Posts under ‘Michiel Brandjes’

“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

EMAIL RECEIVED FROM RICHARD WISEMAN, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC: FRIDAY 12 FEB 2010

From: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Date: 12 February 2010 08:30:20 GMT
To: john@shellnews.net
Cc: michiel.brandjes@shell.com, Peter.P.Voser@shell.com
Subject: RE: Shell Global Address Book

Dear Mr Donovan

Regards
Richard Wiseman

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

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: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com

RESPONSE FROM JOHN DONOVAN

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 12 February 2010 09:53:24 GMT
To: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Cc: michiel.brandjes@shell.com, peter.p.voser@shell.com
Subject: Re: Shell Global Address Book

Dear Mr Wiseman

Regards
John Donovan

SELF-EXPLANATORY EMAIL SENT TO MR RICHARD WISEMAN, CHIEF ETHICS & COMPLIANCE OFFICER, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 12 February 2010 00:58:57 GMT
To: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Cc: michiel.brandjes@shell.com, peter.p.voser@shell.com
Subject: Shell Global Address Book

Dear Mr Wiseman

I agreed to your request not to make the Shell Global Address Book accessible online because you stated in an email that the personal safety of some Shell employees could be compromised by its publication. This was not an off-the-cuff comment, but one made after you had the opportunity to consider and consult with colleagues more familiar with the nature and contents of the leaked directory.

This is the entire message…

Dear Mr Donovan

I have now had a chance to consider this and consult with colleagues more familiar with the nature and contents of the “leaked” directory than I am.  I am afraid I must ask you not to publish the data.  The reasons for this request are as follows:

1  Although the data are predominantly business related, some of the information is personal – some telephone numbers for example.
2  Some of the information is sensitive from the security point of view and in some cases personal safety could be compromised by its publication.
3  Although this is a “Shell” directory, it contains information about considerable numbers of people who are not employed by Shell but who are employed by third parties.

In the circumstances therefore, I’d be grateful for your assurance that you will not be publishing the directory.

Regards

All perfectly clear, but totally incompatible with the information subsequently given to the news media when Shell thought it had the situation contained.

Your press office has stated in response to questions from a daily newspaper:

“the leak is no more dangerous than handing out business cards”.

So who has been speaking with a forked tongue – you or Shell’s press office?

Have I been conned by the Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Shell? You were well aware that your statement about the risk to the personal safety of employees was a major factor in my decisions.

I have already confirmed destruction of the database that was in my possession. I advised you that other parties have copies of the database. I will, if necessary, bring this matter to their attention. I will not be responsible for any action they may take.

The source of the copy we received also still has a copy. Unless you confirm that your statement about the safety of Shell employees was true and the version given by Shell’s press office to the media was false, I will advise the source to make the database accessible online.  The source would have no problem whatsoever regarding UK law with the database being physically located in another Country. Ultimately the decision and responsibility would be down to the party still holding a copy of the database, but I can tell you that they have an even lower regard for Shell than we do, if that is possible.

I have warned for over a decade that Shell is a thoroughly dishonest company. I was proven right by the reserves fraud. Now we have another classic example of a company completely without scruples or integrity.

If your media office was telling the truth about there being no security risk, then the prospect of the information being available on the Internet will be of no concern. In fact, according to the line being conveyed by your media office, it will promote business.

If however, you were telling the truth (as I am sure is the case), then your media office is guilty of outrageous deceit. In which event I will be content with the action I have already taken to safeguard the security of the 177,000 employees of Shell and other companies listed within the database. Something Shell has not done.

Regards
John Donovan

Published below is more email correspondence with Richard Wiseman, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc. It concerns the Shell Global Address Book containing company and personal contact information for over 100,000 employees. I will leave to readers to decide whether Mr Wiseman is fit for purpose in his current role.

By John Donovan

Shell and its lawyers have had advance sight of what you are about to read and therefore the opportunity to seek an injunction to prevent publication, but have not done so. Our most recent email to Shell on this matter is published at the foot of the article.

Royal Dutch Shell trickery over UK Data Protection Act (DPA)

As long term prominent critics of Shell management, my father (Alfred) and I have found some of the information supplied to us by Shell under the Data Protection Act law to be very revealing. Some would say astonishing.

For example, revelations about Shell:

• Setting up an aggressive counter-measures team directed against us and our website: royaldutchshellplc.com
• Returning to invisible investigations directed against us
• Mounting a global spying operation against Shell employees in connection with our website

Revelations will follow shortly about Shell’s behind the scenes machinations in relation to Wikipedia articles focused on Royal Dutch Shell.

In reaction to the damage done to Shell’s reputation from DPA information supplied to us in 2007, the oil giant has used every underhand trick imaginable to limit damage from new information supplied a few weeks ago. Some of the relevant evasive tactics adopted by Shell are covered in the correspondence links provided.

In order to locate/retrieve electronically stored information relating to us, Shell would logically run an automated search on our surname. This means that if Shell systematically used some formulation of code/abbreviation to identity us, instead of using our surname, such information would not be found.

On 23 August 2007, during correspondence regarding DPA issues relating to Shell internal emails and documents supplied to us at that time, I made the following request to David Sanger of Shell International Limited legal department:

“Please also supply any information which refers to either or both of us by any code name(s) now used by Shell.”

I raised this issue after receiving a tip off from a Shell insider that certain people at Shell were deliberately avoiding the use of our surname in documents and emails.

As can be seen in the detailed chain of events set out below, while the correspondence on this issue was still in progress, with denials on behalf of Shell that any such ploy was being used, Shell emails were sent in which the use of our surname was systematically and deliberately avoided.

This was achieved by the use of multiple abbreviations of our surname and the deliberate deletion of our surname from an extract of an article. By a lucky fluke, someone blundered by adding a separate file reference at the foot of the relevant stored emails (probably at a later date). The file reference, not the emails,  contained our surname. Otherwise we would know nothing about the existence of the relevant emails about us. This means that there may be a large volume of information produced on the same devious basis, which has not been disclosed to us by Shell.

Looking at what has recently been supplied, it would also explain a greatly reduced volume of salient Shell documents and emails after the time we received the tip off in 2007. Much of the latter information supplied seems to have been generated in the U.S. where Shell Oil lawyers and media folk had not been briefed on the ploy being used to avoid Shell complying with the DPA.

Although Shell might argue that the use of multiple abbreviations of our surname is not the same as using code names, this would be disingenuous. The basic tactic – the use of a form of identification signifying our surname, without actually using our surname, has the same result. As indicated, a search of electronically stored information using our surname would not retrieve documents prepared on that devious basis.

We believe that the relevant communications involve senior people at Shell. One of these individuals may have a self-serving motive in keeping secret a twisting of facts about our past history with Shell, evident in many Shell internal documents we have seen.

MORE DETAILED INFORMATION

When I raised the code names issue with Shell on 23 August 2007, I was surprised to receive a response from a law firm Simmons & Simmons suddenly retained by the company. While their response letter dated 5 September 2007 dealt with some DPA issues, it neglected to deal with the question of Shell’s use of code names.

Some related extracts from my email response to Simmons & Simmons dated 8 September 2007:

We will also inform the Commissioner that we have reason to believe Shell are using a codename strategy to try to evade its statutory duty of releasing more information; it is our understanding from the IC’s office that we are entitled to any information that refers to us or by which we can be identified, even if it is not by name. We further understand that it is an offence under that act to knowingly take steps to withhold information.

The codename issue is serious; we understand that if the Commissioner thinks your client has tried to evade the relevant provisions of the Act, he will write to Shell and require them to release all that information to the Information Commissioner and to us.

We raised the codename issue in our last communication to your client. Instead of an answer, we received your letter which completely ignores the question..

On 10 September 2007, my father sent an email to RDS Plc Company Secretary Michiel Brandjes, containing a draft of an email being sent to over 600 UK MP’s. The draft email contained the following passage:

Following a tip-off, we also asked if Shell has attempted to evade its DPA obligations by subsequently using codenames instead of our surnames: another serious matter if true.

An email from my father to Shell EP General Counsel Keith Ruddock contained the following comments relating to the use of code names:

Like Mr Sanger, Mr Allen and Mr Brandjes, you have chosen not to provide an answer to the codenames issue. Three lawyers have all ducked a simple question. That makes us more than suspicious.

Any of you could have simply stated

Your information about the use of codenames is incorrect. No codenames have been used in relation to you or your father.

but were self-evidently unable or unwilling to do so.

Under the circumstances I believe it is reasonable for us to conclude that the insider information on the subject of code names is correct.

Nonetheless, I will ask one last time for a straight-forward answer to a straight-forward question.

Has Shell ever substituted a codename(s) for the Donovan surname for either my son or I, or for both of us?

We are delaying the email to MP’s while we give Shell this last opportunity to answer this question.

We received a response letter from Simmons & Simmons dated 12 September 2007 from which the following salient extracts are taken:

You also intend to write to the Information Commissioner stating your belief that our client is employing code names in order to avoid its obligations under the Act. As stated in our letter of 05 September 2007, our client has complied fully and in good faith with its obligations under the Act. For the avoidance of doubt, we are instructed that our client has not used code names for the purposes you allege or at all in relation to you or Mr Alfred Donovan.

We confirm that our client has not relied on the exemption of self-incrimination in responding to your SAR. We request that you inform any third parties with whom you have communicated, or intend to communicate, on this issue of this fact and of those set out above in relation to code names and the identity of third persons.

On 13 September 2007 my father confirmed to Mr Ruddock that in the light of the letter from Simmons & Simmons, the reference to Shell using code names to avoid its obligations under the Data Protection Act would be removed from the email to MP’s and that the issue would not be raised with the Information Commissioner.

However, as a result of documents Shell supplied in response to my 2009 SAR application, it has become apparent that the denials by Shell were disingenuous.

Shell internal emails sent on 31 August 2007 just a few days after we first raised the matter, provide evidence that Shell lawyers were indeed deliberately following a strategy to avoid the use of our surname.  The code names were less than sophisticated, amounting to various abbreviations of our surname, but with the same objective. This was done systemically over twenty times in the relevant emails, including the use of “D’S”, “D’s”, “Alfred D”, “Ds”, “John D” and “Mr D”.

The clincher that it was a deliberate strategy to avoid DPA law was the removal of the Donovan name from an extract from an article quoted in the email sent at 15.13 on 31 August.

“A 90 year old war veteran, Alfred D——-, created a gripe website focused on Shell which, in an extraordinary alliance with the so-called “Kremlin attack dog” Oleg Mitvol, has cost the oil giant billions of dollars and as a by-product, changed the course of history.

We would never have known about these Shell emails except for the fact that some one blundered by adding a file reference code, probably at a later date, at the foot of the page:

« File: 2006 – 01 – Alfred Donovan.doc» «File: 2007 – 02 – Donovan Campaign Against Shell.doc »

Consequentially, there may well be a large volume of emails and documents on which the same strategy was used, on which a file reference was not added.

I note that a number of “Focal Point” documents produced by Shell contain an assurance to Shell management in relation to these matters, as as per the example dated 16 October 2007:

Did you avoid disclosing certain information to the Donovans in response to their 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 also informed the RDSplc website that we do not use codewords in internal documents relating to their activities.

The Shell internal emails on 31 August 2007 prove otherwise.

Under the circumstances, we have asked Shell to carry out a search using all of the multiple code/abbreviations which we now know for certain have been used instead of our surname.

EMAIL FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO SHELL 24 JANUARY 2010

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 24 January 2010 20:31:24 GMT
To: Gavin.white@shell.com
Cc: michiel.brandjes@shell.com, peter.p.voser@shell.com, robert.allen@simmons-simmons.com
Subject: Royal Dutch Shell trickery over UK Data Protection Act (DPA)

Dear Mr White

Printed below is a revised draft article we plan to publish on Tuesday morning, 26 January 2010.

The text will be amended in the light of any development before then.

If you wish to supply comment for unedited publication as part of the article, please let us have your comments by Tuesday am.

Please also let me know if you will be carrying out a search using the various Shell code/abbreviations used as a substitute for our surname, which has confirmed the tip off we received from a Shell insider.

If you need more time to consider this matter, you only have to say so.

If I receive nothing from you by Tuesday am, the article will be published and a formal complaint filed with The Information Commissioners Office covering this and all other DPA related issues previously raised with Shell.

Best Regards

John Donovan

NO RESPONSE THUS FAR FROM SHELL

On a personal note, you are welcome to email to us a head shot photograph for display on our website on appropriate articles, as your colleague Richard Wiseman has already done.

I note from the Shell internal documents supplied to my son that Shell has engaged in some wishful thinking regarding my age (I am now almost 93). Unfortunately for Shell, I am still very much alive and kicking.

By John Donovan

Printed below is an email reply received yesterday from Royal Dutch Shell Plc Company Secretary & General Counsel Corporate, Michiel Brandjes (right) together with my self-explanatory, constructive response sent today.

Any further response from Mr Brandjes will be published.

On 22 Dec 2009, at 11:18, michiel.brandjes@shell.com wrote:

Dear Mr Donovan,

Thank you for your message. I have referred all your emails regarding Data Protection Act (“DPA”) matters to the relevant staff and officers dealing with such matters and take it that they have responded as they deem appropriate. I am at this time not a spokes person for the Company in these DPA matters and a response by a Shell spokes person to a message addressed to me should count as a response by me.

It is in my DNA indeed to respond to all and everything as appropriate. However, while that is the starting position please note that I can not be held to always respond to everything as a Company Secretary. There are messages which do not call for a response or not by me, there are matters in which a further response can not serve any purpose, and there are persons with whom I do not or no longer communicate for justified reasons. I intend to continue to help genuine third parties whom you refer to me and do not fall in the earlier mentioned categories.

Rests me to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Michiel Brandjes
Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate
Royal Dutch Shell plc

Registered office: Shell Centre London SE1 7NA UK
Place of registration and number: England 4366849
Correspondence address: PO Box 162, 2501 AN  The Hague,
The Netherlands

Email: Michiel.Brandjes@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com

REPLY FROM JOHN DONOVAN

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 23 December 2009 18:45:21 GMT
To: michiel.brandjes@shell.com
Cc: peter.p.voser@shell.com
Subject: Re: Shell Invisible Investigations and the Data Protection Act

Dear Mr Brandjes

Thank you for your reply. The relevant Shell staff and officers dealing with these matters made no response, not even an acknowledgment. From what you say, it seems safe to conclude that my email to you of 21 December 2009 has also been passed on to the same people.

With regard to your second paragraph, it is good to know that I do not fall within the category of persons with whom you no longer communicate. I am also pleased to read that you will continue to help genuine third parties who contact us. We have always made plain our appreciation. Please be assured that we carefully vet the incoming job applications, business proposals, enquiries etc meant for Shell, using the authority you have given to us, and only pass on what we deem appropriate. Job applicants are directed to the appropriate web page on shell.com. We are always polite.

Reading through the extensive Shell internal and external correspondence supplied to us under the DPA, it is abundantly clear that there is growing hostility, anxiety and frustration. Shell is anxious that it “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“.

However, the overwhelming evidence in the documents is that Shell is actually mesmerized by our website, with constant monitoring by Shell lawyers, Shell media, and Shell security on a global basis, with us and/or the site being discussed in Shell conferences, workshops etc. Also countless preparations over the years to try to anticipate and answer questions we might raise at a Shell AGM, when in fact we have not asked any questions at the AGM for over a decade.

All of this activity must cost Shell a fortune. And the collective impact of our activities on the reputation of Royal Dutch Shell Plc is incalculable.

I note that in one recent email, someone asks: “Have you tried to engage with the Donovans, to try to bring then onside of get them to tone down their anti Shell stance?” This prospect seems unlikely for a variety of reasons, including the stumbling block of the person at Shell who everyone seems to turn to when our name comes up, no doubt because of his long involvement with matters relating to us.  We both know who I am talking about. Why anyone should pay the least bit of attention to his advice or his self-serving account of past events is beyond my comprehension, bearing in mind that it is his miscalculations over the years that have resulted in the current untenable situation for Shell. If it were not for his incompetence, misjudgment and hostility towards us, our websites would not exist.

I do however believe that with a modicum of goodwill, we could move back to a less acrimonious relationship, where we voluntarily give Shell advance sight of controversial articles authored by us, so that Shell has the opportunity to say if anything stated is categorically untrue, in which event it would be deleted. We would also publish unedited within the article, any comments Shell wished to provide. That would be a step forward for commonsense and accuracy. If Shell decided we were not giving reasonable consideration to what you were saying, then you would obviously cease the arrangement.  If Shell has any ideas about how we could work together without impairing our editorial independence, or changing our non-commercial basis of operation, which we wish to preserve, we are completely open to suggestions.

We do intend to continue indefinitely with editing of RDS related Wikipedia articles, publication of our own outspoken articles and blog postings, plus leaflet distribution at Shell Centre and Shell AGM’s (where we will raise some questions Shell has not yet anticipated).  We would welcome Shell input to remove any factually inaccurate content from any of these publications.

It does seem a great pity that there is no benefit from the revenues which would accrue from advertising on a website which receives over two million hits every month. Shell is welcome to see the stats. I have suggested to you before that we could donate any such income to a charitable cause. I now have a specific proposal for you to consider while still in the season of goodwill.

When I raised this kind of suggestion before, there were still hard feelings about the outcome of the domain name proceedings. We can now see from the Shell documents provided under the DPA that Shell decided that it would not be appropriate in this case to mount a legal challenge in the courts. Furthermore, from an email date 25 August 2009, I get the impression that contrary to the arguments put forward to the WIPO,  Shell never attached any great significance to the domain name, which is no doubt why you did not bother to register it in the first place.  Shell only wanted it to stop us using it. So that issue seems settled. I note that legal precedence continues to reaffirm the unanimous verdict reached by the World Intellectual Property Organisation panel of leading IP lawyers headed by Professor Daniel J. Gervais, regarding royaldutchshellplc.com.

Please therefore let me know if you are prepared to give your blessing (no permission is needed) to our proposal that Google AdWords advertising is added to the royaldutchshellplc.com website on the basis that ALL revenue from the advertising, every penny, will be donated to the Shell UK Pensioners Hardship Fund. I am sure you will agree this is a very worthy cause, particularly during the current difficult economic climate.

My father and I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

John Donovan

By John Donovan

Reference my recent email, I received yesterday an email response from Michiel Brandjes, Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate of Royal Dutch Shell Plc. I will publish it later today along with my reply, which will reveal more information from the remarkable Shell internal documents the company was compelled to provide, following my application under the Data Protection Act.

As will be seen, we remain fans of Mr Brandjes.

Since I know from our contact with you over recent years that you are normally an unfailingly polite and efficient Company Secretary, I suspect that this change results from criticism you have received internally for being “a bit too enthusiastic about responding to Donovan…:” Apparently one of your colleagues – I can guess who – is jealous at the praise you have received on our website.