Friday, November 28, 2014

# 50 for Scott Neeson. If you have evidence that David Fletcher was 'grooming young girls' make it public now.

Dear Scott

Within the next two weeks David Fletcher will die. Although it will be by his own hand it will be because the words and actions of a large number of people, yourself included, have left him with no hope for the future.

Whilst it was Peter Hogan who, by his own admission, set out to destroy David Fletcher’s life, you very quickly jumped on the bandwagon when you publicly accused Mr Fletcher of ‘grooming young girls’.

 “There is little doubt Fletcher devotes his time to grooming young girls….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.”  

These are the words you spoke to Andrew Drummond and which he published in June 2010. As a marketing person you know precisely what impact these words would have on the readership of his article. It was the impact you wished the words to have – to destroy David Fletcher’s reputation. Your words, accepted as statements of fact by other journalists, created an atmosphere in which corrupt Cambodian officials could do as they pleased with Mr Fletcher – with no regard for his legal or human rights. As recently as last week David Fletcher was visited in prison by a ‘lawyer’ offering to ‘represent’ him. I reality this was a fishing expedition. How much money could David Fletcher afford to pay to have his conviction overturned. As you know, Scott, as the British Embassy and the entire NGO community in Cambdia knows, this is the way business is done in a country with an irremeably corrupt judiciary. Innocent men are sent to jail. Guilty men are released. Those who oppose the government are jailed on trumped up charges and used as pawns in a political game with the Opposition.

In any country in which there was the rule of law David Fletcher could have sued you for defamation. Not in Cambodia, however where you, Samleang Siela, Thierry Darnaudet and others can destroy the reputations and lives of others with impunity. And you can do so with the blessing of the British Embassy and the Foreign Secretary, Mr Phillip Hammond.

When David Fletcher dies there will be few who will mourn the loss of a man who grooms little girls. Only those who believe in the rule of law, believe in the right of an accused person to defend him or herself in court, will be left wondering if, in fact, David Fletcher was guilty as charged by you. Certainly, those who do not believe that a young woman’s hymen can grow back after two ‘brutal rapes’ will have their doubts. And so they should. No one should be pursued and prosecuted on the basis of rumour, innuendo and scuttlebutt of the kind perpetrated by yourself and Peter Hogan.

If you have any evidence at all that David Fletcher was grooming young girls or of sexually abusing underage girls (as reported by the Phnom Penh Post) make this evidence public now. If you have no evidence you owe David Fletcher a public apology for accusing him of grooming young girls. If you had the decency to admit that you were wrong in your accusation you could also add your name to a list of those who should, if they believe in the rule of law, be placing pressure on the Minister of Justice to allow Mr Fletcher a fair trail – as is his right in accordance with the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure.

As Mr Fletcher has told me many times, if he is found guilty on the basis of evidence, he will accept his punishment without complaint. He will not, however, accept his punishment on the basis of scuttlebutt of the kind you and Peter Hogan have engaged in.

Your silence condemns you, Scott.

David Fletcher has, this past week, been saying his farewells to friends who have stood beside him. Here is part of one such farewell:

Many Thanks for your kind thoughts. I have the greatest respect for you as you know, in my language you walk the walk, in my book that takes a real man.

You have succeeded where I failed, and I admire your guts to go on and do the right thing.

I am not giving up just because of these ignorant plebs, but the two main reasons, is not just of being able to carry on helping those poor children, but the loss of my Khmer wife.

I was hit very hard by this and has been a terrible load to carry these years. The love from the children got me over this, but without both for four and half years has been too much to bear.

In my past I have been able to stand up and fight my enemy, but I am not able to do that now because I am vegitating in hell. So now there is only one option.

You were so right one day when you said you thought there was two sides to me, but both those sides, good or bad, have their honor and code.

Here I have no honour or code, and the animals around me live on a different planet to me.

I have taken the pain, as I feel is my honour to do so, but now is enough, these neanderthals are having no more of my life.

I wish to die with dignity and on my own terms, with my finger in the air to them and go to sleep thinking of my Khmer wife and those wonderful children.

I intend to get dressed in my own clothes and die with my boots on, my mother always said that i would, as always she was right.


17 comments:

  1. The term 'coward' seems all too kind in describing Neeson. 'Prisoner' would be so much more appropriate. Some research on his Board of Directors and major contributors, might reveal some who do not agree with this slander and defamation by Neeson.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Some expansion of this statement would be appreciated. If there are some within CCF, or closely associated with it, who do not agree with, or are critical of, the defamatory comments Neeson has made about David Fletcher, now is the time for them to speak out. In a week, or two, it will be too late because Fletcher will be dead.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here are some names, though CCF ops not to give many names of people involved. In 2013, they report revenue in excess of $10M, almost double their 2012 revenue. Bob Tufts, Director, Warren Share, Director, Sok Channoeurn, Country Manager

    ReplyDelete
  4. Unless my math is wrong, they claim to support 2000 children, raise $10M, they raise $5000 per child served. Are you F@#!ing kidding me??? Here is a link to the financials: https://www.cambodianchildrensfund.org/images/stories/financial/CCF-2013-Report.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have done a lot of filming now with families who have 3 and 4 kids living in CCF's over-crowded dormitories. Each of these kids earns CCF between $100 and $150 a month whilst the rest of the family subsists on less than $100 a month. CCF is making a profit out of removing children from their families. And CCF is also renting hovels to the parents of these kids and then locking them out of their own homes when they get $12.50 behind in their rent. These are verifiable facts for anyone who bothers to go to these communities and ask some questions. Scott Neeson is a master salesman.he learned his trade well in Hollywood where he was takes with selling even the worst of films to a gullible public. Now he is selling himself to an equally gullible public - presenting himself as a 21st century Mother Theresa who gave up his $ million a year income to help poor families in Cambodia. The facts suggest otherwise. Indeed, the facts SCREAM otherwise. Scott is in the business of stealing children from their families, of breaking up families. He and his staff are actively trying to take control of a 15 month old boy named Raksa - to separate the young boy from his impoverished grandparents and his intellectually handicapped mother. Raksa was conceived when his mother, Eak, was raped. Nonetheless, Eak loves her son - though she is not able to speak. On a regular basis CCF turns up offering to take Raksa off Eak and his grandparents hands. CCF offers no assistance to Eak and her mum and dad at all. CCF wants the baby. That's all. This would be a great PR coup for CCF. If you want to know more, visit: http://cambodianchildrensfund.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/25-scott-nesson-locks-poor-family-out.html

      Delete
  5. CCF Board of Directors: Board of Directors
    Lani Smith, Kevin Schoeler, Warren Share, Channoeurn Kram, Muffy DiSabatino, Heather Graham, Lily Kanter, Paul Saunders, Gary Strumeyer, Jeanine Braithwaite, Caroline Ryan, Andy DiSabatino, Seane Corn, Scott Neeson, Robert Tufts, Sopheak Morm, David Ryan

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lani Smith, Kevin Schoeler, Warren Share, Channoeurn Kram, Muffy DiSabatino, Heather Graham, Lily Kanter, Paul Saunders, Gary Strumeyer, Jeanine Braithwaite, Caroline Ryan, Andy DiSabatino, Seane Corn, Scott Neeson, Robert Tufts, Sopheak Morm, David Ryan are all aware of the allegations that have been made against Scott Neeson - not just by myself but by many others who know that CCF is an NGO that requires a never-ending stream of 'orphans' to be rescued'. This is not just to feed the economic model upon which CCF's based but also to satiate the ego demands of Scott - whose need to be seen as the 'saviour' of these children trumps all consideration of the rights of their parents.

    Bone of this is particularly elegant to the case of David Flecther - other than that Scott Neeson is a morally bankrupt individual (as is Peter Hogan) who has used his undoubted marketing skills to present himself to the world as a secular saint.

    As was the case with Somaly Mam, the truth about Scott Neeson will come out eventually. Unfortunately it will not come out in time to save David Fletcher's life.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Please follow the link from above, by their own financials they raised over $10 MILLION in 2013. It is not just $100 to $150. that is just through 'sponsorship' by donors. MUCH money is coming in because of these over and above sponsorship. https://www.cambodianchildrensfund.org/images/stories/financial/CCF-2013-Report.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  8. Please excuse m spell in errors above! "none of this is particularly relevant" is what I write (or meant to write) before 'autocorrect' went to work on my words!

    A crude back-of-the envelope calculation based on the $10,000,000 figure provided above. $10 million divided by 2,000 kids equals $5,000 per kid. This is four times, per annum, what the average income of the family of one kid is. why is this money vein spent to institutionalise kids and not to help the entire family become self-sufficient? And why, with $10,000,000 flowing into CCF's coffers, is Scott Neeson locking a family out of its house over $12.50 - when it it generating between $300 and $450 a month from taking care of this family's three kids? Why will no newspaper in Cambodia expose this scam? Why do LICADHO and ADHOC maintain an undignified and cowardly silence?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott Neeson will be the Somaly Mam of 2015 if anyone bothers to look closely enough

      Delete
    2. CCF does way more than look after kids.

      And please do some research. CCF does more work than any NGO in the country to keep families together - more than 70% of CCF kids go home AT THE END OF EVERY DAY!!!!!! There are plenty of organisation out there institutionalising kids - sadly for you clowns, CCF isn't one of them.

      Surely you don't think that the ccf really cares about $12.50? Who knows what the real situation was with that couple, could have been for any number of reasons.

      BTW - where does CCF even mention the word orphan?????

      The same comments on every post related to CCF or Neeson. Serial stalker and 'self described' journalist James Ricketsen, along with I reckon one or two toxic phnom penh bar-flies. Probably old mates of fletcher.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous

      (1) I have done a lot of research. I have talked with and filmed with many families.

      (2) 30% of kids donut go home, despite the fact that they have parents and a home. Mind you, their homes are very often hovels of the kind the gamily evicted from their home rent from CCF for $12.50 a month.

      (3) If there was some other reason, other than being $12.50 behind in their rent, CCF could (and has been invited to) present an alternative explanation.

      (4) Where do I mention 'orphan' in relation to CCF? I have made many references to orphans in what I have written; to the fact that 75% of 'orphans' in 'orphanages' in Cambodia are not orphans.

      (5) This self-styled journalist had his first article published in Australia's 'The Bulletin' in 1974. I have written opinion pieces many times over the years. I have been a documentary filmmaker for 43 years.

      (6) I mention Neeson often because, in June 2010 he told journalist Andrew Drummond that David Fletcher was 'grooming young girls'. He also told Drummond, "If you can get this guy sent packing you are doing a service to the children here.” A week later David Fletcher was arrested - despite the fact that when Neeson made his 'sent packing' comment several organisation ho had investigated Fletcher had found no evidence of wrong-doing.

      Neeson's comment about Fletcher grooming young girls was defamatory - unless backed up by evidence. No evidence has ever been presented to verify Neeson's accusations. If such evidence were to emerge and if it were credible and tested in court, I would be the first to condemn Fletcher for his behaviour.

      As for being an 'old mate' of Fletcher's, I met him for the first time in prison in Sept.2014

      Delete
  9. As a former volunteer and l can indeed tell you your on the money James and yes the twisted mind of control freak Scott Neeson is a very cunning conman.
    Why is a westerner like Neeson able to have so much access to children ,
    its down right creepy that he is still in operation. endless children flow through his home gates hidden behind high barbwire walls and armed guards .
    The CCF pay-role is filled with some very questionable people who's role it is to keep him protected and keep the millions rolling in . now running into 100's of millions over the pass 10 years . Phnom Penh Post have always been in the pocket of Neeson and his cult .
    KT



    ReplyDelete
  10. So Fletcher admits to meeting underage girls through his dump charity, paying the mother of a 15 year old dump girl so that he could marry her, giving her wine, taking her to a room alone and removing her clothes?

    And you have a problem with someone saying that there was "little doubt he was grooming girls"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (1) Yes, Fletcher admits to meeting underage girls at the rubbish dump? It would be very difficult not to given that he was helping out girls, boys and their families that worked in the dump. I have also met underage girls whose families work at the rubbish dump and am currently helping out several such families.

      (2) I am not sure if you have sen the interviews I did with Yang Dany and her mother but if you had you would find that the details of Yang Dany's story changed with each telling. Which version of what she says is the truth is precisely what courts are there to decide. In this instance there has been no trial and no opportunity for any evidence, from either side, to be tested.

      One thing is certain, however - namely that the medical report commissioned by the court stated, quite unambiguously, that Yang Dany was a virgin; her hymen intact.

      It was the rape of Yang Dany that David Fletcher was charged with and which is my concern. There is no evidence that he raped Yang Dany. If there is evidence that David Fletcher 'groomed' young girls he should have been charged with that. He wasn't.

      Delete
  11. I have personally seen the filmed interviews met the families that paint a very dim light of CCF and its founder Scott Neeson. Neeson's supporters are blinded by the bright lights of endless media spins filled with lies and deception that he markets so well, l would like to ask Scott Neeson, what have you done with 100 million dollars in funds. where's the gold stashed. because its not spent within the CCF walls. dollar for dollar please explain and show us all your bank records.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You will never get any response from Scott. He is all bluff and bluster - an egomaniac with delusions of grandeur. These are fed by the pathetic excuses that go by the name of journalists in Cambodia and who believe all he says and will not criticise him in print. He is king of the castle and can do what he likes and there is no one to stop him. It will all come unstuck one day and everyone will throw their hands up like with Somaly Mam and say Oh, if only we had known. Shock! Horror! That such a good man has been ripping off poor Cambodians for all these years right under our noses. Poor Cambodians dont just have to deal with a corrupt government ripping them off but with corrupt NGOS ripping them off also. Welcome to Scambodia

      Delete