Spread the love
GDPR PRINCIPLES & ASSESSING ADEQUACY OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSFERS

Personal identification data which was provided to PGS prior to processing the SAR was later provided to a law firm outside the EEA in Thailand. I believe this was another violation of the General Data Protection Requirement (GDPR) processing of my personal data and it was done to harass and stalk me for whistleblowing as a victim of PGS abuse and illegal behavior.

On 1 July 2018, I wrote and e-mail to PGS GDPR and John Francas and copied it to Information Commissioner’s Office Caseworkers.

On 1 July 2018, I wrote and e-mail to PGS GDPR and John Francas and copied it to Information Commissioner’s Office Caseworkers.
PGS has been lying and covering-up their misdeeds to me and all other stakeholders for a long, long time. Passive bystanders have allowed the continued abuse of the victim and whistleblower, along with his family. Shamefully unprofessional and evil.
THERE SHOULD BE NO CLAIMS ANYWHERE UNTIL PGS EXPLAINS THE 25 OCTOBER 2013 MEMO.
Boycott Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) [22 June 2016]

John Francas e-mailed PGS’ response to my 2018 SAR 16 July 2018, refusing to answer or clarify my numerous questions.

Watson, Farley & Williams, Please Explain …

Law Firm Watson, Farley and Williams (WFW) Represented PGS Exploration UK Limited (PGSUK) in Providing Counsel for my Tier 2 visa renewal (leave to remain) application (May 2013) as well as the termination settlement agreement signed 5 December 2013. My Tier 2 status was not considered by PGS/WFW in the proffering and negotiation of the termination settlement contract?

Watson, Farley and Williams begin to counsel in completing my Tier 2 visa leave to remain application for PGS Exploration UK Limited (PGSUK) 15 May 2013. PGS UK endorsement letter is sent on 15 July 2013.

PGSUK delivers a letter to me on 24 July 2013, subject, “Investigation into possible implementation of performance improvement plan.” This letter was provided to me following a 18 June 2013 e-mail sent to the host of a 13 June 2013 meeting which I believed was unprofessional and a breach of policy. I requested an explanation about the propriety and legality of the 13 June 2013 meeting, minutes from that meeting, and guidance about submitting a workplace grievance. I was denied all of these requests. I requested something in writing and the 24 July 2013 letter was delivered to me. My subsequent submitted formal grievance was based on the 13 June 2013 meeting and 24 July 2013 letter. The termination settlement was proffered prior to PGSUK following the law and policy regarding handling of a grievance. WFW was aware of the grievance and underlying performance issues predicating the settlement negotiations.

How can a Tier 2 worker be legally sponsored when the sponsor believed that the same employee should be placed on a performance improvement plan?

Correspondence from Watson, Farley, & Williams regarding what was provided through my subject access request.

Global Law Firm Watson, Farley and Williams has a branch in Bangkok, Thailand

Unable to answer simple clarifications in July 2018, by September 2018, PGS was able to read several months of online whistleblowing content, translate the publications from English language to the Thai language and submit criminal defamation claims against me in Thailand. How is this possible? Were these claims legal and is PGS perverting the course of justice by withholding the answers to my questions? I think that they are.

Carl Richards, PGS Exploration UK Limited Secretary, initially threatens criminal litigation against me in April 2018. Thailand, having never confirmed his identity or even specifically what statements in my blogs were defamatory. No one else from PGS ever contacted me before criminal claims were delivered in Thailand in September 2018.

Unanswered e-mails to PGS Compliance Hotline in 2016

###