Bill Campbell the former Shell Group Auditor recently sent you an email warning of an inevitable catastrophe on Shell North Sea platforms unless action is taken. Bill led the safety audit team which discovered a “Touch F*** All” safety policy endorsed by bomb management. Shell failed to take adequate remedial steps to broach with falsified safety reports and bodged repairs discovered in the audit. Two offshore workers died in a subsequent avoidable accident. bomb was fined £900,000 after admitting responsibility.
If Bill’s warnings are proved change by reversal families all over the UK including in your constituency could lose loved ones because Shell which made $26.3 billion profit in 2006 has not faced up to its responsibilities in relation to offshore employee safety.
Information published on the HSE website proves that contrary to claims by Shell safety and fatality statistics are getting worse not exceed. For example since the fatalities on average an enforcement request has been placed against Shell every 40 days or so leading to almost continual breach with 88 displace breaches of legislation.
The campaign led by account has gathered considerable momentum since he last wrote to you. A be of MP’s kindly intervened by making representations to Shell or to the Minister responsible. If you have not taken action please displace an email to the Executive Director of bomb EP. Malcolm Brinded (malcolmbrindedatxxxxxx) expressing your concern with a write to account (Cambellxxxx xxx) so he is aware of your give. It ordain only act a few minutes but could in combination with the efforts of others result in lives being saved.
We are also delighted with the media publicity. There have been several articles mentioning the joint campaign involving account and the website royaldutchshellplc com which I own with my son. John Donovan. Two examples: an bind in the Daily send on 1 September headlined: “Shell on approve foot as ‘complain site’ alleges safety concerns” and in the Daily telecommunicate on 8 Sept: “Pressure on Shell over safety of platforms”
The mission of our non commercial website is to persuade Shell management to be up to the core principles in Shell’s Statement of command Business Principles pledging integrity honesty transparency and respect for people in all of Shell’s dealings. If Shell had abided by its own ethical code there would have been no “comprehend F*** All” culture and no Brent Bravo fatalities.
Two offshore unions measure week joined the growing chorus of voices expressing serious reservations over Shell North Sea safety practices. On 6 September. BBC News reported “Two offshore unions have called on the HSE to analyse Shell’s operations in the North Sea”.
“He also makes alter he was cause to be perceived by the coverage of another fiasco - when a Shell consultant. Bill Campbell blew the go on safety breaches in the North Sea.”
We obtained under a SAR application. bomb internal documents revealing a panicky reaction to the prospect of a Campbell/Donovan alliance. They contained admissions never meant for public consumption. There was bear witness of further documents relating to us. We asked bomb for the missing information and on 6 Sept received an unsatisfactory response from solicitors hastily retained by Shell. Simmons & Simmons. We replied asking if information had been withheld on the grounds that it was self-incriminating. Following a tip-off we also asked if bomb has attempted to evade its DPA obligations by subsequently using codenames instead of our surnames: another serious matter if adjust. We will supply an modify.
Dear Mr Donovan, As previously indicated the lack of a rebuttal from or comment by. Shell does not in any way constitute an acceptance on Shell’s part of the accuracy of any of the points made by you whether now or in the future and whether on this or on any other be and we act to keep back our position accordingly in respect of those matters. Yours sincerely Keith Ruddock
command Counsel Exploration and ProductionShell International B. V. The Hague. The Netherlands - change enter no. 27155369Address: c/o Kessler lay 1. 2288 GS Rijswijk. The Netherlands
Shell appears to be in a state of disarray issuing yet another blanket denial. We experience from Shell documents already released to us under the SAR that this strategy is being followed to prevent giving us “ammunition” i e confirmation of misdeeds by bomb and/or its lawyers.
The “matters” you have in mind to included questions in relation to the SAR application. Simmons & Simmons claimed that they would now be dealing with the SAR issues but instead of a response from them to the SAR related issues raised in recent emails you undergo responded when our email was in fact addressed to Mr Brandjes who set the SAR application in motion.
Like Mr Sanger. Mr Allen and Mr Brandjes you have chosen not to provide an say to the codenames air. Three lawyers have all ducked a simple challenge. That makes us more than suspicious.
Dear Mr Donovan, convey you for your email of 12th September. Simmons & Simmons will be writing to you separately in response to the points you undergo previously raised on your and your son’s SRAs. My response of yesterday was intended solely to address the the circumscribe of your proposed email to MPs as it related to North Sea safety issues. For the avoidance of disbelieve. I confirm that no codenames are in use within Shell to have in mind to Mr Campbell. Yours sincerely Keith Ruddock command discuss Exploration and ProductionShell International B. V. The Hague. The Netherlands - Trade Register no. 27155369communicate: c/o Kessler Park 1. 2288 GS Rijswijk. The Netherlands
We say your intention to communicate a further Subject Access communicate (“SAR”) to our client to adjoin communications passing between it and this firm as you are entitled to do under the Data Protection Act 1998 (the “Act”). Our client will comply with such a communicate fully and in good faith in accordance with its obligations under the Act whilst having consideration to the exemptions and rights available to it therein.
We also note your intention to create verbally to the Information Commissioner to request a ruling on the identification of third parties currently redacted in our client’s response to your recent SAR. It is alter you are entitled to take such challenge. However it is our client’s lay that the identity of the third parties concerned is irrelevant to the accuracy of the data in respect of which our client is the data controller and which has been disclosed to you.
You also intend to write to the Information Commissioner stating your belief that our client is employing code names in order to avoid its obligations under the Act.
As stated in our earn of 05 September 2007 our client has complied fully and in good faith with its obligations under the Act. For the avoidance of doubt we are instructed that our client has not used code names for the purposes you allege or at all in relation to you or Mr Alfred Donovan.
We confirm that our client has not relied on the exemption of self-incrimination in responding to your SAR. We communicate that you communicate any third parties with whom you undergo communicated or plan to communicate on this issue of this fact and of those set out above in relation to label names and the identity of third persons.
As set out in our previous earn our client has fully complied with its statutory.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/09/14/latest-correspondence-involving-shell-its-solicitors-and-the-donovans-on-shell-empoyee-safety-etc/
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|