then mysteriously withdrawn without explanation. My son’s Legal Aid was also revoked. He discovered that this was due to a letter Shell (Mr Richard Wiseman?) had sent to the Legal Aid Board making an allegation which was without foundation. I assume that Shell also sent a similar letter to the Legal Aid Board about me.

John and I both appealed against the revocation decisions. In my case, a member of the Legal Aid appeal panel said that as far as he could see, I had “nothing to lose”.

My own war record in fighting the Japanese in Burma, the fact that three of my brothers had also fought for Britain (Jack, a paratrooper broke his ankle landing during Operation Market Garden at Arnhem), was of no account. My mother drove a London ambulance during the Blitz. After the war I worked in the civil service for 14 years, started my own business, employed many people over the years and had always lived a blemish free life. Again, this all counted for nothing. Basically, my background, dignity, reputation, health and financial independence, were all of no account.

After receiving notifications that our appeals had been rejected, we each filed for Judicial Review armed with evidence that the allegation made by Shell was completely false, but the trial date arrived before either of us could get a hearing.

I was left in the unbelievable position at the age of 82, with a war disability, of having to personally defend myself in the High Court before a Judge and an array of high-powered barristers and solicitors acting for Shell.

John gave a legal charge on his house to his lawyers, or otherwise he too would have had no legal representation in court. Having no legal aid weakened his position and piled on more pressure. We had already endured a deluge of threats by Shell plus uncover activity directed against us.

Hence we were at a great disadvantage and reluctantly accepted the second compromise settlement offer put by Shell.

What a screwed up Country when a horrific serial killer is granted Legal Aid, while a then 82 year old 2nd World War veteran was left abandoned with no Legal Aid and NO legal representation.

Shell is well aware of what happened. A Shell internal email dated 11 May 2006 raised the question:-

“Mr. Donovan alleges that Shell had (his) legal aid cut off (during the SMART case). Is this the case?”

No answer was provided.

As you know, the Data Protection Act treats you and John as separate individuals, with each of you having separate rights under the Act. However, as you will appreciate, given your and John’s working relationship and our understanding that you both jointly operate the RoyalDutchShell plc website, it is often difficult to separate out data that relates purely to one or other of you.

Posting on Shell Blog on Feb 27th, 2010 at 10:19 am by “guest1″, a regular contributor.

We should not give the impression that we are over-concerned with the D’s website, or that management spends a lot of time worrying about it. (Shell)

By John Donovan

I am still studying the Shell internal documents and communications the company was recently obliged to supply to me in accordance with an application under the Data Protection Act.

It is interesting to note the way events in our unusual relationship with Shell have been spun by Shell lawyers, depending on who is being given the information.

Richard Wiseman (right) is now the Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc. We crossed swords with him many times during the seven separate court actions we brought against the oil giant, which settled ALL of these claims, involving breach of confidence, breach of contract and libel.

You would never guess this when reading the written briefings given regularly to a Shell senior management obsessed with our activities, to the extent of running a global spying operation against Shell employees, the Donovan’s and our website. This includes “invisible” investigations involving Shell Corporate Affairs Security (CAS), trying to discover who is supplying us with insider information, and who is visiting or posting information on our Shell Blog from Shell premises.

Since Wiseman was intimately involved in the bouts of litigation heading up Shell’s legal team, it is inconceivable that he has not had an input into the written briefings, at the very least checking to ensure accuracy. Indeed, he informed me when we last met at a Shell AGM (in 2006?) that he is still brought in to all matters involving the Donovan’s, including the royaldutchshellplc.com domain name battle, which Shell also lost.

I will just pick out a few examples of blatant spin in a briefing dated 31 August 2007.

1. The first sentence of the first paragraph states:

We should not give the impression that we are over-concerned with the D’s website, or that management spends a lot of time worrying about it.

This is like a boxer trying to pretend that punches to his midriff are not making any impression, when everyone else is gasping at the obvious damage from sickening blows. A small selection of Shell internal documents, mainly from 2007 onwards, confirm that contrary to the self-delusion, Shell management is indeed obsessed by our activities.

2. Shell says in the briefing document:

…the company has always refrained from commenting on specific issues raised by the Ds and will continue to do so.

Anyone who has seen the recent published email correspondence I had with Wiseman in relation to the worlds biggest breach of employee data knows this claim is more BS. Extracts from what Wiseman said to me in his email replies were republished around the world. Shell lawyers have provided comment many times previously as would be obvious to our regular visitors.

3.  Shell also said in the internal briefing document:

In the early ’90s when Shell wanted to use Make Money again, Mr D claimed that he still owned the concept. Shell paid D for the transfer of the concept. Mr D then launched legal action against Shell in connection with two other promotions. While Shell was confident of defeating the claim, in the interest of saving costs for both sides, it was agreed that the matter would be settled. Following this settlement, Mr D sued Shell again. He claimed that he had invented the Smart promotion and that Shell had “stolen” it from him. The case went to court but Mr D eventually abandoned his claim

Yes, Shell did settle the Make Money claim, but only after we issued High Court proceedings seeking an injunction.

With regards to the litigation concerning “two other promotions”, Shell says it settled to save both sides costs. How unusually generous of Shell. We previously received an entirely different explanation from Mr Wiseman in his email dated May 1997. At the time, he was claiming  that Shell had settled out of a moral obligation which  arose out of the termination of the Company’s long standing relationship with us, not out of any particular claim. In fact, Shell settled after independent mediators reached the conclusion, after accessing the evidence and interviewing key witnesses, that “Don Marketing has been pissed on from a very great height”. A memorable verdict.

Wiseman claiming that Shell settled with us on moral grounds is on a par with the claim by Shell executive director, Malcolm Brinded, that Shell settled the Wiwa litigation last June on the court room steps for $15.5 million as a “goodwill gesture”, after Shell had dragged out the proceedings for many years. Oil and morals do not mix. All such decisions by Shell are taken on purely commercial grounds, which factor in potential reputational damage.

Shell also misrepresents the outcome of the SMART trial. Shell made two settlement proposals. I rejected the first and accepted the second only after it was agreed that my legal costs would be paid and that I would receive a secret payment not even disclosed to the trial Judge.

What hope is there for Shell management to make informed decisions when such inaccurate self-serving information, trying to cover-up past embarrassments, is conveyed to them?

“One of the principles underlying all of our work on the Web has been that we should be true to the spirit of New Shell. This means that we are seen to be open, listening, interested in the views of others…”: SHELL CENSOR – MARCH 1999

Shell Internet Censorship

By John Donovan

Printed below is a Shell internal email sent in March 1999. Shell was obliged to supply it to us in accordance with an application we made under the UK Data Protection Act. The “X’s” denote sections redacted (censored) by Shell, which includes the name of its author and apparently an extensive circulation list – 4 lines deep.

Although not mentioned in the still visible text, the author of the email was talking about the former “Tell Shell” Internet discussion forum once available on shell.com, until it was censored into oblivion.

Knowing of the involvement of Shell International General Counsel Richard Wiseman in the overt and covert censorship carried out on “Tell Shell” postings, we asked him if he was the author of the email. This was his reply yesterday, 22 February 2010:

Dear Mr Donovan,

I have no record or recollection of drafting or being involved in the drafting of the email you refer to.  Since you claim it was written more than 10 years ago, this is not surprising.  The style is not mine however and I do not believe that I am likely to have been the author.

As usual, I do not propose to comment otherwise on your draft and this should not be taken as acceptance of any of the assertions you make.

Regards
Richard Wiseman

Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA

We accept what Mr Wiseman says. Of course, since Shell carried out the blanking out process on the email, it could reveal all of the censored information, but has not offered to do so, even though Royal Dutch Shell CEO Peter Voser and  Company Secretary Michiel Brandjes are fully aware of this article.

It is clear from the content that the author of the email was someone in control over the content of “Tell Shell”.

He or she claimed:

“One of the principles underlying all of our work on the Web has been that we should be true to the spirit of New Shell. This means that we are seen to be open, listening, interested in the views of others…”

Astonishingly, the author then goes on to try to provide a rationale behind the decision to remove 9 out of ten postings we made on “Tell Shell” and to say that if accused of censorship, Shell would argue that it had simply been trying to prevent us dominating discussions. The postings were also manipulated to make it less likely that forum users would visit our own website and be exposed to the full list of our allegations i.e. the truth.

Despite the claims of an open, censorship free discussion forum for lively debate, Shell did not want to entertain controversial postings. Hence the introduction of censorship on “Tell Shell”, providing an explanation on the forum whenever an unwelcome contribution was deleted.

Shell subsequently resorted to secret censorship, whereby postings vanished without trace or explanation. This underhand policy, involving Richard Wiseman, brought about what we described as: “The slow death of the Tell Shell Internet discussion forum”.  After the secret censorship was exposed, Shell “suspended” the forum, as it turned out, permanently.

Not content with censoring “Tell Shell”, Mr Wiseman also wanted us to censor our website. The following is from an email he sent to us on 11 November 2005:-

The extraordinary tolerance shown to your internet activities ought to demonstrate better than anything else the fact that we are uninterested in, and unmoved by, your current activities.  It is true that when your comments to “Tell Shell” overstep the bounds of honest comment and become vituperative or defamatory, we remove them.  In this context, I suggest that the image on

http://www.royaldutchshellplc.com/week44/vantheman3putinnovember2005.htm.

be removed as a matter of urgency.

Some extracts from our response to Mr Wiseman…

The implied threat in your email regarding the satirical comments directed at President Putin, betrays Shell’s real attitude to freedom of speech on the Internet.

Thank you for the official confirmation regarding Shell’s censorship of the “Tell Shell Forum”. Such suppression of free speech is directly at odds with statements made by Shell on the forum inviting feedback and lively open debate in “uncensored space”. Since we have never posted any bad language on Tell Shell, the censorship relates entirely to our criticism of Shell and our accurate account of past events, supported by documents in our possession.

Having admitted to Shell’s censorship policy on the Tell Shell Forum, your next comments imply that Shell has rights or influence over what is published on RoyalDutchShellplc.com. I would respectfully point out that although you can censor postings on your website, you cannot censor commentary posted on ours. You have not mentioned the censorship of postings by other contributors to Tell Shell offering constructive criticism, including former Shell employees (with one such posting deleted in an underhand manner). As far as I am aware, none of the postings critical of Shell contained any bad language.

EXTRACTS END

If you also read the information on the linked articles, it is clear that Richard Wiseman has been a driving force behind the machinations (trickery and censorship) over unwelcome critical postings on “Tell Shell”, which led to its demise and replacement by an unauthorized “Shell Blog”. I refer to the facility at royaldutchshellplc.com on which visitors can make positive or negative postings about Shell (or the Donovan’s), without being subjected to censorship.

In other words, people posting comments can rest assured that some self-serving lawyer is not controlling what is deemed sufficiently favorable to Shell to remain on display. Under the circumstances, perhaps Wiseman’s already lengthy job title should be expanded still further: Chief Censor, Ethics & Compliance Officer, Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

MAIN ARTICLE ENDS

RELATED INFORMATION

A posting made on our Shell Blog by former Shell executive Paddy Briggs was noted with disdain by a Shell employee in an internal email sent on 25 June 2007, who stated:

FYI, Paddy Briggs latest contribution – I think he should choose his friends more carefully…

In the absence of “Tell Shell” I think that this is possibly the best forum for those of us who care about Shell and have informed opinions about the company to share with others. The Donovans perfume (subsequently corrected!) a very useful function and, whilst I don’t always agree with them, I do admire them and certainly do not question their motives or their integrity.

(Since we know the above posting was made by Paddy Briggs, we have inserted his name where it was previously redacted. BTW, we have never met or even spoken to Paddy Briggs, who is now a Trustee of the Shell Contributory Pension Fund.)

A Shell internal email sent earlier the same day contained a more enlightened view about postings on our website. Its author said: “I support Mr Donovan’s right to free speech – even if it is anti-Shell.”

THE SHELL INTERNAL EMAIL SENT IN MARCH 1999

From:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Sent: 23 March 1999 10:54

TO: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
(E-mail)
Subject: FW: DONVAN

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

One of the principles underlying all of our work on the Web has been that we should be true to the spirit of New Shell. This means that we are seen to be open, listening, interested in the views of others and providing information which helps people to make their own minds up, not just thrust our opinions at them.

This is why, for several years, we have included links to the websites of organisations critical of Shell and have only removed contributions to the Website discussion fora if they were either:

a) abusive of individuals, or:

b) contained libellous material, where we didn’t wish to become involved in the legal implications of being a publisher:

Beyond that, we have deliberately not censored contributions, because this would simply have handed ammunition to our critics.

Before we launched the new campaign, we agreed that we should apply the same guidelines to the new campaign-related discussion fora. It was recognised that they might become targets for our critics, but if we claim to be interested in dialogue, then we need to be seen to be engaged in it and our arguments need to be seen to stand up for themselves.

In respect of Don Marketing, the monitoring of the fora quickly picked up that he had posted ten contributions and we decided to reduce it to one. If we were challenged, our argument would be that we had not censored, but had simply stopped him dominating discussions to the irritation of other users.

His one remaining contribution will be located in the Human Rights section at
http://www shell com/campaign/jssue/stage/1.1850.2.00.html

At the moment, this particular contribution of his is simply a link to his Shell Shareholders site. However, I have asked XXXXX to include Donovan’s text from one of his other postings so that people can see the essence of his case without having to go and enter his website and get the full list of his allegations. This will be done later this morning.

Regards

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Shell International Limited, Shell Centre
London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Email: xxxxxxxxxx

News articles generated by royaldutchshellplc.com and its Shell insider sources in 2009