Friday, December 18, 2015

# 176 Is Scott Neeson's Cambodian Children's Fund an orphanage in disguise?

Cambodia: too many orphanages, not enough orphans

Cambodia's tourist orphanages

Lindsay Murdoch, Sydney Morning Herald

http://www.smh.com.au/world/head-20151126-gl8n5a.html

Cambodian orphanages are increasingly used to service a tourist industry that has sprung up around Westerners visiting them.

Phnom Penh: There is no need for an appointment or to show identification and no questions are asked at this so called "orphanage". Strangers can walk off the street into bedrooms, where up to 12 children sleep crammed together on stained mattresses.

The smiling children know the routine – they run to the visitors, calling out in unison: "Hello, welcome!"

But strangers should not come to this house tucked away in a Phnom Penh suburb, behind high iron gates, which is home to 65 children aged between five and 17.

International research shows that orphanages and residential care institutions take a toll onchildren's emotional and personal development because they are separated from their families. This leaves them vulnerable to exploitation and abuse and seemingly endless broken relationships.

Much of their plight comes at the hands of mostly well-intentioned foreigners. Australians are among the largest donors and volunteers in Cambodia's booming orphanage industry.

A newly released survey of tourists in the Cambodian town of Siem Reap, near the Angkor Wat temple complex, found that 70 per cent of potential volunteers at the country's orphanages believe that residential care is the best way for children from poor families to get access to an education.

According to Friends International, a non-government social enterprise organisation , 75 per cent of potential volunteers were not aware that most children in residential centres in Cambodia are not orphans and 60 per cent did not know orphanages were sometimes run as profit-making businesses. 
Despite a five-year campaign by Friends International and other NGOs warning that children should be kept in their communities except in emergencies, the number of children living in 600 orphanages and residential care centres in Cambodia has grown to a record 47,900, according to a recent survey by the Cambodian government and the UN children's agency UNICEF.
Indeed, the number of orphanages across the country has doubled in the past five years, while the number of orphans has dramatically decreased.

There are now seven times more children in Cambodia's institutions than there were in the early 1980s, when the aftermath of the Khmer Rouge's murderous rule left an estimated 74,000 children without parents. 

The government, under pressure from UN agencies and a consortium of more than 50 NGOs, is moving to implement a law requiring that children's residential centres be approved and registered, which is aimed at forcing many to close. The government wants to reduce the number of children in orphanages by 30 per cent in three years.

But Cambodia's supervising ministry of social affairs employs only 14 social workers in a country where corruption is endemic and unscrupulous orphanages have flourished for decades.

Social workers warn that many of the children have become money-making tourist attractions and sexual abuse is suspected of being rife in centres where there are few checks to identify western child abusers who travel to Cambodia to gain easy and unsupervised access to children in care. 

The former director of an anti-paedophile NGO has been charged with sexually abusing 11 boys under his care in an orphanage he headed.

In the early afternoon, half a dozen children from Phnom Penh's Poor Street Children and Orphans Training Centre rehearse for a classical Khmer dance and monkey performance a few hours later for well-heeled foreign tourists sipping sunset cocktails.

The children are given $US1 to buy food or pencils or books following the performance, while the orphanage pockets $130 from a tour operator.

The founder of the orphanage spent months in jail before being acquitted of sexually abusing an 11-year-old girl under his care.

The centre's manager, Chanthou Thoeun, bows and brings his hands together at chest level in a traditional Khmer greeting, telling visitors they are free to interact with the children, whom he at first says are orphans, but when pressed admits most of them are not. . 

"The children go to school but there are difficulties finding enough money to buy food for them … there is malnutrition … we hope you can help us," he says, signalling that a donation is expected from visitors.

Ame, a volunteer in her mid-20s from California who has been living with the children for almost three weeks, sprawls on the floor of a bedroom watching cartoons on her smartphone with three children.

"I love the kids. This has been an incredible experience … I didn't know anything about Cambodia . . . the toilets have no paper and you have to squat," she says. "I will be blessed when I return home."

Research shows volunteers like Ame usually leave orphanages feeling good that they have helped poor and abandoned children, and who probably showered them with affection.

But they will have almost certainly added to the psychological harm to the children, who become adept at appearing cute and engaging with strangers, behaviour   that is often mistaken for genuine friendliness and happiness

Fifteen year-old Ben Raksa, who has been at the orphanage for 10 years, says the children are taught to impress the strangers who arrive every hour or so because they donate money so that he and other children can be educated. .

Raksa says one Australian couple in their mid-50s took a group of the children for a beach holiday. "We were very happy," he says.

About a quarter of Cambodia's residential care centres are run by religious organisations, most of them with proselytising missions, adding to the difficulties of the children, who are often overwhelmed as they try to integrate back into a deeply Buddhist society when they leave the institutions.

The US-supported Foursquare Church, which runs 100 centres across Cambodia, resists the residential care label and the regulations that come with it, declaring on its website: "We do not run orphanages. We run churches, always have. Always will! And healthy churches care for the homeless."

A Phnom Penh Post reporter who visited one of the centres on an island in Cambodia's central Kampong Chhang province reported in late November that children were living in sleeping on   torn mattresses in rooms that reeked of urine.

Sebastien Marot, executive director of Friends International, says one of the biggest concerns is the recruitment of volunteers from universities in Australia and other countries to work in orphanages.

A new Friends International campaign centres on the message: "Your donations don't help orphans – they create them", a blunt message to thousands of well-intentioned Australians who sponsor children, or spend weeks or even months working in orphanages or residential centres.

"Guys, stop. Think about what you are doing. This should not be about doing something so you can feel good about yourself," Marot says, adding that Australians should support programs that help keep families together, such as income generation and social support programs.

"Kids are dying in our hospitals every day through a lack of blood ... why not help by donating some blood? Things like that," he says.




67 comments:

  1. Seems that wherever there is a scam, Neeson is involved in it!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yea, Neeson is in on the volunteer scam also. He knows that it harms the children, but that is of no consequence to him. Taking children from their families isn't enough pain for his little ones.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, one of his "key personnel" is Manager of Volunteers, Asha Griffith.

      Delete
  3. Interesting to hear that a group of 50 NGO now all of a sudden feel a change of heart to a Business Model they created for their own well being in the first place.

    Now these NGO feel the wind of change heading their direction try to get a front seat in the "close the orphanage" campaign. For almost 2 decades nobody cared and the child protection industry showed explosive annual growth.

    Volunteers are the child protection industry's best darling. Not knowing anything about the culture and condition of Khmer families in Cambodia they often are willing not only to bless the Orphanage with their presence but also pay for that kind of very questional "hug an orphan during your holiday" experience.

    For many Expats living in Cambodia this was and still is the sickening REALITY we face everyday. The Western media, always interested in "catch a pedophile" Horrorstories paid little to no attention what was going on in and around Cambodia's foreign funded and run Orphanages.

    The fact that a mass of NGOs in this field are not even registered (Foursquare Church for example) makes them outright criminal.

    Expats for years condemned the indoctrination of Khmer kids with evangelical values that often contradict that of their buddhist culture.

    The Cambodian Government would do good to shut down ALL FOREIGN RUN institutionalized child care centers and take care of their own kind in their own cultural enviroment if no parents are there to take care of the kids. Why not sponsor Khmer Foster Homes for those kids that really are Orphans ?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Scott is going to have to re-invent himself fast if he does not want to be left behind by history. His business model (orphans in one end, money out the other end) is no longer cool. Watch how quickly he changes his tune.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He has been taking children from families for 10 years. He is already on the wrong side of history!

      Delete
    2. The problem for Neeson if he tries to re-invent himself is that his business model requires ‘orphans’ to recue and house in his institutions. He cant call them ‘orphans’ and has to justify his removal of them from their families by saying the parents are drunks or druggies or irresponsible or whatever. He is the only person in Cambodia capable of giving these poor kids a good life. Their families are fucked. Being Cambodia’s answer to Mother Teresa sells well to donors. Saint Scott. Selling himself as a person who is helping whole families is not such an easy thing to do.

      Delete
  5. I see Ricketosn is selecting comments again. I have added several here and they haven't been posted. Typical Ricketson.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Scott Neeson

      I am not censoring any comments just now as it seems that the worst of the trolls have given up and gone elsewhere. I am not sure why your comment was not posted. This happens from time to time for me also. So, here is your comment, and my response.

      Rickets - you are full of shit. If you know families who have supposedly been told that they cannot have their children back because they have signed a document, then take them to the police or to UN agency. You cannot do this by law so the fact that you continue to say this occurs but you do nothing about it, stinks of bullshit!

      RESPONSE

      No, you cannot remove children from their families without appropriate consent. And you cannot keep children if the parents want them back. As you know, Chuan and Ka wanted Sokayn and Sokourn returned to their care and you refused to return them, citing the ‘contract’ they had signed with you. It is all well-documented, as you know, on another blog.

      http://cambodianchildrensfund.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/25-scott-nesson-locks-poor-family-out.html

      Delete
    2. Here is the relevant law.

      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.

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/7259345/Law-on-Suppression-of-Human-Trafficking-and-Sexual-Exploitation-15022008-English

      Scott, when you refused to return Sokayn and Sokourn (my phonetic spellings), citing a 'contract' that you refused to produce, you were, as you know, breaking Cambodian law. More importantly, you were treating with contempt the wishes of the parents to have their children returned to their care. Part of the myth you have created for yourself is that you alone can take care of these kids - the implication being that the parents cannot. They can. They just happen to be very very poor and, most often, have wound up losing their homes and land as a result of family sickness and other such disasters and had no choice but to work in the rubbish dump. I know a lot of these families. The mums and dads love their kids, are good p arents and, as good parents, they want their kids to be fed well and to get an education. Both of these objectives could be achieved without institutionalising the children but this is not the model you have chosen to work to this last decade. Now, hopefully, you will abandon your institutional model as quickly as possible and start helping entire families, as opposed to individual members of the family, within a community context. The Cambodian people do not need you to invent a new Scott Neeson community model, based on your rules and regulations. They have their own models but could sure use some financial assistance from cashed up NGOs such as your own.

      Delete
    3. I see, so you revert to the same two children once again. A story that you have been hanging onto for at least 2 years. But above, you seem to falsely make readers believe that CCF is doing this on an unprecedented scale. Once agin you are caught out misrepresenting the truth. I say again, please take your complaints to the Police or a UN agency if you believe that your story withstands the bullshit test. I have been hearing this story for 2 years and it is becoming well beyond tiring. The fact of the matter is that your story is false and a blatant lie. CCF does not take children and make parents sign a contract that staes they cannot have the children back. If there is such a document, please produce it Ricketson. You are such a fraud!

      Delete
    4. Anon 9.38pm - its pointless writing material on this blog that shows Ricketson is a fake. He is only interested in writing and believing information that supports his dreamland conspiracy theories. The unfortunate thing is that he has fallen so far from grace that no-one listens to his lies and deceptions anymore. Very sad really.

      Delete
    5. You must be "no one" Anonymous 9:41, as you keep listening!

      Delete
  6. Neeson will never outlive the harm that he has done to Cambodian children and families by taking them from families to be raised in institutional care

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear Scott (aka Anon 9.38)

    You have chosen your words carefully. Am I to take it that your refusal to return Sokayn and Sokourn to Ka and Chuan when asked was a one-off instance of breaching Cambodian law and the human rights of the parents?

    Is this the only instance in which CCF has refused to return children when asked by parents to do so?

    As for going to the police, here is my experience of that. I filed an official complaint to MOSAVY about the illegal removal of two other girls from their family by an NGO by the name of 'She Rescue Home'. The proof of the illegality of the removal was incontrovertible. I flew to Cambodia to present all the facts of the matter to the Ministry of the Interior's Anti-Human Trafficking unit. No action was taken. No investigation occurred. Instead, the NGO arranged for me to be tried in absentia for 'threatening to dishonour' Citipointe church - the Australian based Christians engaged in the illegal removal. Without even knowing that the court case was on I received a 2 year jail sentence, suspended. On other occasions when I spoke with the police about the kidnapping of these children by Citipointe, I was told that I would have to pay a large bribe to have the girls returned.

    So, the short answer to your question is that it is pointless to go to the police to complain about the behaviour of rich and powerful individuals and NGOS. It was my blog, more than anything, that eventually forced Citipointe to return the girls to their family.

    Finally, Scott, Vis a vis the contract that CCF DOES force parents to sign before their children are taken into care, why not make this public? And why, if there is nothing wrong with the contract, do you refuse to allow parents to retain a copy of it?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dear Scitt (aka Anon 9.41)

    Please point out to me any instances where I have published fake information; fake facts. If any of the facts that I have published have been incorrect, point this out to me and I'll correct my errors.

    Why you and others from Team Neeson keep reading this blog is a mystery to me! It's not compulsory.

    Others who read it can make up their own minds about both the value and veracity of what I publish. I suspect that their reaction will often be, "Why, if M Ricketson, is wrong so often, does Scott Nneson not simply destroy his credibility with answers; with facts?"

    If you wish to appear more credible than me, Scott, why not start by pointing out to readers how it is that you continue to talk about 'gifting' homes to poor families when they are being given to whoever is the owner of the land upon which the are erected?

    ReplyDelete
  9. As published by your good self Dec 18th 3.29 pm James "Most of the information that comes direvtly from within CCF is accurate. Some may not be."

    You blatantly publish information that by your own admission might not be accurate. You further have the absolute bare faced cheek to critisise other journalists who do the same. No wonder you are the joke of your profession and nobody takes your articles seriously.

    It is very tempting to draw a close comparison between yourself and Andrew Drummond whom you constantly mention in derogatory terms, however his ethics without doubt were considerably higher than yours

    ReplyDelete
  10. Scott, to date I think it is actually 100% of the information I have got from within CCF has been accurate.

    As per usual you shot the messenger rather than deal with the message. If any of my facts are wrong, shot me down in flames. If you have some logical explanation as to why you refer to 'gifting' homes to poor families when you are not doing so, present it here.

    If you have a logical explanation as to why the cost of World Housing homes has close to doubled this past few months, present it here.

    If, in fact, you do allow the parents of children in CCF residential care keep copies of the contracts they enter into with CCF, say so; make a pro forms copy of the contract available for all to see.

    If you have evidence that David Fletcher was 'grooming' young girls, say so. If you have no evidence say so.

    If you have good solid answers to the questions I have been asking you this past few years (15 months of them on this blog) provide the answers that will demonstrate your commitment to transparency and accountability.

    Again I say to you, point out where I have my facts wrong and I will both correct them and apologise for having made them. You are never specific about which facts I have wrong. You write always in generalities.

    As far as 'facts' go I get most of these from your own website, from your ITS tax return and from pronouncements made by World Housing. If any of these facts are wrong you need to rectify them; tell the IRS that CCF is not, in fact, spending $4,000 a year to take care of one child in residential care who is also going to a CCF school.

    If you want to destroy my credibility do so with facts. Shooting the messenger is not enough, Scott

    ReplyDelete
  11. If Mr Ricketson is wrong Mr Neeson why don’t you explain in what way he is wrong? If the information he has been given from within CCF is wrong point out in what way it is wrong? It has been ‘common knowledge’ for years that Sok Channoeurn has 15 or so members of her family working for CCF. However, we all know from experience that ‘common knowledge’ can be little more than scuttlebutt that has been repeated often. If Sok Channoeurn DOES have 15 members of her family working for CCF don’t you think you need to explain to your donors why such nepotism is good for CCF?

    Whether Sok Channoeurn is the owner of the lease for Black Bamboo seems to me to be neither here nor there. What is important is that the restaurant generate income that is going to help poor families. Is it? I have been for dinner there a few times and whilst I enjoyed the food very much there were not enough customers on the nights I went (and one time for lunch) to generate profit.

    Or has CCF invested $400,000 in Black Bamboo in order to teach half a dozen young Khmers how to cook up market cuisine for well heeled diplomats and NGOs? Please explain, Mr Neeson. This Black Bamboo project seems to have nothing to do with CCF’s core mission. I would like to be proven wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  12. James openly admits he publishes facts that he does not know to be correct "Most of the information that comes direvtly from within CCF is accurate. Some may not be." So which parts of his blog do we believe and which parts do we not believe ?

    As an example lets look at one of your statements from Dec 16th when you contradicted yourself within 2 sentences. Both the below statements cannot be correct James. You firstly claim sponsors and donors paid the $400,000 and then ask how Kram Sok Channoeurn could afford $400,000 to renovate the Black Bambu.

    Then of course you said Sok Channoeurn owned the Black Bambu and contradicted yourself a paragraph later and said she leased it.

    You need to realise James that when you make things up as you go along it helps to have a good and reliable memory - which you appear not to have.

    The trouble is that you have very little reliable information and just make stabs in the dark hoping sometimes you might get close to getting one fact right (just like your mentor Andrew Drummond did)

    "Black Bamboo cost US400,000 to renovate. Paid for by sponsors and donors who think they are helping poor families. Kram Sok Channoeurn, the in-country manager, is the owner. Another Neeson scam."

    "Mind you, the other question that really needs asking is how it is that Kram Sok Channoeurn can afford to pay $400,000 to renovate an restaurant?"

    So who (if either) paid any money and exactly where did you pluck $400,000 from. You asked in a previous question if it was $50,000 or $100,000. Again my friend it shows you are just going fishing with your statements.

    No doubt you will now reply calling me either Scott or Alan again (of which I am neither) and show yourself up to be even more of a goose and a joke to your profession.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Who owns the land Neeson? The land on which the houses that have been gifted to poor families are being built? Until you answer this question you have no credibility at all. If you own the land, you are a scumbag. If someone owns the land in your name, you are even more of a scumbag. If there is any way you can explain this scam in such a way that you are not a scumbag you should do so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neeson, you devious cunt.Answer the fucking questions being asked. Who owns the land? Who is making a small fortune out of your World Housing scam.

      Delete
    2. Surely if somebody owned the land in Scott's name it would be Scott that owned it as it would be in his name goose number one (anon 2.09am). I think maybe if you were close to being literate - or sober, you might have asked if Scott owned it in somebody else's name.

      As for goose number 2 (Anon 2.16) I really don't know who owns the land because I am not Scott (or Alan). You really have class though with the language and insults you use. Can we censor this guy James please as he does your cause no good at all but I think somehow goose number 1 and goose might be the same person having had one or two too many soda waters today.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 2.34

      No, if Scott owned the land in someone else's name it would be in their name not his. This was the case with the real estate Scott owned before he got his Cambodian passport. He doesn't need a silent partner now

      Delete
    4. Well done James, but goose number one says "If someone owns the land in your name, you are even more of a scumbag" forgive me for being the one to do the thinking tonight but Goose number one suggests somebody else owns land in Scott's name, hence my comment as if Scott was trying to hide anything then he certainly would not get somebody to register land in his name would he. Come on James (or goose number 3 for the night) try and catch up with the grown ups

      Delete
  14. Dear Scott Neeson (aka Anonymous 1.39)

    It is a journalist's job, a blogger's job, a documentary filmmaker's job, to ask questions. If he or she does not get answers from the person best equipped to answer them (in this case, you) the journalist/blogger/filmmaker seeks answers elsewhere. This is standard operating procedure. What I am doing here is no different from what all journalists do.

    When a journalist/blogger/filmmaker finds answers elsewhere (CCF leaks, for instance) it is appropriate, from a professional point of view, to ask if the information s/he has been provided with is accurate or not. This is standard procedure. You refuse to either conform or deny anything at all. You refuse to answer any questions from me at all. I am not alone. Other journalists have the same problem. You do not want to answer questions. You want to control the public perception of CCF and yourself through Facebook and press releases. You are very good at this. A master PR man. Journalists who do not wish to be part of your PR machine are a threat to you and you need, insofar as you can, to destroy their credibility and hope that readers will jot notice that you NEVER answer questions.

    You are digging your own grave, Scott.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So to ask questions is OK and if you do not get answers then it is OK to just rely on rumor, innuendo and scuttlebutt and publish unconfirmed gossip, seems to be OK with you James.

      I still do not understand why you were so critical about Andrew Drummond though or why you don't just admit - yes, if I do not get answers from Scott I just make it up or try and rely on gossip that I hear in bars or describe in the best of journalistic fashion as "leaks"

      Please try to stop calling me Scott or Alan as it really is getting irritating, could we settle maybe Mary Poppins or the tooth fairy instead please.

      Delete
    2. Your the one Ricketts who is digging a grave for yourself. If you try to come back to Cambodia youll get an interedting welvome at the airport.

      Delete
  15. Dear Scott Neeson

    can you please tell us who owns the land where you are building homes to rent to the poor people of Steung Meanchey?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dear Scott Neeson (aka Anonymous 2.46)

    What have I published that is gossip? Innuendo?

    I have asked you many questions that you refuse to answer. I have continued my investigations and got answers from others that I have run by you. This is standard journalists' operating procedure. Your response is 'no comment' .

    Read any newspaper and you'll see how this works. As with a regular newspaper the reader can figure out for him or herself if the questions being asked are valid or if the person who is being asked the questions is well within his rights not to answer them.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ah, scuttllebutt and rumor are OK but you object to gossip and Innuendo, James, I can assure you that you have never asked me a single question, but you have asked Scott many, now that I realise you don't like Mary Poppins or the tooth fairy, can we compromise on Santa Clause as it is somewhat more seasonal.

    P.S Can't seem to find the chimney to climb down to visit Fletcher later this week, is he back in the prison hospital again or just not in a festive mood.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Regardless of who you are, what name you wish to be known by (Anonymous, Scott Neeson, Alan Lomon, Mary Poppins) the question remains:

    "who owns the land upon which the homes 'gifted' to poor families are being erected?"

    Whoever owns it is not only the beneficiary of a lot to free homes ( to be rented out) but is also knowingly involved in this World Housing scam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You seem to think you know most things James, so how come you are stuck on this one. No hint about Fletchers whereabouts or have you at last seen sense and dumped him. He certainly got no mention on your radio "30 seconds of fame" interview

      Delete
    2. Given that I am in Australia communication with Mr Fletcher is a little more difficult that when I am in Cambodia. However, as of a few days ago he was alive and well and doing as well as can be expected in an over-crowded cell in the days leading up to Christmas.

      This will be Mr Fletcher’s 5th Christmas in jail – thanks, in part, to Scott Neeson’s having told everyone who would listen (including the British Embassy and Andrew Drummond) that he was ‘grooming’ young girls. Neeson had no evidence of this but he did see Mr Fletcher as a ‘competitor’ in the Phnom Penh Rubbish dump and needed, in order to be ‘king of the castle’, to get rid of him. Neeson’s defaming of Mr Fletcher speaks volumes of Neeson’s character, or lack thereof.

      Delete
    3. I think he will actually have served more than 5 Christmases in jail (you seem to forget he is also a convicted child sex offender that spent some time in a British jail) Just helping you out with the CORRECT facts James and not the selective bits of info you choose to publish.

      Delete
    4. Yes, perhaps it is 6 Christmasses; not 5.

      Again, Scott, please identify the facts that I have published that are not correct? Just 3 would suffice.

      Delete
    5. Surely 1 will suffice for a start James. You stated this was Fletchers 5th Christmas in jail but as he spent over a year in jail in the UK for sex crimes he was sentenced on this will be his 6th (although I am not sure if the time he spent in jail in Thailand also included a Christmas.

      You also stated that Sok Channoeurn owned the Black Bambu (I will throw that one in as a bonus for you because I cannot be bothered to identify the other dozens of facts that you publish that are not correct)

      Delete
    6. well said anon 5.40pm - Ricketson has become so delusional, it is now impossible for him to accept that he constantly contradicts himself in his blogs. But perhaps thats the issue. His rants are mad cup of 90% falsities so its difficult to not have contradictions.

      Delete
    7. Dear Scott Neeson (aka Anonymous 5.40)

      Really, Scott, this is the best you can come up with by way of facts I have got wrong? Six Christmasses in jail not five?

      Come on, Scott, out of the “dozens of facts’ that I have got wrong you must be able to come up with something a bit more substantial that this!? Surely!

      Is the ‘fact’ that you are not giving the homes to poor families but having them ‘gifted’ to the owner of the land upon which they are erected wrong? If so, please explain

      If Sok Channoeurn is not the owner of the lease for ‘Black Bamboo’, who is? More importantly, in what way is this high-class restaurant, at which only cashed up expats could afford to eat, in any way useful to the poor families in Steung Meanchey? Was this $400,000 of donor money well spent?

      Delete
    8. James, as requested facts you published that were incorrect have been shown. Are you denying the facts as shown above and published by you were incorrect ? Come on James for once in your life stand up and be a man and admit that you never remember what you have said in previous blogs and that in most cases you are simply lazy and do not verify your information before publishing. I know the 4th Estate has a nice ring to it but I really do not think you come close to qualifying

      Delete
    9. Rickets - why do you continue to call em Neeson. Im not Neeson. I think its easy to label everyone Neeson simply because you realise that there a large number of people who think you are retard!

      Delete
  19. I have it on good authority that Rickets most recent hurried departure was because he was deported. if he tries to re enter the country he will be arrested.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry to disappoint, Anonymous 2.44, but I returned to Australia because this is the country in which I live. Your ‘good authority’ has let you down.

      I will return to Cambodia in the new year regardless of comments such as this one that are clearly intended to intimidate. If your ‘good authority’ means that you have access to those who are in a position to deport/arrest me, chances are you are either Scott Neeson or Samleang Seila. If you are either of these, or someone else doing their bidding, you are admitting to your own corruption.

      If you or anyone else wishes to use their own power, influence and money to have me deported/arrested, so be it. There are some dangers inherent in this approach, however. My arrest would bring to the attention of a much larger readership than this blog the many questions I have asked this past year – perhaps even some mainstream journalists who would start to ask the same or similar questions. The last thing either APLE or CCF wants is to be the focus of attention of journalists whose questions cannot be answered by calling them ‘shit stirring cunts’.

      Delete
    2. I can't wait until the fucking idiot gets locked up. An oxygen thief at best!

      Delete
    3. Locked up for what crime? Has the National Assembly recently enacted an 'oxygen thief' law?

      Delete
  20. There is one thing that I just can't understand - who the hell do you think you you are Ricketson thinking that anyone has to answer any question that you ask. You seem to think that you are a governing body who has legal right to ask any stupid question you like and then the person you asked must respond. Good on you Mr. Neeson, McCabe, Lemon for not answering.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Team Neeson troll

      It may come as something of a surprise to you but it is the role of members of the 4th estate to hold those in positions of power accountable; to seek out the truth behind the lies told to us all by politicians and others whose decisions impact on all of our lives. To ask questions.

      Scott Neeson, CCF, is exploiting the poverty and powerlessness of the families in Steung Meanchey (and the generosity of donors and sponsors) to acquire free housing for whoever it is who owns the land upon which the houses are being erected. This is a scam and it is precisely this kind of scam, the kinds of lies that make it possible (‘gifting’ homes to poor families) that it is the role of journalists and filmmakers to expose. That is all that I am doing here. It was through the asking of questions that Somaly Mam was exposed as a liar. It was through the asking of questions that journalists (Bernstein and Woodward) eventually exposed Richard Nixon as a liar and led to his exit as President of the United States. Journalism is littered with such stories. Indeed, such investigative journalism is a very important part of journalism as a whole. What I am doing here is in no way extraordinary. And what Scott Neeson, the CCF board and other who stand to benefit from this World Housing scam are doing (refusing to answer questions) is in no way extraordinary either. It is par for the course for the rich, the powerful and the influential, to do all they can (including frivolous court cases) to silence their critics. It can take many years before corruption of the kind that is occurring here is exposed to full public view. Somaly Mam’s lies were common knowledge for several years before the Newsweek story brought them to the attention of a wider pubic and made it impossible for her to continue.

      This will happen with Scott Neeson and CCF also – unless, that is, the CCF board decides that it needs to radically alter CCF’s modus operandi. It would not surprise me at all if this were to happen. And I would welcome it. Scott is clearly a master at raising money and if this money could be used not to take kids from their families but to assist them within a family and community context this would be a positive step in the right direction. And, I suspect, such a change in direction would result in most sponsors and donors sticking with CCF. The current model is dead in the water. The only question is whether CCF embraces change or has change forced upon it.

      Delete
  21. But leave aside, for a moment, the fact that I am a journalist/filmmaker and imagine that I am merely an activist; that I, like many others in Cambodia, would like to see change in the country. Clearly, I have my own feelings about what direction this change could (or should) take. Again, I am far from being alone in having such ideas. There are many Cambodians (and non-Cambodians) who would like to see radical change and who express their views to the extent that it is possible. Given that freedom of speech is written into the Cambodian constitution, why should not I and all others with ideas express those ideas in pubic fora? You don’t have to agree with me, and you clearly don’t, but you should respect my right to disagree with you just as I respect your right to disagree with me.

    Whoever you may be, why don’t your engage in dialogue rather than shoot the messenger? It is my experience that those who refuse to engage in dialogue have no argument to present other than their preconceptions and prejudices – neither of which they want to be challenged. If you think what I write here is nonsense (and what I have written elsewhere) argue your case. If your argument is a good one readers will, in all likelihood, agree with you and assess me and my arguments much as you do. And this is how it should be.

    Your praise of Neeson, Mc Cabe and Lemon for refusing to be either transparent or accountable puts you firmly in the camp of those who do not wish to enter into dialogue of any kind with anyone who challenges your preconceptions and prejudices. This is not the way social change occurs. Whether you like it or not, change is coming to Cambodia. It may be slow but it is coming and you have to choose which side of history you wish to be on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And yet you still refuse to embrace the question. Who crowned you king and why do you think that anyone has to answer your so called 4th estate questions. I have never heard so much drivel in all my life. You really are delusional possibly psychotic.

      Delete
  22. Fletcher hasn't posted any comments on this blog for sometime. Perhaps its because Ricketson has grown tired of writing them himself and pretending to be Fletcher. I did hear from a person close to David that he isn't very happy that Ricketson didn't mention David during his Australian radio interview. I think David is starting to realise that he has been used by Ricketson.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are a fool Anonymous 5:39. Not one of your presumptions is correct.

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous 5.39

      Thank you for putting a smile on my face. The notion that you heard from someone "close to David" that Mr Fletcher is unhappy with me because I didn't mention him in a radio interview is really scraping the bottom of the barrel as far as commejnts go. Can't you do any better than this!

      Delete
    3. I can do better. Your days of visiting Cambodia are coming to an end. And yes, please try to tell your fucktard followers on this blog (of which there are only 5 people) that you aren't scared, that you have nothing to fear. Lets see who is smiling very soon Ricketson. And no, this isn't a threat, its fact that Cambodia authorities are about to give you the smack you deserve! I cat wait to pop the champas!

      Delete
    4. Dear Scott Neeson, Alan Lemon, Samleang Seila or whoever you may be issuing yet another threat

      For the Cambodian authorities to give me "the smack" I deserve I would need to break or have broken) Cambodian law. I have done neither.

      Alternatively, someone with power, money and influence could, as did Citipointe church, arrange for me to be tried in absentia for a non-existent crime.

      The only way that you could be in possession of information regarding my future in Cambodia, without my being aware of it, is if you have spoken with whichever authority it is that is going to give me the "smack" I deserve. Alternatively, you have arranged for me to receive this "smack."

      We shall see. The plot thickens.

      Delete
    5. You were triad in absentia because like David Fletcher, you knew you were going to be found guilty and ran back to Australia and refused to come back to Cambodia to answer your crimes. The you made ups story that you had been framed. In similar fashion to when you were sued by Screen Australia and claimed that they had corruptly influenced the courts. Stop stretching the truth you fucking liar. Thats all you are a blatant liar!

      Delete
    6. Wrong again, Scott. I was not only inCambodia at the time, I had been talking with the judge of the court on the morning of the case. I had only just heard that charges had been laid and wanted to find out what was going on. He told me not to worry but failed to mention that the case was to be heard that afternoon.

      This is the letter I wrote to Judge Keo Mony regarding this:

      Mr Keo Mony
      Prosecuting Judge
      Phnom Penh Municipal Court

      17th April 2014

      Dear Judge

      re Case Number 3730

      Citipointe church versus James Ricketson

      I would like to place on record the following:

      (1) I was not provided with any warrant or summons to let me know that I was due to attend your court on 12th March.

      (2) I only heard about the 12th March court case the following day when it was pointed out to me by a journalist that I had failed to attend.

      (3) On 2nd April I attended your office at around 10 am and spoke at length with you about the failure of the Phnom Penh Municipal Court to provide me with a summons in relation to the 12th March hearing.

      (4) You arranged for me to be provided with a copy of the summons. You asked me for my address and phone numbers and led me to believe that you would make contact with me later regarding my case.

      (5) Shortly after I received the summons I took it to be translated from Khmer into English.

      (6) I received an English translation of the summons mid-afternoon of 2nd. April.

      (7) At 6pm on 2nd April I received a phone call from a journalist to ask why I had not appeared in your court at 2pm. I replied that despite speaking with you at length during the morning you had failed to tell me that I was due in court at 2pm.

      (8) When I spoke with you the following day (3rd April) in your office you eventually agreed to allow me to read through and copy out the accusations leveled at my by Citipointe church. You also informed me that I could appeal your sentence and file a complaint against Citipointe church.

      (9) It was not until one day after you sentenced me to a two year suspended jail sentence that I learned I had allegedly ‘threatened to dishonour’ Citipointe church. It was not until 3rd April that I learned I had allegedly thrown a bowl at the police who tried to serve me with a summons. Did any police testify that this was so?

      (10) I do not want to appeal the conviction 2nd April conviction. I do not consider it to be valid and I do not wish to waste my time and money coming back to Cambodia again to go to court.
      (11) I will be making an application to the Supreme Court of Queensland in Australia to be provided with copies of the MOUs that Citipointe believes gave the church the right to remove Rosa and Chita from their family in 2008. I am going to such lengths because the Phnom Penh Municipal Court refuses to ask the church to prove that removed the girls in accordance with Cambodian law.

      (12) The Phnom Penh Municipal Court clearly does not care whether the church’s actions in removing Rosa and Chita were legal or illegal.

      (13) The Cambodian government and the Cambodian legal system do not care if foreigner NGOs come to your country, illegally remove the children of poor parents and exploit them to make profits for the NGO. The Cambodian government and the Cambodian legal system does not care if families are broken up and if the children of Buddhist parents are forced to become Christians.

      Why do you allow these human rights abuses to occur?

      When I am in possession of the 2008 and 2009 MOUs I will send them to the court. They will reveal that Citipointe had no legal right to remove the girls in the manner they did. When the truth is revealed by the MOUs I expect my conviction to be overturned and for Citipointe to be charged with the ‘illegal removal’ of Rosa and Chita in 2008 in accordance with Cambodian law.

      yours sincerely

      James Ricketson

      Delete
  23. Rickets - is it true that you have on more than one occasion, had a Khmer family make a complaint against you for harassment and for stalking their children. Now lets see if you can answer honestly, after all I already know the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I can answer this question easily. The answer is 'no'. If you believe the truth to be otherwise, please do let me know. Please feel free to share whatever information you have with readers of this blog.

      Delete
    2. You are a liar - there are several complaints about you stalking and harassing Khmer families.

      Delete
    3. Dear Scott Neeson

      If you have any evidence that I have stalked or harassed Khmer families, please make it public. Please present whatever evidence you have.

      You will not do so because it is not true. You did the same with Mr Fletcher - accused him of 'grooming; young girls when you had no evidence whatsoever that he was doing so.

      Delete
  24. Just go through Google and you will see how much of a lunatic Ricketson is. There are two types of Google posts. 1) everything that is written by Ricketson himself and 2) stories relating to how respectable entities like Citpointe, Screen Australia and others have sued him for defamation and won. You dont have to be the 4th estate to work out who the delusional idiot is.

    http://mumbrella.com.au/film-maker-arrested-over-screen-australia-sit-in-protest-121779

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Scott Neeson

      Have you nothing better to do with your day than sit at your computer shooting the messenger? This is no doubt entertaining to some readers but I think the majority would like you to answer some questions. Questions like:

      (1) Why do you say you are giving homes to poor families when World Housing is giving them to whoever owns the land upon which they are being erected?

      (2) How is it that the cost of these homes has close to doubled in the past few months?

      (3) Why is it that you refuse to make pubic the 'contracts' that you force parents to sign who have kids in care with CCF?

      The list goes on.

      You can keep hurling insults at me, you can keep referring to me as 'delusional', you can make thinly (and not so thinly) veiled threats but these evasive tactics only serve to reveal just how lacking in transparency and accountability you are. If you succeed in having me jailed (as you did with David Fletcher) these same questions will be asked by journalists with more clout than myself.

      As for Citipointe, this church illegally removed two children from their family. This is not conjecture. It is fact. It took me six years to get the girls returned to their family. In the meantime Pastor Mulheran threatened, as you are now, to have me jailed and prevented from coming to Cambodia anymore. Pastor Mulheran, along with Pastor Ramsey, made good on their threat eventually - taking me to court (without me knowing the case was on) to sue me for pointing out that the church was removing children illegally from their homes.

      You can read the whole story here:

      http://citipointechurch.blogspot.com.au

      Delete
    2. Rickets - the link you provide above with the so called real story about Citipointe is a blog that you wrote. Do you think we are all fucking idiots?

      Delete
  25. As for Mr Fletcher, he did not, as you write, 'run'. At the time he left Cambodia there were no charges against him. There was no arrest warrant. There was not yet even the allegation that he had raped Yang Dany.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I think Team Neeson has one very persistent idiot, most likely responding under Neeson's direction. Yes Scott, whatever you say Scott, how is this Scott, anything else you need Scott?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The idiot is Ricketson -he has screened several comments once again. Only posts what he likes. he is a fucking joke!

      Delete
    2. Yes Sir Mr Neeson! I'll write whatever you tell me to Sir!

      Delete