# 3 Some questions for Andrew Drummond re his 20th June 2010 article entitled "“Preying On The Garbage Dump Children"

Dear Andrew

In the interests of factual accuracy I have a few questions for you regarding your 20^th June 2010 article entitled: “Preying On The Garbage Dump Children: Convicted child sexual abuser runs ‘charity’ for rubbish dump kids in Cambodia.”

- When you refer to David Fletcher as being a ‘convicted child sex abuser’ are you referring to any other incidents other than Mr Fletcher being found guilty of ‘statutory rape’ in the UK with a consenting 15 year old?

- Do you, in October 2014, stand by your statement that “Scots born Scott Neeson of the Cambodian Children’s Fund was negotiating with the mother of a pretty 17 year old girl to save her from a British child abuser?”

- Do you, in Oct 2014 stand by your statement that Yang Dany’s mother was “about to give her third daughter 17-yr-old, Yang Dany,  to a convicted British child abuser for the princely sum of US$150 to help clear her family debts?”

- Do you stand by the statement that Yang Dany told you that her future husband (Fletcher) was “a good man”?

- Do you stand by your statement that David Fletcher had convinced Yang Dany to stop going to English classes?

- What do you mean to imply in your sentence, “Clearly he does not need to communicate with the bride he wants?”

- Did Scott Neeson offer to help Yang Dany and her mother pay off their debts? To the best of your knowledge did Scott Neeson help them pay off these debts? How much money did Scott Neeson (CCF) give to Yang Dany and her mother after your 20^th June 2010 article had been published?

- You claim to have tape-recorded your conversations with David Fletcher. Was this done with Mr Fletcher’s knowledge and consent?

- Would you please make the tapes available such that the accuracy of your quotes can be verified?

In relation to David Fletcher’s conviction for statutory rape, you quote Judge David Mellor as saying, “You exploited a young girl with the lure of money and the disinhibitions of drink, then videoed what happened.” 

- Why did you not also quote that the judge made it clear in his summation that the 15 year old girl consented to having sex with Fletcher? 

(This omission is pertinent because, in subsequent reporting, thanks to Chinese whispers and the refusal of other journalists to do anything other than re-write your original article and put their names to it, ‘statutory rape’ became ‘rape’ – a quite different crime. Indeed, again thanks to Chinese whispers and sloppy sensationalist journalism, ‘statutory rape’ of a consenting 15 year old became evidence that Fletcher was a pedophile!

- Do you stand by your statement that after his release from prison Fletcher ‘fled Britain’?

Your write, “Fletcher was not a tactful negotiator. When thought the price was too high he would extend an index finger to the seller and move on.”

Since you live in Thailand, Andrew, you must be aware that there, as in Cambodia, a variety of gestures are used in the bargaining process to indicate that the price is too high.

You write, “When we got to the garbage mountain at Stung Mean Chey on the outskirts of the capital he took a cream bun and some fruit to ‘my favourite little girl’ but she was not at home. The girl, aged 8, we later learned, had been rehoused with her family out of harm’s way by the Cambodian Children’s Fund.”

- Are you aware of the assistance David Fletcher gave to this girl and her family after she suffered a horrific accident? Your use of the phrase ‘out of harm’s way’ is clearly intended to convey the impression that David Fletcher posed a risk to this girl and that she had been, in some sense, ‘rescued’ by the Cambodian Children’s Fund.

- Do you stand by the accuracy of your description of Yang Dany as David Fletcher’s ‘fiance’? Did you tape your conversation with Yang Dany also?

- Rather than ask you to verify the accuracy of the many quotes you make of what David Fletcher said to you, could you please supply me with a copy of the tape? I will transcribe it and publish it in full. And I will give a copy to other journalists so that they can confirm that my transcript is accurate.

You write, “Scott Neeson, 51, founded the Cambodian Children’s Fund with the proceeds of his $US1 million a year salary in Hollywood as International President of Fox then International President for Marketing for Sony Pictures.”

- Did you get any independent confirmation of this information or have you merely printed what Scott Neeson, a skilled marketing person, has told you about himself?

- Did Scott Neeson, in reference to the work he was doing in the dump, say “…this is very rewarding, only people like Fletcher are a continuous source of worry. There is little doubt Fletcher devotes his time to grooming young girls.”

As you will be aware, unless you have misquoted Scott Neeson, this is a defamatory statement. The only way of determining whether Scott Neeson actually said this or not is to be found on the tape recordings you claim to have made during your research.

You quote Scott Neeson also as saying, “The fact is these children can be bought. It’s difficult to stop it. The British Embassy have been told about Fletcher. Many organizations have files on him, but nothing has happened. If you can get this guy sent packing you are doing a service to the children here.”

- Did you make any enquiries of the British Embassy in an attempt to discover whether the information Scott Neeson had given you was correct? Which organizations had files on David Fletcher? Did you speak with any of these organizations? If so, which ones?  

You write, “Police have shown they are more than wiling to take pay offs to release foreigners on child sexual abuse charges and most cases are settled with cash payments to one side or other.”

- If this is the case, did it occur to you that perhaps cash was being paid by someone, or by some organization, to destroy Mr Fletcher’s reputation and bring to an end his work in the Phnom Penh dump?

You quote a spokesman of Britain’s CEOP, Child Exploitation and Online Protection Unit as saying, “We are aware of complaints about David Fletcher and have been  in discussion with the authorities.”

- To the best of your knowledge did an investigation made by CEOPS result in any evidence at all that David Fletcher was ‘grooming’ or sexually abusing young girls?

Andrew, the answers to each of these questions, individually, might not seem to be of great import? The cumulative effect of the statements by yourself, which has led to these questions, is to present Mr Fletcher as an undesirable character who preys of little girls. This was your intention.

If your intention to vilify Mr Fletcher had been backed up by facts, by evidence, I would have no problem. The problem is, however, that you article is very light of verifiable facts; of facts that carry any weight at all other than in the world of sensational journalism – a world in which the facts can never be allowed to stand in the way of a good story. 

A portly elderly man abusing kids whom he is pretending to help in a rubbish dump in a third world country is a story made in tabloid heaven and you have gone for broke on it. I am sure the Daily Mail was delighted with your story. I am sure your readers were delighted with it. It’s a great read. 

I remember reading it myself, a few years ago, and thinking, “Thank God there are journalists exposing scumbags like David Fletcher!” Now, a little closer to the story and having put some considerable effort into finding verifiable facts, as opposed to responding viscerally to unverifiable scuttlebutt, I realize that you are the ‘scumbag’; that you are a journalist who, in the furtherance of your own career, is quite happy to play the role you have played in seeing to it that David Fletcher spends the rest of his life in jail – regardless of whether or not evidence exists that he is guilty.

I am giving you, here, Andrew, in a quite public forum, an opportunity to answer my questions and rescue whatever credibility remains for any article written by Andrew Drummond. This is more of an opportunity than you gave David Fletcher- whom you made no effort at all to make contact with, to ask questions of relating to allegations made by Scott Neeson that were, and are, defamatory.

If you have any desire at all to rectify the wrong you have done Mr Fletcher with your sloppy sensational journalism, come to Cambodia and attend the 27^th Oct hearing, in which Mr Fletcher will, at last (it is hoped!), have an opportunity to present at least some evidence to the presiding judges in his own defense. 

The court proceedings will commence in the Phnom Penh Municipal Court at 2pm.

best wishes

James Ricketson