Royal Dutch Shell Plc  .com Rotating Header Image

Response to Live Chat Guest 6967

Guest 6967 posted the following comments on our Live Chat facility this morning, Sunday 3rd Fenruary 2008′

guest_6967 : Lets be clear the Donovans are failed Business Men who built their company around one client. Namely Shell..when Shell no longer required their serices they lost their business. The Donovns then went the compensation route…Today this website exists because they have not come to terms with the fact they lost their business and continueto blame Shell for this. The Donovans will only stop publishing Bias information once they receive a sizable compensation. As I said for the Donovans this website
Pt 2. This Website is about “Compensation before Principles” For the Donovans they are now so bitter that they need hugh compensation. Either financial or emotional

Response from John Donovan

Guest 6967 (AKA 306?) You are pedalling false assertions on Live Chat. We seek no compensation from Shell. We have no claim against Shell. We will not be bringing any claim against Shell. If you have any evidence to prove otherwise, please reveal it.

We operated a number of successful businesses for many decades. My father and I are now retired. Shell was one of many clients of the sales promotion agency we founded. Other clients included BP, Texaco, Conoco, Guinness, CBS Television Network and many other famous brands and companies. We also had a contractual relationship with NBC Television and dealt with the most senior executives of the corporation. Shell was a client for over a decade. We created and supplied the most successful promotions Shell has ever run in the UK (and other Countries).

We got on famously with Shell until a new management arrived on the scene and thought Shell was so powerful that it could steal our ideas put forward in confidential proposals and that we would not dare to take legal action. Shell  picked on the wrong people. We sued Shell four times in the High Court and received settlements and an unsolicited official letter of apology from a Shell Chairman for the way we were treated.

However, we did not take kindly to the underhand and sinister tactics used by Shell in the litigation. Shell has for example admitted in writing using undercover agents against us, one of whom was caught red-handed. Shell denied to us and the Police that it had any involvement in the spate of burglaries at the homes of people connected with our last case against Shell. During the burglaries at our own home and at the homes of our solicitor and a key witness, Shell documents were examined. Threats were made against us and our witnesses. Again Shell denied any connection although it did carry out an internal investigation at Shell-Mex House.

Two years after the trial, the Sunday Times published a front page story revealing Shell’s close associations with a sinister commercial intelligence agency set up by former MI6 officials which had engaged in exactly the operations used against us. Shell admitted that it ordered an undercover operation against its perceived enemies. We later established that titled senior Shell directors were not only major shareholders in the agency, but also the ultimate spymasters, being Chairman and President.

During the course of the same litigation we uncovered internal corruption at Shell UK involving a conspiracy of Shell managers. We tipped off its then Chairman Malcolm Brinded. He did nothing. Shell management instead gave  full support to the ringleader who happened to be the same Shell manager who had stolen our ideas.

Because of what happened to us, we warned far and wide that executives at the top of Shell were unethical and dishonest. People thought we were cranks. The reserves fraud followed. Our warnings proved to be 100% accurate.

I repeat that we want nothing from Shell. However, while ruthless people such as Brinded remain at the helm of the company, we will continue to campaign for Shell management to abide by the STATEMENT OF GENERAL BUSINESS PRINCIPLES: honesty, integrity, transparency, respect for people in all its dealings etc. If Shell management had lived up to these core principles, all of the debacles and scandals in the last decade would never have occurred.

Examination of the defamation action EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies have collectively brought against a Shell internal whistleblower, Dr John Huong, suggests that nothing has changed. Dr Huong objected to Shell shareholders being duped over oil and gas reserve volumes and registered his concerns in writing internally at Shell. That was his first mistake.

Dr Huong later informed management about his safety concerns in relation to Shell’s helicopter fleet for which he had responsibility (his warnings later proved to be 100% accurate). Dr Huong was fired. Shell launched the draconian action against him in June 2004 and sought his imprisonment for alleged contempt of court. 

Within days of the litigation being commenced we wrote to Shell and the High Court Judge to explain that we had published the alleged defamatory allegations, not Dr Huong. We also pointed out that Shell had named in the court papers a website which did not exist. Basically, Shell sued the wrong person, in the wrong Country, in respect of the wrong website. Our information was ignored and Dr Huong has been persecuted ever since, unable to find employment with the flawed litigation hanging over his head. Although getting on to four years have passed, Shell has not progressed its action even to the discovery or witness statement stage. Shell’s treatment of Dr Huong is outrageous and in complete breach of the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights which Shell purports to support.

When Shell management acts at all times in accordance with the solemn pledges of the SGBP, we will cease this entirely non-commercial website (and without seeking any compensation or any other form of payment from Shell). We will also transfer to Shell free of charge all of the many Shell related domain names we own, including

Shell has imaginary principles meant to fool the gullible. Ours are genuine. and its sister websites,,,,, and are all owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia article.

0 Comments on “Response to Live Chat Guest 6967”

Leave a Comment

%d bloggers like this: