First Contact with Philip Landau with Landau, Zeffertt, and Weir Employment Solicitors (LZW) was on 11 October 2013 through an article he had penned comment space. Philip Landau was formally engaged 22 October 2013.
Philip Landau Counseled me from 11 October 2013 through the eventual signing of a settlement agreement 5 December 2013. Almost two-months to negotiate a settlement?
Why am I able to blog about a settlement contract negotiated and signed by myself and Philip Landau on 5 December 2013? My first blog post article that challenged the UK policy handbook and the signed settlement Confidentiality provisions was published 3 July 2015 on LinkedIn Pulse. I have long contended that this settlement contract is a fraudulent instrument. In September 2018, my former employer initiated criminal defamation proceedings against me in Thailand (where I reside with my Thai wife) to stop the publication of blog articles on a dedicated website which I had viewed as protected public disclosure, or whistleblowing. This site with an IP address in Thailand was taken offline. I had written blog articles about my former counsel, Philip Landau, as well. However, the Confidentiality terms within the 5 December 2013 settlement contract agreement were never invoked in the over three (3) years of pursuing answers and justice from outside England, where the laws of England governed my contract of employment as well as the 5 December 2013 settlement contract.
The criminal defamation claims were dropped by my signing a new settlement agreement in Thailand proffered by the same Company who signed the 5 December 2013 settlement contract. The main difference is that the new settlement contract signed in Thailand does not include protection for whistleblowing (Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 [PIDA]). Which settlement contract takes precedence? To me, this confirms the illegitimacy of the 5 December 2013 settlement contract negotiated and signed on my behalf by Philip Landau. It also makes me question the legitimacy of the new settlement contract signed in Thailand. My former employer, an English Company, has a Thai law firm / lawyer on retainer to monitor my publications.
In October 2014, about a year after I had initially contacted Philip Landau, I submitted a subject access request (SAR) to my former employer citing the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). As part of my request, I received my Company personnel file. What I discovered were forged documents supporting a performance based termination. Because all lawyers involved were compromised to utter forged documents to support this settlement contract agreement, I could not rely on normal avenues of legal redress. I complained vociferously to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). But, they could take no action because of the binding nature of settlement agreements. I began publicly disclosing these issues in blog articles (LinkedIn Pulse), 3 July 2015. I submitted a report to UK ActionFraud (police) 24 August 2015. ActionFraud has never investigated my allegations. ActionFraud have relegated my reporting of crimes as the product of a disgruntled former employee. But, beyond the fraud perpetrated against me and my family, there required conscious deceptions made to UK government agencies, such as UK Border Agency and also the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). I was a foreign worker on a Tier 2 visa.
It appears to me as though Philip Landau uttered forged documents created by my former employer to affect an illegal settlement contract used to terminate my employment for being a whistleblower. That’s why no one wants to invoke its non-disparagement clauses!
Communications between Philip Landau and myself prior to negotiations, 11 October 2013 to 31 October 2013, are chronicled in the blog post article, “Philip Landau Represented Me?”
The fact that I am a Tier 2 visa holder should be very important. But, its importance is minimized, along with the health harming aspects of being a target of workplace gang-bullying (mobbing). Mobbing implies upper management involvement in the harassment and bullying. Philip Landau put the health, safety and well-being of me and my family at risk through advancing an inappropriate settlement contract agreement predicated on poor performance. Philip Landau also participated in the defamation and professional blacklisting . Is it even legal for a Company to both sponsor an foreign worker on a Tier 2 visa (shortage occupation list) who the Company believes is a poor performer? I always alleged that the Company performance management system was abused by the bullies to threaten and intimidate their target – whistleblower.
The settlement contract negotiations led by Philip Landau initiate with my employer remarking that they would be completely happy with my remaining employed. However, later that month, there is pressure to have me sign the agreement and place me on “garden leave” to get me out of the office. I was complaining of being bullied and harassed – gang-bullied – to someone seasoned in such abhorrent workplace behaviors. (So, of course my employer is happy with my staying!) Landau never really talks about the bullying, harassment, discrimination, and defamation claims. I had already paid Philip Landau (LZW) when negotiations commenced. I had also mentally prepared myself to get out of danger and leave my job. Philip Landau was supposed to be helping me accomplish this in the most advantageous way for me.
My employer engaged law firm Watson, Farley, and Williams’ lawyer Rhodri Thomas, to represent them in the negotiations. My Employer often used the firm Watson, Farley and Williams. In fact, Watson, Farley, and Williams, advised on the processing of the Tier 2 visa application for me and my dependent family members “leave to remain.” My employer had written a letter of sponsorship to UK Border as recently as 15 July 2013. Also, ACAS (Advisery, Conciliation, and Arbitration Service) explicitely states that when grievances and disciplinary issues coincide, they can be discussed at the same time. This settlement contract negotiation bypassed both the prescribed (Company) grievance and disciplinary procedures. Further, if grievance procedures constitute part of the employment contract, as it did in my case, such an settlement offer is another breach of contract by my employer.The submitted 20 September 2013 formal grievance had identified many others.
This is all gaslighting. My employer wants to illegally terminate me for blowing the whistle. Philip Landau, LZW (at the time, now with Landau Law) and Rhodri Thomas, Watson, Farley and Williams are complicit in this conspiracy. Note, I say that, “I am the only one playing by the rules.”
The Company opens with the attitude that they are happy with my staying. I was claiming being a target of health harming gang-bullying. Of course they want me to stay! Philip Landau answered very few questions. At this point, the outcome had been predetermined on the 25 October 2013 Memo. I was being forced to endure the health-harming workplace until I signed a settlement agreement. I told Philip Landau about visits to the GP and that the GP would assign an “unfit note.” Philip Landau would do nothing. I would remind him about the Tier 2 visa issues, and Philip Landau would do nothing! In the end, my employer just wanted me out of the office! I signed the contract, but was placed on “garden leave.” I was in a foreign country with my family! How depraved can my employer and solicitor be?!
OHN Report Withheld from me During Negotiations while Philip Landau was Engaged as my Counsel/Solicitor. This OHN Report is not being processed as my personal data. I submitted a subject access request to the OHN.
In October 2014, I submitted a subject access request citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 to discover what personal data was being processed by my former employer about me. I was shocked to find forged instruments relating a false narrative. The Information Commissioner’s Office could not help me. The data had been signed-off by Philip Landau, my solicitor, as well as my employer and their hired counsel at Watson, Farley and Williams.
The entire grievance pivoted around defamation and misuse of the Company performance management system. Human Resources (HR) was being weaponized by the Company in their health-harming gang-bully – mobbing campaign. On the final day before signing the ill-fated settlement agreement, I sought assurances that the personal data being processed about me was fair and accurate. The assurance provided to me was a conspiratorial misrepresentation. On 22 December 2014, the Company wrote me a threatening letter regarding my questioning the integrity of the data being processed in my name. The Company agreed to process a 5 December 2014 e-mail citing many – not all – of the problems in my personal data. Isn’t this an acknowledgement that forged documents were uttered to process the settlement agreement?
This is why I want a criminal police investigation. I contend that this was all a conspiracy to defraud and defame a whistleblower and terminate his employment illegally, but make it all look legal. I have been blogging for the legal justice that I was denied me by the Company since 2013. The Company, with Philip Landau’s help, was able to deny my legal right to proceed through grievance procedures and not be held accountable for many, many policy and ethical breaches.
Philip Landau has never explained what happened in spite of several requests.
Dear John, et al. – Why do I write my blogs? You know why, really. But, for the record, I publish in pursuit of the truth and justice that was denied me and my family by the evil that you represent. The silence and abuse of power can only protect evil so long.
It is high time that scrutiny is placed on the use of [Non-disclosure Agreement] NDAs in circumstances in which there is a clear imbalance of power between parties. Evidence suggests that they are used as a tool of abuse to scare victims into silence and suppress vital evidence from emerging.
Uttering a forged instrument is a criminal offense. When a person knowingly publishes or puts into circulation any forged or altered financial document, legal document or other writing with the intent to misrepresent it as true and defraud others it amounts to uttering a forged instrument. A criminal conspiracy takes place when two or more people get together and plan to carry out a course of conduct which will necessarily involve the commission of an offence. In other words, more than one person agrees to do something which will involve committing a crime.
Truth, Justice and the American way …In the absence of truth, power is the only game in town. – Richard John NeuhausA confidentiality clause or ‘gagging clause’ in a settlement agreement is not valid if you’re a whistleblower.It is unethical for a lawyer to threaten to present criminal, administrative or disciplinary charges to obtain advantage in a civil dispute. Extortion constitutes a threat to accuse someone of a crime, or to expose or impute to him any significant misconduct, accompanied by a demand for payment “or else.”
Extortion is the use of a threat to extract money from someone. Blackmail consists of threats made to gain anything of value from the other person, such as money, property or sexual favors. Blackmail, therefore, is broader. The threats themselves may be the same — such as the intention to inflict injury on someone else — but the nature of what the person seeks in return is the distinction.
Professionals have a responsibility to reveal unethical or illegal conduct by corporate board of directors’ and / or company executives. In fact, it is the definition of professionalism which supersedes technical proficiency.
In September 2018, I believe that the directors of Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) UK affiliate perpetrated extortion to silence protected public disclosure misusing / defrauding the Thailand criminal justice system to take down nopgs.com ,where the IP address was registered. For over three years of publishing evidence of PGS board & executive fraud, Rune Olav Pedersen and Gottfred Langseth breached Norwegian (Worker’s Environment Act) and UK (Public Interest Disclosure Act – PIDA) whistleblower protection laws. The evidence which was posted showed PGS defrauding UK and Norwegian government agencies through knowingly processing defamatory false instruments created to destroy the professional life and reputation of a foreign worker whistleblower. This deception also has been perpetrated by the PGS USA affiliate in Houston where the false defamatory personal data was shared. Pedersen & Langseth have overseen the mobbing, bribery, embezzlement, and fraud carried out to destroy a USA citizen whistleblower since 2013. PGS had denied a US citizen the opportunity for legal redress through denying the legally guaranteed grievance process in 2013. This effort required a conspiracy of actors inside and outside PGS. EVP Per Arild Reknes signed defamatory false instruments processed to deceive and “show” proper steps were followed when they were not. Berit Osnes has been directly involved in perverting the course of justice since 2016 by aiding PGS compliance to “cover-up” their illegal acts. Osnes abrogated fiduciary duties under the Norwegian Code of Practice. Workplace Mobbing is psychological terrorism. Perpetrators of violent abuse, fraud, bribery and extortion must be held accountable for the health and safety of workers.PGS Exploration UK Limited Directors are executives of PGS ASA (formally Petroleum Geo-Services ASA) [PGS]: Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS CEO & President; Gottfred Langseth, PGS CFO & EVP; Christin Steen-Nilsen, PGS Chief Accountant
Berit Osnes was an employee board of directors member on the Audit Team. She never responded to my concerns of PGS Compliance Team corruption. Rune Olav Pedersen was General Counsel and Legal Compliance prior to his rapid ascension to PGS CEO and President. He has been a principal in the alleged fraud, bribery, extortion, and embezzlement scandal.Terje Bjolseth, SVP Global HR is also a compliance team member, received the original 20 September 2013 grievance and signed the alleged forged 25 October 2013 MEMO.
Investigate Gareth Jone, PGS Exploration UK Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, KT13 0NY, Human Resources (HR) Manager.Investigate Gareth Jone, PGS Exploration UK Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, KT13 0NY, Human Resources (HR) Manager.Disturbed by the contents of my personnel file received through a subject access request in October 2014, PGS Exploration UK Limited wrote me a letter 22 December 2014 to clarify their position and threaten future litigation if I continued my inquiries. The 22 December 2014 letter is signed by David Nicholson, HR Manager (then) on behalf of PGS Exploration UK Limited (Directors: Jon Erik Reinhardsen, Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen and Secretary Carl Richards.) The 22 December 2014 letter is ridiculous and raised more questions than it answered.Carl Richards wanted me to delete all content mentioning his name. However, if one accepts the role of director or secretary there details become part of the public record. In 2013, Rune Olav Pedersen was PGS General Counsel and Legal Compliance. Terje Bjolseth received the 20 September 2013 grievance document, chaired a 14 October 2013 grievance hearing along with EVP, Per Arild Reksnes. Both signed a important defamatory forged (alleged) document processed within my personnel file.
FACT: I am a US citizen. PGS Exploration UK Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY [PGSUK] sponsored my Tier 2 visa to work in England from 27 September 2010. PGSUK then applied for my leave to remain (renewal) 15 July 2013. PGSUK also sponsored my dependent wife and two children
2013 PGS Exploration UK Limited Directors are executives of Norwegian parent company Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) [recently changed to PGS ASA].
Jon Erik Reinhardsen, PGS President & CEO
Gottfred Langseth, PGS EVP & CFO
Christin Steen-Nilsen, PGS Chief Accountant
Candida Pinto, PGSUK lawyer (before 13 September 2013)
Carl Richards, PGSUK lawyer (after 13 September 2013)
This is public information which directors agree to be shared with the public, including potential customers. I do not believe that directors have the legal authority to prohibit publishing their public information online as it relates to protected public interest disclosures (UK Public Interest Disclosure Act – PIDA), or whistleblowing, relating to the public alleged corrupt and criminal acts. Responsible directors should investigate allegations. Demand police investigation.
I have evidence that PGSUK is uttering forged documents as personal data used to illegally terminate a whistleblower. PGSUK also has provided duplicitous information to UK Border Agency.
Companies House data is public information which directors agree to be shared with the public, including potential customers. I do not believe that directors have the legal authority to prohibit publishing their public information online as it relates to protected public interest disclosures (UK Public Interest Disclosure Act – PIDA), or whistleblowing, especially as it relates to alleged corrupt and criminal acts perpetrated by COMPANY DIRECTORS!
Law abiding and responsible directors should investigate whistleblowing allegations.
Corrupt corporate hierarchies have virtually unlimited resources at their disposal that can be aimed to disempower and silence their victims.
Victims of Corporate Crime and Abuse do not Possess the Legal Authority to Hold Those with Entrusted Corporate Power Accountable, only Government Law Enforcement Does.
I’ll be the first to admit that, public safety, it’s a new thing for this agency.
Alan Steen
I stood there amazed. I found it all hard to believe, that I, Des Nilsen, had actually done all that.
If the challenge doesn’t scare us, then it’s not that important. – Simon SinekA lie has many variations, the truth none. – African Proverb
When you were thinking rationally, you made a decision that was supposed to manifest your values. But then in the heat of the moment you skipped it. Now, this isn’t some hard activity we’re talking about. It doesn’t take much skill to close the computer, stand up, and walk away. But even though it’s simple, it’s anything but easy.
That what you think that you are, that, you are. – Carsten Ostergaard PedersenEvil is powerless if the good are unafraid. – Ronald ReaganPrayers said by good people are always good prayers – Willa Cather
Initially Reported to ACTIONFRAUD 24 August 2015 – Never Investigated! This further damages the victim of crimes and harms all stakeholders dependent on knowing the truth and seeking justice.
My first contact with Philip Landau was made online following my reading an article published by him. It was this public professional expertise and notoriety which gave me a feeling of trust in contacting him and eventually engaging him. Philip Landau advised me from 11 October 2013 to 5 December 2013. Within my short initial inquiry seeking guidance, I highlighted:
I was a foreign worker being sponsored by a UK Company on a Tier 2 visa
I was being harassed, bullied and discriminated against (nationality) in the workplace
I believed that the UK company employer sponsor had breached their duty of care, duty of trust and confidence contractual obligations and had violated the Health and Safety Act 1974, as well as other things.
I had initiated the grievance process but was being proffered a settlement contract prior to a grievance hearing and I stated my UK employer was trying to “buy me off.”
Was this protected public disclosure or whistleblowing?
I was a foreign worker, US citizen, being sponsored by a UK Company on a Tier 2 visa. I was being bullied and harassed in the workplace and had submitted a grievance 20 September 2013 complaining of those issues. The bullies were framing a performance based termination, as if I were a UK/EEA resident worker. My grievance complained about abuse of the performance management system as a weapon used to bully, harass and intimidate me.
5 October 2012 UK Company personnel file meeting memo included in my personnel file (top). This was a secret meeting which I did not attend. I had been the target of negative workplace behaviors and had started to bring it to the attention of my boss’ boss (SS) and the HR Manager (HRM). (I was being gang-bullied (mobbed) and was beginning to complain.) HRM, et al. started the process to pad my personnel file with documentation supporting poor performance so that I could be terminated for cause. HRM is not following UK Company Personnel Handbook processes, procedures or best practices. There is no data to support such a malicious and unprofessional assessment and conclusions. Therefore, this is defamation and not privileged content. I believe that the HRM, SS, my supervisor (S), with authority from UK Company directors and secretary not sharing this information with is a breach of my contract of employment and their Duty of Care obligations to me and my family, whom they are sponsoring on dependent Tier 2 visas. This also shows that they are all knowingly in violation of their sponsorship requirements to UK Border Agency, by advancing the Tier 2 visa renewal process if they truly had these concerns. Landau should have also known about this document and never mentioned it to me, as well.
20 September 2013 Form of Grievance Presented to UK Company Tier 2 visa SponsorThis is an actual excerpt from the grievance document which I presented to Norway Company executives, as well as UK Company executives 20 September 2013. Landau was contacted 11 October 2013 following my meeting with the UK Company HR Manager (HRM), 10 October 2013 at which time the HRM proffered an initial settlement contract agreement TO STOP THE LEGALLY GUARANTEED UNDER CONTRACT GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES which were initiated 20 September 2013. A grievance hearing was scheduled for 14 October 2013. Landau received a copy of my 21 page grievance with names redacted on 11 October 2013.
Even though some of Philip Landau’s initial advice seemed odd, I needed to trust him because I was a target of health harming workplace bullying and foreign worker. I had to do something and trust someone.
I feel that Philip Landau violated that trust categorically. He has never addressed my published concerns or private e-mails. Philip Landau has remained silent and will not simply explain what happened?
Philip Landau counseled to NOT follow the grievance procedure and to instead move toward an “enhanced settlement” with the UK employer sponsor of my Tier 2 visa.
Philip Landau minimized the importance and significance of being on a Tier 2 visa, my legal basis for being employed in England/UK, and my claims of discrimination based on nationality
Philip Landau never spoke directly about the prime motivation behind the presenting the grievance which were the health and safety concerns to me and my family being a target of workplace gang-bullying/mobbing.
The entire premise of my grievance was my disputing my UK employer’s attempt to place me on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). I Recognized it as a tactic of bullies and knew there was no documented basis to support a legitimate PIP. It appears as though Philip Landau helped create the documented basis out of whole cloth with my UK Company employer and Tier 2 visa sponsor.
I eventually did sign a settlement contract agreement.
My employment with the UK Company Tier 2 sponsor was terminated by the settlement agreement forwarded by Philip Landau and his assistant, Holly Rushton on 31 December 2013.
Sensing retaliation/blacklisting by my former employer, I submitted a subject access request citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) while in Houston, Texas. The contents of my UK Company personnel file contains defamatory forged instruments supporting a performance based termination. Philip Landau and Holly Rushton will not explain how this is possible? I do not know how a performance based termination is legal for a Tier 2 visa holder.
I had only seen one (1) of the documents being processed within my UK Company personnel file prior to my receiving the personnel file in late 2014 in Houston, Texas. This one (1) document, a letter from my employer dated 24 July 2013, was the basis for my 21 page grievance supplemented by another 45 pages of evidence to support my presented argument. The 20 September 2013 grievance document is not being processed in the body of my personnel file and is only referenced within the signed settlement contract agreement. Only the settlement contract agreement bares my signature. It stands to reason that the dated documents were referenced and processed during settlement contract agreement negotiations, along with the grievance document, especially since defamation and misuse of the performance management system were specifically cited within the grievance document. The most significant alleged forged document is dated while Philip Landau was engaged as my representative solicitor on 25 October 2013.
UK Sponsor Company Tier 2 Visa renewal process for US worker was initiated 15 May 2013 . The UK Company used the counsel and advice of a law firm, Watson, Farley and Williams (WFW) to advise on the preparation of Tier 2 visa application documents. What personal data was provided to WFW by the UK Company sponsor to support the application? WFW also advised and participated in the settlement contract agreement (SCA) negotiations from 1 November 2013 to 5 December 2013 that terminated my employment with the UK Company.
The Norwegian Geo-Services Company (NGSC) UK affiliate employed legal firm Watson, Farley & Williams (WFW) to counsel and review my Tier 2 visa application and dependent family members documentation. It was my claim that the Norway Company and UK affiliate BOTH owed ME and MY FAMILY a Duty of Care, and this duty was not fulfilled..
My former employer is currently uttering defamatory forged instruments. Defamatory forged instruments were created so that a foreign worker whistleblower could be illegally terminated for “performance” based reasons, rather than a claim for harassment, discrimination, bullying, defamation, and breach of contract at many levels. HR3 currently presides over these knowingly false instruments designed to blacklist the USA citizen whistleblower. HR3, a UK citizen, was working in Houston, Texas sharing the defamatory personal data to blacklist me. Any experienced HR professional would know the documents being processed were both non-compliant and illegal. HR3 processed the contents of my personnel file contents in 2013. HR3 should have also been aware of visa requirements for both UK and USA employees. UK Company claims that HR3 was an employee of UK Company in 2013 because sharing UK Company personal data would be a violation of the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and now General Data Protection Requirement (GDPR). This contradicts his online LinkedIn profile. Further, I believe that it would have been illegal for UK Company to employ a “poor performer.” However, by making me a poor performer, this false information illegally verified by bribed lawyers could be shared with potential employers. This is blacklisting, which is illegal – also IN TEXAS. Further, misrepresenting HR3s agency to Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) who oversee DPA/GDPR compliance, they were ALSO misrepresenting to the USA Immigration service. The Norway geo-services company needs to explain and be held accountable, starting with HR3! , The previous HR Manager in 2013 and has created and signed many of the (alleged) forged instruments which populate my personnel file. I did not work directly for Nicholson and the instruments have no counter-signature and are factually inaccurate. Yet, Philip Landau and Holly Rushton, who represented me, along with Rhodri Thomas, with Watson, Farley, and Williams – all experienced employment law solicitors processed these?
The grievance itself is almost irrelevant. The advice at this stage should have really focused on the grievance process. I was being gaslighted by Landau – an EXPERIENCED UK EMPLOYMENT SOLICITOR who had published content on such matters. It is how I discovered him.For over a week, NOBODY from the NORWAY or UK COMPANY had contacted me with regard to the 20 September 2013 presented grievance or 14 October 2013 grievance hearing. The issue of my Tier 2 visa is brought-up in the 20 September 2013 grievance document. Indeed, the only reason relocation was likely considered in the settlement contract agreement terms and conditions was the fact that I was a foreign worker who insisted on at least being repatriated. ALL communications were through Philip Landau, who never seemed to address the stonewalling that was going on. I could not conceive of the Norway/UK Company behavior from former colleagues and so-called professionals.
I believe that Philip Landau must have been complicit in Uttering Forged Instruments. He has never explained the personnel records to me.
(Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3) was included with the 20 September 2013 presented grievance. However, the 11 September 2013 scheduled meeting was rescheduled for 20 September 2013. Among other things, this letter shows a collective conspiracy of intent by UK Company directors and secretary to bypass the UK government UK Border Agency legal reporting requirement and use forged defamatory personnel file records to harm and illegally process a termination of a Foreign Worker Whistleblower on a falsified basis. The personnel file references the 11 September 2013 meeting that never happened and omits the 20 September 2013 grievance document, except within the settlement contract agreement. Landau was reminded of this in the 24 October 2013 e-mail. I have to believe that Landau was complicit in uttering forged instruments/documents used to terminate my employment. Landau has never offered an explanation.
The 25-October-2013 MEMO is a FORGERY. The Memo is not mentioned in a 25-October-2013 e-mail from my solicitor, Philip Landau (LZW). Why not? I believe Landau is compromised and allowing my legal rights to process my grievance to be denied through advocating a settlement agreement.
Landau knew that the copied recipients of the Memo had been accused within my grievance of misconduct, bullying, harassment and discrimination, along with my immediate supervisor. There was no contact from any UK / Norway Company agents, most notably, the hosts following of the 14 October grievance hearing. No minutes or right to appeal were ever provided, as required. How is this possible for an experienced solicitor like Philip Landau?
It seems the entire fraud had been mapped out at this point. Nothing that I told Landau was considered. Watson, Farley and Williams’ Rhodri Thomas was gaslighting the performance narrative, even though ACAS states that both grievances and disciplinary matters c/should happen at the same time. The settlement was negotiated as a performance based settlement. The 25 October 2013 Memo was created to make it look like processes to support the performance based termination occurred. Problem is, NOBODY is INFORMING UK BORDER AGENCY, even after I bring up the matter of my Tier 2 visa MULTIPLE TIMES. NOT BEING AN EXPERT IN IMMIGRATION LAW IS IRRELEVANT. Watson, Farley and Williams is a large firm with many qualified lawyers on matters of visa’s. Why did Rhodri Thomas not question a performance based termination settlement contract agreement? The Norway/UK Company used one set of data to process the Tier 2 visa and ANOTHER FAKE SET OF FORGED DOCUMENTS to process the whistleblower termination. Conspiracy to defraud?
Two Years Too Late, Subject Access Requests to Watson, Farley & Williams and LZW confirms that Fake Data was used to process my termination settlement contract agreement.
Philip Landau was hired to represent my interests while he was with Landau, Zeffertt, and Weir Solicitors (LZW) in October 2013.
I am a US citizen who was sponsored on a Tier 2 visaby a UK Company in England.
On 20 September 2013 I initiated the company grievance procedure complaining of being a target of workplace bullying, harassment, discrimination, and defamation. A grievance hearing was scheduled for 14 October 2013, however, one of the accused bullies, the HR Manager, proffered me a settlement contract agreement to end the grievance procedure on 10 October 2013. I declined the offer and sought legal advice. I read an online article by Philip Landau and contacted him 11 October 2014 and provided him with a redacted copy of the grievance.
Philip Landau was Provided with a Copy of the 20 September 2013 grievance document, UK Company Personnel Handbook, and Copy of Company Core Values Prior to Settlement Contract Agreement Negotiations on my Behalf
UK Company Personnel Handbook – Stress at Work Policy
Excerpts from 20 September 2013 Grievance Emphasizing “Stress”:
Norway / UK Company Core Values
Occupational Health Nurse Employee Evaluation Report – This Report was Withheld from the Employee During Settlement Contract Agreement Negotiations
DEMAND UK, NORWAY, USA LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION
I believe that the HR personal data processors for the UK affiliate of a Norwegian geo-services company continue to process/utter non-compliant defamatory forged instruments. I also believe this was done to illegally blacklist a whistleblower. HR1 and HR2 worked in the UK HR office. HR3 worked at the USA affiliate of the Norwegian geo-services company in 2013 & 2014. C/should HR3 have legally been provided with personal data for a UK employee/Tier 2 visa holder? HR Manager in 2014 stated (Information Commissioner’s Office/ICO) HR3 was a UK company personal data processor. However, what if the personal data is inaccurate defamatory non-compliant forged documents? What if HR3 was a USA affiliate personal data processor? DPA Principle 8 would be violated, wouldn’t it? No clear answers have been provided.
Current CEO & President of Norwegian geo-servicesCompany and Director of UK Affiliate. Also was former General Counsel and legal compliance (2013) at time of key events.
CFO & EVP of Norwegian geo-services company and Director of UK affiliate company, 2013-present
Chief Accountant of Norwegian geo-services company and Director of UK affiliate company, 2013-present
SVP Global Human Resourcesof Norwegian geo-gervices company who I believe denied me a fair and legal grievance process. Instead, he protected his abusive and corrupt subordinate, HRM, from accountability for misconduct/harassment and misuse of the performance management system. He signed and processed a forged document (Memo) to support a false narrative as an illegal basis for a defamatory performance based termination, thus defrauding me and my family. This processing also defrauded the UK Border Agency. If the documents and basis for termination were true, then the UK affiliate would have been illegally sponsoring a poor performer and displacing settled UK/EEA worker. By uttering the forged documents, he has also misrepresented this data to the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and Norwegian Data Protection Authority (DPA) as true and accurate. He uttered defamatory forged instruments outside the EEA/UK and shared with the US data processor (to confirm), also in violation of DPA. If HR3 is actually UK data processor, this was misrepresentation to both US/UK immigration.
Former Employee Representative board of directors member (EBD)of Norwegian geo-services company I do not believe fulfilled fiduciary duties and responsibilities under the Norwegian Corporate Governance Code of Practice. Evidence suggests that EBD conspired with the compliance team members to cover-up non-compliant/illegal behaviors. The EBD was copied on substantive e-mails sent to to the Norwegian geo-services Company compliance team that were never answered. Thus, EBD perverted the course of justice in allowing the continuation of abuse and blacklisting to damage the whistleblower’s professional reputation and also place the health and safety his family in danger. EBD is not a model for female executive leadership, but a co-conspirator in non-compliant and criminal activity.
EVP of Norwegian geo-gervices company was superior of subordinate accused of misconduct and non-compliant behavior within a presented grievance document. This EVP protected his abusive and corrupt subordinate, SS, from accountability for misconduct/harassment and misuse of the performance management system. He signed and processed a forged document (Memo) to support a false narrative as an illegal basis for a defamatory performance based termination, thus defrauding me and my family. This processing also defrauded the UK Border Agency. If the documents and basis for termination were true, then the UK affiliate would have been illegally sponsoring a poor performer and displacing settled UK/EEA worker. By uttering the forged documents, he has also misrepresented this data to the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and Norwegian Data Protection Authority (DPA) as true and accurate. He uttered defamatory forged instruments outside the EEA/UK and shared with the US data processor (to confirm), also in violation of DPA. If HR3 is actually UK data processor, this was misrepresentation to both US/UK immigration.
Secretary and lawyer with UK Company affiliate when grievance was presented. This secretary was in the forefront of involvement in proffering and managing the legal processes for what I allege is a fraudulent settlement contract agreement which terminated my employment. This settlement contract agreement purposefully denied me my rights under UK employment law and contract to proceed through the legal grievance procedures outlined within the UK company personnel handbook. Forged documents were created and uttered to support a performance based termination, thus defrauding the UK Border Agency through illegally sponsoring a poor performer and displacing settled EEA workers.
Former CEO & President of Norwegian geo-servicesCompany and Director of UK affiliate company in 2013.
The UK affiliate company has removed the Occupational Health Nurse Report from my Personnel File, as noted in correspondence to UK affiliate HR personal data processors in late 2014 when they processed a subject access request (SAR) citing the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).
The UK affiliate still does not address the propriety, legality or compliance issues around the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting. I have challenged the processes and also state that I do not have documented performance issues. If I did, how could I qualify for the Tier 2 shortage occupation list position? The 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting minutes were never provided to ME. I wanted firm documentation to reference. The UK affiliate company authored the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter. My presented 20 September 2013 formal grievance was my entitled response. The OHN Report was received through issuing an Subject Access Request to the OHN. The report was never provided to me nor discussed during negotiations . It again confirms that there was an unscheduled meeting 13 Jun 2013 (i.e., Ambush Meeting). The grievance was not against my boss so much as challenging the propriety of the 13 June 2013 meeting and for my immediate supervisor to provide evidence to support the assertions made during the meeting. The meeting was hosted by the HR Manager and the boss of my boss also attended. My issues was with all three of them with respect to the meeting and performance management discussions, which I believed were unfounded (as the 20 September 2013 grievance discussed).The Human Resource Manager never delivered this OHN report and instead withheld this report from me during negotiations. I could have made the GP appointment, but there was a rush to have me sign the settlement agreement contract. I was on garden leave from 5-31 December 2013 near the offices of the UK affiliate company and could have easily made the appointment. My solicitor, Philip Landau was complicit in the withholding of this important OHN health report.
No one deserves to be terrorized for any reason. In the workplace, mobbing is emotional and psychological terrorism deliberately inflicted on an individual with the express purpose of destroying that person emotionally, psychologically, physically, and professionally.
Mobbing can only persist as long as it is allowed to persist. Organizational leadership plays the most important part in its prevention. By enforcing decency, civility, and high ethical standards in the workplace and by creating a nourishing environment, bullying and mobbing will not surface.
Excerpt from Norwegian geo-services UK affilate office personnel handbook. I submitted a workplace grievance to the SVP (et al.) claiming workplace bullying and professional misconduct perpetrated by HRM. The UK affiliateignored and denied all of my protections and provisions of the UK office personnel handbook (2013 Edition) as well as UK labor & contract law in their mobbing campaign and acted with arbitrary caprice in protecting unethical and illegal executive behaviors,
Overall, our predictions regarding the correlations between the Dark Triad and bullying were supported. Psychopathy was the most strongly related to bullying, followed by Machiavellianism, and narcissism
I was represented by legal counsel, Philip Landau with LZW Law (he now is with Landau Law in London) negotiating a settlement contract agreement for my termination from employment following my submitting a workplace grievance (20 September 2013). Landau was engaged as my solicitor when this memo was created and I believe complicit in the uttering of false instruments used to support an illegal performance based termination of a US citizen employee whistleblower. Landau had been provided with all of the correct information to debunk the contents of this 25 October 2013 Memo.
5 Secrets To Spot You’re About To Be Mobbed At Work
Narcissistic Boss or Employer: Coping and Survival Tactics
The most dangerous culprits of gaslighting? Malignant narcissists, who, by default, use gaslighting as a strategy to undermine the perception of their victims in order to evade accountability for their abuse.
Submitting Grievances and Whistleblowing as a Foreign Worker – Part 2
Psychological terrorism is the deliberate targeting of an individual in a way that leaves no physical scars but leaves psychological injuries or trauma that have long-lasting impact.
Discrimination, bullying or harassment of any kind will not be tolerated by the Company and all allegations of such behaviour will be dealt with seriously, confidentially and speedily.
UK COMPANY OFFICE PERSONNEL HANDBOOK
Within a previous MarineSeismicSurvey (MSS) blog post article, Submitting Grievances and Whistleblowing as a Foreign Worker – Part One: The Ambush Meeting (Part 1), the 24 July 201 Ambush Letter, was discussed. The 24 July 201 Ambush Letter scheduled another meeting for 11 September 2013. Of all the dates to choose to eliminate the American (USA) foreign worker, 9-11 was chosen as a meeting date with all its emotional symbolism. Minutes from the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting had been requested right after the event. These important minutes chronicling a distressing event were denied, but I pressed for something firm in writing. That was how the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter came about. Almost six-weeks following the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting, a letter was finally delivered to me. What was never answered in the interim or within the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter was how the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting conformed to the UK-England company written policy, procedures, and of course contract and employment law. The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter actually raised similar concerns once it was received.
The copy of the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter scanned and referenced in this article was received through my submitting a subject access request (SAR) citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) in October 2014. The UK company is an affiliate of a Norwegian geo-services company (NGSUK). NGSUK personal data processors within the human resources (HR) group are processing this 24 July 201 Ambush Letter. Unfortunately, there are many problems with the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter. It would serve as the impetus for my submitting a lengthy workplace grievance on 20 September 2013. However, the most immediately visible problem with the 24 July 201 Ambush Letter when I received it as part of my official NGSUK personnel file documentation is that the mentioned scheduled 11 September 2013 (my 9-11) meeting actually never happened! The same HR manager who hosted the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting of questionable propriety and intentionally withheld the requested meeting minutes from me, also prevented the submission of a grievance soon after the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting, and also cancelled and rescheduled the 11 September 2013 to 20 September 2013, as the 18 September 2013 e-mail indicates. The same HR Manager was now overseeing my SAR a year later. I did submit a 20 September 2013 formal grievance, but this document is not being processed within the body of my personnel file records. However, the 20 September 2013 formal grievance is mentioned and referenced within the 5 December 2013 settlement contract agreement (SCA), which when signed terminated my career with the Norwegian geo-services company (NGS). NGS’ HR departments subsequent processing of defamatory fake data is a sinister form of blacklisting. Both are not compliant nor legal acts, but were the coordinated endeavor of the corrupt and evil NGS legal compliance. The 11 September 2013 meeting that never happened is also referenced in another significant document being processed by NGS / NGSUK, but the date is not even mentioned within the SCA!
The new question was, how did the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter conform to NGSUK policy and procedures? Within the pages of the submitted 20 September 2013 formal grievance, I had made the case that the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter and 13 June 2013 Ambush Meetingdid not conform to NGSUK policy and procedure or UK contract and employment law. The 20 September 2013 formal grievance had focused on the propriety and the participants of the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting as well as countering the unsubstantiated claims made within the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter, since I never had received minutes from the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting. (This point was made within the 20 September 2013 formal grievance, as well.) I was also astonished to discover a version of minutes for the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting was also being processed within my official PGSUK personnel file. My truthful professional reputation was assassinated on 11 September 2013, an event that never happened to me in reality, but exists as the most significant date within my professional official work history with NGS. How is this possible? The 11 September 2013 date has consumed me. NGS / NGSUK processing fake data makes it clear to me that the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting. and 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter were not legal nor compliant to NGSUK policy and procedure or UK employment and contract law. For some time, I have believed, and collected evidence showing, that I was a victim of a conspiracy to defraud, on top of being a target of severe workplace gang-bullying (mobbing). I have been on a writing campaign for justice since discovering this. However, it is a very difficult endeavor to confront corrupt power and money, especially when so many “professionals” from different companies participated in the alleged crimes against me and my family. Overcoming the banality of corruption and incivility is difficult, especially when those entrusted with corporate governance are the principal perpetrators and facilitators of the crimes.
Make no mistake. Gaslighting is not about love or concern. It’s about power and control. A gaslighter is someone who needs to feel superior and who manipulates people to further their own agendas.
Marie Hartwell-Walker, Ed.D., 7 Ways to Extinguish Gaslighting
Trust yourself. Recognize what they are doing and stay calm. If you know your case, preserved your record, and know why you’re in court today, you are armed. You will correct the record as appropriate and return focus to the important issues for the court and your case. You have prepared and you know what you are doing.
Alyson A. Foster, Gaslighting in Litigation
The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter was written on behalf of NGSUK and states that its creation was necessary since I had related that I wanted to pursue the matter officially. To me, this meant according to NGSUK policy, procedures, as well as employment (Tier 2 visa) law and contract law. The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter did not address my simple queries. At the same time, I was helpless to steer events. It seems that there were two avenues which could have been pursued, based on the NGS UK Office Policy Handbook (NGSUK Handbook). These were to either follow the NGSUK Handbook grievance procedures or the disciplinary procedures. These would have been the anticipated official routes to be followed. As was pointed out in Part 1, when disciplinary and grievance matters are related, as was the case here, according to ACAS, the matters can be resolved together. The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter also indicated that I would have the opportunity to respond with my case and supporting documentation. The 20 September 2013 formal grievance, which is not being processed within the body of my personnel file by NGS / NGSUK HR, was my response and contained substantive information countering the claims made during the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting and subsequent 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter. But, my truthful narrative is destroyed.
The 20 September 2013 formal grievance was never processed according to the NGSUK Handbook procedures. NGS / NGSUK had denied me my legal right to follow the grievance process. How was this permitted? With the assistance of my compromised counsel, Philip Landau of LZW Solicitos and Watson, Farley and Williams (WFW), representing NGSUK, I was gaslighted into negotiating an SCA predicated on performance. I challenge all NGS / NGSUK, LWZ Solicitors, and WFW legal and HR professionals involved in my SCA termination to show otherwise that the process was compliant and legal. I quite frankly could not figure out what was happening at the time and why all my queries seemed to fall on deaf ears. I never really believed that the process was being carried out correctly, but was being fed misrepresentations from all sides. (WFW had also recently processed my Tier 2 visa leave to remain.) I made countless queries during the negotiations that went unanswered because I had no legal representation. My hired solicitor, Landau, I allege, was complicit in the conspiracy to defraud. This is what I have reported to UK ActionFraud (police). I have also compiled the numerous e-mail communications that confirm that my solicitor was aware of the 11 September 2013 to 20 September 2013 meeting change. Landau knew that I was a USA citizen and had also received a copy of the 20 September 2013 formal grievance, a copy of the NGSUK Handbook, and NGS Core Values. As my legal counsel, these factual discrepancies should have been noted. However, what especially should have been noted was that my legal right to file a grievance was adhered to. It was not. Instead, false instruments were processed that supported a corrupt disciplinary process used to illegally terminate a whistleblower.
The NGSUK HR Manager was aware that the response to the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter (and 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting) would be in the form of a formal grievance prior to the 11 September 2013 scheduled meeting. Therefore, the NGSUK directors and secretary would have known this as well. What is also important to note is that there was a change of NGSUK secretary 13 September 2013. The new NGSUK secretary assumed the role of secretary andthe responsibility that the procedures had been and were being carried out legally and in accordance to the NGSUK Handbook and the laws of England. The NGSUK Handbook actually does cover issues regarding foreign workers with visas. The NGSUK Handbook also states NGSUK grievance and disciplinary procedures. Any official route should have implicitly followed NGS Core Values and the NGS Code of Conduct, which are referenced in the NGSUK Handbook. Nicholson continued to be the main driver of the process even though he was directly implicated in misconduct and bullying through hosting the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting. Neither NGSUK seretaries ever contacted me before or following the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter. Within the 20 September 2013 formal grievance it was my belief that my nationality and Tier 2 visa status had elevated the destructive behaviors to harassment of a protected class, or illegal harassment. My Tier 2 visa status was a very important consideration which seemed to be ignored.
Indeed, most of those surveyed for the report identified employer retaliation and not being taken seriously as the most common barriers to taking complaints to employers
Muneeza Sheikh, Workplace is wrong venue to address harassment
First, his silence may be taken as consent to whatever has been said to him, as an implied admission. This inference arises where a denial would be expected if the statement was false. Here silence operates rather like a nod; it is as if the party did not think it worth while lasting words in assenting to what he and the speaker know is obvious.
J. D. HEYDON, SILENCE AS EVIDENCE
Subsequent debates have argued the fine print over whether these individuals are actually psychopaths, or sociopaths, or have another mental disorder, called narcissistic personality disorder. But whatever the name of their conditions, they create chaos. They have no capacity to see or respect the perspective of others, are completely disrespectful, and many of them prop themselves up with a sadistic addiction to diminishing others.
Perpetrators actively, though often covertly, seek to harm others–physically, emotionally, and spiritually, using tactics designed to injure individuals and create physical and psychological power imbalances.
As the NGSUK Handbook header indicates, NGSUK HRM prepared the NGSUK Handbook and should be fluent in its contents. The 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting was hosted by NGSUK HRM, as well. The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter was also signed by Nicholson, on behalf of NGSUK. In fact, all the documentation relevant to my termination is also signed by only the NGSUK HRM. Nothing is countersigned by the employee (me) or his supervisor. The exception is a Memo dated 25 October 2013, when Landau was engaged as my solicitor. NGSUK HRM did not sign this Memo, but neither did I. None of these documents are authenticated or substantiated by documentation and are therefore defamatory. I did not work directly for any of the directors, secretary, HR department, or division Executive Vice-President (EVP). The documents relate uncorroborated events, wrong dates, and non-existent documents. They are all forgeries. Further, no NGS / NGSUK, WFW, or LZW agent has ever challenged or commented on the allegations that the documents are forgeries in over three-years of protected public disclosure – whistleblowing. No definitive answer nor clarification has ever been provided as to the propriety of 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting or 24 July 2013 Ambush Meeting following multiple queries, including NGS Compliance. NGS, Landau, and WFW uttered false instruments to process my termination from employment with NGSUK.
This lack of transparency seems to violate categorically the principles of the NGS Core Values and NGS Code of Conduct. Said another way, NGSUK’s official handling of my workplace concerns seems to have been violating my contract of employment on multiple levels. NGSUK continued to obstruct my ability and right under UK employment law to complain! My queries were simple and reasonable. They could have been addressed easily. The NGSUK Handbook states that the grievance procedure can be used freely and without prejudice by employees. The NGSUK Handbook notes the importance of formal and informal lines of communication, especially between the employee and their immediate supervisor. The grievance procedure discusses provisions where the immediate supervisor is the focus of the grievance or if the employee is uncomfortable discussing the matter with their immediate supervisor. In this case, the grievance should be raised with the employee’s supervisor’s superior. As for any disciplinary actions, such matters must be fully investigated and focused on a fair resolution. The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter stated management’s intention to investigate the possibility of implementing a performance improvement plan. But, what was the predicate for NGSUK’s directors and secretary intervention prior to any completed investigation or addressing the central concern as to the propriety of the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting?
These behaviors seem to model the behaviors of workplace harassment, mobbing, and bullying, inclusive of manipulative gaslighting, as described in literature. They seem to model non-compliant and criminal behaviors. NGSUK manipulated the processes to force a desired outcome. This included blocking all avenues of legal redress through adopting an official route that is not included within the NGSUK Handbook, or employment and contract law. An official route that involves fraud, forgery, bribery, embezzlement, extortion, and uttering forged instruments. Legally guaranteed processes were notpermitted and choices were limited to the employee so that management could achieve their “win” in this nefarious end game. This end game included co-opting a truthful professional narrative with a fabrication of events. This end game included the symbolic elimination of the American from their workforce on my 9-11. It was all psychological terrorism. It involved illegality, the denial of my human rights and rights under contract and employment law, which were all documented within the 20 September 2013 formal grievance. Most troubling is the witnessing of the death of professionalism and civility and the revelation of weak characters that found sadistic pleasure in abusing their power. Many, many NGS / NGSUK employees have been bribed with salaries and job security so they can continue to ignore NGS Core Values and Code of Conduct. NGS / NGSUK is led by misconduct and depravity. NGS’s dumbfounded Norwegian management and board should have thought twice before lodging their despicable terrorist attack on an American focused on justice. Truth is very strong. Poor management is weak and soon runs out of resources. Weak NGS management- management built upon the “sands” of deception – and board of directors attacked me and my family and now these “leaders” hide from their actions and accountability. Pathetic. Even more pathetic is the employee ranks who allow such depraved leadership to remain unaccountable to a Code of Practice or Responsibility Report and functional corporate governance.
In essence, the psyche constantly returned to scenes of unpleasure because, by restaging the traumatic moment over and over again, it hoped belatedly to process the unassimilable material, to find ways of mastering the trauma retroactively
SIGMUND FReud
Privilege, or immunity, is also a defense against a claim of defamation. Qualified privilege is usually used in cases where the person communicating the statement has a “legal, moral, or social duty to make it….” The person making the statement must show that he or she has made the statement in good faith, believing it to be true and that the statement was made without malice. One example of qualified privilege is the immunity of members of the press from defamation charges for statements made in the press in good faith unless it can be proven that they were made with malice.
The motive behind criticism often determines its validity. Those who care criticize where necessary. Those who envy criticize the moment they think that they have found a weak spot.
Criss Jami, Killosophy
The objective of marine seismic surveys is not to annoy, harm or kill cetaceans or other marine fauna. I believe that this is an important consideration. This was not always the relationship between human energy needs and cetaceans. Cetaceans, or whales, are divided into two main groups: toothed whales and baleen whales. From the 16th through the 19th century, whales were principally killed for a source of oil used as fuel in lamps. Although the relative value of various whale products varied across time and place, whale oil was the principal economic driver of the commercial whaling industry. The efficient killing and processing of whales was the business objective of the commercial whaling industry. Technological developments in whaling, such as ship speed, determined which cetaceans could be hunted commercially. There was a precipitous decline in the use of whale oils from its peak in the 19th century into the 20th century that coincides with the commercial development of the petroleum industry as a source of fuel oil and manufacturing products. Perhaps the petroleum industry saved the lives of thousands of cetaceans and prevented the extinction of several species? What is known is that as the source of the commodity of whale oil began to deplete, technologies to improve hunting success, as well as incentives to replace the fuel both grew.
The objective of marine seismic surveys is to create maps of the geology to guide oil and gas drilling operations. Seismic reflection data is used to produce these maps. The seismic reflection method requires introducing a controlled seismic energy source into the Earth. Each layer within the Earth reflects a portion of the wave’s energy back and allows the rest to refract through. In the marine environment, the these reflected compressional energy waves, or sound waves, are recorded by receivers. The points being mapped are the midpoints between the source and receiver sensor(s). In the 1950s, marine seismic research crews would toss boxes of live dynamite off the stern of the vessel. The dynamite would explode about a hundred meters behind the ship. This was the seismic source. One of the crew, Stephen Chelminski, recognized how dangerous this practice was and so endeavored to find a better and safer marine seismic source. Lives were being lost and property destroyed using the dynamite source tossed from the vessel stern. Chelminski earned the coveted Kauffman Gold Medal Award in 1975 in recognition for his development of marine seismic airgun technology. The most common energy source used for marine seismic surveys these days are arrays of specially placed and timed airguns. However, in recent years, marine seismic airguns have become especially controversial due to their perceived impact on the health and well-being of cetaceans.
Technology and Methods Designed to Kill Cetaceans
Airgun Technology Designed to Aid in the Mapping of the Marine Subsurface
Whaling was banned in many countries in 1969 because some species of cetacean were near extinction. Globally, the commercial whaling industry was essentially ended in the late 1980s. In 1982 the International Whaling Commission (IWC) placed a moratorium on commercial whaling. The purpose of the IWC is the conservation and safeguarding of cetaceans and other marine mammals to allow the recovery of pre-industrial whaling levels. However, countries such as Norway, Iceland, and Japan oppose the IWC moratorium and support commercial whaling. Aboriginal whaling is allowed to continue on a subsistence basis but not as a commercial activity. There has been a paradigm shift from whales being regarded as a commercial commodity to becoming a spectacle. Over the past few decades, whale watching has become a significant industry in its own. In some countries whale watching has replaced whaling, while in others the two industries coexist. The marine seismic airgun opponents view cetaceans as spectacles that need to be protected and preserved. Whalers see cetaceans as a commodity. The cultural battle grounds are in place around the world, from the protesting of marine seismic surveys offshore the east coast of the United States to The Great Australian Bight in Australia. Airguns are currently the best energy source to use to accomplish survey objectives. At the same time, the marine seismic survey commercial industry is relatively new and much is still unknown about its long-term impact on cetaceans and other marine animals. Marine seismic surveyors endeavor to take measures and develop technologies to minimize the impact of their methods and equipment, such as airguns, on cetaceans, and other marine animals to satisfy customer requirements, but whose principal objective concern is analyzing and processing seismic, and other geophysical data, to produce useful maps that will reduce drilling risks.
The [oil and gas] industry is slow to change, But certainly, I’ll be happy when it happens.
Stephen Chelminski, Geophysicist who DEveloped AIRGUN TECHNOLOGY and is currently working on marine vibrator technology
For good ideas and true innovation, you need human interaction, conflict, argument, debate.
Margaret Heffernan
As a young man, I took a trip to Seattle, Washington, USA. In some bookshop I saw a pin that read, “Save the whales, what did the cows do wrong?” I have been on many whale watching trips and enjoyed rare occasions of seeing cetaceans from the seismic vessels that I worked on. I was raised and lived my younger adult life in the western US. From this vantage point, void of any tangible socio-economic or cultural ties to whaling, whales were simply magnificent marine life visible without having to dawn scuba gear. Cattle, on the other hand, defines the American west. Cinema and television have glorified the rancher cowboy and cattle driver. Cattle may roam the land of the American west, but they do so as property with “brands.” Cattle are bred for beef, and another bred for dairy. Beef and Dairy are traded commodities, and their population controlled through market demand. In the US west, much of the Federal government land is leased to ranchers to graze their cattle. Ranching and dairy production are commercial industries. Cattle were not native to North America. Prior to the (predominantly) European colonial conquest and expansion into western North America, bison – or buffalo – grazed the plains and grasslands. These nomadic Native North American peoples subsisted on bison. However, the commercial hunting of bison took the 60 million precolonial bison population to under 1000 in the late 19th century. Private reserves and US Federal intervention prevented the extinction of the bison. Bison population is only a small percentage of precolonial numbers. Domestic cattle have taken over the rangeland.
Parties to the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling
(ICRW) disagree about the necessity for continuing the moratorium on the
commercial hunting of whales. In fact,
some believe that commercial whaling can be good for managing cetacean
populations. Whalers recognized that
over-whaling has a negative impact on profits.
So, economic self-interest ultimately led whalers to take action to
conserve the resource upon which they depended.
However, the United States, Great Britain, Australia and other nations supported
the moratorium on whaling, not because the need to allow for more time for cetacean
population recovery and management, but because certain nations believe whales have a right to life. And with any moratorium on seismic airgun
testing, cetaceans have the right to a pleasant life. This position is no longer a strictly
environmental viewpoint, it is an ethical
viewpoint. The same young man who
visited the bookshop in Seattle, also was an avid hiker and backpacker who
lived in New Mexico and loved The Land of
Enchantment. In fact, I was a member
of the environmental group, The Sierra
Club. The Sierra Club is known for
encouraging an appreciation for nature and the environment through sponsoring
and leading hikes through such areas. In
fact, I led some hikes as a member of the local chapter of the club. Because cattle can be grazed on Federal
government land, which is also land which could be used for hiking, hikers
would often encounter cattle and or their excrement along the trails.
As a hiker, I didn’t like to encounter domesticated excrement. At
the same time, I was not bothered at all to spot a deer or bighorn sheep or
come across their scat. At some point, I made a decision to become a
vegetarian. My reasoning was that if I
did not want to encounter cattle poop, I could not support the industry that
used the same land I enjoyed for hiking to make hamburgers an affordable food
choice. I want to add that I also ran
into hunters on these trails during certain times of the year. I always felt that hunters had a better
appreciation for the environment than many environmentalists did. Food chains need predators, and many had been
killed by ranchers or other livestock owners who had a commercial interest in
protecting their cattle population.
Hunters at least understand that meat doesn’t just pop-up cellophane
wrapped. It was a living creature
once. And here is my ethical dilemma
with saving the whales: whales at least are
free range. Fish populations, such as
northeast North America cod, have also been overfished. Wild fish stocks have been depleted through
overfishing globally and have been replaced with fish farms. Cattle are grazed and then sent to feedlots
to be fattened-up prior to slaughter.
Chicken and pigs are factory farmed.
The short lives of these creatures prior to slaughter is cruel and deplorable. But, out of sight, out of mind. The point is, eating KFC is likely a less ethical food choice than eating whale, if you
examine the quality of life of the creature prior its being killed. What can’t be lost is that chicken tends to
also be some of the cheapest meat to buy.
We know, at least, that this decision (ending factory farming) will help prevent deforestation, curb global warming, reduce pollution, save oil reserves, lessen the burden on rural America, decrease human rights abuses, improve public health, and help eliminate the most systematic animal abuse in history..
Jonathan Safran Foer, Eating Animals
Humans regard animals as worthy of protection only when they are on the verge of extinction.,
Paul Craig Roberts
Modern human lifestyle consumes vast amounts of energy. Coal fueled the industrial revolution in the
18th and 19th century and powered the steam engine. Steam engines had more to do with the demise
and near extinction of both cetaceans and bison. Faster whaling ships, coupled with both
onshore and offshore processing of carcasses, made killing whales too easy – to
the point that some species neared extinction.
Oil became the dominant fuel in the 20th century and remains
so today. Offshore crude oil accounts
for around 30% of the global demand for oil.
According to Wikipedia, raising animals for human consumption accounts
for approximately 40% of the total amount of agricultural output in
industrialized countries. Grazing occupies 26% of the earth’s ice-free
terrestrial surface, and feed crop production uses about one third of all
arable land. The human footprint has expanded and destroyed
many natural habitats and taken a number of creatures to, or near the brink of,
extinction, not only cetaceans. The real
question that needs to be addressed is what lifestyle choices of convenience are
we really willing to give-up? The
majority of humans enjoy having electricity to keep all of our appliances going. This includes our cell phones and laptop
computers, as well as our refrigerators to keep food cold. It includes our food choices. Many humans enjoy the convenience of
automobiles and airplane travel. Saving
the whales – or prioritizing their collective welfare – does not really make one
an environmentalist. There is a litany
of lifestyle choices that contribute to our energy consumption that impacts the
planet. You cannot really be for saving the whales if you enjoy eating
hamburgers bought at a drive-through window.
If there were no customers for offshore oil, there would be no marine
seismic – or other geophysical – exploration.
There would be no need for airguns.
So, yes, let’s improve how energy is consumed. Let’s explore and develop renewable energy
resources where we can. And let’s
continue to improve the sources used in the marine seismic experiment. Let’s try to minimize the impact that exploring
for resources offshore makes. Let’s improve
our monitoring of cetaceans and make sure that airguns are not used when
cetaceans are nearby. Let’s continue to
develop marine seismic vibrator’s as sources.
Marine seismic airguns have not really been used so long. The real impact on the different species of
cetaceans is not fully understood. Nevertheless,
concerns must be listened to and addressed.
Those in the marine seismic industry, or offshore oil and gas industry,
are not focused on destroying the environment or in harming cetaceans. That’s not the objective. The objective is to make better maps so that
drilling is safer and less risky. Protesting
over activities that you do not agree with is important for citizens. But, protesting offshore activity is only meaningful
when it is accompanied by a supporting lifestyle choice. Protesting airguns will only make a
difference if your personal lifestyle choices do not include the necessity for
offshore oil. And when this is true,
marine airgun exploration will be unnecessary.
Man’s law changes with his understanding of man. Only the laws of the spirit remain always the same..
Native American Crow Tribe Saying
Forests and meat animals compete for the same land. The prodigious appetite of the affluent nations for meat means that agribusiness can pay more than those who want to preserve or restore the forest. We are, quite literally, gambling with the future of our planet – for the sake of hamburgers,
