Royal Dutch Shell Group .com Rotating Header Image

ROYAL DUTCH SHELL USING BULLY BOY TACTICS TO THWART LAWFUL PROTEST IN LONDON

Climate Change Demo at Shell Centre September 2009

EMAIL TO BORIS JOHNSON, MAYOR OF LONDON

From: John Donovan <[email protected]>
Date: 14 October 2009 19:32:16 BST
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]

Subject: ROYAL DUTCH SHELL USING BULLY BOY TACTICS TO THWART LAWFUL PROTEST IN LONDON

Dear Boris

I currently have a team of three people on most business days distributing Shell related leaflets in the vicinity of the Shell Centre in York Road, Waterloo. The main thrust of allegations set out in the leaflets are not directed at ordinary Shell employees, many of whom work in fear of being “culled” or forced to reapply for their own jobs, but against their ruthless fat cat bosses.

Shell is deliberately obstructing our right to give out the leaflets to Shell employees and visitors to the Shell Centre on what we believe to be public property in front of the Shell Centre building in York Road. Shell is aware that our activities are limited to peacefully handing out  leaflets on a non acrimonious basis. There are no banners, shouting, obstruction, or vandalism involved.

I have already corresponded on this subject with Richard Wiseman, the Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc. It seemed at first that Shell was going to react in a reasonable manner to our efforts to avoid confrontation. Mr Wiseman politely requested advance sight of the leaflets which change twice every week. We politely supplied the initial leaflets by email.

However, when our people arrived to start handing out the leaflets, Shell security staff were uncooperative and  intimidating. Mr Wiseman did not deny our account of what transpired and supported the bullyboy behavior. Like Shell security staff, he would not indicate the boundary between Shell property and public property (or property over-which the public has lawful access). Shell security guards have gradually extended the claim of Shell ownership/control over the relevant area to the bollards near the edge of York Road. Mr Wiseman has also played the terrorism card which in these circumstances is a nonsense.

You may be surprised that such a senior Shell official could support such bullying behaviour by its employees/agents, but the relevant email correspondence confirms what transpired.

As a consequence, the small team of three people handing out the leaflets have been compelled to stand outside the entrance to the underground station and/or on the overhead walkway. This means that no leaflets are given to people who are visitors to the Shell Centre. This is unfortunate, as we want people doing business with Shell to be aware of its predatory track record, including IP piracy on an epic scale.

A leaflet currently being distributed at Shell Centre currently focuses on *one example of Shell IP theft and associated sinister events which resulted in a Police investigation.

So you can see why Shell is desperate to stop us warning innocent companies about disclosing valuable ideas and information to the company.  Shell will not sue us for defamation because that would be counter-productive. The evidence we have accumulated over the years would cause further significant damage to Shell’s already tattered reputation resulting from the reserves fraud in 2004 and its $15.5 million settlement in June 2009 of the Wiwa v Shell claim relating to Shell’s involvement in the murder of Ken Saro Wiwa and other Ogoni activists engaged in a non violent campaign against Shell exploitation, pollution, human rights abuses and corruption.

Another of our leaflets contains extracts from a recent half page article in The Sunday Times about our “surprisingly effective crusade against the world’s biggest oil company”, which it correctly says, has cost Shell billions. Shell did its best to inject some poison into the article by saying that we had published a comment from a regular contributor comparing a Shell executive to Joseph Fritzl, the Austrian convicted of imprisoning and raping his daughter in a dungeon for nearly two decades. The article said that “Shell is thought to have considered legal action but decided that publicity would only inflame the situation“. Shell neglected to inform the Sunday Times that  the comment was entirely satirical in nature and had come from a distinguished retired Shell executive (recently elected as a Trustee of the Shell UK Contributory Pension Fund).

Shell is faced with a real dilemma. As indicated, it cannot turn to the courts because that would be counter-productive. So we end up in the unbelievable situation whereby the company official supposed to uphold the ethics and morals of the worlds largest company is openly supporting intimidation designed to stifle freedom of expression and the right to lawful protest activity on the streets of London.  It comes as no surprise to me, as Mr Wiseman is an admitted rule bender, presumably promoted to his current high office on the doubtful merits of being a poacher turned gamekeeper. We have contended that in view of his track record, Mr Wiseman is unfit for purpose.

I spoke to a Police officer at Kennington Police Station on Tuesday 13 October and explained our plans. He advised that because we are only handing out leaflets, we need no special permission and could see nothing wrong with giving out the leaflets on the pavement in front of the Shell Centre building, provided we do not obstruct entry.

In this connection, I would point out that during protest activity outside the Shell Centre just months ago by over a hundred climate change protesters (photo above), Shell security guards and the assembled Police made no attempt to move the protesters blocking the entire pavement all the way to the bollards. All property which Shell claims to own. Apparently Shell prefers to use intimidation tactics against a very small number of campaigners, in this case handing out leaflets on a friendly basis without obstructing access or using any of the tactics employed by the protesters in the photographs.

I have also spoken to staff at Lambeth Council, but thus far without being able to establish the boundary of Shell’s property. I would be grateful for any help in this regard.

In the meantime, I am giving notice of my intention to personally give out the leaflets in front of the Shell Centre, as we have done previously some time ago, after ignoring threats from Shell that they would call the Police.  Shell did not call in the Police and we went on to continue leaflet distribution for several months to the humiliation of Shell senior management.

Best Regards

John Donovan

PS

*IP Theft: Shell has settled four High Court actions with me after stealing ideas presented in strictest confidence. During discovery, we found irrefutable evidence of a conspiracy by Shell managers to steal commercially valuable information from many other companies. An IP theft action against Shell by another party is currently in progress. In addition, I was contacted a few months ago by the Chief Executive of a US/French company. He was concerned that Shell Technology Ventures Fund had purchased a stake in his company with the deliberate intention of manipulating its holding in an underhand way so that it could obtain patents owned by the company at a fraction of their true worth (by forcing the company into liquidation). I understand that his fears turned out to be well-founded. More will be revealed about this case shortly. The CEO had read a warning I sent in 2007 to the head of another company in which Shell Technology Ventures Fund BV had made a large investment.

cc London Metropolitan Police Events Unit

Lambeth Council

Richard Wiseman, Royal Dutch Shell Plc

Climate Change Demo Sept 2009

Climate Change Demo Sept 2009

SUBSEQUENT SELF-EXPLANATORY EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH RICHARD WISEMAN

From: [email protected]
Date: 14 October 2009 21:02:48 BST
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: ROYAL DUTCH SHELL USING BULLY BOY TACTICS TO THWART LAWFUL PROTEST IN LONDON

Dear Mr Donovan,

As I have made clear over the years, my silence, nor that of any of my colleagues, can be taken as acceptance of the truth of any of your allegations.

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: [email protected]
Internet: http://www.shell.com

REPLY BY JOHN DONOVAN

From: John Donovan <[email protected]>
Date: 14 October 2009 21:36:10 BST
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: ROYAL DUTCH SHELL USING BULLY BOY TACTICS TO THWART LAWFUL PROTEST IN LONDON

Dear Mr Wiseman

As per normal I will publish your response on an unedited basis and leave others to draw their own conclusions.

You know full well that there is no terrorist threat involved in what we are doing. Why can you not simply indicate the property boundary so our  leafleting team will know where they can stand? It used to be a gold coloured embedded line not far from the entrance.  Has the boundary changed? If you are concerned about this information being published, then I would undertake not to put that information into the public domain.

I will give out leaflets myself on Friday from 2pm outside the main entrance without causing any obstruction. My actions in contacting the Police and Lambeth Council demonstrate that I want to avoid any unnecessary confrontation, but as Sir John Jennings said, it takes two to tango.

I will have the relevant email correspondence with me to show to the Police if they are called.

Regards
John Donovan

royaldutchshellplc.com and its sister websites royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, shellnews.net, shell2004.com, shellshareholders.org, don-marketing.com and cybergriping.com are all owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia article: royaldutchshellplc.com

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: