Posts from ‘June, 1981’

C16 Inmate: I find it fascinating how so many brainwashed Shell slaves are quick to criticise Mr Donovan for the work he is doing. It is surely his decision and prerogative to do whatever he wants with his own time? Just like you and I choose to work for a slimy, corrupt, evil, fascist, environment destroying company. The only difference is that I actually admit to being a whore that’s sold my soul for money! As for your defence of Brinded, I find it laughable. That man was an abnoxious individual who was acting more like an SS officer than a senior executive. Keep up the good work John. Warm wishes and my heartfelt thanks to for keeping us all informed of Shell’s true nature.

REPLY BY JOHN

While I am grateful for the kind words, I do not know of any grounds to support your comment that Shell is a fascist company. With regard to Mr Brinded, despite my many negative comments about him over the years, comparing him with an SS officer is wrong.

PURE POISON: Mr Donovan if it is your twisted objective to poison the Internet for the Shell brand you, unfortunately, seem to be succeeding. Searching for any subject connected with Shell inevitably seems to generate negative news reports, negative information and anti-Shell images, all apparently originated by you. Your allegations about Shell’s alleged Nazi history seem to be spreading across the Internet like a virus. Your Shell-branded counterfeit websites seem to be multiplying almost by the day. I am losing count of them all. This situation is bad for all stakeholders including employees, shareholders and pensioners. I also object to the personal attacks on Shell people, for example on Malcolm Brinded who has never been found guilty of any wrongdoing. Don’t you have any scruples? I am also concerned for your mental health and your bank balance. Is a third party also hostile to Shell funding your pervasive and malicious online activities? What’s the betting that my comments will not appear on your supposedly uncensored Shell Blog? I am also mystified why Shell has not taken action to protect its reputation?

REPLY BY JOHN DONOVAN

Shell has been complaining about my online activities since March 1995 and on occasion has taken legal action, including a three-week high court trial in 1999. There is no possible defamation if what is stated is true.

The most recent proceedings were in 2005 via the World Intellectual Property Organisation. Shell unsuccessfully attempted to seize some of our Shell related domain names including royaldutchshellplc.com and royaldutchshellgroup.com.

All of the litigation cost Shell tons of wasted money in legal fees and attracted negative publicity.

Shell lost every case.

We have sued Shell twice for defamation. Shell settled both cases.

A covert attempt by Shell to close down hosting for our websites failed.

More recently, RDS Company Secretary/Main board member Michel Brandjes threatened legal action over my book about Shell's Nazi history. His emailed threats turned out to be nothing but bluster. Shell will never take legal action on the topic as it would draw attention to the most toxic subject relating to any existing major multinational in the world.

I will continue to publish true facts about Shell and where appropriate corrupt senior management involved in scandals such as the Shell SMART rigged contract tender, the Brent Bravo deaths, the reserves fraud and OPL 245. Mr Brinded has involvement in all four scandals.

BRINDED: ON THE SUBJECT OF BRINDED:

He has such a strange brain, could outthink most people in Shell but rather than concentrate on doing good things for Shell and developing people he became the ultimate micromanager and surrounded himself with sycophants. Until the 2nd half of the eighties he was OK and the driving force of the highly successful SLIM technology. I believe this was what launched his big career. Thereafter he became moody and unpleasant for people who dared to question him or make good suggestions to him. Probably quite insecure and status conscious. Never understood this. He just took himself too seriously.

FAO Insider: Donovan has already said suggested he won't name the individual. He is more determined to go after Brinded with whom he has a personal issue. As Veritas suggests there is something deeper there which makes this whole issue inconsistent in his refusing to name the guilty individual.

Veritas: John Donovan, you are such a hypocrite. You claim you don’t want the convicted pedophile’s family to suffer, but you keep dragging Brinded’s family through mud. You should be consistent in your actions. The only thing consistent about you is how you continue to live off of some overblown ‘offense’ your father experienced decades ago. You claim to be an open wound to Shell. The only open wound I see is the one in your damaged psyche that you continue to nurse. REPLY BY JOHN DONOVAN

Happy Christmas to you too.

P.S. It was actually my experience, with my late father kindly giving me his support. BTW, I don't think Mr Brinded will be pleased that you keep bringing his name up.

Double standards: So its OK to go after Brinded who hasn't been convicted and to name and shame him for alleged financial wrongdoings and there are pictures of him and his family on the web but you draw the line at naming a CONVICTED individual. Mmmmm

REPLY BY JOHN DONOVAN

I have been warning Shell about Malcolm Brindeds' lack of scruples for nearly two decades. He gave his full backing to the Shell exec who rigged the SMART loyalty scheme contract tender. He has been a key player in a number of other Shell scandals. The related SMART litigation that Shell settled. The Brent Bravo deaths. The reserves securities fraud. His dealings with the despot Muammar Gaddafi on behalf of Shell. And currently, his starring role in the OPL 245 corruption scandal. Mr Brinded is free to sue me for defamation if he disputes what I am saying about him. I have a huge amount of evidence to support what I say. I know a lot about him. I have been coincidentally reading documents about his misdeeds for several days that I will publish in the New Year. More revelations about just how ruthless he is.

So why redacted?: "The name of the relevant individual in a Shell leadership role has been verified from court records and social media)" REPLY BY JOHN DONOVAN

Because having seen the Shell leader in question in a photograph with his family, I have reservations about naming him some 14 years after the offences took place. Why should his family suffer?

Bogus Group: I concur with Bonus's comment's. Unfortunately these "turkeys' can't comprehend their deficiencies and actualy believe they are something special. A throwback of the rampant deviant executive culture at the time, which fostered them.

Bonus Group: Christmas is coming, The goose is getting fat, Please, put a penny in the ex BG employee's hat! Rumour has it that the turkeys in the Brasil Asset, having contributed little to nothing to the asset over the past year, are now rubbing their hands with glee in anticipation of their annual bonuses. Hopefully, there will be another round of cost cutting in the New Year and they will be out on the street!

Insider: I am not sure I want to know which one of our leaders is a child sex offender. I would like to know if management hired the guy aware of his past history?

TABOO: Is this another sensitive subject where we can we expect a memo from Donny Ching warning us not to discuss it with colleagues?

Equal Opportunities Employer: Guess his hiring and promotion prove Shell is an equal opportunities employer.

"Equal opportunity means that all people will be treated equally or similarly and not disadvantaged by prejudices or bias. This means that the best person for a job or a promotion is the person who earns that position based on qualifications, experience and knowledge. Workplace diversity values everyone's differences."

Apparently, with Shell HR this applies even if convicted of aggravated child sex offences on multiple counts with an appearance on the Sex Offenders Register. 

It does make the workplace uncomfortable for everyone who has contact with him. On the other hand, he has to work somewhere or otherwise conviction would amount to a life sentence for repellent acts carried out 14 years ago. 

Is it a praiseworthy policy or an act of folly to hire and promote such individuals? Or an act of negligence if HR pleads ignorance of his past criminal history? The latter seems unlikely bearing in mind that his past is common knowledge among colleagues and apparently, even suppliers.  

Name

Comment