Royal Dutch Shell Plc  .com Rotating Header Image

Scottish Police focus on Bill Campbell challenge to Scottish Prosecutor

By John Donovan

Interesting to see that the article “Retired Shell HSE Group Auditor challenges Scottish Prosecutor” is currently featured on the Scottish Police website…

Retired Shell HSE Group Auditor challenges Scottish Prosecutor – Royal Dutch Shell plc .com


I have no proof nor will I ever find that proof, but this reprehensible conduct of the legal authorities smells to high heaven of masonic lodges. It is commonly known that a great many employees of Shell Expro are freemasons. The police forces all over the world are well presented in the various lodges. I would not be surprised if Brinded himself is a member. Bill Campbell is a very courageous man taking on these evil forces. We in Shell all knew him to be a completely honest and competent Maintenance manager and HSE auditor. But he loses against all the parasites and sycophants whose sole job is to protect the directors. And then live well on the spoils of their abhorrent activities. Top marks for the Donovans who keep this festering sore in the spotlight. To some it maybe a lot of repeating old stories, but those that want to hide and bury their bad actions know that time is on their side. And Shell has deep pockets and knows how to procrastinate.


Appreciate the praise. Would just like to point out that if I understand the situation correctly, Bill is not critical of the initial investigation by Grampion Police, which led to the matter being referred to the Procurator Fiscal. He is critical of the action, or rather lack of action, by the Procurator Fiscal Grampian, who after two years claimed that a full investigation had taken place, when in fact this was far from the truth. My impression from Bill is that he has support for his views from Grampion Police. No doubt Bill will comment if anything I have said is inaccurate.


The only criticism of the Police is that they did not take up the offer of conducting an initial investigation independent of the CPS.  They in essence were instructed by the Procurator Fiscal – acting on behalf of the Lord Advocate – to hand over the evidence to them in late 2008.

I raised my concerns with the police at the time because in 2005 I had been given false and misleading information from the Procurator Fiscal handling the Fatal Accident Inquiry after I passed evidence to him.  Also the original of a letter from counsel acting for the deceased (no copy held by me) was passed to the Lord Advocate in good faith by me, but never returned despite many requests.

Thus an organisation with a vested interest in covering up either incompetence or corruption by its own officials was allowed to carry out a investigation, the results of which could have been embarrassing to them.

Grampian Police took this seriously and sought assurances from Procurator Fiscal Aberdeen. This assurance apparently gave the police confidence that the Crown Prosecution Service would carry out a full investigation as understood under Scottish Law protocol and procedures for the gathering of evidence into what was considered to be serious criminal charges, including corporate homicide by Shell.

According to this protocol in Scotland, in charges related to corporate homicide, the police should have  primacy in the initial investigation in any case.

Suffice to say, asked if they were confident that the investigation carried out the Procurator Fiscal Aberdeen was a “full” investigation, as understood by the definition of same, the police to date refuse to reiterate their earlier confidence.


SHELL BLOG POSTING BY LondonLad 2012/02/15 at 5:57 pm

To : an observer of Shell, you state “It is commonly known that a great many employees of Shell Expro are freemasons”. Where did you get this “fact” from – smoking whacky backy?? I doubt very much that a great many are indeed freemasons. Even if they are (wich I seriously doubt), so what? Let’s face it they are a society that provide one of the largest contributions to charities in the UK. I think you very clearly have an axe to grind against Shell. In that context why does Campbell have such a chip on his shoulder over Shell? Was he sacked for some reason? Did he actually reach his retirement age in Shell? Would be nice to know so that we can believe more that his rants are genuine problems he has with Shell rather than caused by some hidden grudge.


Bill says that he has no wish to get involved in a slanging match with LondonLad who may be an agent provocateur planted by Shell. His other comment: “Campbell does not hide under the skirt tails of an alias such as the lad”.


As far as I know, Bill has never used an alias to post a comment here. He has always acted openly and with complete integrity. Shell has always known who to sue if they wished to take issue with the veracity of the statements he has made about the Shell North Sea platform “Touch F*** All” safety culture and the routine falsification of safety records. The fact that Shell has declined to do so speaks volumes.


Agent provocateur indeed!! Never been called that before, and I am most certainly not in league with Shell in any way! I again reiterate my point : was Campbell fired or given early retirement from Shell and thereby lies his grudge or did he reach full retirement age in the company? An honest answer might convince many that his continuous aggressiveness against Shell is genuine or just an ongoing grudge. This is not a “slanging match” merely a point of clarification.


Mr Campbell has made it clear that he does not wish to get into discussion with someone making insulting comments while hiding behind an alias. With regards to his comment that you may be an agent provocateur, perhaps he gained that impression from checking your history of postings. Just so there is no misunderstanding, we welcome contributors who provide a counter-balance to negative postings about Shell. I have provided some links to further information about the Brent Bravo scandal. Despite all of the promises by Shell senior management about safety, which including appointing a safety Czar, its track record remains atrocious. Years after the Brent Bravo debacle, it was revealed that the lifeboats for a Shell North Sea platform were not seaworthy. You could not make it up.

“Lifeboats trouble at Brent field” published on 14 March 2008, UpstreamOnline revealed “SHELL’s safety record on its Brent Bravo platform in the UK Northern North Sea is once again under scrutiny after the discovery of technical problems with two lifeboats on the installation that resulted in both of them being removed from service.” Jake Molloy, general secretary of the Offshore Industry Liaison Committee was quoted in the article by Christopher Hopson as claiming “If they had loaded up this particular lifeboat, the chances are it could have been launched into the sea in an uncontrolled fashion which would have caused death or injury as it was held in place by corrosion and not by the designed system”. The article said that problems had been found with a second lifeboat on the Brent Bravo platform. It also reported that a lifeboat had launched itself into the sea from Shell’s Tern platform because the brakes and clutches were “dysfunctional” and had damaged the launch mechanism off the platform. Shell confirmed problems had been discovered with two lifeboats on Brent Bravo during “routine maintenance”. Shell was quoted as stating that it viewed the matter seriously and had “mobilised an investigation team on the platform”.




Whistleblower accuses Shell Executive Director, Malcolm Brinded

This website and sisters,,,, and, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Comment Rules

  • Please show respect to the opinions of others no matter how seemingly far-fetched.
  • Abusive, foul language, and/or divisive comments may be deleted without notice.
  • Each blog member is allowed limited comments, as displayed above the comment box.
  • Comments must be limited to the number of words displayed above the comment box.
  • Please limit one comment after any comment posted per post.