Dear Alexandra Wolfe
It is a pity you did not
do a little more research before you wrote your hagiographic piece about Scott
Neeson:
From Hollywood Executive to
Philanthropist
(http://www.wsj.com/articles/scott-neeson-from-hollywood-executive-to-philanthropist-1434134269)
If you had even typed
‘Scott Neeson’ into google you would have discovered that there are questions
you needed to ask Scott Neeson if you were to write anything other than a
public relations piece to help him raise money for the Cambodian Children’s
Fund.
These are questions that
journalists almost never ask him. Like you they rely only on the PR material
provided to them by Neeson – combined, perhaps, with a skype interview in which
Neeson trots out a very familiar (and factually inaccurate) account of his life
and his achievements in Cambodia.
Just as those who read
your Neeson PR piece (this is not journalism, Alexandra) should take what you
write with a large grain of salt, so too should you (and others reading this)
take what I write with a huge grain of salt. Check the facts for yourself; ask
questions.
You could start here,
with some questions I asked of Heather Graham – a Hollywood actress who also
spruiks for the Cambodian Children’s Fund:
http://cambodia440.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/115-some-questions-heather-graham-might.html
It seems not to have occurred
to you (or to many journalists) that, as a marketing person (and a highly
skilled one, spruiking for Hollywood!) that Scott Neeson knows precisely what
to say about himself to elicit the response he wants – which is to get new sponsors
and donors to open their hearts and wallets.
Scott has a secondary
objective, and it may well be the one most important to him in the long run - to
solidify the narrative myth about his life that he has been propagating for
years now:
Scott Neeson, knight in white
shining armour, on his white steed riding into the Phnom Penh rubbish dump to
rescue children living in squalor who have no families to take care of them; no
hope for the future.
This is great story and,
no doubt, this will be the major theme of the autobiography he will write and
which, he hopes, will be made into a Hollywood film to perpetuate the Scott
Neeson myth.
I wonder if Scott will I
include in his biography the fact that he has, as head of the Cambodian
children’s Fund Child Protection unit, a man James Mc Cabe who is a convicted
criminal! With half an hour of internet research you would have found the
following, Alexandra:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/ex-nca-cops-plea-deal-over-drug-sting/story-e6frg6o6-1111116525996
The overwhelming majority
of the children Scott Neeson takes into
residential care, have families. They have mums and dads who love their
children but who, through circumstances beyond their control, are desperately
poor and unable to adequately feed, care for and educate their children.
Very often the extreme
poverty of these families is the result of a serious illness that resulted in
doctor and hospital bills that they could not pay. Such debts led them to borrow
money from rapacious money lenders whose interest rates render the debts owed
virtually impossible to repay. This in turn leads to their losing their only
assets – their homes and land. Given the lack of work in the countryside they
gravitate to Phnom Penh, where they find that there are virtually no jobs for
unskilled workers other than the most demeaning and dangerous. And so it is
that many of these families wind up working in and living alongside the Phnom
Penh rubbish dump.
When Scott Neeson arrives
on the scene, offering to help these families, the mums and dads, who want the
best for their children, do not ask any questions about the terms and
conditions of such help. The simply say, “Yes, please, help us raise our
children.”
Scott Neeson does, in
fact, impose some very onerous conditions on the help he provides. He forces
the mums and dads to sign contracts with the Cambodian Children’s Fund but does
not allow them to show the contracts to any independent third party and nor
does he allow the parents to keep a copy of the contract. He then tells the
parents, if they should ask for their children back, that they have signed a contract that essentially
‘gives’ them to CCF until they are 18 years old. He then claims, in his tax
return statement to the IRS, that he is spending $4,000 a year housing and
educating these children. Don’t take my word for it. Check this out for
yourself:
Neeson does not tell the
families just how much money CCF is making out of caring for their children. Do
the sums yourself, bearing in mind that the sum of $4,000 Neeson claims to
spend on each child in institutional care in any one year is more than double
the amount of money the average Cambodian family earns in a year.
And if you want to find
out what happens when any of the families whose children Neeson has in institutional
care get behind in their rent, check out the following:
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve280RWEV5w
Alexandra, I did not expect
such lazy journalism from someone working for the Wall St Journal. By not
bothering to do even the most minimal research or to ask any questions at all
you have provided Scott Neeson with just the kind of free advertising he needs
and wants in order to keep the Cambodian Children’s Fund afloat.
Neeson’s business model
requires that he have a constant stream of children to rescue. This in turn
requires that he convinces potential sponsors and donors that he is the only
person who can help these children. This in turn requires that he sidelines the
parents, the families, the communities to which these children belong. Finally,
in order to sell his ‘knight in white shining armour message to the world he
needs journalists whom, he knows, will publish whatever PR material he provides
them with and call it journalism.
The charity sector in the
US is rife with scams that should be exposed, if you would ever feel inclined
to do some real journalistic research:
Please, Alexandra, the
next time you and/or the Wall St Journal might feel inclined to write a
hagiographic piece about a charity, do your homework first.
best wishes
James Ricketson
Does the WSJ actually do any research or only post what someone tells them?
ReplyDeleteDo you really support and organization that has taken over 700 children from their families? Please follow the link below to see how CCF really treats the impoverished.
This organization has taken over 700 children from their families, to be raised in institutional care. If you think that is such a good idea, then please send your own children to institutional care. In 2013, they raised over $10.6M or nearly $30,000 per DAY 365 days a year.
This organization has as the head of its child protection unit (CPU), a convicted felon who stole drugs and money while he worked in drug enforcement for the Australian Crime Commission. According to 'The Australian', he fled to Cambodia after the PIC hearings and was informally extradited back to Australia to stand trial last year (2007). The full article is here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/ex-nca-cops-plea-deal-over-drug-sting/story-e6frg6o6-1111116525996
If you'd like to see how CCF actually deals with the impoverished, check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve280RWEV5w
Does anyone think that this is a great example of management that you want to give your hard earned money to??
Learn the real story, follow this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve280RWEV5w
So, "local dealers have made threats against him (Neeson) and threw acid on the face of an employee, so now the country’s Interior Ministry has assigned bodyguards to protect him."
ReplyDeleteThis does not ring true to me.
I hope that some journalist asks the Interior Ministry if, in fact, it has assigned body guards to protect Scott Neeson.
From what I have heard the acid throwing incident had nothing at all to do with CCF but was a personal vendetta. Mr Neeson's stories get more and more unbelievable as time goes by!
This story was obviously written by Neeson himself - filled with carefully worded bullshit.
ReplyDeleteHim having Government appointed a bodyguards is bullshit. Neeson's had a guy on the payroll for years now to protect him from angry parents who want their kids back And no mention of his child protection unit.
Notice no mention of the 700 kids he has locked up!
Somaly Mam was a saint compared to this guy
I wonder if Credit Suisse and the other major patrons of CCF ever ask any of the questions Mr Ricketson asks? I guess not!!!!!!!!!!!! If they did how could they seriously beliueve taking children from their families is a good idea in 2015
ReplyDeleteAnother blog and comments from a bunch of fucking losers who have nothing better to do than to hide anonymously behind your keyboards and smear the reputations of good people who are trying their best to help others. Absolutely shameful!
ReplyDeleteAnd before you write that I am a Neeson lover or an NGO worker - I am neither. in fact I dont like Neeson, but this isn't about personalities, its about whether or not the guy is making a difference. And that answer is yes he has.
Dear Anonymous 6.25
DeleteWhy do you bother to comment on a blog written by a loser and upon which comments are left by other losers?
I do not hide anonymously. I am quite prepared to put my name to what I write and to have any factual errors I make pointed out to me. If I get any facts wrong, I should be attacked on this basis and, if I do not correct them, should suffer reputational damage as a result.
The question is not whether or not Scott is making a difference. The question is:
"What difference?"
All NGOs make a difference but, I would argue (based on experience) that the 'difference' they make is very often not a good one - especially when it comes to NGOs who are in the 'rescue' business. The Cambodian Children's Fund is but one of many whose business model necessitates the removal of children from their families. Some of these are fake 'orphanages' and some, like CCF, make no pretence at being 'orphanages' but must maintain the illusion that there is no alternative to the removal of children from their families. There is an alternative and it is one that has been demonstrated, time and again, to be superior to removal and institutionalisation of children - namely, to help these materially impoverished children within a family and community context.
I agree with you that liking or not liking Neeson is irrelevant. I have never met Scott and have no reason to like or dislike him as a person. However, I do believe that he is wrong, that CCF is wrong, to remove children from their families - at least 700 of them - and refuse to return them when asked to do so. And I do believe it is wrong for Scott to declare in CCF's tax returns that he is spending $4,000 a year to house and educate one kid. If you live in Cambodia, if you are familiar with the country, you will know that $4,000 a year is considerably more than most cambodian families live on.
As for criticising those who make anonymous comments, this is a bit rich coming from someone who has posted his/her comment anonymously.
If you wish to waste your time responding to 'losers' such as myself in future, you are more than welcome to do so. It is to be hoped, however, that you attack the content of what I write and not use the epithet 'loser' to avoid dialogue. If I am factually wrong in anything I write, point it out to me.
The fact that I refer to you as a loser is reflective of the insignificant contribution you make to the Cambodian community and reflective of the fact that you are a serial complainer. You only need to refer back to your countless blogs to see the common trend - that is you Mr. Ricketson attacking the reputations of any person who acts in a way that you personally think is acting disgracefully. It is never based on proven facts, more that is gossip, innuendo and plain bullshit on your behalf. Your blogs are just vexatious attacks. Why do I waste my time to comment on here anonymously - simple - so I can add some sensible comment that are country to the gutter trash that you write.
ReplyDeleteLoser - a perfect adjective for you Mr. Ricketson.
Very well said Anonymous 7.51, Ricketson is indeed a loser who has never made anything of his life (except some film clip he made umpteen years ago that got nominated for some sort of award and he has been riding on the glory of ever since) He gets his jollies from trying to drag others down who are doing good purely out of jealousy. He has no idea what goes on within CCF or the amount of good Scott Neeson does for the community in Steung Meanchey. And before he questions why I follow his blog it is only because I am waiting for the day that "Fletch the Letch" gets his just desserts because I know for whatever his private reasons are, Ricketson will still be proclaiming the innocence of a convicted (in 2 countries) child sex offender and I want to hear of Fletchers demise first hand. Ricketson will no doubt make sure the world knows of his great friends "persecution" once he snuffs it and portray the rock spider as a martyr
DeleteDear Anonymous 7.51
DeleteThe world is not made up of winners and losers.
You use the word 'loser' as an intended insult but all I can do is shake my head is dismay and wonder if you see yourself as a 'winner'. Do you? If so, why? A winner in your ow2n eyes or the eyes of others?
As for the contribution i make to the Cambodian community, what does this have to do with my dual roles of documentary filmmaker and journalist? Are you suggesting that no journalist or documentary filmmaker is entitled to investigate a subject unless they are involved in whatever activity it is they are investigating?
What you see as 'serial complaining' an investigative journalist sees as merely their job. If I had been writing about Somaly Mam in the years leading up to her her public exposure by Simon Marks you would, no doubt, have accused me of 'serially complaining'.
Those who object to what it is that investigative journalists do must, inevitably, try to discredit them in whatever way they can - calling them a 'loser' (and hurling other such epithets), threatening them, dragging them into court and so on. These forms of low (and not so low) intimidation go with the job.
What you will never do, is actually point out to me (and hence others reading this blog) which of my facts are wrong. Take my reference to the fact that Scott Neeson claims to be spending $4,000 a year on each child he has in residential care, for instance. Have I just plucked this figure out of thin air? No, it is to be found on the internet at:
https://www.cambodianchildrensfund.org/images/stories/financial/CCF_990_Form_2013.pdf
Unless the Cambodian Children's Fund has lied to the IRS, this $4,000 figure is a fact. Now, please explain to me and the readers here just how Neeson can claim to be spending $4,000 a year to keep one child in institutional care for a year?
If you can rationalise this in some way (and I am eager to hear how you do so) please then provide some justification for CCF providing no real assistance to the families whose children are earning CCF $4,000 a year? I have spoken with many of these families. In one case, a single mother who had, at one point, 5 of her kids in CCF care, was supporting her other 3 kids on a $1,000 a year income working in the Phnom Penh rubbish dump. So, whilst CCF rakes in $20,000 to take care of 5 of her kids each year, she must support the other 3 on $1,000 a year. The only assistance she gets from CCF is $250 a year of rice support.
Following on...
DeleteIf you believe that what I have written here is 'bullshit' please explain to me in what way it is bullshit? Please do add some 'sensible comment' based in fact. If you are at all interested in a more detailed account of how it is I got involved in the world of Scott Neeson and CCF in the first place, go to the following blog:
http://cambodianchildrensfund.blogspot.com/2014/05/is-scott-neeson-knight-in-shining.html
Here you will find out, in some detail, just how and why it is I believe Neeson to be much less than he presents himself to the world as being.
One last thing. Here's another fact for you - Neeson's quote from Andrew Drummond's article in which he defames David Fletcher:
Now, did Neeson say this to Drummond? I have asked Neeson if he did countless times. He has passed up all the opportunities to say, "I never said such a thing."
I think it fair to presume that Neeson did say it. Now lets just say I made such a statement about Neeson? You, and all readers of this would be outraged, quite justifiably, at my having defamed Scott. Indeed, Scott would be quite within his rights to sue for defamation and would, in a court in Australia, the UK, the US (and Cambodia) win his case. The only possible justification I could have for making such a statement (in a legal sense)would be if I could back it up with evidence.
I have asked Scott many times if he has any evidence that David Fletcher was grooming young girls. He has never provided any.
I could go on about the huge gap between who Scott Neeson actually is and how he presents himself to be but this is enough. Eventually the truth will emerge - though perhaps not until after Scott has written his biography in Tuscany and some intrepid journalist then goes on the hunt for the truth. Perhaps this will not happen until there is a Hollywood film about Saint Scott Neeson in the works and Scott is a tall enough poppy for a hungry young journalist to want to pull down.
The same media that is happy to publish hagiography about Scott in 2015 will quite happily expose him as a fraud in 2016 or 2017 - as Somaly Mam found out eventually.
The fat lady has not sung yet.
I forgot to edit into my previous reply Scott Neeson's statement to Andrew Drummond - the discredited journalist whose piece on David Fletcher plays a very significant role in his downfall:
ReplyDelete"
“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.”
Scott Neeson, speaking to journalist Andrew Drummond in June 2010. Fletcher was ‘sent packing’ one month later and has been in jail ever since.
Dear Anonymous 9.23
ReplyDeleteImagine this: Let’s just sway your name was Peter. Another man by the same first name – Peter Hogan – decides for his own reasons (and he makes no pretense otherwise) that he wants to destroy your reputation and see you in jail. He nick-names you ‘Pete the Perve’. The nick-name has a nice sound to it and the readers of the blog can smell blood and just love to read as much as they can about ‘Pete the Perve’. It doesn’t really matter if what they read is true or not. It’s a great story. It is blood sport. You have no defense. When you are torn to pieces in public, when you wind up in jail, there is a loud cheer from some and a lack of interest from others who think that the very epithet ‘Pewte the Perve’ must be based in fact.
If you are capable of empathy, if you are capable of stepping inbto another man’s shoes, imagine what it must be like to spend five years in jail for a crime you could not have committed – namely the rape of a young woman who (a) says she was not raped and (b) whose hymen was intact after the alleged rapes.
Unfortunately, in this new digital age, cowards such as yourself can hurl whatever abuse you like at whomsoever you like and there is nothing they can do about it. For many people with thick skins, the abuse just sails past them and they get on with their lives. For others the abuse can be devastating. For yet others, in this instance David Fletcher, the kind of name-calling and verbal abuse that you engage in can have real life consequences – namely, creating a climate (through innuendo, rumour and scuttlebutt) that leads to discredited gutter journalists like Andrew Drummond seeing some mileage in doing a hatchet job on someone like David Fletcher. Peter Hogan had done all the ground work necessary and Scott Neeson, with his comment about David Fletcher ‘grooming’ young girls, added his little piece of fuel to the fire that eventually consumed David Fletcher and sees him in jail to this day.
If you have any evidence at all that David Fletcher raped Yang Dany, bring it forward. If you have any evidence at all that David Fletcher was ‘grooming’ young girls, bring it forward.
You will not. You have no interest at all in facts or evidence. You have latched onto the ‘Fletch the Letch’ label and you will not let it go under any circumstances.
LOL James, just take a look at your paragraph beginning "Unfortunately, in this new digital age" I look at what your entire blog is about and realise you are the biggest hypocrite that has ever hit the electronic media" exactly what are you doing if it is not creating a climate (through innuendo, rumour and scuttlebutt) about Scott Neeson. Fletch the Letch as I have commented previously is a convicted child sex offender in 2 countries FACT. Not innuendo, rumour and scuttlebutt. 1 country maybe he would get the benefit of doubt but 2 judicial systems (and his family) have not all got it wrong
DeleteDear Anonymous 1.33
DeleteAs you have revealed many times, you have a strange sense of humour!
I know that reliance on facts is not a strong point of yours but please do give me (us) some examples of 'innuendo, rumour and scuttlebutt' perpetrated by myself?
I have dealt with/written about David Fletcher's one criminal offence (yes, one) so many times now and can see little point in doing so again. The second charge - the alleged rape of Yang Dany - has never been tested in court. It is an offence that the 'victim' claims never happened and which a doctor's report claimed didn't happen.
For someone who thinks I am a loser and that this blog is crap, you sure waste a lot of time commenting here. have you got nothing better to do with your life?
James, your whole blog is innuendo rumour and scuttlebutt. Yes, no matter how you try to twist it Fletcher is a convicted sex offender in two countries. That is why he is in prison (thankfully) because he was CONVICTED. We are not talking about a charge, we are talking about a conviction legally placed by a court of law and no matter how much you and he might try and squirm out of it he is indeed a convicted child sex offender in 2 countries. You cannot change the fact that he has 2 convictions as stated earlier. Your views on his innocence or guilt are irrelevant to this fact.
DeleteIf Neeson lived in Australia, Ricketson would be charged by police with stalking as his constant personal attacks, apart from being hauntingly obsessive, do fit into the stalking mandate - there would be a great chance that Neeson would be awarded an order by the court to stop Ricketson annoying him and trying to ruin his reputation based on false innuendo. Neeson would also have Ricketson tied up with so much civil litigation that Ricketson wouldn't be able to write a single word. But of course, Ricketson knows that the Cambodian courts haven't fully grasped the idea of defamation and stalking and using the internet to destroy a person reputation, hence why Ricketson continues to write the blogs.
ReplyDeleteNow please clarify something for me Ricketson - who gave you the authority to be an investigative journalist. You dont work for any news agency so is this a term that you have self awarded? It sounds like it. I might start calling myself a President or perhaps a Chairman - after all it seems in your mind that you can call yourself anything you like without the credentials.
From the Urban Dictionary -loser – n. A person who has fallen off the social ladder, climbed down the social ladder, jumped off the social ladder, or just never bothered to climb the social ladder in the first place. Upon arrival on the ground, losers begin to befriend fellow groundlings and realize how much fun a person can have when gravity isn’t an issue. It is perfectly acceptable to insult losers, because they have nowhere to fall to and it won’t hurt much. They will end up laughing about it later, anyways. Every now and then, a loser will glance at the top of the social ladder, but it is never long before they realize how pointless and stupid the top of the ladder is.
Dear Anonymous 7.44
ReplyDeletePlease identify one person attack I have made on Scott Neeson. Just one.
What I have done is what any investigative journalist does - ask questions. This I have been doing since my first online encounters with Neeson a few years back when it became apparent, in his emails to me, that he had scant regard for the truth. My involvement solidified when I was asked by the parents of two girls to help them have their daughters returned to the family. Scott refused to do so. He told me (and this is all on the record) that he had entered into a contract with the parents and had no intention of returning them. The parents insisted that they had signed no such 'contract' with CCF. Neeson insisted that they had but refused to produce the 'contract'. He also told me that CCF had arranged for the family to be resettled back in their province. This was a lie.
OK, so that is how it began. You can read the Cambodian Children's Fund blog for a blow by blow account of what happened over a period of a few years. Given that I have never met Scott, never had a conversation with him, our relationship has occurred entirely in emails back and forth - 95% of which can be found on the blog. It is up to you and anyone else who may wish to read these exchanges to make up your own minds about both myself and Scott.
You can call investigative journalism 'stalking' if you like but I will stick with the term 'investigative journalism. As for who bestowed this title on me, I did. In 1974 I published my first article and, this past 40 years, have been involved in countless 'investigations' into a variety of topics, issues.
As for Scott tying me up with civil litigation, he is free to do so and could do so in Australia if he so chose. He will not because he knows that in any court case rules of evidence would apply. He also knows that the media would take an interest and start asking the questions I have been asking. It is easy for Scott to ignore my questions and to get his cheer squad (of which you are a member) to try and discredit me in any way they can. It would be much harder for Scott to refuse to answer questions put to him by a lawyer in court or by journalists who were taking an interest.
Scott is a master at marketing and unfortunately I have come along to ask questions that have the potential to burst the bubble of the image of himself that he wants to present to the world. Scott is now in something of a Catch 22 dilemma now. On the one hand he wants to write the story of his life (in Tuscany!) with a view to having it made into a film which depicts the classic hero's journey. On the other hand, the higher a profile he crates for himself the more he makes himself a target. Would Somaly Mam's story have seen the light of day if she had not courted Hollywood stars and created such a dominant public profile for herself? Probably not.
Once Scott publishes his book and options the movie rights (if he has not done so already) there will be plenty of hungry young investigative journalists sniffing around to find out which bits of the book are true, which are of doubtful authenticity and which are lies. Any such young investigative journalist would start knocking on doors around Steung Meanchey and asking questions - 'stalking' Scott to use your own vernacular.
As for the urban dictionary definition of the word 'loser', I can only smile and shake my head at your hope that calling me a 'loser' will cause me to lose sleep!
No doubt you see yourself as being at the top of the ladder. I trust that the view is good from up there but, judging from the tenor or your comments, I suspect that it is not since when you look down all you see if masses of losers, including myself.
I trust that you have some good company at the top of your ladder!
cheers
James (loser) Ricketson
Anonymous 7:44, Are you implying that stating that Neeson has taken over 700 children from their familes is 'false innuendo? Or that claiming Neeson said '“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.” is Innuendo? Or that Neeson won't give children back to parents that want their children returned, is innuendo.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that you are unhappy with the facts about Neeson, and that is very easy to understand! I believe Neeson should be in jail for taking these children from their families..
Interesting point about Neeson and jail Anonymous 9:11. Wouldn't Neeson be in jail if he were in Australia and took over 700 children to practice parental rights over the children and denying the families parental rights, without ANY qualifications (not even a high school diploma)?? Denying the rights of a child to grow up with their family!!
ReplyDeleteNone of what Neeson or any other NGOs involved in the 'child removal' business in Cambodia would be possible in Australia, thank God.
DeleteEven in Cambodia, if the rule of law applied, Neeson would be found guilty of the illegal removal and detention of the two girls I have mentioned in accordance with:
Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation
Article 8:Definition of Unlawful Removal
The act of unlawful removal removal in this act shall mean to:
1) Remove a person from his/her current place of residence to a place under the actor’s or a third persons control by means of force, threat, deception, abuse of power, or enticement, or
2) Without legal authority or any other legal justification to do so to take a minor person under general custody or curatoship or legal custody away from the legal custody of the parents, care taker or guardian.
Article 9: Unlawful removal, inter alia, of Minor
A person who unlawfully removes a minor or a person under general custody or curatorship or legal custody shall be punished with imprisonment for 2 to 5 years.
How do we get them to enforce their own laws so that Neeson can sit inside the walls of prison to grow old in institutional care, like the children he has taken?
DeleteYou are not telling me that the children in Neeson's care are surrounded by walls that are topped with 'barbed/razor wire', ARE YOU???
DeleteRemember Somaly Mam?
ReplyDeleteThis time 15 months ago she was a saint – feted in Hollywood. She was brought down by good investigative journalism; not by scuttlebutt, innuendo and rumour.
If Scott Neeson has done no wrong he has nothing to fear. If there are skeleton in the closet, they will see the light od day – even if he is, as he says, close to Cambodia’s “next Prime Minister” and has good connections with the Ministry of the interior. Hey, they are providing him with bodyguards to protect him from drug cartels he is fighting against.
Has anyone bothered to ask the Minister for the Interior if this story is true?
Cambodian Activist’s Fall Exposes Broad Deception
By THOMAS FULLER
JUNE 14, 2014
PHNOM PENH, Cambodia — The fall from grace of one of Cambodia’s most prominent social activists and the unraveling of her sad tale of being an orphan sold into sex slavery has highlighted what aid workers here say is widespread embellishment and in some cases outright deception in fund-raising, especially among the country’s orphanages.
Somaly Mam, who rose from rural poverty in Cambodia to become a jet-setting and glamorous symbol of the fight against the exploitation of women and children, stepped down last month from the United States-based charitable organization that carries her name after details of her widely publicized story were thrown into question.
Ms. Mam — who has been praised and supported by Hollywood stars and United States government officials and celebrated by the American media — reinforced the image of Cambodia as a destitute country still suffering from its legacy of genocide, helping generate millions of dollars for charities.
But activists say her story is part of a larger tale of deception meant to attract foreign money into impoverished Cambodia. Such duplicity, they say, has drawn some foreign donors into unwittingly perpetuating a system that keeps thousands of poor children with parents in orphanages for years.
Although some families send children because they cannot provide basic care, others are lured by the institutions’ promises that the children will receive a better education. But child advocates say the orphanages are often more intent on making money and too rarely make good on their promises.
Sébastien Marot, the director of Friends International, a charity that specializes in helping children in Cambodia and neighboring countries, said the organizations misrepresented themselves as orphanages because it helped them raise money. “An orphanage is an easy sell,” he said. “They are distorting reality so that they can attract more compassion and money.”
A government study conducted five years ago found that 77 percent of children living in Cambodia’s orphanages had at least one parent.
More...
The empathy of foreigners — who not only deliver contributions, but also sometimes open their own institutions — helped create a glut of orphanages, according to aid workers, and the government says they now house more than 11,000 children. Although some of the orphanages are clean and well-managed, many are decrepit and, according to the United Nations, leave children susceptible to sexual abuse.
ReplyDelete“The number of orphans has been going down and the number of orphanages going up,” said Sarah Chhin, who helps run an organization that encourages children in orphanages who have families to return home. “We are forever having people say, ‘I’ve come to Cambodia because I want to open an orphanage.’ ”
A United Nations report three years ago said some orphanages “exploit the problem of poverty by actively recruiting children in poor families by convincing, coercing or even paying
In many cases, human rights activists say, the children are ordered to pose as orphans to attract foreign donations.
“Pity is a most dangerous emotion,” said Ou Virak, the founder of a human rights organization in Phnom Penh. “Cambodia needs to get out of the beggar mentality. And foreigners need to stop reacting to pure emotion.”
Hong Theary, a 22-year-old university student who spent more than four years in an orphanage in Phnom Penh, says she was one of those forced to lie and beg for donations from foreigners, although she comes from what she calls a “happy family” of rice farmers. Her parents sent her to the orphanage thinking she would get better schooling.
“It was a waste of time — I didn’t get anything out of it,” Ms. Theary said of the orphanage, which has since shut down. “The only person who benefited was the owner.” The head of the orphanage instructed her to take on a Canadian couple as “adoptive parents.”
“I regret that I did not tell them the truth,” Ms. Theary said of the Canadians, who visited Phnom Penh a number of times and gave financial support that ended up with the orphanage director. “They were always good to me.”
For a time, Ms. Mam was considered the country’s most famous orphan. She wrote an autobiography that described her as an orphan trafficked into sexual slavery, and she was often described in heroic terms in the American news media, including in columns by Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times. Mr. Kristof wrote in a recent blog post that given the doubts the recent revelations raised for him, he wished he had never written about her.
More...
The Truth Will Set You Free - You are either a fucking moron with an IQ of 7 or a chronic dope smoker. What a load of shit you have written above. Neeson doesn't have bodyguards because drug cartels are chasing him. I think you have been watching to many Bourne movies.
ReplyDeleteAnother classic Ricketson dreamer who is empowered whilst living in Cambodia.
Has Neeson got a bodyguard assigned to him by the Ministry of the Interior? No. Another of Neesons Walter Mitty lies.
DeleteSo why does he need body guards @ Anonymous 2.39?
Delete@ Anonymous 2.39
DeleteRead the article you fucking moron:
"Local dealers have made threats against him (Neeson) and threw acid on the face of an employee, so now the country’s Interior Ministry has assigned bodyguards to protect him."
Someone did throw acid in the face of one of CCF's employees but this had nothing to do with CCF. It was a private grudge that Neeson has made his own so he can include it in the fucking book he will be writing about his life - in Tuscany. Tuscany! Wanker.
Your a cunt Mr Ricjetson you know you are. I wouldnpt come back to Cambodia if I were you. Thewre ar epewople who would like to see you dead
ReplyDeleteAnd you, Anonymous 5.19, need to understand that it is not a good idea to drink and write blog entries at the same time. Big mistake.
DeleteMr Ricketson, are you aware that scott Neeson has engaged the services of his old mate, lawyer Brendan Piggott, to try to find a way of silencing you?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 7:44, Are you saying that Neeson is paying an attorney to prevent the truth from coming out, or are funds from CCF that were donated to help the children, being used to attempt to cover up the truth?
DeleteDoesn't look like Mr. Pigglet is having much success, now does it?.
Anonymous 4:31, It sounds like Neeson is paying his friend, with money donated to help the children, to accomplish NOTHING! Gee, I wonder how often that happens?
DeleteYet more innuendo rumour and scuttlebutt from the Ricketson huff and puff brigade. What proof does anybody have of this, or once again is it bar gossip from drunken disgruntled expats. My guess is that as always it comes from a "reliable source" not wanting to be named. Do you people seriously have nothing better or more constructive that you could do with your lives
DeleteDear Anonymous 7.44
DeleteYes, I am aware that Neeson has engaged legal counsel to find a way to shut me down. There is not all that much that takes place behind closed doors at CCF that I don't eventually hear about. The organisation leaks like a sieve. For some weeks now I have half expected a 'cease and desist' letter from Mr Piggott. I have not received one and I suspect that I will not. Any attempt to use the law to silence me could so easily backfire on Scott Neeson as it would open up a can of worms to public view that he does not want opened up.
Scott's best defence would be to answer all the questions I have asked him and demonstrate, in public, that I am in fact wrong in so much I write. Or, perhaps, in everything I write. If he has facts and truth on his side he could so easily demolish me and make me look like a fool for having continued to keep asking the same questions.
No doubt the Neeson cheer squad will leap on this last statement and tell me that Scott is too busy a man to bother reading my 'rants' (by a 'loser') and could not be bothered dignifying them with a response.
A time will come when it is not just be asking these questions but others with much more media clout who will not be deterred by the nonsense that the Neeson cheer squad writes here by way of shooting the messenger rather than addressing the issues or answering the questions.
Dear Anonymous 4.31
ReplyDeleteThe information about Brendan Piggott comes from the inner circle of CCF and I have little reason to doubt its veracity - though it will, no doubt, be vociferously denied by the Neeson cheer squad. This does not bother me. The attempts to shoot the messenger will continue until the messenger is a journalist with real clout - someone writing for a publication such as Newsweek. Somaly Mam was untouchable for many years before Simon marks managed to get Newsweek to publish what he had discovered about her.
Dear Anonymous 5.57
ReplyDeleteYou were very quick off the mark this morning. Do you, in fact, have nothing better to do than monitor this blog and look for opportunities to shoot the messenger? If Scott is going to use spin doctors to discredit me he should employ some with more imaginative scripts than the ones you work to.
Answer just one question if you wish to retain any credibility here:
"How do you justify Neeson's claim to spend $4,000 a year caring for one child in residential care?"
There is no rumour, innuendo or scuttlebutt here. The $4,000 figure is an indisputable fact - unless, of course, Neeson has lied to the IRS!?
"The information about Brendan Piggott comes from the inner circle of CCF" LOL Ricketson, Of course we believe you (not)
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should engage the services of the supposed good Mr Piggott to get your mate Fletch the Letch out of trouble next time, because as long as Fletch relies on you he is sure to stay where he belongs behind bars. Many people thank you for jumping on his bandwagon and raising awareness of his undesirable sexual habits with underage children.
Answer the question, Anonymous 7.00, since you are speaking on behalf of Scott Neeson and CCF:
ReplyDelete"How do you justify Neeson's claim to spend $4,000 a year caring for one child in residential care?"
And here's another three:
Delete(a) Did Scott Neeson make the following statement to journalist Andrew Drummond?
“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.”
(b) Does Scott Neeson have any evidence at all, if he made the statement, that it was true?
(c) Do you, Anonymous 7.00, have any evidence that suggests the statement is true? If so, have you presented whatever evidence you have to the relevant authorities?
(d) How would you feel if defamatory statements such as the one Neeson made to Drummond were made about you? How would you feel if you wound up in jail as a result of the witch-hunt that Neeson took part in in making this statement?
No man should be convicted on the basis that his nick-name, given to him on a social media site, is 'Fletch the Letch'. Nor should a man wind up in jail if his nick-name was 'Pete the Perv'.
Much as it may not be to your liking, in countries in which the rule of law applies, a man (and a woman) is innocent until proven guilty. And his/her innocent is determine don the basis of evidence that is tested in a properly constituted court of law.
If David Fletcher had been found guilty of either rape or 'grooming' on the basis of evidence I would want to see him in jail. And if David Fletcher is ever given a fair trial and there is strong evidence of his guilt of either crime, he deserves to be in jail.
What I have advocated for from the word go is Mr Fletcher's right to be tried in accordance with the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure.
Where have I ever claimed to be speaking on behalf of CCF or Scott Neeson Mr Ricketson. For a supposed investigative journalist you seem to be pretty loose with the facts. I have no reason to need to justify any claims regarding CCF accounts as I am not employed by CCF.
ReplyDeleteYou don't need to claim that you are spruiking for CCF. It is obvious. Nor do you need to claim that you want David Fletcher to remain in prison regardless of his guilt or innocence. It is obvious.
DeleteYes James, at last you have hit the nail on the head, it took some time but well done.
DeleteYes, I believe that the best place for Fletcher is jail, as do many others, that's where people that have sex with children deserve to be. Surprisingly most of society thinks the same way, sorry but I do not buy your "conspiracy theory" as far as Fletcher is concerned and in the same way as you have every right to fight for his release I have every right to believe he should be locked away for the rest of his life, as a journalist I am surprised you do not support free speech.
Also I am not "spruking" as you care to call it for CCF, I am just amused that according to you everybody talks innuendo rumour and scuttlebutt if they disagree with you yet innuendo rumour and scuttlebutt is all you ever promote on your blog.
I am surprised that with all your supposed connections you have in the inner circle as you put it that you have any need to run this blog as you could very simply contact your sources and publish their reports to you without fear, but you simply do not have the balls (or maybe it is the connections that you do not have).
I believe you are a weak coward who has never and will never amount to being anything other than a pain in the arse. No doubt Film Australia and NSW Mental Health view you in the same light.
Dear Anonymous 12.46
DeleteWhich children did David Fletcher have sex with in Cambodia? Why has he never been charged with having sex with children in Cambodia? Or are you privy to information that was never presented to the Phnom Penh Municipal Court? If you are in possession of such information, such evidence, will you present it to the relevant authorities?
David Fletcher was charged with the rape of a 17 year old, not with having sex with children. The 17 year old denies any sex ever occurred and her declaration to this effect is backed up by medical evidence.
I have advocated all along for David Fletcher's right to a fair trial. Nothing more. You do not believe that he is entitled to a fair trial and, yes, I believe you have the right to declare this on this blog. Free speech means just that - any and everyone should be able to express their opinion.
You write "everybody talks innuendo rumour and scuttlebutt if they disagree with you". You never disagree with me on the basis of logical argument, on the basis of facts and evidence but have only one weapon in your arsenal when it comes to argument - insult and verbal abuse. I will ask you again:
"Please explain, in a way that a 'loser' such as myself can understand, just how it is that Neeson can claim to be spending $4,000 a year to provide institutional care for one child when this one child's family has an income of less than half this amount?"
There is no rumour, innuendo or scuttlebutt involved in this question. It has as its basis information Neeson provided to the IRS.
Please explain.
Of course, you wont. You never do.
I wait with bated breath for your next adolescent attempt at insult.
Sorry James, please show me where I ever said David Fletcher had ever had sex with children in Cambodia, once again you are jumping up and down in a state of excitement because of what you THINK somebody said. I said that in my opinion people who have sex with children deserve to be in jail and like it or not Fletcher HAS had sex with children and deserves to be in jail in my opinion.
DeleteHere's what you wrote:
Delete"Fletcher is a convicted sex offender in two countries. That is why he is in prison (thankfully) because he was CONVICTED. We are not talking about a charge, we are talking about a conviction legally placed by a court of law and no matter how much you and he might try and squirm out of it he is indeed a convicted child sex offender in 2 countries."
The other country is clearly Cambodia.
And you write here "Fletcher has had sex with children and deserves to be in jail. Given that he is in a Cambodian I think it fair to presume that you are saying that he had sex with Cambodian children. Di you have any evidence that this is so other than the scuttlebutt perpetuated by Pete Hogan?
You are, of course, entitled to your own 'opinion' - as is someone who insists that the world is flat. Your entitlement to an opinion based not on facts or evidence will, inevitably, lead many reading this blog to have an 'opinion' about the value of your opinion. Clear.ly, your 'opinion' is impervious to the rules of logic and the need to have evidence to back it up.
Thanks James, however I think that maybe presumption is not an overly good trait for a self proclaimed "investigative journalist" Perhaps you would be so kind as to edit your profile and describe yourself as a presumptive journalist in future as it appears to be much more honest and appropriate. As a FACTual journalist I will again state the FACTS that Fletcher has had sex with a child (who you will no doubt argue was nearly 16 when he was nearly 50) and it is a FACT that he has been convicted and imprisoned in at least 2 countries on sex related charges . Again I will ask the question - and I hope I can ask it simply enough this time that you can understand - where have I ever stated that Fletcher has had sex with children in Cambodia. Like many I might have my own private thoughts on this subject but have certainly not published them.
DeleteYour last paragraph in the above post is yet again example of the constant verbal diarrhoea you post. As a couple of people have recently mentioned on this page and to quote a well known saying James "it is far better to keep your mouth closed and appear a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"
Cheers
I think it should be Ricketson who needs body guard. Good chance he might get acid thrown on his face if he keeps trying to rubbish the reputations of good people. Have you ever self critiqued Mr. Ricketson - you may find that you are a nasty individual. The old saying goes - if you can never reach success, ensure you shtick the successful people so they look bad and come down to your level. One might say that is reflective of you.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous 9.14
DeleteYou are clearly incapable of rational discussion.
Given that the only person whose reputation I am trying to 'rubbish' is Scott Neeson, are you suggesting that Scott would arrange to have acid thrown in my face?
Your comments about 'success' are just plain stupid; as is your vision of the world as being made up of winners and losers. No doubt you see yourself as a 'winner' but I wonder in what way you are? Or think yourself to be?
I do not view myself or others through the filter of 'success' that you view the world through - a vision of the world that is far less interesting than one in which there are no winners or losers but merely individual human souls trying to make the best of the hand that life has handed them. Most of the people I know in Cambodia, and whose lives I am a part of, are 'losers' in a material sense. They are very very poor. And some of these people are, in terms of the quality of their relationships, the strong bonds of family, much richer and more successful than some people I know who are multi-millionaires. One only has to look at the number of 'winners' who wind up taking their own lives to know that 'winning' is not necessarily an answer to life's most pressing questions.
You seriously are delusional Ricketson. You really think that Neeson is the only one you have tried to rubbish. Go back through your blogs and see how many people you have criticised. You are an armchair critic and that normally results from 3 factors - either 1) you are too shit frightened to attempt to undertake the tasks that the people you criticise are doing, 2) you dont have the capacity, connections or brain capacity to be able to implement any of the business concepts that the people you are criticising are undertaking or 3) you are just a failed soul who has nothing left in life except criticising anyone who has tasted success. I personally think you are all 3.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes I am a winner - I am successful and I dont sit there and criticise others for having a go. I applaud anyone who is positive and tries to make a difference. The world evolves because there are winner and losers - it hasn't evolved because everyone sits there on a level playing field.
As for you, I have zero respect. You are a shitstain on society that no-one except your loser followers, holds in any regard. Try bringing some business to Cambodia, try developing the community - but you can't because not only are you incompetent at doing so, you are considered a pest by the Cambodian Government and they wouldn't give you the time of day.
Stop smoking marijuana and jump off a cliff - the world will be a much greater place without you in it.
And just to finish off - you shit canned Peter Hogan from Khmer440 who was also a shit-stain on society, a loser and thank ully a dead idiot who no longer steals oxygen from the Cambodian community. Very ironic that you are the mirror image of the very person who called you a fuckwit.
You are correct 12.10. I nearly fell over backwards when he said Neeson was the only one he had tried to rubbish. He is seriously delusional and I think it is more than cannabis causing it. He should get some professional help but sadly in his state of mind thinks he is normal.
DeleteOh dear! Groundhog Day!
DeleteIs it worth my while bothering to respond to you? I guess so, though this is becoming tiresome.
What is wrong with being a critic? I have been making films for 40 years and each and every time I have one viewed by an audience, I have been criticised. this is par for the course. If you don't want to have your work criticised in the public domain, don't go out into the public domain with it.
Are you suggesting that NGOs in Cambodia are above criticism? Any and all institutions that are spending someone else's money - whether it be tax-payers or sponsors and donors - should be both transparent and accountable for how that money is spent. When they are not,they leave themselves open to justifiable criticism.
Scott Neeson spend millions of other people's money running the Cambodian Children's Fund. He should be held accountable for how that money is spent. He is not. I have asked you several times now to provide some sort of logical explanation for why Neeson claims to be spending $4,000 a year per child in institutional care when this is more than double the entire living wage of the average Cambodian family per year. You will not seek to provide any form of explanation because you, like Neeson have no commitment to the precepts of transparency and accountability.
To your comment that I am "...too shit frightened to attempt to undertake the tasks that the people you criticise are doing," a couple of points are worth making. Again! Do you seriously believe that no journalist is entitled to criticise NGOs (implicitly or explicitly) unless they have worked as an NGO? Does this apply to other areas of investigation. Do you think a journalist who wishes to write an article that raises questions about the efficacy of the United Nations, say, would only be entitled to do so if s/he had worked for the United Nations?
The logic of this line of argument is nonsense.
(2) What do you know of what I do assist others in Cambodia or Australia? Nothing. ANd there is no reason why you should. What I do in this capacity is irrelevant to my role as journalist/filmmaker.
Delete(3) At the risk of repeating myself what has my "capacity, connections or brain capacity to be able to implement any of the business concepts that the people you are criticising" to do with my role as a journalist?
(4) Given that I have never met you, your declaration that I am a 'failed soul' could be either evidence of your superior psychic powers or projection on your part. As you make quite clear, you are a winner (congratulations) and so, I guess, a 'successful soul'. Indeed, you are so successful in the story you have written for yourself that you are probably, as I write, desperately seeking to have your photo taken with the Dalai Lama so that you can prove to the world (and yourself) that you are indeed not only a winner but a 'superior soul'.
(5) 'Making a difference' (we can thank EST for this cliched thought bubble) is a meaningless phrase. Pol Pot made a difference, for God's sake. So did Adolph Hitler. 'Making a difference' means nothing unless it is making a difference for good and not evil. Of course, in the real world, the space between 'good' and 'evil' is filled with shades of gray.
NGOs that run fake orphanages are sure making a difference - to the lives of the kids they steal and to the parents they steal them from. So, don't use the phrase 'making a difference' as if it means something positive.
(6) As for my being considered a pest by thew Cambodian government, I guess you mean that as an insult. As you will be aware, there are many people whom the Cambodian government consider to be pests and they are, most often, people who, at a number of different levels, seek to hold the government accountable for its actions and to abide by the rule of law. I am only a very minor pest but history is littered with some major pests who have, in fact, 'made a difference' for the good. Nelson Mandela springs to mind, as doe Martin Luther King and Aung San Suu Kyi. Pests, all of them - as have been most of those in history who have driven social change for the better.
(7) Am not a marijuana smoker, though I did inhale a good deal as a younger man. I am too old for that now. As for jumping off a cliff, not really on my bucket list - not even with a hang-glider attached to me. Again, much to old for that kind of thing.
(8) As for being a 'shitstain' I have to go right back to my teenage years to remember the last time someone used such juvenile language in a failed attempt to insult me.
Anonymous 12.52
ReplyDeletePlease provide me with one instance in which I have tried to rubbish anyone?
Given that you are relying on my blog to make such judgements if should be very easy to find an example. Please quote it here so that others can judge for themselves.
What I have done is ask a lot of questions and make direct and implicit criticisms, but please do prove me wrong with a quote or two.
And dont forget - you are an exact mirror of your mate Peter Hogan. An armchair critic who criticised everyone and did nothing himself.
ReplyDeleteAnd can you please stop saying you have been making movies for 40 years. Its bullshit. Your last film was in 193. Thats 22 years ago. Thats the affects of marijuana smoking - you are delusional.
My mate, Peter Hogan!
DeleteI never met the man.
Not that it is relevant but in 2000 I produced, directed, wrote and shot a 13 part series entitled BACKPACKING AUSTRALIA. In 2005 I wrote, produced, directed and shot a 10 part series entitled VIVA.
And since 2007 I have, amongst many other projects (including 6 feature film screenplay), been working on a documentary in which Scott Neeson will be playing a significant role.
The fat lady hasn't sung yet.
Ricketson, go find someone else to play word games with, you ask for one instance here you have tried to rubbish anyone and then in the next breath you say you make "direct and implicit criticisms" Go take your Scrabble board and sit with Fletcher for a couple of days, like you he needs something to do. The good thing about responding to you is that the more you have to say on your own blogs the more that people realise you have lost touch with reality.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous 1.32
DeleteCan you not discern the difference between 'rubbishing' and making 'direct and implicit criticisms'?
If someone says of a film of mine, "Ricketson's film fails for the following reasons..." that's criticism. If someone says "Ricketson's film is shit..." that rubbishing.
Of course people are free to 'rubbish' but it is a most unconstructive activity.
You have made it clear that you have no interest in dialogue with me or about the issues at hand. You do not seek to support your arguments in any way. You seek to dismiss me and my arguments with epithets and, now, with referring to them as 'word games'.
You cannot answer the $4,000 question and must use every trick you can come up with to avoid doing so and still maintain at least a semblance of credibility.
James keep up your good work!
DeleteAs I said James, you are doing nothing but playing word games, sorry but who do we contact before publishing anything on your blog to find out if a particular phrase should be considered rubbishing or criticism. As I posted previously the more posts you make on your own blog the more you prove you are mentally unstable, losing it and need the help of mental health professionals.
ReplyDeleteNever met Peter Hogan and yet you were happy to throw shit at him - even though he deserved it.
ReplyDeleteWhat is very obvious from your blog is that if someone sides with your comments, you respond with praise however if someone writes something that you dont agree with you come up with this long winded, self-perpetuating dribble.
I agree with comments from anonymous 1.49am - the more you open your mouth the more you look the fool. A legend in your own lunchbox!
What shit did I throw at Peter Hogan?
DeleteYou, Anonymous 2.06, have no respect at all for facts, for truth. You simply make up the facts that suit you and go from there. Here is the beginnings of what I wrote to Peter Hogan last year. You can find the rest on my blog. As you will see, as you already know, I throw no shit. I simply ask questions:
"Dear Peter Hogan
I am making a film and writing a book that will feature the circumstances surrounding the arrest and jailing of David Fletcher for the rape of Yang Dany.
I wish to give all those directly or indirectly involved in this saga an opportunity to answer some questions that have arisen for me as I consider the evidence for and against Fletcher.
I am starting with you because, by your own admission, you played a significant role in the fate that has befallen Mr Fletcher – sentenced to 10 years in jail for a rape he may or may not have committed.
On Wed 2nd Oct 2013, at 3.33 pm, you posted the following comment on Khmer440 under the moniker ‘keeping it riel’ in celebration of David Fletcher’s recently announced jail sentence:
“Cold drinks will most certainly be taken this evening to toast Fletcher's first night in his new abode.
I recall that 4(!) years ago when Grandslam and myself hatched our plan, we made a sequential list of desirable outcomes beginning with getting his 'charity' closed then moving onto having his shithole-in-the-wall bar closed, having him outed in the press (and fuck, did we achieve that one!) etc etc.
Today, the last box on the sheet ('Fletch in Prey Sar') was finally ticked off so I'll allow myself a few strong drinkies in celebration and will be raising my glass to Grandslam back in the UK.
Goodnight Cambodia and good mental health.”
You have congratulated yourself on a job well done, Peter. Now let’s see if you deserve such self-praise.
The question for me, as an investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker, is whether or not there is sufficient evidence that Fletcher is guilty of rape for him to have been convicted by the Phnom Penh Municipal Court.
...more to be found in an earlier blog entry:
http://cambodia440.blogspot.com/2014/10/peter-hogans-incredible-pedophile.html
I will leave it to others, Scott, to decide who the fool is here.
Wow! That was in interesting exchange between Mr Neeson and Mr Ricketson. Cant wait to see the photo of Neeson with the Dalai Lama -:)
ReplyDeleteInteresting, and illuminating
DeleteSorry James, please show me where I ever said David Fletcher had ever had sex with children in Cambodia, once again you are jumping up and down in a state of excitement because of what you THINK somebody said. I said that in my opinion people who have sex with children deserve to be in jail and like it or not Fletcher HAS had sex with children and deserves to be in jail in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteMr Ricketson, the reason why Mr Neeson refused to return Sokheng and her sister to their mother and father, when asked, is that at that time Sokheng was quite a little money spinner for CCF. She had personality to burn, and still does to this day. She now works for CCF but is, I believe, unaware of the role she has unwittingly played in leading you to ask the questions of Mr Neeson that he never answers. There are many more questions that need to be asked, most particularly when it comes to Mr Neeson's statements about the education of children at CCF. The state of the children's education is appalling, a fact that will come back to haunt Mr Neeson when, in future years, it becomes apparent how few of the children in his care have learnt even basic reading and writing skills. I am pleased to note that you are not deterred by those who believe that you have a right to ask the questions you do.
ReplyDeleteYou are saying that this young girl is destined to grow up in institutional care, rather than in the arms of her Mother, is because the A-hole POVERTY PIMP decides to use her to make money??? I'm not sure it could be any clearer what skum Neeson really is!
DeleteWhat a load of fucking shit - the girl would be eating scraps from the dump site with no help in life if it wasn't for Neeson. That goes for the hundreds of other kids he has given a chance to.
ReplyDeleteCan you fucking idiots please explain to me what your solution is for the 1000's of children who are in extreme poverty in Cambodia and need a helping hand in life. I've heard Ricketsons theory - just give them $1000 cash and their family will take care of everything. Fucking goose!
Is there any of you Ricketson followers that has a sensible suggestion that trumps Neeson's way of taking the kids to a CCF centre where they receive education, clothing, food, vitamins etc? I can't wait to hear it!
Look at the PIO model or the ChildSafe model. Help the children in the context of the family. YOU have no idea how traumatizing it is for children to be taken from their families. Children lose so much when they are put into institutional care to be 'cared for' by paid, revolving staff. Try it yourself if you think it is such a good idea. History has shown and will show again, that this is a very poor approach that breaks all the rules of raising children. People that take children from their families should be put in prison so they can taste the fruits of institutional care.
ReplyDeleteI have had a lot of first hand experience with families whose children have been removed from their care by unscrupulous NGOs. It is emotionally devastating for the mums, the dads and the children themselves. Anyone who has had children knows this. The love of parents and children for each other, in all cultures, is such a strong and important bond that it should not be broken other than in the most extreme of circumstances.
DeleteWell anonymous 11.57pm thats great advice from someone who sits in the safety of their cafe drinking 9am lattes. Go and live in the dump site or on the streets yourself and see if you are happy with your model.
DeleteRicketson - you make it sound like Neeson and CCF are doing sweeps of the dump sites and abducting children from their families without any consultation with the parents.You know thats not the case. CCF speaks to the families and advises them of what they can offer. The children can always go back to see their families whenever they like and there is constant interaction between children and parents.
Stop distorting the truth.
This is Anonymous 11:57. I have been to the dump site many times. I have worked for years on nutrition projects, education projects and sustainability projects. NEVER did I, or projects that I support, take children from families. You are so far off base about me that you are laughable.
DeleteIm not off the mark at all - you are just another salary earner working for someone else, with the safety of your monthly salary. You have done nothing on your own i.e. created your own organisation that helps others, created no initiatives to help people using your own funds or I suggest you have never been in any situation where your lifestyle is at risk at all whilst you have worked in Cambodia.
DeleteAnother armchair critic who criticises everyone else for doing great work but has never reached out and done anything themselves. Please name the projects you have worked on for years and explain to us how you have created such sustainable benefits for children and their lives have been saved. We can see if they have resulted in anything which I doubt apart from sustain your monthly salary.
Scott, you have delusions of granduer. What is wrong with being 'just another salary earner'?
DeleteIn any event, how do you know that Anonymous 1.42 has not created his/her own organisation that helps others?
What do you mean when you say that your lifestyle is at risk? What, you don't earn enough money?
The presumptions you make about Anonymous 1.42 says much more about you than it does about him/her.
Such arrogance!
Thank you James, but if this fool (Scott?) wants to continue to speak through about something he has no knowledge of, as far as I'm concerned, you can continue to look like an ass.
DeleteMust be Neeson, or a follower. Speaks without knowledge or facts, as Neeson did about Fletcher grooming young girls. We are still waiting for that eveidence Scott.
DeleteScott, Alan
ReplyDeleteI am not sure which of you has written this but clearly it is one of you. I'll deal with this in point form:
(1) When I first met Sokayn (my own phonetic spelling) and her family, it certainly seemed to me that CCF was doing a great job. Sokayn and her sister, Sokouern again, my own phonetic spelling) were spending the week days at CCF being well fed, clothed and schooled. On the weekend, or on one day each weekend, they would return to the family home in the dump and spend the day with mum, dad and siblings. They were a happy and very loving family.
(2) When the old dump closed I lost contact with Chuan, Ka, Sokayn and Sokourn and, knowing that the girls were with CCF, approached CCF in hopes of being put in contact with the family. Over several emails you, Scott, and Patrick, made it quite clear that you were not going to assist me in any way making contact with the family. You were not even going to alert them to the fact that I was trying to make contact and leave it to them to decide whether or not they wished to be contacted. This was, in my view, their call; not yours, Scott.
(3) It did not take me long to find Chuan and Ka and, when they visited one Sunday, Sokany and Sokourn. The family was pleased to see me and I took them all down to the riverside (their request) for a break and some food. I thnaked the family, yet again, for having allowed me to film them in the dump and asked Chuan and Ka how I could repay them for their generosity. They wanted me to buy them a block of land with a house on it in Prey Veng. They told me it would cost $1,500. I told them that as soon as I had $1,500 I would buy them the land.
During this sequence of visits Chuan and Ka made it clear that they wanted Sokayn and Sokourn to come home to live with them. It was also clear that Sokourn was upset that she had been separated from her sister and placed in a different CCF institution.
It was at this point, Scott, that you refused to return Sokayn and Sokourn to their parents - citing a contractual agreement Chuan and Ka had, you said, entered into with CCF. Chuan and Ka claimed that there was no contract. They certainly did not have a copy of one.
...to be continued...
...following on...
Delete(4) A few months later, on another visit to Cambodia, I discovered that not only had Chuan and K moved from the house they were in but that their mobile phone did not work anymore. Again I sought your assistance, Scott, in tracking the familuy down so that I could fulfil my promise to it to buy the land in Prey Veng.
This is all laid out in quite some detail on my blog. This broad brushstroke account is intended to acknowledge that at the outset CCF was undoubtedly a force for good in the lives of this family. It was when you, Scott, started to make decisions on behalf of the family, without even consulting the family, that it began to dawn on me that all at CCF was not as it seems from the glossy brochures, the Facebook pages and the hagiographic pieces published by lazy journalists. As a publicist you must rub your hands in glee when journalist after journalist merely published what you present them with by way of PR materials and ask no questions.
As for the solutions for the 1000s of of children that live in extreme poverty, this is a complex question and there are no easy answers. However, leaving aside the obvious humanitarian reasons to keep families together if possible, there are economic reasons to do so also. It costs between 5 and 9 times more money to keep a child in institutional care as it would cost to assist that same child within a family and community context.
This is my bone of contention with you, Scott, and with all other NGOs whose business model necessitates the removal of children from their families. Yes, there will be a small number of children who are not able, for one reason or another to live with their mother and/or father or to say with a close relative. Such instances are the exception, however, not the rule.
I have had a lot of first hand experience now with very poor families who have kids in CCF residential care and who receive close to no support at all from CCF whilst CCF (according to CCF's IRS reporting) is pulling in $4,000 per year per child from sponsors and donors.
(5) I have never said that giving $1,000 to a family was the solution to anything. What I did was suggest that it was an interesting option. It is also one that has been road-tested and the results (from what I have read) seem promising.
(6) Yes, there is an alternative to institutional care, Scott, and it is to phase it out at a sensible pace and replace it with care for materially poor children within their families and communities.
(7) Finally, there is a wealth of research that has been conducted this past 40 years that leaves little doubt that institutional care for children has long-lasing damaging effect on them.
With an enormous following and being very clever at marketing I am sure that if you made it your goal to close down your institutional care facilities over the next 2 years, say, that your sponsors and donors would stick with you. The 'orphanage' model of institutional care is dead in the water and the sooner you realise this the better it will be for both the kids and their families.
I should add here that I am under no illusions that what I am suggesting here is easy. it is not. It is fraught with difficulties, but these can be overcome in time.
James, if he did return the children to their homes and families and support the families in a way that would be a genuine help to the children and parents, would he still be liable for his crimes of taking the children? AND would he get to spend time in prison (institutional care, with paid staff) with barbed wire at the top of the walls like the children do now?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 1.02
ReplyDeleteIndeed CCF does do sweeps of the the communities around the dumps looking for children to 'adopt'. In one instance (which I filmed) CCF came to the community many many times pressuring a grandmother and grandfather to give up the baby of their intellectually handicapped daughter. CCF was offering no assistance at all to the intellectually handicapped daughter or to the grandparents (all working in the dump). All CCF wanted was the 18 month old kid. He was (and is) very cute and would look great in Scott's arms as a child he has rescued.
The grandparents refuse to give up the baby. No offers of assistance have been made by CCF.
Professionally - I really hope Neeson sues you Ricketson, not here in Cambodia but in Australia - your blogs and constant rubbishing of his name, is very clear defamation of character. Im sorry to enlighten you about the real world but slandering and rubbishing a persons character under the umbrella of 'investigative journalism' is not acceptable.
ReplyDeleteYou can harp on all you like about how you are just asking questions, but the reality is that from your questions you are insinuating bad character.
Non-professionally - you are a disgusting parasite that needs to be sprayed with a can of bug killer. The only reason you run this blog is so that you can keep your name in the ratings on a Google search - you do this because without it, you are a forgotten individual. Screen Australia and other credible movie entities will not touch and your reputation around the world with other Government and legislative groups is 'stained'.
Must be sad knowing that your life is at the bottom of the barrel with no where to go!
Anonymous 9:22, Are you thinking that taking over 700 children from their families makes Neeson someone with GOOD CHARACTER? Do you believe that locking out an impoverished family from their home because they owe you $7.50 represents someone with GOOD CHARACTER? Where in the world would IT be legal to take over 700 children from their families.
DeleteIf you are speaking professionally on legal matters, you must be an attorney? Does that mean that you are the 'friend of Neeson's' now on his payroll taking money meant to help children? Could you by chance be Mr. Pigglet?
Where is your proof that Neeson has done this you moron? Stop believing the bullshit that Ricketson is stating and throw up some evidence instead of just innuendo and gossip.
DeleteYou Ricketson followers sure are a weird mob - you are assuming now I am a lawyer or perhaps I am a secret agent?
Well his tax return from 2013 shows he has taken the children, the video often mentioned on the site shows how he treats the impoverished, you moron! Please have your momma help you read it.
DeleteCan you manage to copy and paste?
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve280RWEV5w
Dear Anonymous 9.22
DeleteScott Neeson is welcome to sue me for defamation in Australia. I would be happy to appear in court and be held accountable for all I have written on this blog and elsewhere.
Given that you have elected to be spokesman for Scott (either with or without his blessing) could you please quote one instance in which I have defamed him? Just one.
You won't, of course, because you can't.
The doubts that may have been raised here about Scott's character arise from his refusal to answer any questions at all in relation to (a) the $4,000 he claims to spend each year taking care of one child in residential care, (b) in relation to the eviction of residents renting a CCF hovel who are 12.50 behind in their rent, (c) in relation to his refusal to allow the parents of kids in CCF's care to keep copies of the contracts they have entered into with CCF and which CCF then presents to them as a reason why they cannot have their children back...And so on.
If anyone should be suing anyone else for defamation, it is David Fletcher who should be suing Scott for the defamatory statement be made to journalist Andrew Drummond - a statement that has played a significant role in creating the climate in which it was possible for Mr Fletcher to be demonised. Here it is, again, Anonymous 9.22.
As Scott's official or unofficial spokesman would you care to comment on the veracity of this quote:
“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.”
Questions that Scott will not answer:
(1) Did Scott say this to Andrew Drummond?
(2) If Scott did say this, does he have any evidence to support the truth of this statement?
As for my being a "disgusting parasite that that needs to be sprayed with a can of bug killer" you have a wonderful and quite poetic turn of phrase at times and add much needed comic relief for the readers of this blog.
I am something of a Luddite and have no idea what you mean by keeping up my ratings? Please explain.
One thing that is clear is that each time you and a few other 'Anonymous' bloggers make comment such as this one, my page hit rate goes up. So, please continue to contribute your poetic wit and wisdom.
best wishes
James (forgotten individual) Ricketson
It seems that the demand for Cambodian kids does not only exist in Cambodia, where NGOs like Scott Neeson's CCF hold up to 700 kids.
ReplyDeleteNow Italy has signed an MoU with the Cambodian Gov. that allows Italy to open up to 8 Adoption Agencies here to send Khmer kids off to italy.
Italy is suffering one of the worst refugee crises in it's history (many of them children) and has no historic ties to Cambodia.
The Adoption business was banned by the Cambodian gov. 4 years ago because of fears of abuse and human trafficking. It looks like it has thrown these objections over board and is now concentrating on the Business Side of this legalized Human Trafficking scam.
This has been posted twice now by Tom Selig. Twice it has disappeared within less than a minute:
ReplyDelete"The Neeson drama is unfolding slowly with your help. If one gets ratings
like the CCF on charity monitor, one thinks of general elections in North
Korea. The support is 100 %, always !
Here is another Drama in the making. I know the person that triggered
this new business. It is a ruthless italian running the website "Aiutare
Bambini" (the equivalent of Save the Children) and runs the ADM Capital
Foundation in Hongkong. Needless to say, he is member of the Aple Board
in Cambodia.
more here:
http://www.kampotbuildersguide.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=63&p=2611#p2611
Back in 2012 his role as a co-founder of Sihanoukville's Mlop Tapang a
staunch feeder and supporter of Thierry Darnaudet and APLE was listed
here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20131215011550/http://www.tpf-cambodia.com/ngos-in-the-childprotection-industry/index.php#688146a0960b8c607
Caruso is a ruthless character who knows how to lobby and raise funds.
I would call his SUCCESS to get Italy to import Khmer Kids (Adoptions)
as another form of Human Trafficking. The fact that the Cambodian Gov.
is going to license 8 Adoption Agencies for Italy instead of the usual 2
per Nation speaks for itself.
One thing that surfaces again and again is the fact that some of these
characters like Thierry Darnaudet and now Francesco Caruso are involved
in soo many NGO around the world that it's hard to keep track of them.
They also get smarter while doing this and often don't appear with their
name anymore. They prefer to stay anonymous for good reasons."
Fuck me - another conspiracy theory from fuckwit Ricketosn.
DeleteIt will be interesting to see if this too disappears.
DeleteA Sept. 2011 assessment on Francesco Caruso
you'd have to scroll a bit until you reach the english text version.
http://crespienrico.com/2011/09/16/dalla-cambogia-con-un-po-di-furore/
Wikileaks Files from the US Embassy in Phnom Penh
lunedì 11 luglio 2011
Wikileaks : Viewing cable 10PHNOMPENH138, 2010 TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
REPORT FOR CAMBODIA
http://www.orianomattei.blogspot.fr/2011/07/wikileaks-viewing-cable-10phnompenh138.html
Francesco Caruso's Website Mission Bambini
http://www.missionbambini.org/notizie/item/50440
and teh angkor hospital
http://genascihk.com/2012/04/
I'm not surprised comments disappear. They attacked the kampotbuildersguide.com, too in order to shut down any conversation about ngo etc. The admin was able to delete all this crap but in my opinion its only a matter of time before the troll is back.
DeleteThere are programs that will help to delete anything on the web that
concerns individual people or subjects. I believe that such a "robot"
program is installed at your mobile phone.
Dont worry the message always finds an alternative way.
Tom Selig
So Anonymous 11:28 with the limited vocabulary, What part of what Selig is saying isn't true?
ReplyDeleteNone of it is true. Selig is an even bigger cunt than Ricketson and that's saying something. They both write dribbel and are just jealous that Scott Neeson has made something of his life and they are both losers.
DeleteI think the word you were looking for, Anonymous 1.06, in the deep dark recesses of what passes for your brain, is drivel'.
Delete