Alan Lemon
Manager
Legal & Compliance
Cambodian Children's Fund
Dear Alan
You write, in your latest Anonymous
comment to me on my blog:
“You're seriously deluded if you think Scott or any of his team would
even bother reading this tripe, let alone answer it.”
The ‘tripe’ in question is, of course, the many
questions I have asked of Scott Neeson over the years but which he refuses to
answer. I should add here, given that this email is being copied to members of
the CCF board, that its members have made it quite clear that they do not
believe Scott is under any obligation to answer any questions put to him by
journalists.
Let’s just pretend, for a moment more, that you are
not the person who has been writing copious comments to the effect that I am
deluded. If you are not Alan Lemon, or another member of Team Neeson, how do
you know that no members of ‘the team’ bother to read this tripe? Have they
told you so?
For a former Australian Federal Police
officer you are not very careful when you write your Anonymous comments. You
leave a trail littered with clues. On many occasions now, when I have made
references to correspondence with Scott Neeson from the last few years, you
have written back to me almost immediately as ‘Anonymous’ making reference to
private correspondence between me and Scott or to policies that only the inner
circle at CCF would be aware of.
So, let’s stop pretending that you do not write
frequent Anonymous comments on my blog. Or, if you prefer, we could work on the
presumption that someone is hacking into your computer and so has access to
your emails, to my correspondence with Scott and other privileged information
known only to the inner circle of Team Neeson!
In my email to Scott Neeson yesterday,
sent to him in Tuscany, where he is working on his memoirs, I asked some
questions relating to CCF’s claim to be spending
$2.47 million to educate 2,295 Cambodian children from pre-school through to
university.
These two figures, in
themselves, tell us nothing. In order to know if this $2.47million is money
well spent, sponsors and donors need to know how many of the 2,295 CCF students
are attending free government schools and how many are attending schools run by
(and funded by) CCF?
If all these 2,295 students
are receiving an education paid for by sponsors and donors, CCF is spending, on
average, $1,076 per child per annum on eduction. Given that the World Bank’s
estimate of per capita income for Cambodia in 2014 was 1,084.4 I find it odd that it should cost $1,076 for CCF to
educate one child.
Anecdotal
evidence suggests most of the children CCF claims to be educating are attending
free public schools! If this is so, how does CCF account for the expenditure of
$2.47 million on education per year?
Of course,
anecdotal evidence is notoriously unreliable, and certainly no substitute for
statistically accurate information of the kind that you must have in a file in
your computer.
Given that Scott
will not, as a matter of principle, answer questions such as those I put to him
yesterday, I will ask a few of them of you in your capacity as ‘Manager, Legal & Compliance’.
- How many of
the 2,295 CCF students are attending free government schools and how many are
attending schools run by (and funded by) CCF?
Some more specific
questions:
- How many pre-school kids, living under the CCF educational umbrella,
are attending free public schools and how many are receiving their pre-school education
in schools funded by CCF?
- How many secondary school students, in residential care with
CCF, are attending free public schools and how many are receiving their
education in schools funded by CCF?
- How many ‘satellite schools’ does CCF fully or partly fund?
- How many school teachers does CCF have in its employ?
- How much do CCF’s school teachers earn per month?
- Have CCF’s school teachers been obliged to sign non-disclosure
contracts that prevent them from commenting on CCF education programs?
- How many university students is CCF currently funding?
These are not unreasonable
questions, Alan. If I were a CCF sponsor or a donor I would be asking them. If
I were a member of the Cambodian Children’s Fund board I would not only be
asking them but demanding detailed answers.
best wishes
James Ricketson
cc Members of the Cambodian Children’s
Fund Board:
Bob Tufts
Warren Share
Kevin Schoeler
Paul Saunders
David Ryan
Seane Corn
Muffy Disabantino
Lily Kanter
Heather Graham
James, If you don't get answers from Lemon, you might wish to try 'key staff' members. They might enjoy sharing some information with you, hearing the perspective of the outside world and be able to acquire information from J.K. Rowling on the harm done to children by removing them from their families.
ReplyDeleteCambodian Children's Fund tends to use a system for email (first name)@cambodianchildrensfund.org as in Scott@cambodainchildrensfund.org so I think most of these people would be able to be contacted simply by adding their first name to @cambodianchildrensfund.org
Considering the lack of response to questions by CCF, you might want to copy them all in.
Sok Channoeurn, Country Manager
Morm Sopheak, Head of Finance
Taing Sotheara, Operations Manager
Trina Capps, Organizational Development Manager
Tracy France, Head of Education
Ryan Witcombe, Marketing and Communications Manager
Kram Sokchannin, Education Manager
James (Jim) Weyers, Head of Sponsorship
Asha Griffith, Manager Partnerships & Volunteers
Ly Sophea, Head of Facility
Ouk Sochenda, CCF1 Manager
Chum Vichheka, CCF2 Manager
Voeun Sivleng, CCF6 Manager
Ngoy Hen, CCF Community Center Manager
Thim Sokha, Childcare Manager
Hoy Leanghoin, CCF Community Outreach Manager
Nhem Rithy, Child Protection Manager
Keo Sidanin, Internal Auditor
Kang Chamroeun, Sponsor Communications Manager
Chhem Saron, Sponsor Engagement Manager
Sok Phearak, Sponsor Relations Manager
Khoy Radeth, Vocational Supervisor
I didn't see Alan Lemon or James McCabe listed as key staff. Names of more staff are easily available, please advise.
Thanks, Anonymous 2.27 for the suggestions. However...
ReplyDeleteCCF staff are under video surveillance and are obliged to sign non-disclosure contracts that forbid them from talking to anyone about CCF. For any member of staff to speak with me would result in their immediate dismissal. I would not dream of encouraging any member of staff to risk their job in this way.
If Alan Lemon does not respond to my questions, I will write directly to the Cambodian Children's Fund Board and see if its members have a genuine commitment to the precepts of transparency and accountability.
That doesn't mean that you can't use the list to share information on what many believe harms children. The Lumos research on separating children from their families, should be shared with everyone, especially CCF 'key staff'. These are people who may get opportunity to have input on CCF policy!
DeleteYes, I see your point.
DeleteSurvey data in Russia (The Lumos Report) showed the following outcomes for children who grew up in institutions:
1 in 3 became homeless
1 in 5 had a criminal record
1 in 10 committed suicide
1 in 7 became involved in prostitution
Do these statistics apply for Cambodian children who have grown up in institutions? Has anyone conducted a survey? Does anyone care? My own experience this past 20 years is that close to 100% of the girls I know who were taken from their families and brought up in institutions had babies within a year of being released from the NGO ‘taking care’ of them till age 18.
It is high time that someone conducted some research into this. If the statistics in Cambodia are anything like those in Russia, this country is simply creating more social problems for itself (as if Cambodian needs any more!) by allowing any NGO that wants to to set up shop here, call itself an ‘orphanage’ (or whatever CCF calls its institutions) and set about ‘rescuing’ children. Oh, and making a lot of money at the same time. A lot!
James, it was not a report on Russia, it was a report on institutional care. Those numbers are staggering and the results unthinkable.
DeleteHave you thought about writing to the Tax Authorities in the US and asking them to investigate?
ReplyDeleteIf it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
ReplyDeleteThe Cambodian Children's Fund looks like a multi-million dollar scam to me.
I would like to be given some evidence to the contrary as I have, for a few years now, thought that Scott Neeson and CCF were on the 'good guys' team.
Now I wonder if there are any 'good guys' at all in this God-forsaken country.
This last sentence should not be taken by evangelical Christians as an invitation to ramp up their efforts to rescue Cambodian Buddhist children from their religion and their families in the belief that they are doing God's work.
Fuck, is there any NGO I can trust with my...with my trust? Are you all corrupt to the core?
Ricketson, maybe Lemon can get you a copy of the 'contract' the parents (who can't read or write) thumbprint to give up their children to CCF.
ReplyDeleteIn looking at you list of key staff, it becomes laughable to this that CCF is an organization that cares for CHILDREN. NOT ONE of these key staff persons mentions any psychological or sociological training. The vast majority look like they are there to churn MONEY as in industrial business would do. Here take a look:
ReplyDeleteCountry Manager
Head of Finance
Operations Manager
Organizational Development Manager
Marketing and Communications Manager
Head of Sponsorship
Manager Partnerships & Volunteers
Internal Auditor
Sponsor Communications Manager
Sponsor Engagement Manager
Sponsor Relations Manager
Yes, you’ll say I left out some positions. Yes I did. Let’s take a look at just one of those:
Thim Sokha, CHILD CARE MANAGER
Bachelor Degree in English Literature
training courses such as Organized Meeting Planner and Budget Management
Effective E-mail Management for Busy Office
Any psychology or sociology? I think not. I’ll leave that for Team Neeson to make up.
I’ll be happy to review others if you’d like.
What qualifications are there to be a childcare manager? English Literature??!!! Yes, let's see more.
DeleteAlan Lemon, as a frequent contributor to this site, and if you are not too busy today, could you answer this question: How many kids does CCF have in institutional care today? That is unless that information is 'Top Secret'? Thx.
ReplyDeleteLemon won't answer this question. The last time CCF quoted a figure it was 700 or more. This was at a time when Mr Neeson believed that the more kids he had under lock and key, the bigger his orphanage, the better he would appear in the eyes of his sponsors and donors. I think that someone must have had a word in his ear, or perhaps he did a bit of research, and he learned that the tide was turning and that running an orphanage was not seen as a good thing any more. God knows how many boys and girls he has in residential care now but I hear CCF is getting rid of as many of the older kids as it can right now. Why? To bring the number down from 700 so he can say, "Ricketson is wrong, it is only 400"? It will be interesting to hear what the kids Neeson is turfing out onto the street have to say about their experiences. They have nothing to lose from speaking out now.
DeleteAnonymous 7:39 Agree w most of what you say. Neeson is trying to re-write history. You write this in theory when you say 'only 400', but I think ruining even 1 child's life is a travesty. 400 is an ethnocide.
DeleteAgree, 400 ins too many. 200 is too many. 100 is too many.
DeleteAm I alone in wondering why human rights organisations like 'Licadho' do not view the massive removal of children from their families as an abuse of the human rights of the children and of their parents? CCF is only many of many offenders and far from being the worst.CCF might remove more kids but at least the kids still have access to their families. Other NGOs that run 'orphanages', even if they call them something else, don't allow children or families any access at all to each other once the children have been 'rescued'.
You are not alone. It has been reported that CCF even splits up siblings in their institutions.
DeleteHere's another question to add to the list for you to answer Alan Lemon:
ReplyDeleteHow many members of Country Manager Sok Channoeurn's family are working at CCF? And when families are evicted from their homes for being less than $20 behind in their rent is this decision made by Sok Channoeurn or does she have to run it by Scott Neeson first? And what do members of the Cambodian Children's Fund board make of these evictions?
An accurate description of Alan Lemon’s association with both Cambodia and James Mc Cabe. This is not scuttlebutt.
ReplyDeleteLemon was serving as an Australian Federal Police officer officer in Cambodia during the time James McCabe was on the run from the AFP. For a long while Lemon and Mc Cabe had been best drinking buddies on the girly bar streets of Phnom Penh . When McCabe was finally dragged back to Australia and jailed Lemon was under heavy investigation by the Australian Federal Police for his association with McCabe . Lemon denied any association between them other than their shared interest in booze and girls . The AFP didn’t see it that way Lemon’s career with the AFP came to an abrupt end.
Now Lemon and Mc Cabe are working together running a child protection unit in Cambodia, FFS! Only in Cambodia, Kingdom of Wonder, could this happen.
Thank you for that information Anonymous 8:56. Not trying to put words in your mouth, but are you suggesting that Lemon lied about his association with McCabe and that there was more to it? Would it be a lie from Lemon, something similar to Neeson lying about David Fletcher "grooming young girls"?
DeleteAnonymous 8.56pm. Its common knowledge that Lemon and Mccabe are working for CCF - no new story there. Its also common knowledge that McCabe was sent to jail for drugs and stealing - no news story there either. Not sure though how you would have knowledge of why lemon would leave the AFP - are you saying you have some close source at the AFP or are you just plucking this from your ass?
DeleteAnonymous 9.31
DeleteI agree with you. The only people who know with any certainty why Lemon left the AFP are Lemon himself and the AFP. Given that neither is likely to answer the 'why' question, all we are left with is pure speculation. ANd, as is clear, speculation leads to scuttlebutt. And scuttlebutt, when repeated often enough, takes on a kind of truth of its own that bears no relationship with the facts.
David Fletcher learnt this in a very hard way when Peter Hogan, for his own reasons,m decided to start an online hate campaign on Khmer440. It was a campaign based not on any facts, or evidence, but on Hogan's desire for blood. Fletcher was but one of many of Hogan's victims.
Hogan is no longer with us but Scott Neeson is. ANd Scott Neeson did have this to say about David Fletcher - based on zero evidence other than the scuttlebutt he picked up from Hogan:
“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.
I have asked Scott many times if he has any evidence to back up his defamatory allegations. As is his way, Scott does not answer. He does snot have any evidence. He never did. For his own reasons (David Fletcher also working in the dump with families, perhaps) Scott decided that Fletcher needed to be removed and played his role (and a not insignificant one) in seeing to it that he was.
Neeson's defamation of David Fletcher does not speak well on his character, but I only became aware of this a few years after Neeson had already revealed that he was quite happy to retain custody of children at CCF even after their parents had asked for them to be returned to the family - citing a 'contract' CCF had entered into with the family as hs reason for not returning the children.
Whether Scott is motivated by a desire to be very rich, very famous or to achieve a kind of secular sainthood I am uncertain (perhaps all three) but it is clear that he is not going to allow anyone to stand in his way - not even the parents of the children he is supposedly 'helping'.
All this has been happening with the full knowledge of the Cambodian Children's Fund board, and the board must bear responsibility for the chaos that will result from the bursting of the CCF bubble when it happens.
His sudden departure from AFP was under very suspicious circumstance at the very least.
DeleteOut of interest Anon 4.25 what would you happen to know about the circumstances of his departure. My guess would be zilch, however if you know more why not come forward and publish it with your name so he can sue you if it is incorrect. Anything you do say I guarantee will start with "when I was talking to a bloke in a bar last night"
DeleteYes, Anonymous 4.25, suspicious, but that's it. Character assassination on the basis of 'suspicions' is a very dangerous path to go down. Extreme instances of this have been seen recently here in Cambodia where where the suspicions of a group of people that a man was a 'sorcerer' has led to his being murdered. Indeed, it would not be stretching the truth too much to say that many of the world's problems arise from the 'suspicions' held by one group of people about another.
DeleteOn top of this, I am not sure that the manner in which Lemon left the AFP has much bearing on the most important issues being dealt with here which are, in brief:
(1) Has the CCF business model, based as it is on the breaking up of families and the institutionalisation of children, passed its 'use by' date?
(2) Is it fair, appropriate (or even legal) for CCF to refuse to return children to their families on the basis of a 'contract' the parents have entered into with CCF?
(3) Is it appropriate that members of CCF staff (Khmer) must sign non-disclosure contracts that forbid them from speaking with anyone about CCF?
(4) Is it appropriate that CCF should claim, in its tax returns, that the NGO spends $4,000 per year per child in institutional care - when the per capita income is around $1,000 a year?
(5) Is it appropriate that CCF should take homes that have been donated to the NGO (by World Housing) and then rent them to materially poor Cambodians who are obliged to live their lives in accordance with strict rules and regulations laid down by Scott Neeson?
There are many more questions, of course - none of which are affected one way or another by the manner in which Alan Lemon left the AFP.
James, I am only going to address point 5 here because it is one I have addressed twice before (and I am not Scott Neeson, Alan Lemon or Mary Poppins)
DeleteInstead of running around the question could you please tell me where you think the land these houses are build on comes from. My guess would be that it is leased or rented and that it is quite acceptable for recipients of these houses generously donated by World Housing to chip in a little towards the land rent - would you agree.
I know you will try and block the question by throwing in a half a dozen or so more questions, but please humor me and only confirm if you think I have given an acceptable explanation as to why families might have to pay a nominal amount of rent. As far as rules and regulations - is that not an acceptable part of living in a community that is built to try and keep drug dealers, alcoholics and pedophiles out ?
Personally if I had been gifted a house where my kids were safe rather than living on the side of a tip I would be quite happy to abide by a few simple governing rules wouldn't you ?
Alan Lemon's departure from AFP was a
Deletesuspicious departure
suspicious timing
suspicious association with a convicted thief.James McCabe.....
Please refer anon 4.42 anon 5.12
DeleteMethinks thou dost protest too much
DeleteDear Mary Poppins (Anonymous 5.07 :-)
ReplyDeleteYour observation is a perfectly reasonable one.
A question: Indeed, where does the land the houses are built on come from?
Please correct me if I am wrong but the impression I get is that the land is owned by CCF. ANd where did CCF find the money to buy the land? Again, please correct me if I am wrong, but the money came from donors and sponsors.
The question for me is this: "Should an NGO (in this instance CCF) be using such donated funds to exert control over communities or should the money be spent to assist the community to become stronger and no longer reliant on the NGO - in this case CCF?
I am making a few assumptions here that may be wrong but it seems as though CCF sees its role in the creation of a community it has control over as a form of social engineering? To what extent does the community in question have a say in how this new CCF community is formed" How it will function? Do all the rules and regulations come from the top down or does the community have a structure that mimics, in someway, the way in which traditional khmer communities are structured? Does this community being created by CCF with other people's money have, for instance, a Village Chief? If so, has the Village chief been chosen by the community? Or by CCF?
As for those who choose to live in this CCF created community, what kinds of contracts do they enter into with CCF? Are the terms and conditions of the contract explained to them in language they can understand? Are they given an opportunity to show the contract to some independent party to get an independent opinion as to whether or not the contact is a fair one? Are those who do enter into a contract with CCF to rent a home donated to CCF, build on land bought with donations, allowed to keep a copy of their contract? Is a copy of this contract (generic) available to sponsors and donors on the CCF website? Would CCF allow me (or any journalist) to view this contract?
You observations are perfectly valid but, in my view at least, they open up a whole stack of new questions - some of which I have raised here.
cheers, James
What gives the impression that the land is owned by CCF James ? Once you can answer that question (which I somehow think you will not satisfactorily be able to on the grounds you might well be wrong in your assumptions) we can maybe move on to how the rates and maintenance, communinal electricity and water are paid for - or should donations be used for that purpose in order to as you put it "exert more control over communities"
DeleteLets face it buddy CCF are either going to charge a minimum rent as you suggest to assist the community to get used to being stronger and looking after themselves or are they going to get everything free to keep them reliant on the NGO. Which do you prefer James ?
Perhaps you could also help me with some specifics regarding the rules and regulations you refer to or did you just hear about it from a "bloke in the pub" last night ?
Dear Alan, (Anonymous 5.43)
ReplyDeleteFor a moment there I thought we might be engaged in in a civil and sensible dialogue. Alas, it seems this is not the case.
I did not know (and do not know) if the land the houses are being built on was owned by CCF. This is why I wrote, "Please correct me if I am wrong but the impression I get is that the land is owned by CCF"
If the land is not owned by CCF, who does own the land? It strikes me as odd that CCF would not own the land and yet build houses on it that it rents to poor Cambodians. If there is an explanation here, if you have an answer, please provide it and not attack me for not knowing the answer to the question I am am asking.
The question of who should pay for the rates and maintenance comes back to the question of whose community it is? If this is an experiment in social engineering, then clearly CCF should pay these expenses. If this is an exercise in making a community self-sufficient and not reliant on hand-outs, then the community should be paying these expenses. There are, of course, areas of grey between these black and white alternatives.
If CCF is charging minimal rent in order help the community become stronger, this may well be a terrific initiative.How much rent is the community being asked to pay? Or, to be more specific, how much rent is each family being asked to pay? Are these payments made in such a way that the families get to eventually own the home they are renting, or are they destined to be renters always and so always dependent on the good will of CCF? Is buying their home (gifted to CCF by World Housing) even an option?
So, in answer to your question, "which do I prefer", I would prefer to see CCF set up a scheme whereby the houses CCF has not paid one cent for, eventually wind up being owned by the people they were built for. If this means that the families pay money into a fund that enables other families to receive homes from World Housing I have no problem with this at all. What I do have a problem with is the notion that houses given to CCF for free, to help poor families, become yet another revenue stream for CCF without the families ever having an opportunity to own he homes they rent.
Some clarification would be great here, Alan.
As for the rules and regulations governing the rights and responsibilities of of families that rent the free-of-charge World Housing homes, one does not need to look far beyond the locking out of families for being less than $20 behind in their rent for an answer.
Any dialogue about these 'rules and 'regulations' would best be had in context. And the context is (and must be) the contractual arrangements that exist between CCF and renters of CCF World Housing homes. Will you make a copy of this pro forma contract available, Alan, of will you choose to slip back into one of your Anonymous personas and sidestep the question?
come on, Alan, you and I are both too old for these silly games. Just answer the questions I have asked in this blog. They are not unreasonable. If you don't (as I expect will be the case) I will ask the board. If the board likewise refuses to answer any questions....well, let's see what happens next.
cheers
Sorry James, but as your response is addressed to Alan it would not be appropriate for me to reply. If he reads your blog perhaps he might want to comment (But I somehow think he will not respond to a thread started by somebody else) Please just take some well meaning advice and get some professional help for the paranoia you are so obviously suffering from
DeleteDear Alan
DeleteI wonder which Alan Lemon persona I am dealing with here? The one who is a sponsor who has intimate knowledge of the the inner workings of CCF and whose every question is answered by CCF?
Just answer the questions asked of you in the email I sent to you yesterday. Stop flip flopping between different personas. It is childish.
Just wait for the little voices you hear inside your head to tell you James. Again I repeat you should seek professional help for your condition.
DeleteThanks for you concern, Alan. I will not bother to respond to your silly comments any more. You have no more intention of answering questions than does Scott so I'll try my luck now with a member of the CCF board who seems to be a person of integrity but who may not be aware of what actually takes place behind closed doors at CCF
DeleteYou have to love Cambodia. Do you know that Alan Lemon's girlfriend owned a girl bar in Street 136 - a bar that knowingly allowed bar fines and girls to have sex with customers. Is that strange or is it just me - he is working for an organisation that is supposed to protect children and stop girls from being exploited and yet he is happy for his girlfriend to run a bar that exploits girls. Thats sick if you ask me!
ReplyDeleteDoes Neeson actually have any ethical fibre at all? How on earth would you have an ex-crimianl and a guy whose GF sells girls for sex, running a part of your organisation that is supposed to stop the exploitation of girls.
Somebody please tell me that I am being over critical!
Is this something that the staff at CCF knows about? Must make them very proud to work there!
DeleteAnonymous 9:01, is this GF that you speak of his GF or wife? Is she the mother of his baby?
DeleteIm not sure - I'm trying to find out from the person who told me. If it is his wife then that is even worse! Allowing your wife to run girl bar - so classy!
DeleteI got these email addresses last night from a friend of mine who lives in Perth, Australia and works for Rinehart's mining company. Obviously I can't share his name or mine as we dont want my friend being compromised. Apparently they are direct emails for Rinehart although I haven't tested them yet.
ReplyDeleteGina_Rinehart@hancockprospecting.com.au
pco@esperanza1986.com
She donates money to Neeson as per deceitful orphan story recently. However I doubt she knows that Neeson has McCabe (ex criminal) and Lemon (GF owns a girlie bar) working for the organisation. I'm about to start firing off some emails to Rinehart letting her know of this and of course telling her that I am going to let a few media friends know about it. Hopefully a few of you other posters can send similar emails to Rinehart.
Why am I doing this? Well i think it is absolutely disgusting that Neeson, McCabe and Lemon, knowing their background and ethical makeup, can work in the child protection industry, receiving donor money, without any implications or fuss made about it. There are millions of people in the world who dont have criminal records and who dont have connections to bars selling girls for sex who can work at CCF.
Its an absolute disgrace!
I have heard that Gina Rinehart has given Neeson a shit load of money to build a home specifically for her 9 'orphans'. Can anyone confirm that this is so or is this just scuttlebutt? If it is is so will male members the 9 'orphans' families be able to visit their daughters or sisters there? I have heard that one of the rules of this new 'orphanage' is that no men may ever so much as enter the front door. I must say I find this hard to believe but, hey, this is Cambodia, Kingdom of Wonder!
ReplyDeleteAll the more reason to start sending emails to Rinehart (email addresses above) and ask her if she knows about McCabe and Lemon
DeleteI doubt rickets would dare send any emails to Rinehart - she would sue him and rickets hasn't got any balls!
ReplyDeleteSorry to disappoint you, Anonymous 11.50, but here’s how I began my letter to Gina Rinehart in Feb this year.
DeleteGina Rinehart
Hancock Prospecting Group
HPPL House
28-42 Ventnor Avenue
West Perth 6005
Dear Ms Rinehart
re your rumoured new partnership with Scott Neeson and the Cambodian Children’s Fund
As a matter of principle Scott Neeson does not answer questions from journalists. He will neither confirm nor deny anything – including the rumour from within CCF that you will be investing heavily in the Cambodian Children’s Fund. If the rumour is untrue you need read no further.
If you are still reading, you should take all I write here with a grain of salt. Indeed, it would probably help if you started from the presumption that I am a nutter with a grudge against Scott Neeson. This is the kindest of the epithets that Scott’s supporters refer to me as in their public comments! I have no problem with being described as a nutter but please consider the possibility that there are some questions you need to ask Scott in you intend to donate to the Cambodian Children’s Fund.
I write here in my capacity as a documentary filmmaker, a journalist and a blogger. (And certified ‘nutter’ of course!)
You have had some experience with Cambodia and so know that nothing here is ever quite as it seems to be; that the epithet ‘Scambodia’ is an apt one for a country that attracts scammers of all kinds here to make a quick buck exploiting materially poor Cambodians.
Opening an ‘orphanage’ in Cambodia, for instance, is a license to print money. All those poor terminally cute children, with their wide innocent doe-like eyes, smiling from Facebook pages and NGO websites! What donor, what sponsor can resist the urge to reach for their wallets!
The full letter can be found at:
http://cambodia440.blogspot.com/2015/02/93-letter-to-gina-rinehart.html