By John Donovan

We have recently received information from Shell in response to our 2011 SAR application under the Data Protection Act.

It always contains some surprises, and this time is no exception.

Unbeknown to us, Shell engaged in email correspondence in September/October 2010 with an unknown third party, a business owner, on the subject of Shell paying us a large sum to stop our campaigning focused on Shell.

The correspondence is reproduced below in chronological order, with the first email dated 25 Sept 2010. Identification information other than our surname and web domain name has been redacted by Shell.

We have good reason to believe that the person responding for Shell was Mr Richard Wiseman, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer, Royal Dutch Shell Plc. Mr Wiseman retired a couple of months ago.

We have no idea of the identity of the person who contacted Shell. We assume that it must be someone who impressed Mr Wiseman, or he would not have engaged in the correspondence.

Basically the person suggested that Shell should pay us £250,000 to get rid of us.

THE EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE

From:
Sent: 25 September 2010 09:47
To:
Subject: The Donovans

Dear

I have no connections to Shell or the Donovan’s. An insomnia induced, web browsing session led me to the dispute between the two of you. I have no comment regarding the events, other than to say I can see that it has taken up a lot of resources between the two protagonists. If I were in Shell’s position I would offer the Donovan’s £250,000 to leave the world of Shell behind them and to get on with their lives.

Their website www.rovaldutchshellplc.com ranks 6th on Google! That is all.

Kind regards

RESPONSE FROM SHELL

On 9 Oct 2010, at 07:19,xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    > wrote:

Dear

Thank you for your thoughts. I think that inadvertently you are suggesting we respond to blackmail. Apart from the ethical considerations, what we do the next time it happened?

Regards

Royal Dutch Shell plc Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA
Registered in England and Wales number 4366849 Registered Office: Shell  Centre, London, SE 1
Headquarters: Carel van Bylandtlaan 30, 2596 HR The Hague, The Netherlands

Tel:Fax:
Mobile:
Email:
Internet: http://www.shell.com

RESPONSE FROM BUSINESS OWNER

From:
Sent:    09 October 2010 09:51
To:
Subject:    Re: The Donovan’s

Dear

I can’t see how it could be construed as blackmail. The Donovan’s have already published information about Shell and will continue to do so. I am suggesting a legal agreement between the protagonists which would result in The Donovans transferring ownership of all their websites to Shell and agreeing not to publish anything in the future in return for a sum of money.

I own a successful business and the last thing I would want is a determined, disgruntled customer/supplier, hell bent on making my life difficult.

You must think I’m a complete weirdo or have some connection to the Donovan’s. Truth is I went to a wine tasting in Bury St Edmunds and really liked the building it was in, when I got home I googled the address. It turned out to be the former offices of Don Marketing.

Having spent 8 hours of my life reading all about the battles between the two of you I felt I might as well write to you and tell you what I would do.

Regards

Sent from my iPhone

RESPONSE FROM SHELL

On 9 Oct 2010, at 10:17, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    > wrote:

Mr

As you know the conflict between Shell and the Donovans goes back many years. I would prefer not to go into the details of why an arrangement of the sort you suggest would not work in practice with these individuals.

Regards

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

Tel
Fax:
Mobile:
Email:
Internet: http://www.shell.com

RESPONSE

From:
Sent:    0-9 October 2010 10.29
To:
Subject:    Re: The Donovan’s

Dear

I guess if it were that simple, it would have been resolved many years ago.

[ hope you'll excuse my intrusion.

Regards

Sent from my iPhone

EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENDS

Shell used the word blackmail and also implied that we could not be trusted to keep to any such agreement.

Both charges are entirely without foundation.

Shell has settled several High Court actions we brought against the company for breach of contract. Shell subsequently broke the peace treaty settlement signed in 1999 and as a consequence, we served legal notice on Shell that it had repudiated that agreement. Shell took no legal action denying that this was the case. All of this is documented. It is Shell that has a “breach of contact” track record and cannot be trusted to honour agreements.

All of our campaigning activities against Shell are entirely non-commercial and always have been. There is no income from our activities. We have not approached Shell suggesting that they should pay us anything to cease campaigning and will never do so. We have never asked anyone else to approach Shell on our behalf and will never do so.  Hence any suggestion of blackmail is also unfair and untrue.

We were approached by a businessman some years ago seeking our permission for him to contact Shell with the aim of negotiating a deal with the same objective, on the basis of him receiving a fee of some kind. We declined his offer.

We are aware from previous Shell internal documents supplied to us in response to a SAR application that someone at Shell raised the prospect of trying to “engage with the Donovans, to try to bring them onside or get them to tone down their anti Shell stance?”

A retired senior Shell manager, a Dutchman, approached us in 2007 and again in 2011 asking if we had any objections to him trying to act as a peacemaker between the parties. He had approached Shell on the same basis, an offer to act as an unpaid intermediary out of the best of intentions – blessed are the peacemakers. He met with me in the UK and with Shell directors at The Hague.  The last I heard from those discussions is that the Royal Dutch Shell Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate, Michiel Brandjes, who is now designated as our main contact with Shell, says that I get on well with him, which is perfectly true. I have even received Christmas greetings from him.

Under the circumstances, why would anyone, including The Sunday Times, be under the impression that we have any animosity towards Shell?

The Guardian: 92-year-old’s website leaves oil giant Shell-shocked: 26 October 2009

PDF Version of Guardian article

RELATED ARTICLES

SANTA BARBARA NEWS PRESS: Gripe Sites are all the rage now: 7 February 2009

BUSINESS NEW EUROPE: Shell gets stuck in a Sakhalin blog-mire January 2007

Since the 1990′s, Royal Dutch Shell has been at war with the Donovan family: The Times City Diary 22 September 2007

Online revolutionaries: Sunday Telegraph 9 September 2007

Pressure on Shell over safety of platforms: Saturday 8 September 2007

Prospect Magazine: Shell’s Colchester headache: 12 September 2007

Shell on back foot as ‘gripe site’ alleges safety concerns: Daily Mail 1 September 2007

Nikkei BP (Japan): Gripe sites are becoming more powerful: 13 November 2007

AN ATTEMPT by Royal Dutch Shell to claim the website royaldutchshellplc.com…: The Times 16 August 2005

Hostile Domain: The Times City Diary Tuesday June 21 2005

Shell Wages Legal Fight Over Web Domain Name: The Wall Street Journal Thursday 2 June 2005

one world trust Accountability in Action Newsletter July 2007: Royaldutchshellplc.com – The power of a website: 27 July 2007

THE LAWYER

24 January 2011 | By Catrin Griffiths

Shell has upped the ante on anti-corruption prior to this year’s implementation of the Bribery Act by extending its scrutiny to law firms that advise third parties involved in joint ventures, and therefore are not employed by the company.

Shell chief ethics and compliance officer Richard Wiseman and global legal services coordinator Leanne Geale are asking non-panel firms with which Shell does business for details of their anti-corruption compliance procedures.

As part of the tender process concluded in May 2010, all panel firms were asked about their compliance ­procedures. However, this is thought to be the first time an organisation has extended enquiries to third parties.

Shell’s move, which will be watched closely by in-house lawyers at other companies, is designed to address Section 7 of the Bribery Act, a controversial clause that states a ­commercial organisation is guilty of an offence if ­someone associated with it bribes another person.

Wiseman  told The Lawyer: “What we have in mind is a firm acting for us as an intermediary with a foreign government, negotiating a contract or licence on our behalf, for example.

“[Our] enquiry is about the law firm’s own ­programme for compliance with anti-bribery and ­corruption laws and extends to all countries in which the law firm practises. We’ve had no objections [about these firms] so far, but we know that other companies have found that law firms had obtained advantages for them by unauthorised improper means.”

SOURCE ARTICLE

RELATED ARTICLES

Shell to investigate fraud, contract corruption, bribery, money-laundering and organised crime inside the Shell Group

Shell’s poacher turned gamekeeper ethics chief giving anti-corruption speech

SELF-EXPLANATORY EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC CHIEF ETHICS & COMPLIANCE OFFICER, RICHARD WISEMAN

Initial Correspondence

Latest Correspondence

—–Original Message—–
From: John Donovan [mailto:john@shellnews.net]
Sent: 05 October 2009 19:00
To: Wiseman, Richard RM SI-RDS-CCO
Subject: Leaflet Distribution Outside Shell Centre

Dear Mr Wiseman

Because of various circumstances outside of our control (e.g. rain) it has become obvious that it is impractical to advise you of the precise days and times when the leaflets will be distributed, or how many people will be involved on a particular day. I think the best we can say is that the leaflets will be handed to Shell employees most business days of the week.

We did not get off to a good start today with your security staff. It is perhaps a sign of the times that you now apparently need a small army of outside security guards to protect the building. I counted 10 on a recent visit. It would have been nice if they were willing to be civil to the persons handing out the leaflets (who had no prior antipathy towards anyone at Shell). Not only were they uncooperative, they also would not allow the leaflet team leader Steve to enter the building to seek information at your reception.

He had tried to establish with security staff the border line between Shell property and public property on the area in front of the main and secondary entrances to Shell Centre in York Road. He was given the impression by security staff that they could only stand on the road side of the bollards, as shown in the attached Google Earth picture. Basically this implies that Shell own and therefore control the property all the way from the building to the bollards. This would include the pathway on which the public are seen walking and street vendors offering or selling leaflets or newspapers. For this reason, I suspect that the pathway is in fact public property.

For the avoidance of any misunderstanding or acrimony, can you kindly indicate what is the boundary between Shell and public property in the relevant area?

As it is, the leaflets distributors were intimidated into moving to outside the entrance to the underground station and the overhead walkway. This is unsatisfactory bearing in mind that we wish to exercise our legal right to give leaflets to Shell employees on public property. We do not want to routinely give them to members of the public.

Regards
John Donovan

REPLY BY RICHARD WISEMAN

On 6 Oct 2009, at 11:05, richard.wiseman@shell.com wrote:
Dear Mr Donovan

As you surmise, security has become tighter since the last time you were active and for good reasons we do not discuss security.  Our security staff have a difficult job to do and they seem to have done it properly.

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: 6 October 2009 17:26:33 BST
To: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Subject: Re: Leaflet Distribution Outside Shell Centre

Dear Mr Wiseman

I said in my email that your security staff did not act in a civil manner, were uncooperative and intimidating. Instead of apologizing or denying these allegations, you have fully endorsed their behavior, thereby confirming the accuracy of our account of what transpired on Monday.

Independent observers might find your reaction to be shameful and extraordinary bearing in mind that you are the Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc. However, it comes as no surprise to me given your long track record of supporting improper behaviour by Shell employees/agents/lawyers, including threats, deception, fabrication, entrapment, IP theft and all manner of dishonesty and dirty tricks.  All acts completely at odds with Shell General Business Principles, which you hypocritically promote . As I have said many times about Shell management and the SGBP: it is deeds not words, which count.

For the record, not all security staff were hostile, but some were, and one individual in particular was nasty and aggressive. There was no improvement today.

The refusal to indicate the boundary line of Shell property and public property in the area within the Google photograph has nothing to do with terrorism (our leaflet distributors pose no such threat) but everything to do with the deliberate suppression by Shell of the public right to mount peaceful protest on property which the public own or have lawful access.

If it is Shell property all the way to the curb on York Road, as your security staff seem to be claiming, then you would simply confirm that assertion as being true.  You have not done so because that is not the case. Instead you evade the issue and support the threats and subterfuge. Anything to stop leaflets being distributed to Shell employees anywhere near the main entrances to Shell Centre.

Of course you have a strong personal motive for obstructing our lawful activities. Being a key player in so many past sinister and disreputable events in our long history with Shell, I can understand why you want to do everything possible to avoid the public humiliation of your actions being brought directly to the attention of Shell employees, as they will be on a regular basis.

Do you think it was wise to up the stakes by engaging in such unseemly bullyboy tactics to prevent entirely lawful protest activity?

Anyone reading this correspondence will see that we have attempted to act in a responsible reasonable way right from the outset, even responding favorably to your request for advance sight of our leaflets.  Given the lack of co-operation, that arrangement is at an end.

Shell has the right to take action in the courts if anything published by us as being fact, is considered defamatory i.e. untrue.  It should speak volumes that neither you personally or your company have ever issued libel proceedings against us. It was of course the other way round.  Shell settled both libel actions brought by us and as usual, hid the truth about the settlements from Shell stakeholders and the public.

Regards
John Donovan

REPLY FROM MR WISEMAN

From: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Date: 6 October 2009 18:18:05 BST
To: john@shellnews.net
Subject: Re: Leaflet Distribution Outside Shell Centre

As ever, my silence should not be taken as accepting any of your assertions.
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

ANY FURTHER COMMENT ON THIS MATTER FROM MR WISEMAN WILL BE ADDED HERE…

The statement that “Shell has never been involved in “atomic” or “nuclear” research at the Thornton site or elsewhere in the U.K.” appears to be at odds with allegations made by former Shell employee James Featherstone, in a letter he sent on 2 May 2009 to Detective Inspector Nick Sumner c/o Homicide & Serious Crime Command at New Scotland Yard.

John Donovan

In an email dated 11 November 2005, Shell International General Counsel Richard Wiseman (now the Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc) dismissed our website in the following words:

“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.”

Wiseman’s bravado was undermined by the fact that we already had evidence to the contrary from an email about us that he sent on 24 June 2004 to Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer and his fellow Executive director, Malcolm Brinded. Wiseman informed them that he was contacting Sir Mark Moody-Stuart (a former Shell Group Chairman) about us. Wiseman’s email (supplied to us by a high level insider source) also confirmed that Shell “PX” was briefed and ready to react behind the scenes to our activities.

Under the circumstances, Wiseman’s dismissal of our site clearly amounted to a large serving of BS from one of Shell’s several hundred strong army of in-house lawyers, all at a total loss what to do about our “internet activities”.

You have to laugh. Wiseman subsequently, entirely at his own initiative, sent us an updated photograph of himself (above) to display on our “uninteresting” website. We are not joking.

Here it is:

From: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Sent: 09 November 2006 09:58
To: john@shellnews.net
Subject: RE: Revised email

Dear Mr Donovan,

I have just seen your website.  I notice you are using a rather old photograph of me.  If you must post my picture, you might like to use a more recent, and therefore more accurate, one.

(The flattery implied by showing what I looked like some years ago is of course much appreciated.)

Regards
Richard Wiseman
General Counsel M & A and Project Finance
Shell International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom

EMAIL ENDS

Shortly thereafter, our “activities” cost Shell literally billions of dollars following our intervention in the Sakhalin2 project. Insider information supplied to us also led directly to the resignation of Sakhalin Energy Deputy Chairman, General David Greer.

In a further development revealing the truth about Shell’s intense interest in our website, we found out from documents obtained under the Data Protection Act that Shell had set up a team in an attempt to counter our activities. The relevant internal email exposes the hostility towards us and the fact that it is is held in check by fear of reprisal on our part. If you find this difficult to believe, read the email.

And Shell EP General Counsel Keith Ruddock confirmed that in June 2007 Shell had sent cease and desist letters to both of our website hosting companies in an attempt to close down royaldutchshellplc.com. Initially, the web hosting companies would not reveal the name of the party making threats against them behind our backs.

So much for being uninterested and unmoved!

By John Donovan

There is nothing new about Shell making massive job cuts.

It happened most recently, a decade ago, under Shell Group Chairman Mark Moody-Stuart. In those days the panic driven restructuring was called “Transformation”, whereas under Peter Voser, it’s called Transition 2009. Basically the same unpalatable medicine, under a different name. Unfortunately, then, as now, the doctor prescribing the medicine, benefits financially from the treatment. Hence the danger of an overdose.

Some extracts from leaflets we distributed outside Shell HQ offices during that unpleasant period…

Leaflet entitled: “A SLASH AND BURN” CULTURE AT SHELL“ (Distributed December 1998)

An article in The Sunday Times published on 13th December mentioned that Mr Moody-Stuarts “onslaught on Shell’s bloated bureaucracy … will lead to more than 3,000 job losses”. They described his plans as: “a slash and burn culture at Shell”.

Leaflet: IS MR MARK MOODY-STUART A “GREEDY BAS***D”?

In September I compared Mr Moody-Stuart with the Captain of the ill-fated Titanic. The recent devastating cuts and closures at Shell prove just how prophetic that comparison turned out to be.

The imagery of a Shell Chairman with a high moral background was reinforced by the emphatic pronouncements made by Mr Moody-Stuart about his absolute commitment to Shell’s Statement of General Business Principles. He said that the principles, which include fairness and respect for people, were “non-contestable and non-negotiable”. Impressive stuff. He appeared to be seeking Sainthood,
rather than the mere Knighthood achieved by his predecessor. Is Mr Moody-Stuart genuinely someone of exceptional moral fibre, or just another selfish, ruthless, corporate “Fat Cat”?

An emphatic answer was provided by an executive pay survey published in the Sunday Times on 25th October 1998. It stated that Mr Moody-Stuart is overpaid by a massive £568,887 per annum. The latest bout of “downsizing” will have the happy effect of generating even more share incentive, bonus etc. for him and his colleagues. How on earth can this be morally justified?

According to the latest press statement, he now wants to move further and faster with the pace of “restructuring”. Comments that many Shell staff must have read with great trepidation. It seems to me that the balance between the interests of shareholders and employees has swung too far in one direction. Shell cannot legitimately claim to have respect for people as a core principle when its own employees have to live in a climate of fear and uncertainty.

EXTRACTS END

Some related press articles

Shell told to axe 20,000 6 December 1998

Shell to spell out wide-ranging cuts 14 December 1998

Shell to cut $2.5bn in costs and at least 4,000 more jobs 15 December 1998

in view of Moody-Stuarts claimed commitment to Shell business principles, it is interesting to note that the seeds of the reserves scandal were sown during his reign, with the setting-up of “value creation teams” who conjured up oil and gas reserves figures which, according the the US Securities & Exchange Commission, were fraudulent. Shell also engaged in sleazy undercover activity with his blessing and, along with his colleagues, Malcolm Brinded and Richard Wiseman, he gave his support to Shell UK managers who engaged in a conspiracy to operate a corrupted tender process for a major Shell contract. All proof that it is deeds, not words, which count.

Our leaflets were popular with Shell staff, but not with the Moody-Stuart family. This was plain from a handwritten letter we received from Judy Moody-Stuart who, unlike her Fat Cat husband, IS a saintly person.

Since we believe that Shell employees need our vocal support again, we will very shortly recommence distribution of leaflets at Shell Centre. As promised, Royal Dutch Shell Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer, Richard Wiseman, will be informed in advance. This is appropriate in view of the content.

With regards to the Exploration and Production division headed by Malcolm “Overpromise and Underdelivery” Brinded,  the underlying concern is that Shell elephant projects are moving from the development phase, involving very large numbers of people, to the production phase, involving far fewer people. Due to incompetence at the very top, there are no projects starting up to replace them. The only elephant projects in which Shell is involved these days are operated by partners eg. Gorgon.  Basically the EP work load is fast reducing and there are no economically viable mega projects on the horizon.

Hence Shell’s share price will continue to decline.

By John Donovan

On 16 August, the Financial Times published a major article about the growing use of private investigators by corporations intent on digging for information (dirt) on perceived opponents.

German state prosecutors are considering a criminal investigation of Deutsche Bank after the bank targeted Michael Bohndorf, a shareholder and vocal critic.  In response, the bank employed private investigators who allegedly set a “honey trap” and engaged in “an operation that could have come from a spy novel“.  The bank is also under investigation from financial and data protection watchdogs. Deutsche Bank senior executives claim they were unaware of the admitted “overzealous surveillance“.

Another German corporation, Deutsche Telecom, has admitted using “an independent security company” to monitor contacts between thousands of it employees and suppliers. It’s Chief Executive has resigned over the affair.

The FT article points out that “Germany is not alone in its corporate spying scandals.”

“In the US, Hewlett-Packard used private investigators who obtained the phone records of journalists . Recent UK revelations of methods used by detectives employed by the News of the World, the tabloid newspaper – hacking into voicemail messages – have highlighted ethical lapses in journalism.”

The article poses the question:

Why do companies risk such compromising allegations? An inevitable conclusion is that they believe there is something to be gained or important interests to be protected.

This question could of course be put to Royal Dutch Shell, given it’s continuing infatuation with corporate spying, including current surveillance operations in Ireland against Corrib gas project protesters. Undercover activity is perhaps to be expected bearing in mind that Shell’s head of Global Security, Ian Forbes McCredie OBE, is a former senior officer of the British Secret Service.

What some may found surprising is that Richard Wiseman, the rule-bending Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc also has a track record of responsibility for skulduggery, involving undercover activity against shareholder critics of the company. A perfect choice then for his new role. I have never managed to persuade Mr Wiseman to discuss Shell’s close association with the UK spy firm Hakluyt and its undercover missions for Shell in Europe and elsewhere.

Related FT articles

By Alfred and John Donovan

On Monday we will publish Shell internal documents and correspondence with Malcolm Brinded providing evidence of how this brainy man,  who remains at number 2 in the Shell hierarchy, sanctioned corrupt practices, deceit, theft and other illegal action involving a conspiracy of Shell managers. This dishonest activity was also condoned by Richard Wiseman, the former Shell Legal Director now laughingly given the job of Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer at Royal Dutch Shell Plc. The Shell UK legal team Wiseman controlled played a key role in a corrupted Shell tender process. 

Evidence assembled by Bill Campbell, the highly respected former HSE Group Auditor of Shell International confirms that Brinded, a ruthless operator, also has the blood of Shell offshore employees on his hands.  The evidence relating to Shell’s notorious and deadly “Touch F*** All” safety culture on the Brent Bravo North Sea Platform, includes tape recorded conversations with senior Shell officials.

Richard Wiseman accused us in an email last Friday of running a provocative hateful campaign against him. We do not hate him or anyone else. We do object to the hypocrisy of Shell management preaching honesty, integrity and transparency in speeches, with the same deceitful propaganda pledges in the Shell Business Principles, while building a shameful track record of doing the exact opposite.  It is deeds not words which count. 

We are prepared as always to defend our deeds and words in Court. 

We were amused to see that the Dow Jones article confirming incoming CEO Peter Voser’s plans for Shell, as first revealed to the world on this website, cited royaldutchshellplc.com as being the official Shell “Company Web site”.  Incidentally, according to our insider sources (famed globally for their reliability), Shell moved forward its media and public announcements of the Voser changes in response to the news being published on the unofficial company website.  The one which tells the truth. 

How did we end up with the dotcom domain name for Royal Dutch Shell Plc? Ask Richard Wiseman who has publicly boasted he was the conductor of the legal orchestra responsible for creating the new company out of the ashes of the Shell Transport/Royal Dutch structure destroyed by the reserves fraud. 

During its failed attempted to grab the domain name in proceedings via The World Intellectual Property Organisation, Shell International Petroleum Company Limited argued that we would use the domain name to embarrass and humiliate the company.  They at least got that one right.

Below is an article supplied to Shell in advance of publication. The relevant email correspondence with Richard Wiseman, the Shell official who is the subject of the article is printed immediately below it. It contains his comments and our response.

By Alfred and John Donovan

This is the first in a series of articles in which we provide overwhelming evidence why Richard Wiseman (above) is an unfit person to be the Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

From Shell’s standpoint, we are sure Wiseman did a good job as General Counsel and later as Legal Director of Shell UK. We understand from our sources that he is generally liked and respected by colleagues. He is loyal to the company and Shell executive directors. We acknowledge that Mr Wiseman has many admirable qualities.

However, he also has a dark side with a track record of involvement in rule bending, cover-up, entrapment, deception, undercover activity, intimidation and trickery on behalf of the oil giant. We therefore contend that he is entirely the wrong person to be the Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, the worlds second largest multinational.

We deal in this first article with the rule bending.

Here, in his own words, in the last paragraph of his own letter, on Shell headed stationary, is admittance by Wiseman of deliberately ignoring professional rules. 

A number of Shell executives at the time, including Royal Dutch Shell Group Managing Directors, John Jennings and Mark Moody-Stuart, and Dr Chris Fay, Chairman & Chief Executive of Shell UK, were all involved in the discussions, negotiations and related funding agreement with us which culminated in the proposed mediation which was the subject of the letter. 

Such is his loyalty to Shell senior executives that Wiseman had already implemented the funding agreement he was dead set against from the outset. He ended up bending rules to suit his masters wishes to bring to a conclusion embarrassing matters involving intellectual property theft which had impacted on Shell’s reputation. No doubt it was this degree of ambition and willingness to set aside ethical considerations, which contributed towards his elevation to current high office at the company. 

Incredibly, it is now the job of Richard Wiseman to enforce and uphold Shell’s ethical code, the Shell General Business Principles.

Was his appointment made on the basis of poacher turned gamekeeper? How can it be right for an individual with his track record to be the Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer of Shell?

RELATED EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
To: Wiseman, Richard RM SI-RDS-CCO
Sent: Fri May 22 09:16:40 2009
Subject: Draft Article
Dear Mr Wiseman

Printed below is a self-explanatory draft article. We are happy to publish unedited with the article any comments you wish to make as to its accuracy. If we receive no reply by 5pm Monday we will assume that you do not challenge the facts as set out.

Regards
John Donovan 

(ARTICLE SUPPLIED AS ABOVE)

REPLY FROM RICHARD WISEMAN

From: <richard.wiseman@shell.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 10:49:08 +0200
To: <john@shellnews.net>
Subject: Re: Draft Article

This is entirely consistent with the provocative hateful material I have endured from you for years.

If you have complaints about my professional conduct, I suggest you report them to my regulator, the Solicitors Regulation Authority. I have no doubt why you have not done so; your assertions would stand up to no serious scrutiny.

Please print this response with your article.
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

Internet: http://www.shell.com 

REPLY BY JOHN DONOVAN 

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 14:05:48 +0100
To: <richard.wiseman@shell.com>
Conversation: Draft Article
Subject: Re: Draft Article

Dear Mr Wiseman

Thank you for the speedy response.

I can only surmise that your over-reaction stems from shock at reading the relevant email which substantiates the charge of you being a rule bender, which you cannot and notably do not deny. Given the lack of response and action by the Office for Supervising of Solicitors to our last complaint (about Colin Joseph) relating to sleazy undercover activity undertaken at the behest of Shell, we have no intention of wasting time approaching another solicitors regulation authority.  

We do not hate you or anyone else associated with Shell. We would not have included the second paragraph if we disliked you. We mentioned that you have many admirable qualities. Past articles authored by us have recorded our praise of these qualities.

What we are saying is that in our opinion, based on many dealings with you over many years, you are entirely unsuitable for the post you now hold.

We will in coming weeks publish articles (and related evidence) dealing with other matters mentioned in the third paragraph. We will also  include a reference to censorship in the current draft. You may recall your email in respect of the now defunct Tell Shell discussion forum. How can secret censorship be compatible with the Shell commitment to transparency pledged in the Shell General Business Principles?

Shell does take legal action when it feels able to challenge allegations. As you know, eight Royal Dutch Shell Group companies are currently collectively suing Dr John Huong for alleged defamation in respect of publications on our website. That action has been in progress since June 2004. In a gross violation of human rights, Dr Huong has been buried in Shell injunctions, including an application seeking his imprisonment.

If the quoted facts and assertions in our draft article are untrue, Shell should fund an action to protect your personal reputation and integrity, or sue us directly to protect the reputation and integrity of the company – the little, if any, which remains after the securities fraud and the “TFA” Brent Bravo scandal. Because the facts are well-founded and supported by documentary evidence, I predict Shell will continue with the current policy.

You have chosen to characterise as hate what is actually fact based legitimate criticism. I am entitled as a Shell shareholder to point out facts from your past history with Shell even though they are extremely embarrassing and unpalatable to you and Shell senior management.

Any further response will be added on an unedited (uncensored) basis to the existing correspondence and article which will be published later today.

Yours sincerely

John Donovan

ENDS

Version of this article on Blogger News Network

Shell Ethics Chief claims he is subject of ‘provocative hateful’ campaign

Do you stand by your comments that the trustees and Shell are totally independent when the outside professional is formatting his advice and response to me after consulting Wanjiru.Kirima and others who I believe, but may be wrong, are funded by Shell?