James Ricketson
316 Whale Beach Road
Palm Beach 2108
Sydney, Australia
Mr Phillip
Hammond
Foreign
Secretary
Parliamentary House of Commons
London SW1A
13th Dec. 2014
Dear Foreign Secretary
Picture this scene:
It is 2010. Jim Gamble,
the current head of Child Exploitation and Online protection (CEOP) is sitting
in the London head quarters of CEOP with John Walsh, presenter of popular TV
show ‘America’s Most Wanted’. They are talking about a British citizen whom I
shall, for the time being, refer to as ‘Phillip’ – the ‘criminal of the week’.
John Walsh turns to Jim Gamble and says “let’s go to Cambodia and take him
down.”
Cut to John Walsh and Jim
Gamble in Cambodia ‘taking down’ alleged pedophile ‘Phillip’. Reality TV at its
best! ‘Phillip’ has been found guilty of no crime but this presents no obstacle
to Jim Gamble. This is his moment to shine on an international TV show seen by
millions. ‘Phillip’s’ guilt or innocence is of not concern to Jim Gamble!
Even within CEOP, however,
there was concern at the time about what was going on, as the following note, acquired
as part of a data act request, shows:
‘ … however at the moment AMW (America’s Most Wanted)
are not blanking ‘Phillip’s’ identity in any way. Now he has been charged and
is awaiting trial but due to the fact that AMW is to broadcast globally via
satellite (incl the US, UK, and possibly Cambodia) do we run the risk that by
association we are putting his details out in the public domain (or sharing
them on film with a production crew) prior to him being found guilty if his
details have not been blanked out. AMW will have no issue putting his details
out in the US as similarly at the moment he is not facing any trial in the UK
…..
‘Phillip’ is the same
person I have referred to in an earlier letter who, after many of the same delays
experienced by David Fletcher, managed to extract the note written by a CEOP
representative, under data protection, that read:
‘ xxxx and
‘Phillip X’ are likely to be released unconditionally anytime in the next 30
minutes as the prosecutor cities insufficient evidence to justify continued
detention’…
Shortly after this note was written
both the Cambodian National Police and the judge at the courthouse received
phone calls from Phnom Penh ordering them not to release xxxx and ‘Phillip X’.
Did Jim Gamble apply pressure to
the senior Cambodian official who made the phone calls that led to the judge’s
reversal? At this point the evidence that this is so is circumstantial only. A
proper investigation would reveal whether or not Gamble was in Phnom Penh at
the time and if he called the senior Cambodian official. However, there will
never be a proper investigation within the FCO, will there Mr Hammond? You are
going out of your way to repress the truth about FCO, CEOP and APLE complicity
in the pursuit and prosecution of David Fletcher. The same clearly applies for
Gamble’s alleged complicity in the jailing of ‘Phillip.’ And then there is Matt
Harland! The determination of the Foreign & Comonwealth Office to thwart
the attempts in the part of British citizens to get a fair trial is
bewildering!
(Excuse me for belabouring this
point but it is an important one: Ambassador Mark Kent, Julian Blewett, other
senior FCO officials, CEOP and APLE have all known, since September 2010, that
Mr Fletcher did not rape Yang Dany. All have chosen to turn a blind eye to this
fact and, in a conspiracy of silence, see a citizen of the United Kingdom
jailed for a crime he could not possibly have committed – unless they all (and
now you, Mr Hammond) agree with the judges of the Phnom Penh Municipal Court
that Yang Dany’s hymen must have grown back!)
The incidents described
above took place after Jim Gamble had ‘resigned’ in late 2010 following
arguments with the British Home Secretary, Theresa May. What took place as Jim Gamble was working out
his notice period is pertinent to David Fletcher’s case. Action Pour les
Enfants (APLE) on its own would not have been able to set David Fletcher up on
false rape charges. APLE needed CEOP -
seen by Cambodian government officials as representing the UK government - to see
to it that Fletcher was arrested in
Thailand, held in jail on trumped up charges and his deportation to the UK on 4th
August thwarted. These ‘senior Cambodian officials’ (whose identities are now
known) dare not defy the wishes of CEOP for fear of rocking the gravy train of
international aid delivered by the UK, Australia and many other countries.
In 2010, as Home Secretary
Theresa May was well aware, Jim Gamble was a loose cannon - dispensing his own
version of justice in Cambodia with total impunity and seeking to become a
Reality TV superstar in the process. With no–one to monitor his activities in
Cambodia, Jim Gamble, drunk with power, had taken the law into his own hands
and become a rogue vigilante - reminiscent of the role played by Marlon Brando
in APOCALYPSE NOW. This was clearly demonstrated in the TV programme he made
with ‘America’s Most Wanted’, when he went into Prey Sar prison, 30 or so
kilometers out of Phnom Penh, to film with men accused of child sex crimes.
These were people who had not been convicted of any crime and who had not given
their informed consent to being filmed. In other words to film with men still
considered innocent in the eyes of the law. Imagine the outcry if police and
prison authorities allowed this in the UK!
One of those caught up in
Jim Gamble’s 15 minutes of ‘Reality TV’ fame was Matt Harland. He had been told
prior to Jim Gamble’s arrival that an NGO team
was concerned about the health of the inmates in Prey Sar and would come for a
visit. What happened in reality was that Jim Gamble, working with ‘America’s
Most Wanted’ were at Prey Sar filming for a "documentary" about
American pedophiles jailed in Cambodia. Unfortunately, there weren’t any
American pedophiles in custody at the time. Unfortunately for Matt Harland, he was in Prey Sar and was immediately
cast as the pedophile ‘star’ in Jim Gamble’s ‘Excellent Cambodian Pedophile
Adventure.’
A complaint was raised
about this to the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) in the UK but
it was rejected! The IPCC, it seemed at the time, had no qualms at all about
the identities of UK citizens being revealed on TV before they had even been
tried for the offences they had been accused of.
Jim Gamble’s and the
‘America’s Most Wanted’ film crew’s visit to Cambodia netted ‘Phillip’ also –
filming him when he arrived voluntarily and was taken into custody at Siem Reap
police station. The footage was supplied by Jim Gamble and John Walsh to SKY News.
It has been alleged by
numerous sources that it was Jim Gamble who pressed the Cambodian authorities to
detain ‘Phillip’ and secure a conviction despite the lack of evidence of his
guilt. Gamble’s 15 minutes of TV fame would certainly have been soured (and
left him liable to being sued) if ‘Phillip’ had been found not guilty. A
‘guilty’ verdict was absolutely essential if Gamble was to retain his
credibility. No doubt Theresa May was well aware of (and possibly shocked by)
what was going on and required Jim Gamble’s resignation to prevent further
damage being inflicted on innocent citizens of the United Kingdom
After his ‘resignation’ Jim Gamble
wrote an article that appeared in the Guardian newspaper in the UK in which he
makes it clear that he wanted total freedom to behave as he saw fit, with no
controls placed on him. A law unto himself!
The following extract speaks
volumes:
“In my opinion
it's important that we don't simply fall into the same trap as the current home
secretary, Theresa May. She is attempting to push Ceop into the ill thought-out
National Crime Agency, demonstrating a lack of understanding of the broader
remit and multi-agency platform. She is not listening to the child protection
community and has either not read or simply ignored the independent reports
commissioned by the last government. Those reports highlighted that
independence would free Ceop from the bureaucracy of a larger organisation,
attract more partnership funding and capitalise on its child protection
potential”.
Gamble’s desire to “capitalize on
its (CEOP) child protection potential” should set alarm bells ringing, given
the meaning of the word “capitalize” that Gable had not intended in this
statement. Catching pedophiles is big business in Cambodia. There is a lot of money to be made (“attract
more partnership funding”) but in order to keep this business model running
smoothly, generating an avalanche of cash from sponsors and donors, a constant
supply of pedophiles is required. Add to this, in the case of Gamble, the
opportunity to appear on TV as a hero and you have a recipe for corruption of
CEOP on every level. It is to Theresa May’s credit that she managed to get Jim
Gamble to ‘resign’, though it appears that CEOP still functions as a rogue NGO
accountable to no-one.
Gamble’s desire for “independence”
highlights the vigilante approach he employed and which netted the likes of
‘Phillip’ and David Fletcher. It is this vigilante approach that seems to have led
Gamble to make repeated trips to the United States (the Mecca of this form of
vigilante group methodology) and to his partnership with John Walsh – presenter
of America’s Most Wanted. Walsh needed a supply of pedophiles and other
criminals for his show and Gamble could supply the pedophile component. And, acting ‘independently’ with no-one to
oversee his activities, Gamble could demonstrate to the world, relying on TV
for free advertising, that he was a hot shot when it came to catching
pedophiles. And the cash flows from sponsors and donors because everyone hates
pedophiles and very few people are prepared to question the integrity of men
like Gamble, Darnaudet of Seila for fear of being accused of being ‘soft on pedophiles’ or, worse, of being
pedophiles themselves and wishing to protect their fellow pedophiles. If not a
perfect scam (along the lines of the one practiced by APLE) the set-up Jim
Gamble was trying to protect was a recipe for disaster in the hands of a head
of CEOP who could see both fame and fortune coming his way if he could just
keep up that supply of pedophiles.
Jim Gamble’s article can be found
in full at:
The kind of rogue behavior evidenced in Jim
Gamble’s investigative modus operandi has clearly not ceased with his departure.
Take the case of Ian Tracy, a British charity worker who spent 14 months in a
Thai prison after wrongly being convicted of being a pedophile. Tracy was
jailed in Thailand for four years as a result of being falsely accused of being
a child sexual abuser. He had been mistaken for another British man - who had
been arrested for child sex abuse and attempted murder of a juvenile.
'The police knew they had the wrong man,” said
Tracy on his release,’ “but insisted they go ahead with the prosecution. I told
them they would have to make it all up - and they did.”
Tracy was originally arrested as part of an
Operation Naga – a collaboration between Britain's Child Exploitation and
Online Protection Unit (CEOP) which came under the Serious Organised Crime
Agency and the Royal Thai Police. It is a collaboration such as this one that
netted David Fletcher also during the ‘Reality TV star’ phase of Jim Gamble’s
career.
Despite Ian Tracy’s arrest and
conviction being clearly the result of
mistaken identity, Ambassador Mark Kent provided Mr Tracy with no support
whatsoever. Nor did CEOP, despite it knowing Mr Tracy to be innocent. The
parallels with David Fletcher’s case are telling.
Ian Tracey was obliged, with no
assistance from the British government at any level, to go right the way
through the Thai court appeals procedure whilst suffering in a Thai jail. As
long as the boxes were ticked and another conviction gained, CEOP, with the
tacit approval of Ambassador Mark Kent, was happy. It didn’t matter if Ian
Tracy was innocent or guilty, just as it matters not if Mr Fletcher is guilty
or innocent. At the outset of my
investigations it seemed to me that Ambassador Mark Kent, Julian Blewett and
others were simply incompetent. Now it seems to me that they are, for reasons
that remain a mystery to me, caught up in a widespread scam to pursue,
persecute and prosecute citizens on the UK for
sex-related crimes and to do all they can to see to it that these men
are denied a fair trial. I wonder how many other innocent men are currently
languishing in obscure foreign jails a result of CEOPs operations of the kind
that set up David Fletcher!
What benefit accrues to the likes
of Ambassador Mark Kent in being complicit, in his silence and inaction, in the
jailing of innocent men is a mystery that I have not yet been able to find an
adequate explanation for. I can understand how Jim Gamble could see the benefits
(money and fame) in jailing men like David Fletcher. And I can understand your
own desire to cover up incompetence and corruption within the FCO (to prevent
the political damage that the truth would do to you and your party) but I do
not understand what motivates Mark Kent to act as he does. And nor is it likely
that I will find out, that Mr Fletcher will find out, as a result of data
protection requests. The first tranche of documents was, Sue Bennett assured Mr
Fletcher, to be delivered on 10th Dec. They were not. I will have
more to place on record about this in my next letter to you.
best wishes
James Ricketson
NGOs’ hidden agenda
ReplyDeleteMon, 19 September 2011
Pen Ngoeun
Opinion
In their letter to 17 United Nations agencies, Brad Adams and his peers in the Group of 10 International NGOs have made a regrettable mistake and revealed their true intentions to the international community.
This “letter” is the latest example of the relentless pressure big-name NGOs are exerting on the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) to fashion its proposed draft law on NGOs in such a way that it conforms to “international standards”.
It is accompanied by a warning – effectively a threat – that Cambodia’s development partners must review their involvement in this country.
In truth, the year-long campaign against the RGC’s duty to regulate NGOs is a well-designed scheme to let them run wild.
These big organisations apparently envisage a “wild, wild West” where NGOs can ride free and shoot at will. Even worse, it’s a cheap stunt designed to bring the RGC to its knees and blindly accept the rules of its international masters.
But if one reads between the lines of this “letter”, the flaw in its argument is revealed. It is the double standard in the application of the principle of transparency and accountability, which cannot be
tolerated by UN agencies or the international community at large.
For Adams, the Asia director of Human Rights Watch, and his peers, the principle of transparency and accountability must be applied by the RGC, but must not be applied by NGOs.
more to follow
In Cambodia, NGOs are viewed as partners of the RGC in the delivery of basic social services. A different group of NGOs is involved in advocacy for legal rights and human rights.
ReplyDeleteThe people who run NGOs benefit from them differently: the first group from effective delivery of social services to the needy, and the second group from executing the orders of international legal and human-rights organisations based in developed countries that provide funding for NGOs operating in Cambodia.
For more than 20 years, NGOs in Cambodia have behaved as if the country of the Khmers is the Wild West – good for riding and shooting, with no questions asked – thanks to their overseas sponsors and funding partners, who are honest and compassionate by nature and who believe the funds provided to NGOs in Cambodia will be used for the betterment of neglected Cambodians.
The sponsors and funding partners of legal and human-rights NGOs, however, have a hidden agenda. They seemingly aspire to become famous by bringing down an elected government that, for myriad reasons, they don’t like.
Brad Adams has a “vendetta” against the RGC, and especially Samdech Techo Hun Sen, for causing him to lose a lucrative opportunity when he was working in Cambodia.
“Transparency” and “accountability” seem to be the words Adams and his peers fear most. Reporting where the funding of NGOs in Cambodia comes from, and where it goes, will expose the real agenda of a number of international “politicised” NGOs.
The so-called “problematic issues” with the draft law cited by Adams and company in their September 9 letter are simply misplaced accusations intended to shield NGOs involved in legal and human rights in Cambodia from having to adhere to the rules of transparency and accountability.
The letter praises NGOs’ efforts to ensure transparency and accountability in implementing their Cambodian projects and declares: “Their efforts will be negatively affected as civil society groups monitoring government projects face tighter, and potentially hostile, government scrutiny.”
It’s a bit rich for Adams and his peers to sell their accusations against the RGC on the grounds of transparency and accountability. The quest-ion is: why is this principle applicable only to the government of Cambodia, and not for NGOs?
This double standard will only serve to undermine the reputation of the 10 international NGOs. The 17 UN agencies must show fairness for the RGC in their consideration of the letter.
The letter also speaks about the required registration by law in these terms: “The registration scheme should not be used to undermine freedom of association, expression or assembly.”
One of the negative impacts cited is that “It creates burdensome and expensive reporting requirements that will particularly disadvantage grassroots citizens’ associations and groups.”
This is a complete exaggeration, and would be laughable even to a second- year student in basic accounting.
The attempt to shore up misplaced accusations against Cambodia’s NGO draft law reveal beyond all else that the concerted effort to protect the group of NGOs involved in the advocacy of legal and human rights in Cambodia from having to adhere to the principle of transparency and accountability will not escape the watchful eyes of unbiased observers.
It would be much fairer, and more fruitful, to all concerned if big-name NGOs stopped treating Cambodia as their “Wild, Wild West”.
Professor Pen Ngoeun is an academic adviser at the University of Puthisastra and a member of the Press and Quick Reaction Unit of the Office of the Council of Ministers.
One of the many people I am now corresponding with is, like David Fletcher, a victim of what can best be described as a CEOPS/APLE conspiracy. He is also someone who, when he approached human rights groups such as LICADHO, was ignored. Sex offenders are fair game. Everyone, from media looking for sensational stories to human rights organisations looking for funding, can feed off them. I wrote the following to this man when he told me of his failed efforts to get LICADHO involved in his case which, like David Fletcher's, involved a blatantly obvious miscarriage of justice:
ReplyDeleteThanks, XXXX
One of the points that I want to make is that regardless of whether the innocent person is Khmer or non-Khmer, he or she is entitled to a fair trial.
Whilst I want Fletcher to receive a fair trial, and Matt Harland, it is the principle that is of most interest to me. Khmers and non-Khmers wall share the same human rights and these should be respected. A major victory in court in the case of Fletcher (or Harland) is also, symbolically, a victory for the Khmer victims of the corrupt judicial system that prevails in Cambodia.
The case of Fletcher is clear cut. The 'victim' denies being raped and court documents make it clear she had not been. Open and shut. Win this one and all the others like it (Matt Harland, yours, all the Khmers imprisoned for political reasons) must likewise be seen as suspect.
I could just as easily fight for Matt's right to a fair trial,of yours (in retrospect) but as chance would have it, I met Mr Fletcher and got caught up in his case.
It is interesting (and pertinent) that APLE goes after Westerners and not after the Cambodian men who, with impunity (and this is acknowledged by the Cambodian government) rape Cambodian women and children.
It is difficult not to conjecture that the reason for this is that there is a lot of money to be made from the prosecution and incarceration of foreigners but little or none to be made from the prosecution and incarceration of Cambodian sex offenders. APLE catching a Cambodian pedophile is not going to have Western sponsors and donors reaching fore their cheque books. Catch a Western pedophile, however, and the tabloid press can be guaranteed to make it big news, turn the likes of Jim Gamble into media stars, sell newspapers and have sponsors and donors making huge donations. I have to give it to Thierry Darnaudet and Samleang Seila - they are onto a winning business model. Not only does it generate millions of dollars for them, it is also a 'cause' that no-one (myself included) can question without seeming, at the very least, mean -spirited and, at the very worst, as an apologist for pedophiles.
The dynamics of the APLE scam are so blindingly obvious that human rights organisations such as LICADHO cannot be not aware of what is going on. However, it would seem that LICADHO believes the imprisonment of innocent men such as David Fletcher (and yourself) is a small price to pay if APLE'S astounding success at 'catching' pedophiles also results in cash flowing into LICADHO'S coffers. And of course there is the fact that one of APLE'S founders was Naly Pilorge, who runs LICADHO - under the stewardship of her mother, Dr Kek Pung. Dr Pung is, in my experience, a woman of great integrity and compassion, a woman with a genuine commitment to human rights, so it is a mystery to me why she remains silent about human rights abuses such as those experienced by David Fletcher.
Dr Kek Pung has been nominated for a Nobel prize. What journalist in their right mind would ask her about her daughter Naly's relationship with Action Pour les Enfants. Dr Pung is a saint and Naly in untouchable. Licadho is as corrupt as those whom it accuses of being corrupt. Money rules. Always. Welcome to Cambodia!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteThe organisations that you keep smearing exist to help Cambodia, a country that you, David and others have chosen to make a home in. It is fair to say that based on international reports and actually living and working in Cambodia that the country has a long way to go - especially in regards to the judiciary. I am a strong advocate of Human Rights and I want David to have a fair trial - I respect that you are trying to help him. However, your crusade to smear hate against fine organisations like Licadho who work tirelessly to promote human rights in Cambodia and APLE who actually investigate more cases involving Khmer (found in their annual report) is quite ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteMost of what you have written is based on speculation and not fact, however anyone reading subsequent posts on your blog will learn that a) Licadho is corrupt (must be true, the work they are doing to protect the land rights activists must be just for show and really all they want to do is deny suspected/ convicted foreign pedophiles their rights) b) David Fletcher was of such a paramount concern to the UK that they have committed such a large-scale conspiracy to have him convicted in Cambodia c) APLE murders foreign journalists and is a corrupt NGO running an extortion scam e) APLE pay Licahdo and CEOP?!
Where do you get all of your "factual information" from James? It seems to me that you have an idea/ story in your head and all that you want to read/ hear/ see/ write about is anything that can loosely support you fanatical ideas. I just typed in APLE cambodia annual report into Google, had a look at their finances and it states they have a yearly expenditure of around US$461,636.80 - this report, audited by PwC is more tangible than anything you have produced. Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise? If this is the case then how do you propose APLE paid CEOP or Licadho? Through complex offshore structures?!
If you want to support David, there are better ways to do so then writing all of this nonsense. I for one will not be losing sleep over a man who already has a conviction as a child sex offender, who subsequently moves to Cambodia and surrounds himself with children. Instead, I will fight for the brave elderly activists who risk their lives so that Cambodians can be empowered to make their own country a better place. Expats have a choice to be here in Cambodia, Khmer do not. If you don't like what happens here then perhaps you should have stayed in the UK/ Australia where human rights are given more protection.
Additionally, it sickens me that you have identified a potential rape victim online and have consistently stated her name, her mother's name and to top it all off interviewed them on film and published it online. This journalism is un-ethical and whilst fighting for the rights of one person you have denied the rights of others.
Dear Anonymous
DeleteYour comment is worthy of a detailed response, albeit it one written in some haste.
I do not live in Cambodia. I have not chosen to make it my home. If I had, however, chosen to live in Cambodia, I would feel as free to criticize aspects of Cambodian politics and culture as do the very human rights organizations you refer to. Indeed, part and parcel of being an engaged citizen in any country is applying critical thinking to that country.
Please refer me to one instance in which I have ‘smeared’ LICADHO? I have not. I have asked a lot of questions and I believe them to be perfectly legitimate questions to ask of an NGO committed to the precepts of transparency and accountability. I need not go over these questions again but if you would like to refer me to any sentence or paragraph in which you believe I have ‘smeared’ I will gladly respond to your criticism of my ‘smearing’.
As for that which I have written being based on ‘speculation’, again please provide me with instances of this. It is not possible to respond to such a vague and general statement. When I do speculate I think you will find, in context, that it is because I have not been able to get answers to questions. For example: Documents exist that reveal Naly Pilorge was a founding member of APLE. Documents exist that reveal LICADHO has a working relationship with LICADHO. Documents exist that reveal Yang Dany was a virgin at the time APLE was playing an active role in pursuing and prosecuting David Fletcher. Documents exist that make it clear Yang Dany was not raped by David Fletcher. LICADHO refused several requests to send a representative to court proceedings last month. LICADHO refuses to make any statement at all regarding the right of David Fletcher to a fair trial.
Now you, Mr Anonymous, try to reconcile all these facts without resorting to conjecture if, as has been the case here, LICADHO refuses to answer any questions. Bear in mind that conjecture is not always correct but it is a pathway to truth. There may well be a perfectly logical explanation that LICADHO could provide as to why it refuses to request a fair trial for David Fletcher. If this logical explanation provides a better answer to whatever speculations or conjectures I make I will be the first to admit it. This is the nature of dialogue, of debate. In a democracy no one person is in sole possession of the truth. Indeed, the whole scientific project of the last 500 years and much of what has led to the democratic processes we enjoy has been based on conjectures made and refuted and replaced by new conjectures. And so on.
...tobe continued...
...
DeleteWhere have I suggested that LICADHO is corrupt? Please point to one sentence. I have only made reference to LICADHO’S notable refusal to say anything in public about David Fletcher’s right to a fair trial. In 2008 I began to advocate on behalf of materially poor parents who had had their two eldest daughters illegally from the family by Citipointe Church’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’. The evidence of the church’s illegal actions was overwhelming and yet, over the six years it took me to get the girls returned to their family, LICADHO said not one word about this fellow NGO’s illegal removal. In the absence of any answers at all from Naly Pilorge over a period of close to six years I conjecture that her silence resulted from her lack of desire to criticize fellow NGOs in public. If this conjecture on my part is incorrect, Naly has had several years now to provide a logical explanation as to why she provided this family with no support at all.
In the final months of this particular attempt on my part to protect the legal and human rights of an impoverished Cambodian family I met with Dr Kek Pung (Presidnet of LICADH) on a few occasions. She was totally sympathetic to the plight of this family and wanted to help in whatever way she could. I was struck by Dr Pung’s warmth, her compassion, her intelligence and her genuine commitment to advocating for the human rights of poor families such as this one. However, this has never, to this day, translated into public criticism of fellow NGOs such as Citipointe church. Indeed (and please correct me if I am wrong) to the best of my knowledge LICADHO does not issue reports critical of NGOs engaged in what can best be described as ‘orphanage scams’ or those NGOs that trick materially poor Cambodians into placing their thumb prints on ‘contracts’ and then remove the children from their families. Where is the LICADHO report decrying the creation of fake orphans to feed the orphanage business? Perhaps there is one an I am unaware of it. If so, please provide me with the link to it.
There is no contradiction at all in LICADHO wishing to advocate on behalf of poor Cambodian’s who have their land stolen from them and their lack of desire to advocate on behalf of Caucasian men who have been accused of sex crimes. This is a big topic and not to be gone into right now. However, I believe that LICADHO (and other human rights groups) should not discriminate on any basis at all when it comes to defending the right of the accused to a fair trial – be he or she Khmer, Caucasian, Chinese or of any nationality, race or religion.
In the case of Mr Fletcher’s court appearance on 20th Nov the mere presence of LICADHO and ADHOC in court may have given the judges second thoughts about denying Mr Fletcher the re-trial they had offered him a few weeks earlier. And if not, LICADHO could have issued a statement along the lines of: “The three judges in the Phnom Penh Municipal Court reversed their decision to allow Mr Fletcher a re-trial on the grounds that certain paper work had not arrived at the court in time.” The total silence on the part of LICADHO and ADHOC, the total silence from the British Embassy in Cambodia (which likewise sent no observer) will have emboldened the judges. They will realize that when it comes to foreigners accused of sex crimes no-one is going to advocate on behalf of their right to affair trial. Such men are fair game. And this, in turn, emboldens unscrupulous NGOs whose income is dependent of a constant stream of sex offenders.
...to be continued...
...Where did I suggest that APLE murders journalists? As for APLE being a corrupt NGO the evidence for this is overwhelming, as will be revealed in due course.
DeleteWhoever you might be, Mr Anonymous, you give yourself away with this sentence: “I for one will not be losing sleep over a man who already has a conviction as a child sex offender, who subsequently moves to Cambodia and surrounds himself with children.”
If you bothered to deal with facts and not be guided by your own prejudices and preconceptions you would know that Mr Fletcher was convicted, in 1998, with having had consensual sex with an underage woman. The legal expression used to describe this offence is ‘statutory rape’. That Mr Fletcher’s having sex with a girl 3 months shy of the age of consent was wrong and illegal there can be no doubt. However, what the media has done, and what you are doing here, is making the leap from ‘statutory rape’ to ‘child sex offender’. Other journalists have taken this much further and alleged that Mr Fletcher was a well known serial child abuser. This makes for great sensational journalism but it not based in fact.
Let’s just say that, in 1998, Mr Fletcher had been accused of murder; been found guilty of murder. And then, in 2010 he was accused of murder again. According to the logic you are presenting here the fact that he was found guilty of murder in 1998 means he must be guilty in 2010. The reason why we have courts of law and why judgments are made on the basis of evidence and not the kinds of gut feelings that you seem to rely on is that convictions based on prejudices, preconceptions and suppositions of this kind (gut feelings) are unsafe and lead to innocent men and women being jailed.
As for your comment about Mr Fletcher surrounding himself with children you clearly haven’t thought about writing this sentence before writing it. There are many NGOs in Cambodia that surround themselves (work with) children about which the same could be said. The proposition that anyone who ‘surrounds’ himself with children is suspect is nonsense. It is also, alas, part of the problem we confront here – namely that in our desire (our appropriate desire) to protect children from sexual abuse we now see sex offenders (or potential sex offenders) in any man whose profile is similar to Mr Fletcher’s. The Mr Fletchers of the world become fair game for NGOs who need a constant stream of sex offenders to convince their sponsors and donors that they are doing a good job. Here it is necessary to distinguish between NGOs that conduct their activities in accordance with Cambodian law and in accordance with the human rights of the Cambodian people and those who do not. There are good NGOs, there are harmless NGOs who do no good but who do no harm either and there are corrupt NGOs that prey on Khmers and non-Khmers alike. One of Cambodia’s many problems is that there is no body, no organization, that monitors NGOs – leaving unscrupulous and corrupt NGOs to flourish with impunity. This is where LICADHO could play a pro-active role by holding NGOs accountable in the same way the LICADHO holds the Cambodian government accountable. One place to start could be:
(1) Ask all NGOs in Cambodia to verify that they are legally registered and publish a list of those tat either do not respond or that are not legally registered.
(2) Ask all NGOs to provide LICADHO with copies of whatever agreements they enter into with the Cambodians for whom they are providing services.
(3) Alert all recipients of aid from NGOs to their legal rights under Cambodian law. Provide potential recipients of NGO aid with advice regarding whatever contract they have been asked to sign.
(4) Provide all recipients of NGO aid with a hotline that they know they can call in the event that they feel a particular NGO has abrogated their legal or human rights.
...to be continued...
...There are many other things I could add to this list but this will have to suffice for the time being. In short, LICADHO could set up a mechanism whereby all NGOs are obliged to be publicly accountable for their activities in Cambodia. It would soon become apparent which NGOs wish to shroud their activities in secrecy and which are quite happy to be upfront about their modus operandi and the kinds of agreements they enter into with Cambodian clients. Such a policy on the part of LICADHO would not be designed to pin point particular NGOs but NGOs not committed to transparency, accountability and to working in accordance with Cambodian law would soon ‘out’ themselves.
DeleteIn the case I have referred to above, for instance, Citipointe maintained that the church had entered into a MOU firstly with the Cambodian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and secondly with the Ministry of Social Affairs giving it the legal right to remove two girls from their family. In six years of asking Citipointe refused to provide copies of these ‘contracts’. In the system I am suggesting here, the fact that Citipointe refused to provide copies of ‘contracts’ would be known by the entire NGO community. This knowledge itself would, I believe, act as a deterrent to NGOs who wish to bend the rules or make them up as they go along.
As for identifying Yang Dany, a few points. Firstly, back in 2010 she and her mother identified themselves to the media, allowed their photos to be taken. Secondly, Yang Dany is not a victim. She says as much in her interview and what she says is backed up by the medical report presented to the court. I have only published one graphic from the report but the 9 page report in its entirety makes it clear that Yang Dany was not raped. It is the role of journalists and documentary filmmakers to seek out the facts behind appearances. As it happens no-one, until I stumbled upon this case, had bothered to look at the court documents. If they had they would have encountered the doctor’s report and the statement by the judges in which they accounted for Yang Dany’s intact hymen by stating that it must have grown back.
If you happen to be a man, Mr Anonymous, what would you expect me to do if you were in Mr Fletcher’s position? If you had been accused of a rape that you could not have committed because you were not in the country at the time, if the woman remained a virgin afterwards and if the woman admitted that no rape had taken place, would you think of her as a ‘victim’ or would you see yourself as a victim of a miscarriage of justice?
Please feel free to ask my any questions you like but I would suggest that constructive dialogue is only possible if you refrain from making generalized statements about my ‘smearing’ LICADHO. In any instance that you believe I have done so, call me on it, ask me to back up my statement and I’ll do my best to respond appropriately.
Anonymous December 2014 at 6.12pm - fantastic post - it read as if I was writing it myself. Well done!
ReplyDeleteRicketons' delusions of conspiracy have become laughable. More seriously is the point you make where Ricketson has gone by himself to meet a young lady who at this point in time is a victim of sexual assault and interviewed her on video. Did you explain to her in your fluent Khmer James what you were doing? Did you advise her that her interview would be shown all over the world and her face known as a potential rape victim? Did you get her to sign a disclaimer allowing you to place her interview on the public forum? Did you consider the trauma you are creating by talking to this young girl again some years after she was assaulted?
I wonder if she now knows that her name and image has gone onto social media and many people now know that she was sexually assaulted or at least suspected of being the victim of such assault.
You should be ashamed of yourself Ricketson!
No response from Ricketson about my above post. Well perhaps everyone will be interested to watch this video. Not sure how the girl who was locked in a room and had her pants ripped off by Fletcher conspired with the NGO's to make up such a compelling story. Your bullshit is becoming very stinky Mr. Ricketson http://www.channelnewsasia.com/tv/tvshows/undercover-asia-s2/cambodia-s-child/1575012.html
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous
DeleteI did not respond to your comment because, what with it being Christmas and my being on holidays, I missed it. I will respond now.
(1) I had a woman fluent in Khmer translating for me. On my first meeting with Yang Dany and her mother I did not film. I asked them both for permission to film. They both gave it to me.
(2) Yes, I told them both that the interview would be used for a documentary.
(3) No, I did not get a written statement from Yang Dany and her mother regarding the use of the interview. I got this on tape.
(4) The young girl you refer to is a 22 year old woman now and was free to say no to being interviewed if she so wished.
(5) I have now watched the video. I had not seen it before. It raises some very interesting points and should be seen by any and everyone with an interest in the context of this blog.
(6) As I have said, I will respond to this video in more detail soon. In the meantime, do bear in mind that many of the facts in this documentary are incorrect insofar as David Fletcher is concerned. Yang Dany was, at the time of the alleged rapes (March 2009) 17 years old not 15, and David Fletcher has never been convicted of a pedophile offence. He was convicted of having had consensual sex with a 15 year old girl. This is/was 'statutory rape' and not a 'pedophile' offence.
I will ask Nick Griffin to respond to the sections of the documentary that refer to him and publish what he writes.
There is clearly a huge problem with unregistered 'orphanages' run by unqualified personnel - a point well made by James Sutherland.
Perhaps I have missed it but has LICADHO ever publically criticised such 'orphanges' and other NGOs engaged in legal and human rights abuses? This is a genuine question.
I would be curious to know when this documentary went to air; when it was produced - if anyone knows the answer to this question.
Dear Anonymous (above)
DeleteYou are right, many people will be interested in watching this video - though possibly not for the reasons you think. The response from Nick Griffin speaks for itself:
"Hi James
I too hadn’t seen this before. It’s shocking and very helpful at the same time. The allegations about me are total fabrication and incredibly inaccurate in facts , which is why none of what they claimed in 2010 was ever submitted to me or used in court as evidence! You can only ask yourself why not? This has been my experience throughout this living nightmare. APLE only need to say something and everyone believes it. No one is interested in checking the fact’s. They came to know that they can get away with saying whatever they want about a person. It’s amazing that I have to find out what I was being accused of from a television programme. To watch it and see the head of APLE blatantly lying to a TV camera is disturbing unless he honestly believes or wants to believe what he is told by his staff. As to be expected the programme is a promotional video for APLE, totally based on what APLE were telling the TV company for public consumption and promotion of their interests i.e. catching paedophiles and closing orphanages. Also interesting that the Cambodian national police play such a small part in it and are careful to maintain distance between themselves and APLE! This is the vigilante at it’s height. Would it not have been better to see a full programme promoting the Cambodian police being properly funded, trained and supported to do this work and making them publically accountable?
The programme is professionally directed and made which would lead people to believe it and give credibility to APLE. Unfortunately it fails to provide any balance i.e. covering the many criticisms and alleged criminal actions of APLE, it’s employees and volunteers or of examining the many cases of those claiming to have been set up by APLE – me being one of those. They have failed to give the individuals against who they make claims the right to be involved in the programme and give their side of the story. Once again judge, jury and executioner.
...to be continued
....
DeleteI will be looking to sue the TV company who I hope in turn will sue APLE. I’m still trying to find out who these 10-15 children are that I’m supposed to have abused at the orphanage/s. Interesting that this is what APLE were putting about as the reason to force the Cambodian national police to arrest me and explains the bewilderment of the police when they turned up and couldn’t find anything wrong including after having interviewed all the children and staff. Even after I had been held in the prison for 5 1/2 months there were no allegations put to me.
I like the photo of me with my hand on the shoulder of a child as we went into Siem Reap children’s hospital – I wonder how many parents and carers would associate with that picture when put into context? I also note the T shirt I was wearing in another innocent picture which shows the picture was taken in 2007 proving I had been chosen for APLE’s CDP (character demolition process) a year prior to them making their first false allegation. This allegation was also full of lies and inaccuracies to such an extent that it was thrown out by two courts, one in 2008 and another in 2011 even whilst I was at my lowest mental state to defend myself. I’ve noticed over the last 3 years as I’ve been investigating what happened and collecting evidence that each new piece of information I get hold of produces a slightly different set of allegations. I think investigators would expect that where the truth is being told there would be continuity.
I must say it was brave of APLE to admit on camera that one of their own ex-staff was under suspicion and this reflects the incident I experienced when one of APLE’s staff, a ‘social worker’ admitted in my 2 hour ‘trial’ that she and APLE’s lawyer had visited a defence witnesses’ home the day before the trial and offered her money to change her story. The APLE employee told the judge her boss had told her to! Intimidation of a defence witness and trying to pervert the course of justice are serious criminal offences. However in reality it wouldn’t have made any difference as I was told the verdict and sentence before arriving at the courthouse for the ‘trial’ anyway.
As I want to get this into court I won’t go into further detail but coming across this programme will certainly help my case particularly if people can start to look at it objectively and understand the operating methods of APLE. Yes APLE’s methods do catch some paedophiles but innocent men and more so innocent children are being caught up in it. Surely this cannot be acceptable to any decent human being?
It would be very helpful to know when it was filmed and when it was broadcast.
Thanks"
This documentary is just another one of APLE's perfectly orchestrated promotion videos. In this case it's a joint venture with Scott Neeson.
ReplyDeleteMost footage comes from...APLE, all information and 'evidence' comes from APLE. Not a single police official or court official is being ask to verify what APLE presents as the truth.
'Victims' and families are carefully chosen by APLE, before they allow them to be interview. The families probably still waiting for their promised $5000 compensation, or in the case of Yang Dany $30.000
The only person that is trustworthy in the entire documentary is James Sutherland.
Friends International is genuinely protecting children, whereas APLE is only interested in convictions and violates the rights of children and their families. James Sutherland is correct about the 'Orphanage Business' being an industry. The same goes for the 'Child Protection Industry', the kind of business APLE and Scott Neeson are involved in.
The two boys sitting in front of a small barred window didn't look very comfortable under the 'loving care' of APLE's 'shelter'. These children only remain there to practice their statements for the hearing in court. The children are very aware of that.
They should be out playing instead of being abused for APLE's promotional campaigns!
After the Orphanage Industry Cambodia is now becoming a jungle of NGO's doing police work. Every one of these NGO's is donor depended and can therefore never do independent police investigation!
There are many observations to be made about this documentary (which amounts to an infomercial for APLE and Scott Neeson) and I will be making them in due course. I will mention but one right now and it is one that I think anyone involved in the pursuit of genuine pedophiles will agree on.
DeleteThe filmmakers, with the blessing and assistance of APLE, identify a 'Dutch national' whom the NGO is investigating. There is blurry footage of him. Now I would think that any Dutchman who looks at this footage would recognise himself and the children, regardless of the blurring of the images, and leave Cambodia immediately. Only a rank amateur would provide such information in a documentary to be broadcast internationally and thus compromise their own investigation.
It will be interesting to see if LICADHO approves of this 'reality TV' approach to investigations into sex crimes?
Why is it that whenever any person comments on Ricketsons blogs or suggests anything in contradiction to him, he immediately goes on the aggressive defensive and blasts the comments as untrue - why, because Ricketson is always correct according to him. Then to boost his credibility, comments from the actual people charged with sex offences i.e. Fletcher and Griffin - who of course must be all innocent as they were framed and their comments must be more true than credible people running NGO's. And lets forget that these abusers of children have been convicted by a court of law - well the courts must be part of the massive conspiracy as well.
ReplyDeleteGive me a break - these blogs are fast becoming a forum for disgruntled pedophiles and child abusers and Ricketson and his small group of followers would all like it if we followed them into their 'Jack and the bean stalk' fairy world.
Dear Anonymous
ReplyDeleteYour tone and style are now familiar to me and my guess is that you've written four or five anonymous comments recently. W, if all that I write on my blog is lies or nonsense, do you bother to read it?
Which of the comments on my blog have I responded to with "Aggressive defensive...blasts"? Without knowing, it is difficult form to comment.
When have I suggested that "Fletcher and Griffin...must all (be) innocent"? I am not familiar with the fine details of Griffin's case, but I am with Fletcher's. What I have advocated all along is for Fletcher's right to be provided with a fair trial. There has been no such trial, contrary to what you write. Fletcher was in Thailand in 2011 when a trial was held in secret - illegal in accordance with Cambodian law.
If, on the basis of evidence presented to the court, in a properly constituted trial, he is found guilty, fair enough. This has not happened.
As I have written many times, all those accused of a crime in Cambodia (be they Khmer or non-Khmer) are entitled to a fair trial. You would have to be blind not to acknowledge that there are serious problems with the Cambodian judicial system. This applies to Khmers and non-Khmers.
For my latest attempt to lead my small group of followers into my 'Jack and the bean stalk fairy world' take a look at:
http://cambodia440.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/80-cambodias-child-predators-some.html
cheers
James
How convenient Ricketson - you jump up and down and defame people, claiming massive conspiracy and in your second breath, you say well if it all comes out that Fletcher is actually guilty, then so be it, you will retract your comments. And will you be making a public apology to all the NGO's and CEO's that you have defamed? Will you be happy to pay compensation when they sue you? What a disgraceful position you are now in!
DeleteWhy is it that Scott Neeson is always on camera holding and hugging a child (mostly a girl)? Try to Google for images of him. There's not a single image to be found where he's NOT hugging a child.
ReplyDelete'Credible people running NGO's' you say? Have you ever Googled APLE founder Thierry Darnaudet?
If you take footage of Scott Neeson, blur his face, play it slow motion, put some sad music under it and add some serious accusations of sexual abuse in the comments, every person in the world would believe he was guilty.
This is the modus operandi of APLE.
Don't be naive please.