Posts Tagged ‘Alfred Donovan’

EXTRACTS FROM “ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST” BY LORNA SIGGINS

FROM THE FOREWORD (BY FINTAN O’TOOLE)

Though theoretically citizens in a liberal democracy, those who have stood in the way of the exploitation of the Corrib gas field by a consortium led by Shell found themselves with very little protection from their own government. Instead of seeking to negotiate a settlement on behalf of these citizens, Irish governments aligned themselves to an overwhelming extent with Shell, putting the resources of the state behind the acquisition of land and, when locals objected, mounting a policing operation that at one point included the deployment of the navy.

FROM PAGES 126 &127 (“Ahern” is a reference to Bertie Ahern, a corrupt Irish government minister who became Taoiseach)

When the issue arose again in the Dail, the following month, Ahern insisted there was nothing unethical about his discussion in September with the senior Shell executives. There were ‘no deals or arrangements’ with Shell, he insisted, adding that ‘other countries have ways and means of treating large companies, which I do not agree with. I have had a fair few meetings over the years that might border on the unethical, but I am not guilty of it in this case.’

Four years later, in November 2007, the RoyalDutchShellplc.com website run by Alfred and John Donovan – long-time critics of the multinational – published details of minutes of a meeting of Shell group managing directors on 22 and 23 July 2002. Planning refusal for the Ballinaboy gas terminal in north Mayo was discussed, according to the website, which quoted from the minutes: ‘The committee queried whether the group had sufficiently well placed contacts with the Irish government and regulators. Paul Skinner undertook to explore this issue further in consultation with the country chairman in Ireland.’

ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST can be purchased on Amazon

Book Review The Mayo News 5 October 2010

RELATED ARTICLES

Shell Corrib Gas Project, Bertie Ahern and Corruption

Is there a Shell Corrib connection to the sudden resignation of Irish Premier, Bertie Ahern?

POSTING ON SHELL BLOG BY “LONDONLAD” SAT 28 JAN 2012

I am afraid that there clearly is very little news (i.e. aspects of Shell’s work) for the Donovan’s to rant on about recently. A great deal is re-printed as though it’s new but is merely old stories and anti-Shell propoganda that is old history. Yes, we learn from history but we don’t have to regurgitate it repeatedly. The lead story today linking Shell with Jewish skin lamp shades is really gutter press and totally deplorable nonsense from the Donovan’s.

(John Donovan reply is posted on Shell Blog)

Dr Huong was buried in multiple injunctions arising from alleged defamatory postings on our website. Shell also attempted to have him committed to prison and was apparently keen that I should become a fellow prisoner, after they gave up trying to lure my father to Malaysia.

By John Donovan

In 2004, EIGHT companies within the Royal Dutch Shell Group collectively took legal action against Dr John Huong (above), a former Shell production geologist who blew the whistle on the reserves scandal and other nefarious activities carried out by Shell executives in breach of the much proclaimed Shell General Business Principles.

Dr Huong was buried in multiple injunctions arising from alleged defamatory postings on our website. Shell also attempted to have him committed to prison in Malaysia and was apparently keen that I should become a fellow prisoner, after they gave up trying to lure my father to Malaysia.

An email printed below from Dr Huong to his lawyer, Trevor George De Silva, confirms that a Malaysian High Court judge dealing with the litigation told Shell that “they should sue John Donovan in the UK”.

Since that course of action was *not one Shell lawyers wished to pursue, Shell eventually, after 6 years of litigation, had to settle with Dr Huong to stop the case from going to trial. Shell lawyers had undermined their situation by engaging in criminal tampering of evidence to hide important information from the judge.

That was not the only action that perverted the course of justice.

During the course of the litigation, Shell terrorised Dr Huong to the extent that he had to use bodyguards, two of whom were present to protect him when he went to court on 15 July 2004, as stated in his email to us the same day. His house and family were also guarded as a result of sinister events including burglaries, phone tampering, surveillance and an unwelcome night-time visit from a Shell agent, which frightened Dr Huong’s children.

The then Shell Country Chairman, Jon Chadwick, was personally involved in the draconian litigation, which spectacularly backfired on Shell. Perhaps that explains his departure from Shell?

EMAIL DATED 12 February 2007

Dear Mr Trevor,

The following are some of the facts.

1. John and Alfred Donovan jointly own, operate and publish in their website on a daily basis. I also agree with the Judge that when Shell takes issues with what were and are currently published in the website, ‘they should sue John Donovan in the UK’.

2. John and Alfred Donovan are not my agent and/or servants and therefore I cannot undertake the suggestion to cooperate in checking with them an arrangement for a teleconferencing from the UK.  In the past I was trying to be helpful and cooperative with my lawyer Mr. Eric Siow to produce a draft affidavit for which Shell picked on me and served me interim ex-parte injunction which was corrected to inter-parte injunction and served on me as a surprise.

3.  Furthermore, Malaysia has diplomatic relations with UK and if shell takes issue wanting to cross examine John Donovan, an alternative way for Shell is to conduct the cross examination at the Malaysian Embassy in UK – all expenses incurred for which Shell is to pay.

4. As I have mentioned to you earlier by telephone conversation, the last submission of Shell, for example in paragraph 2 had accused me of unaccounted absence from work and for insubordination.  This is flawed and untrue because the unaccounted absence is an allegation resulting from Shell’s failure to conduct an investigation into an alleged misconduct.  In addition Shell lawyers had said that there was an insubordination, a serious misconduct, for which I was never charged at the domestic inquiry.  The case concerning misconduct is still ongoing and I cannot see how Shell lawyers can make such allegations to churn out injunctions.

5. I agree the injunctions made against me are hanging over my head for far too long amounting to human right abuses and need to be disposed off quickly so that we can begin the main trial accusing me of defaming Shell’s good name.

6. Please contact John Donovan and discuss with him what the High Court Judge require.

Yours sincerely,
Dr. John Huong

RELATED ARTICLES:

Royal Dutch Shell terrorist tactics against Malaysian whistleblower

Invitation by Shell to a Malaysian jail cell

More Information, including legal documents…

*We now know from Shell internal documents the company was obliged to supply to us following an application under the UK Data Protection Act, that Shell decided long ago that it would never take legal action against our website. See Shell internal email dated 19 June 2009. Shell was concerned about the airing of “internal laundry” online. The documents also reveal sinister undercover activity against us by Shell spooks on a global basis in an effort to trace our sources.

By John Donovan

The Guardian reports today that several hundred senior scientists employed by Shell at the Thornton Research Centre in Cheshire “will be scattered to other offices” in what is described as a more general retreat by Shell from the UK.

Shell staff, who are said to be “seething,” apparently believe the retreat from the UK is a consequence of the reserves scandal that came to light in 2004.

Shell executive directors including Group Chairman, Sir Phillip Watts (above right), were forced to resign. Basically Shell had repeatably filed false Form 20F returns to the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission each year, inflating claimed proven hydrocarbon reserves.

Confidence in the filings was built up by references to Shell’s claimed General Business Principles pledging: honesty, integrity, transparency etc. (A confidence tricksters charter)

Shell ended up being fined for massive securities fraud. There were also several successful class action lawsuits.

Dutch directors of the Royal Dutch Shell Group seem to have blamed its British executive directors for the scandal. As a consequence, shareholders in Shell Transport And Trading Company have been demoted into 2nd class members of the merged company (Royal Dutch Shell Plc) that emerged from the ashes of the Shell Transport/Royal Dutch partnership.

There is no annual AGM held in the UK for British shareholders in Shell, as they had been for the 100 years prior to the scandal, but instead, a mere satellite event at which no executive directors of Royal Dutch Shell Plc are present. All requests for the AGM to alternate between the Hague and London have been bluntly rejected.

At least one shareholder in Shell Transport And Trading Company Plc, my father, Alfred Donovan, was robbed of his shareholding during the share transfer process. His shares vanished. This probably happened to many other shareholders. If so, all were, like my father, innocent victims of wrongdoing by the relevant greedy, dishonest Shell executive directors, British AND Dutch, who left the company in disgrace, but with huge settlement packages, no doubt to buy their silence.

The disinformation machine at Shell continues. It is only a matter of months ago that the Chester Chronicle reported: Shell says there will be a ‘presence at Thornton for the foreseeable future’. The report went on to say: Shell has begun a consultation process about the changes but says there are ‘no immediate and definite staff impacts’.

That assurance has proven to be very short lived.

The Guardian says that the facility will be closed completely in 2014.

THE ROYAL DUTCH SHELL RESERVES FRAUD UNFOLDS IN NEWS HEADLINES

Daily Telegraph: Shell drops ‘bombshell’ on reserves: 9 January 2004

The Times: How Shell blew a hole in a 100-year reputation: 10 January 2004

The West Australian: Investors howl for Shell’s blood: 12 January 2004

London Evening Standard: Shell bosses lied to the City: 19 April 2004

(Former executives, led by ex-chairman Sir Philip Watts, admitted they had repeatedly lied to investors about the true level of Shell’s oil and gas reserves.)

Houston Chronicle: ‘Sick and tired about lying’ at Shell: 19 April 2004

Bloomberg: Shell Loses AAA Credit Rating: 19 April 2004

Shell bosses ‘fooled the market’: 19 April 2004

The Guardian: Trail of emails reveals depths of deceit at the heart of Shell: 20 April 2004

The Guardian: Shell admits it misled investors: 20 April 2004

The Independent: Lies, cover-ups, fat cats and an oil giant in crisis: 20 April 2004

The Scotsman: Shell admits reserve ‘lies’: 20 April 2004

The Scotsman: Shell implodes as e-mails provide damning evidence: 20 April 2004

The Times: Deceitful Shell ‘needs ten years’ to rebuild exploration business: 20 April 2004

Financial Times: Observer Column: Shell-shocked: Corporate slogans consigned to the dustbin of history no. 94: “You can be sure of Shell.”: 20 April 2004

Minneapolis Star Tribune: Dutch/Shell Group exec was ‘sick and tired’ of lying: 20 April 2004

Daily Telegraph: Memos expose Shell’s years of lying: 8 May 2004

The Scotsman: Shell’s reputation left in tatters: 21 April 2004

TheStarOnline: Shell report exposes lies, CFO sacked: 21 April 2004

Daily Telegraph: Shell suffers second cut to credit rating: 21 April 2004

Daily Telegraph: Sacked Shell boss ‘escorted from HQ’: 22 April 2004

The Times: A very British kind of scandal: why Shell is no Enron: 23 April 2004

Daily Telegraph: Shell’s lies over reserves spark FSA investigation: 24 April 2004

Times: “Shell is a disreputable company in need of a strong injection of ethics”: 25 April 2004 “

The Mail On Sunday: Shell’s top bosses named in £8 billion lawsuit after being spared the sack: 25 April 2004

Daily Mail: Shell attacked from all sides: 26 April 2004

(OIL giant Shell urgently needs to embark on a damage limitation offensive with investors before regulatory probes and lawsuits send the crisis spiralling out of control.)

Daily Telegraph: Shell gives Watts a £1m golden farewell: 23 May 2004

Daily Telegraph: Shell slices still more off proven reserves: 25 May 2004

Daily Telegraph: Watts’ pension pot tops £10m: 28 May 2004

fin24: Shell directors under fire: 20 June 2004

Extract: “The report came just a day after Dutch paper NRC Handelsblad quoted a former executive of one of the oil group’s subsidiaries as saying half of the company’s 400 most senior managers were aware of the problem.”

London Evening Standard: Shell ‘has lied for 10 years’: 26 June 2004

Sadistic sacking of a Royal Dutch Shell whistleblower: 27 October 2010

ShellNews.net webpage containing links to thousands of pages of U.S. court documents and reports relating to the U.S. consolidated class action in respect of the Shell Reserves Fraud

My son John Donovan (centre), Chairman of Don Marketing, with two fellow DM directors John Chambers (left) and Roger Sotherton (right), at the launch of the UK Make Money promotion in 1983

Printed below is the background information relating to an article published by Forecourt Trader in January 1995.

By Alfred Donovan

Our High Court action in April 1994 against Shell UK Limited in respect of the Shell Make Money promotion, provides a clear example of bullying, double-dealing and deception by Shell in its dealings with our company, Don Marketing.

In June 1993, Andrew Lazenby, the Shell executive who masterminded the serial theft of intellectual property from companies disclosing proprietary information to Shell, raised the subject of Shell Make Money in conversation with us, as did his boss, David Watson. This was a promotion to which we held joint rights with Shell.

In mid November 1993, we supplied David Watson with a copy of the letter from a former Shell executive Paul King, recording the joint rights agreement between Don Marketing and Shell in respect of the Make Money scheme. Fortunately, we had retained the original Shell letter. We also wrote to David Watson to make sure that he was aware of our proposals for a Shell led multibrand loyalty promotion.

In December 1993, we received a response letter from David Watson. In addition to rejecting the notion that we had any rights to the Make Money concept, he went on to assert that the same applied to a multibrand loyalty concept he had put forward to Shell. John replied saying that there was not much point in debating the matter until such time as Shell decided that they wished to proceed. However, as a result of the claims made in writing by David Watson and comments made by David and Andrew in John’s telephone discussions with them, our suspicions were aroused that Shell was surreptitiously moving forward with Make Money.

John telephoned Andrew on 21^st February 1994 to confront him on the matter. He asked him outright whether a Make Money game was being produced. Andrew said: “the point is unfortunately John that if we wanted to do something in a years time then we’d have to get it resolved at that stage.” John replied: “Well I shall just send a short response to this letter confirming what I have already told you that I have further information…evidence”. To which Mr Lazenby replied, “Then I’ll just send a short response back to you saying I don’t believe it”. It is very difficult to deal with someone representing a multinational goliath who adopts such a cavalier and bullying attitude towards a small company.

Suspecting that Andrew was deceiving us about Shell’s plans, John contacted a reliable source. He confirmed that a Shell Make Money game was well into production in North Wales. We double-checked and received further confirmation that Andrew was deliberately deceiving us and was secretly producing a Make Money game, even though he already had the copy of a Joint Rights Agreement between Shell and Don Marketing. We had caught Mr Lazenby red-handed.

On 6th April 1994, we issued a Writ against Shell UK Limited in relation to the Make Money promotion. We had the advantage of potentially being able to issue an injunction against Shell which would have prevented them running a multimillion pounds promotion and which would also have created a huge amount of adverse publicity.

Shell subsequently made an out of Court settlement with us. We accepted their offer of £60,000 to purchase our rights to Make Money only after the solicitors then acting for Shell, Mackrell Turner Garrett, gave a 10 minute ultimatum to our solicitors on the evening of Friday 8th April 1994, threatening that Shell would switch to an alternative promotion “already at an advanced stage of development”. We subsequently deduced from the discovery documents that the alternative promotion was “Now Showing” – a Hollywood themed collection scheme that replicated our Hollywood Collection proposal. It subsequently became the subject of our third High Court claim eventually settled out of Court by Shell for £100,000. So Shell had used another of our stolen concepts to bamboozle us into accepting far less that the proper value of our rights to “Make Money”.

We now know from the discovery documents a great deal of what was going on internally at Shell during the period that we were discussing Make Money with Andrew and David.

On 15^th September 1993, one of Andrew’s assistants, Charlie Fox, sent a note to a senior Shell manager concerning “OPERATION CUPID” – the project code name for the clandestinely produced Make Money promotion. Under “Key Action” it stated “Finalise Don Marketing’s position”. On 22^nd September 1993, Charlie sent a note to David Watson headed “CUPID AND DON MARKETING”. In addition to other considerations, the note said: “Ask John Donovan whether he will consider working with Shell again in the future. If no, please put it in writing.  If yes, decide if we want to use him for cupid”.

In October 1993, David Watson wrote a note recording a conversation he had with Shell executive John Smeddle regarding the origin of the Make Money game.  Mr Smeddle advised “Tell John what we intend to do for running Make Money i.e. whether he will run it i.e. security, distribution of vouchers” (“John” being John Donovan). Another Shell document originated towards the end of 1993 had a hand-written note by an unknown author (probably David Watson) saying “But if Don Mktg suggested it, they may still have rts to it”.

Despite all of this internal discussion and recommendations, no one at Shell ever put these questions to us. The Make Money project was given to another agency, Option One. We noticed from Andrew Lazenbys diaries supplied under the discovery process that he had dinner with one of its directors, Tim Bonnet, during the crucial period. It became clear to us that Andrew was systematically siphoning off most of the Shell promotional work to Option One. They were given at least one major project for which they did not even tender. They were also involved in the Now Showing project. Mr Lazenby had a personal relationship with the directors of Option One.

We discovered from Shell discovery documents that Lazenby was prepared to engage in an illegal act on behalf of Shell. He recorded in his diary his intent to set up a personal business while at Shell and exit the company at the age of 35, presumably on the basis of building up sufficient funds in the meantime. He had an offshore bank account into which funds were paid.

Amazingly, from the discovery documents it became evident that during the period of the discussions with them about the Nintendo claim and our rights to the other proposals we had put forward, Shell was clandestinely engaged in taking forward three Don Marketing replica concepts – Make Money, the “Hollywood Collection” and the Shell led multibrand loyalty scheme. Bearing in mind that to the best of our knowledge three of the concepts had never been run before anywhere in the world, the odds against Shell developing four successive promotions, which by pure chance replicated our unique proposals, would be so great as to be beyond the realms of possibility.

We had by that time become disenchanted with Shell’s conduct, particularly the threats issued by their lawyers, who had threatened in writing to make the Nintendo litigation “drawn out and difficult”. The threat provided irrefutable evidence of their oppressive tactics against a small company. The tactics were clearly deliberately designed to drain our resources.

Andrew Lazenby had apparently learned nothing from his role in producing the flawed Nintendo themed game. On 17^th May 1994, when Shell launched the Make Money game, we were astonished to discover that the game was insecure to the extent that potentially, staff at participating sites could pick out all of the envelopes containing the winning half notes. Shell was well aware that there is no foolproof way to prevent dishonest staff from submitting claims using friends’ addresses.

We notified David Pirret (Shell’s General Manager at the time) and Shell Managing Director, David Varney.

On 19^th May 1994, Shell took up our invitation to attend a meeting at the Fleet Street offices of our solicitors where we promised to demonstrate the insecurity of the new game. We did so in the presence of our solicitor, Richard Woodman.

Three people represented Shell at the demonstration; Peter Whyte of Shell Retail; Alan Williams from Shell’s Legal Division, and Nigel Rowley from Mackrell Turner Garrett. John Donovan and Roger Sotherton represented Don Marketing. They correctly identified the type of half note concealed in 7 out of the first 10 envelopes and then guaranteed a 100% success rate for all subsequent envelopes. They achieved this feat without opening the envelopes. Shell’s representatives did not take up the offer to continue with the demonstration. Our subsequent offer to identify the flaws in the security of the Make Money envelopes was declined by Shell’s lawyers because, as they indicated in a letter, “Shell could see no advantage in knowing.”

Despite knowing that the game was totally insecure, and that as a consequence, dishonest forecourt staff could identify and remove all winning game pieces before they were given to drivers, Shell run the game for its full promotional period. So much for Royal Dutch Shell Business Principles. Shell senior executives involved in these events, including Malcolm Brinded, David Pirret and Tim Hannagan, remain at Shell.

John Donovan displays Shell Singapore “Make Money” POS display – a multi-national promotion devised and supplied by Don Marketing. The same promotion was also conducted in the UK and in Ireland. Photograph from Marketing Magazine article “Games people play“, 18 September 1986

On 12th October 2010, I published an article containing the warning: “…it is only a matter of time before the culture of subterfuge and deception at Wikipedia results in a scandal.” My prediction has come to pass…

By John Donovan

Jimmy Wales is to be congratulated on being the joint founder of Wikipedia and for the non-profit basis on which the organization is operated. He is obviously a man of integrity deserving of the highest praise.

Unfortunately, many contributors to Wikipedia do not share his high ethical standards and take full advantage of the fact that it is possible to edit Wikipedia corporate articles completely anonymously for financial reward, removing or suppressing negative information. Parties can completely hide any trace of their identity and motive, even their ISP addresses.

The cloaked editing is completely at odds with a claim attributed to Jimmy Wales in November 2009 that: “We have an ongoing trend towards openness – which is getting more open.”

Editors of non corporate articles are individuals attracted out of genuine interest, often with expertise in the particular subject. It is a completely different matter when corporate articles are surreptitiously modified by employees of a featured corporation, or by specialists supplying an online reputation clean-up service to the corporation. There are numerous firms offering this service.

Because of the huge popularity of Wikipedia, the content of a Wikipedia article about a business is important because it can have a positive or negative impact on the reputation of the business. This in turn can impact on its value.

Like countless millions of people, I use Wikipedia on a daily basis. It is a great free resource. It is however deeply flawed in relation to articles that have a commercial connotation. Money really is the root of all evil. The editing of such articles is mired in widespread deception, trickery and cowardly tactics.

There are Wikipedia articles about every major business.  Under Wikipedia rules, a company is not permitted to edit any Wikipedia articles about itself. Royal Dutch Shell for example is supposedly not allowed to edit Wikipedia articles about itself, but as will be seen, has engaged in all manner of skullduggery in relation to its online reputation.

There is no reason to think that Shell is alone in such activity and every reason to believe that such underhand practices are in fact epidemic. There is information freely available on the Internet providing a blueprint of how to infiltrate Wikipedia utilizing the policy which permits concealment of identity and background. It advises on a stratagem of deception to disguise true intent. This includes editing a wide range of articles to avoid being identified as a one topic contributor.  It discusses implications relating to IP addresses. The objective being for an organized group of infiltrators to edit target articles without detection.  I will not go into detail for obvious reasons.

Wikipedians who choose to openly disclose their identity and background as editors are at a huge disadvantage to the vast majority who hide behind a pseudonym. Such individuals can be very unpleasant. Because identities are concealed, it is not practical for anyone editing under their own name to take legal action in the event of defamatory comments being made against them on Wikipedia by an anonymous party.

Although Wikipedia etiquette requires editors/contributors to act in a civil way towards one another when discussing issues which inevitable arise, the fact that people can hide behind an alias means that they sometimes adopt a dictatorial aggressive and even bullying tone that they would never use under their real name.

On 12 October 2010, I published an article (extracts included herein) containing the warning: “…it is only a matter of time before the culture of subterfuge and deception at Wikipedia results in a scandal.”

This is the complete paragraph:

Commonsense suggests that anyone who wishes to edit a Wikipedia article in which monetary considerations are involved should be compelled to disclose their identity and background so that the information can be exposed to public scrutiny. Otherwise it is only a matter of time before the culture of subterfuge and deception at Wikipedia results in a scandal.

My prediction has come to pass in a recent blaze of publicity about the “dark arts’ practiced by PR firm Bell Pottinger, partly in relation to Wikipedia articles.

The following is an extract from a current article headlined: “PR Firm Rewrites Clients’ Wikipedia Entries“

So much for reliable Wikipedia content. A high-powered British PR firm routinely rewrites Wikipedia content relating to its clients, reports the Independent. Bell Pottinger made hundreds of changes in Wiki entries over the last year, either adding positive comments or deleting negative ones about clients. At least ten contributing writer accounts linked to the firm have been suspended by Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, who blasted the firm’s “ethical blindness,” reports the Financial Times. Undercover reporters for the British Bureau of Investigative Journalism posing as clients were told by representatives of the PR firms that “sorting” Wikipedia entries is part of the service the company offers, notes the newspaper.

Removal of negative information means that the public, including current and potential shareholders, are presented with incomplete, censored information, providing a distorted picture of a featured company.

Within hours of publishing my prediction, I was contacted by the founder of “MyWikiBiz“.

This is a quote from what he said:

As the founder of MyWikiBiz, I am someone who has, and continues to, manipulate information in Wikipedia on behalf of paying clients. Call it dirty work, but for the most part, I think the way the Wikimedia Foundation is scamming the public about how it is (not) governing the world’s “knowledge” is a far worse state of affairs.

My own comments are based on my experience over several years of originating and editing Wikipedia articles relating primarily to Royal Dutch Shell. It is obvious from moves made by Shell that the oil giant attaches great value to its online reputation:

• Shell appointed a specialist agency to carry out a makeover of Shell’s online reputation.
• Shell was obsessed by my editing of Wikipedia articles relating to the company and wanted to edit the articles itself, but was concerned about being caught.
• Shell employees were caught doing so from Shell premise.
• Shell secretly censored postings made on its own Internet forum set up on the basis of inviting “open and transparent dialogue”.
• Eight Royal Dutch Shell Group companies buried a Shell whistle blower in injunctions following postings of revelations and leaked Shell internal documents on our website, some relating to the reserves fraud.
  
• Shell has made attacks on a website I edit (see below), attempting to seize the domain name and close the website down.
  

Details are printed below under the heading: “ROYAL DUTCH SHELL & THE INTERNET”.

I always edit using my own name when contributing to any website, including Wikipedia, where I declared at the outset my long and sometimes acrimonious relationship with Shell. With my almost 95 year old father, Alfred Donovan, I operate a website - royaldutchshellplc.com – focused on Royal Dutch Shell. It has achieved some measure of success in holding the company to account.

It is a completely non commercial website with no advertising. Unlike Wikipedia, we do not solicit or accept donations, declining for example to accept funding from a Russian source at the time of our intervention in the Sakhalin Energy project that cost Shell its majority stake in the venture. (See Nikkei BP article sub-heading: “The fate of Sakhalin 2 was changed by two British men“)

I am aware of the difference between writing a blog on my own website and making edits on Wikipedia. I have always strived to operate within Wikipedia guidelines. This includes ensuring that information added is neutral, accurate, and can be verified by reference to cited independent reputable sources. In other words accurate verifiable information written without bias on the part of the editor.

Wikipedia articles are supposedly written by open and transparent consensus. In reality, as I have indicated, Wikipedia is built on a platform of secrecy and concealment which leaves articles wide open to censorship and manipulation by anonymous parties, with commercially driven motives.

Unpaid volunteers who act as administrators and editors are supposedly the bedrock on which Wikipedia has been built. It is a mostly-secretive community in which the vast majority of volunteers edit using aliases and are free to edit any articles, without anyone having a clue about who they are and what their background is. Thus it is impossible to determine if they have a potential conflict of interest.

Editors using aliases are able to comment on the editing work of other contributors (including those editing on a full disclosure basis) and vote on the deletion of Wikipedia articles.

Consequently this cloaked army has power and influence, but no realistic accountability. If, due to some transgression, a Wikipedian is banned from editing (as I am for threatening libel proceedings) they can return under a new alias using a new IP address, with no bad odor attached. In other words, a completely fresh start.

The strange “Wikipedian” culture has some similarity to the Ku Klux Klan (fortunately without the racist element) but is actually more secretive.  The privacy of those choosing to keep secret all information about who they are is maintained within the Wikipedia community, which is even developing its own unique language, partly in response to skulduggery by some editors.

NO ADEQUATE DISCLAIMER

Since Wikipedia corporate articles are wide-open to whitewashing and many have been surreptitiously whitewashed, all should carry a prominent disclaimer stating that they should not be replied upon in making financial decisions. The current notice of disclaimer is the last but one word in the small print at the foot of each article. It is a link to a general disclaimer with a headline:

“WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY”.

The explanation for the disclaimer states:

“The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields.”

There is however no reference to the surreptitious removal of negative information from corporate articles by corporations or their paid agents, which is the subject of my comments.

Despite knowledge of the systematic laundering of corporate articles, Wikipedia has not placed a prominent warning on each corporate article, nor has it taken adequate measures to properly protect the integrity of the published information.

I am not a lawyer, but under the circumstances, if I was working for Wikipedia, I would be concerned at the possibility of class action law suits against Wikipedia by parties who have purchased shares based on such misleading/incomplete information published by Wikipedia.

As a result of the strenuous efforts by dedicated people, information about Royal Dutch Shell on Wikipedia has been transformed. Negative accurate information supported by newspaper articles, government agency publications, court documents etc has vanished. Instead there is just a collection of sanitized propaganda about Royal Dutch Shell Plc. Most of which looks like it could have originated from Shell’s PR/Media Department.

ROYAL DUTCH SHELL AND THE INTERNET

I first raised suspicions of such underhand editing and manipulation in an article I published in October 2007.  The article contained reference to a section I had inserted in a Royal Dutch Shell article Wikipedia article – “Wiki-face lift for Shell” – revealing the secret editing by Shell employees.

We publish our own carefully researched articles about Shell e.g. “How Royal Dutch Shell saved Hitler and the Nazi Party”. Our activities have attracted media attention. Prospect Magazine, The Sunday Times, and The Guardian, have all published major articles about us: “Rise of the Gripe Site”;“Two men and a website mount vendetta against Shell’ and “92-year-old’s website leaves oil giant Shell-shocked”.

Shell management has for many years taken a great interest in our activities, particular in relation to the Internet.

The was obvious from a Press Release about my father and I issued by Shell Media Relations in March 1995.  Shell was concerned about its online reputation even at that early stage.

In 2005, Shell issued proceedings attempting to seize a number of Shell related gripe site domain names from us, including royaldutchshellplc.com, but lost the case.

A more recent indication of Shell’s concern came in June 2006, when Shell appointed a digital agency with experience in turning around corporate reputations. The headline is self-explanatory: “Shell seeks agency for online makeover“. The brief issued by Shell web communications division in The Hague, included content strategy, website editorial and online branding.

Our related article: “The Internet battleground for Shell’s reputation” is also relevant. In the article, we made plain our suspicions about underhand activity by Shell, in reaction to a critical posting about Shell on our website originating from a Shell whistleblower, Dr John Huong. Shell lawyers buried him in multiple injunctions collectively obtained by eight different Royal Dutch Shell companies from the UK, the Netherlands and Asia. Shell even sought his imprisonment.

The degree of Shell interest in my editing of Wikipedia articles became shockingly apparent after we made a series of subject access requests to Shell under the UK Data Protection Act. It is fair to say given the content of the numerous internal communications on the subject, that Shell was obsessed by my editing of Wikipedia articles about Royal Dutch Shell.

Links to relevant Shell internal communications and documents are printed at the foot of this article. As can be seen in the documents, Shell was trying to figure out how it could edit my contributions to the articles without being caught. Concern was expressed about this prospect.

WikiScanner

In April 2008, I published a discussion from our Live Chat facility revealing that WikiScanner had detected that Wikipedia articles relating to Royal Dutch Shell had been anonymously edited from Shell premises. According to a posted comment “Information critical of Shell was systematically removed”.

An allegation was also made about an alleged “Shell dirty tricks unit” busy trying to smother our website. That allegation proved to be true. Shell had set up a counter-measures team and did surreptitiously, briefly close it down. Shell internal documents I also revealed that Shell had mounted a global spying operation as part of the counter-measures.

DON’T TELL SHELL

Shell was even caught secretly censoring postings on “Tell Shell”, its own innovative online forum inviting “open and transparent dialogue” and “lively debate” allowing Shell to “respond to public concerns and criticism in an open and transparent way.” In August 2005, Shell was caught secretly censoring the forum.  In October 2005, we drew public attention to the “slow death” of the forum. In November 2005, Shell suspended the forum but promised that it would return “shortly” and previous debates would still be available to view. Despite the pledges, “Tell Shell” and the related archive vanished from the internet. In an email dated 11 November 2005, Shell General Counsel Richard Wiseman confirmed that Shell had indeed censored the forum. He sent copies of his email to Royal Dutch Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer and his executive director colleague, Malcolm Brinded.

LINKS TO SHELL INTERNAL EMAILS & DOCS IN WHICH ROYAL DUTCH SHELL WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES ARE MENTIONED IN RELATION TO JOHN DONOVAN

1 March 2007
2 March 2007 16:13 & 18.56 Plus 3 March 18:01
2 March 2007 16:51
19 March 2007 18.43 20 March 2007 8:10
23 March 2007
6 June 2007 12:51
SUNDAY 29 July 2007 11:31 & 30 July 2007 8:19 AM
30 July 2007 22:38 & 7 August 2007 14.24
31 August 2007 16:17
12 October 2007 15:21 & 15:58
16 October 2007
26 December 2007
19 February 2008 4 Pages
4 April 2008
9 March 2009
8 April 2009
8 July 2009
18 December 2009 11.34:
18 December 2009 12.07
Shell Focal Point document “Donovan Campaign Against Shell”

RELATED ARTICLES

• Seeing Corporate Fingerprints in Wikipedia Edits: New York Times
• The ‘dark arts’: Wikipedia founder attacks Bell Pottinger: The Independent
• S Lanka under fire over PR firm 06 DECEMBER 2011, ASIA
• Bell Pottinger, Google and Wikipedia 06 DECEMBER 2011, TECHNOLOGY
• Financial Times* Wikipedia probes edits by Bell Pottinger
• The Independent: Caught on camera: top lobbyists boasting how they influence the PM
• The Independent: Wikipedia founder attacks Bell Pottinger for ‘ethical blindness’
• BBC News: Wikipedia investigates PR firm Bell Pottinger’s edits: 8 December 2011
• Revealed: The Wikipedia pages changed by Bell Pottinger‎ Bureau of Investigative Journalism
• Wikipedia suspends accounts over Bell Pottinger claims‎ Telegraph.co.uk
• Bell Pottinger targeted environmental campaigner on Wikipedia: Bureau of Investigative Journalism
• When reputation management goes wrong: Research Magazine
• Wikipedia investigates unethical edits by PR firm, Bell Pottinger: The Next Web
• Wiki Tweaks: PR firm takes questionable steps online: Marketing Magazine
• Wikipedia Starts Investigation of Bell Pottinger’s Edits, Suspends 10 Accounts: ITProPortal
• PR Firm Rewrites Clients’ Wikipedia Entries: Newser
  
• When reputation management goes wrong: Research Magazine
• DOCTORING THE INTERNET: DAILY MAIL
• Reader Submissions of Interesting Finds at Wired
• Wikipedia Editing From Anheuser-Busch’s Network
• Anheuser-Busch Editing of Sea World Entry, Before and After
• ‘Talk’ Page for SeaWorld Entry on Wikipedia
• Edits From Pepsi-Cola’s Setwork
• Deletion of Pepsi Health Information From Pepsi-Cola Network
• Deletion of Criticism in Diebold Entry From Diebold Network
• Changes to Exxon Valdez Information From Exxon Network
• Wikipedia Editing From Wal-Mart’s Network
• Wikipedia Editing From the Network of The New York Times Company

Friday, 07 October 2011

Liamy MacNally

The days are getting shorter and the lawyers are tripping over themselves in the noontime darkness.  Their cathedral minds are busy.  The Four Courts silver spoon still shines with looming cases.  The law does not always bring justice, even if the ladder of law has no top or no bottom!

A High Court judicial review of permissions granted for ongoing work on the Corrib Gas project is due to be heard on October 11.  The judicial review was sought by An Taisce and some local residents into permissions granted by An Bord Pleanála and the then acting Minister for Communications, Energy & Natural Resources, Pat Carey, for the pipeline and the Plan of Development.  The outcome could have serious implications for the Corrib project.

More legalese: “Strong rumours here in Erris, Co Mayo (beside Corrib gas development) that the project will grind to a halt following an up-and-coming court case involving a local contractor, Shell and the local police force (Garda).”

The royaldutchshellplc.com website had this on its home page last Friday.  This website, subtitled, ‘News and information on Royal Dutch Shell Plc’ has nothing whatever to do with the said company.  A disclaimer states: “This is not a Shell website nor is it officially endorsed by or affiliated with Shell in any way.”  The site was founded by 94 year-old Alfred Donovan, the former Chairman of the Shell Corporate Conscience Pressure Group.  He is assisted by, among others, his son, John, who has been involved in the gasoline retailing industry for over 40 years.  John is best known for his long association with the Royal Dutch Shell Group, firstly for devising marketing campaigns on an international basis and more recently as a long-term Shell shareholder and critic of Shell senior management.  The site is a mine of information on Shell’s activities worldwide.

Less than a year ago, Éamon Gilmore promised an immediate review of oil and gas licensing terms if elected to Government.  Speaking in June 2011 Minister Pat Rabbitte stated: “To successfully attract a greater share of mobile international exploration investment to Ireland, we need a number of basic requirements.  Firstly, we must maintain a realistic tax regime that reflects our relative attractiveness as a place to invest in petroleum exploration.

Secondly, we need an approach to licensing that is designed to attract new companies to Ireland and to encourage those companies already here to increase their activity levels.  The 2011 Atlantic Margin Licensing Round, which closed yesterday, is an initiative designed to achieve this.  While it is very early days in terms of evaluating the applications received under the Round, I welcome the fact that a total of 15 applications have been received.

The country is bust yet there is little recognition of its natural resources assets. Where are last year’s opposition voices?  Former politicians (none of whom is facing charges in court) reap huge pensions while cutbacks affect workers and non-workers.  More and more, life in Ireland is demanding a moral response from Government.  Maybe Government is really about the survival of the richest…

SOURCE ARTICLE

By John Donovan

On Friday I sent an email to Mr Michiel Brandjes (right), Company Secretary & General Counsel Corporate of Royal Dutch Shell Plc. It had a subject – “Gannet Oil Spill: Document Authenticity” – but no content.  It was sent by mistake.

It prompted the subsequent self-explanatory email correspondence.

EMAIL RESPONSE FROM MR MICHIEL BRANDJES, COMPANY SECRETARY OF ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC

From: michiel.brandjes@shell.com
Date: 12 September 2011 08:00:54 GMT+01:00
To: john@shellnews.net
Subject: RE: Gannet Oil Spill: Document Authenticity

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

—–Original Message—–
From: John Donovan [mailto:john@shellnews.net]
Sent: vrijdag 9 september 2011 17:38
To: Brandjes, Michiel CM RDS-LSC
Subject: Gannet Oil Spill: Document Authenticity

Dear Mr Brandjes

ENDS

REPLY BY JOHN DONOVAN

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 12 September 2011 16:29:25 GMT+01:00
To: michiel.brandjes@shell.com
Subject: Re: Gannet Oil Spill: Document Authenticity

In view of the following paragraph of your email dated 22 December 2009, I am never sure whether we will receive a response from you:

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.

It is not quite as mind-bending as the explanation by Donald Rumsfeld of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

For the record, we do still receive email meant for Shell every day.

As per your standing request, I weed out what I consider to be junk mail, which appropriately is mainly from China.  Much of it is addressed to my father, probably because he is perceived, perhaps because of his WSJ image displayed on our website, as being the supreme leader at Royal Dutch Shell. We direct enquiries about “Shell” lottery scams to the Shell Fraud/Scam Alert on your website. All job applications/CV’s which arrive from around the world are directed to the appropriate page on your website.

John Donovan

CORRESPONDENCE ENDS

FRONT AND BACK COVER OF THIS BOOKLET DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE ROYAL DUTCH SHELL HQ BUILDINGS IN LONDON AND THE HAGUE IN MAY 1995

By John Donovan

Mr Justice Eady is the High Court Judge accused of being responsible for “bringing in a privacy law by the back door with a series of “arrogant and amoral” judgments…“

Personally, I have fond memories of Mr Justice Eady. Royal Dutch Shell may take a different view.

On 18th April 1998 I was surprised to learn from Rachel Oldroyd, a reporter from the “Financial Mail On Sunday”, that Shell had issued a press statement that clearly inferred that previous claims I had brought against the oil giant were bogus, thus repeating a libel of March 1995 , which Shell had already settled at some considerable cost to Shell shareholders.

The following day, the “Mail On Sunday” published a report written by Rachel actually quoting from the Shell press statement. Shell issued a further libelous press statement on 25th April 1998 and then on 27th April 1998, capped it all by circulating a letter to its service station network containing a further libel. A trade magazine subsequently published an article relying on the information in Shell’s press statements. Also in April 1998, Shell had circulated a libelous statement about us to Shell staff.

What Shell had not anticipated is that we would get our hands on the offending materials. Friendly publications and Shell petrol station managers had been happy to supply us with copies, so that we had an astonishing array of hard evidence against Shell.

Although we did not find out until making our first application to Shell under the Data Protection Act, Shell published in a Shell internal magazine in November 1998, a libelous article about my father (Alfred Donovan) and me under the headline: “FUEL FOR THOUGHT: DEFENDING THE COMPANY’S GOOD NAME AND REPUTATION.” It was authored by Shell’s rule bending Legal Director, Richard Wiseman, now retired.

In view of the past history of the claims Shell had already settled and the unsolicited written apology we had received from Dr Chris Fay, the then CEO & Chairman of Shell UK Limited, the new allegations were distressing and damaging.

What made it even more galling is that Shell’s sleazy solicitors,  DJ Freeman, had previously warned in writing about us issuing ANY press statements concerning the previous litigation. They said it would be a breach of the secrecy agreements. Apparently they believed that the relevant agreements were binding on David, but not on Goliath.

My solicitors wrote to DJ Freeman confirming that a libel writ had been served and that as a result of the libelous press releases, Shell was “…self-evidently in breach of the Funding Deed and there is no room to argue to the contrary”.

Shell subsequently tried to have the action struck out on the basis that the words used were not potentially libelous.

Mr Justice Eady ruled against Shell and ordered the company to pay the substantial costs of the hearing held at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

The case was one of those later settled by Shell, with Shell paying all of my legal costs. I also received a payment.

It appears from current email correspondence with Shell that the company has in recent months obtained legal advice about us and our website. We will see if Shell has the courage to face us once again in court to discuss its nefarious activities.