Thursday, January 14, 2016

# 182 CCF board members turn a blind eye to World Housing scam


Dear Members of the Cambodian Children’s Fund Board

It is possible, I suppose (though improbable) that you remain unaware that CCF’s World Housing initiative is a scam.

If you are not aware that this is so, you should be. It is an integral part of your role as board  members to protect CCF’s generous sponsors and donors from being scammed.


If, for whatever reason, this scam has escaped your attention, there is no need to take my word for it. All that is required is for you to apply some very basic mathematics.

CCF asks sponsors and donors to put up $5,000 to buy one house for a poor Cambodian family.

The information I have from within CCF suggests that the cost of manufacture of one house is $1,000.

If this information is incorrect, the first question you need to ask Scott Neeson, is:

“How much do the pre-fabricated houses cost per unit?”

Since its inception, until recently. Scott Neeson has been telling the world that CCF is ‘gifting’ these houses to poor families. And this is certainly what sponsors and donors have been led to believe. When it was pointed out to him (in a very public manner) that he was renting these houses to poor families, not giving them, CCF eventually came clean and admitted that, yes, they were being rented. The families to whom the houses have been ‘gifted’ will never, can never, own them.


So, these 300 houses (to date), rented by poor families, have been erected on land owned by…?

Who owns the land? And why is this question important?

Whether you value the houses at $1,000 or $5,000 per unit, the owner of the land is in receipt of somewhere between $300,000 and $1.8 million of free houses.

Whatever the mysterious owner of the land paid for the land, its value increases with each and every house built on it.

My own feeling, having visited the new ‘communities’ is that CCF is in the process of building slums, but that is not relevant to the question in hand.


The next question you need to ask Scott Neeson is:

Who owns the land? Who is the lucky recipient of all these free houses?”

The information I have received from within CCF is that the land is owned by Country Manager Kram Sok Channoern.

The inside information I get from CCF is usually correct, though it may not be in this case.

If any or all of what I write here is ‘news’ to you all, you should, in the interests of clarification (and, of course, transparency) ask Scott Neeson straight up:

“Is Kram Sok Channoeurn the owner of the land upon which between $300,000 and $1.8 million ‘gifted’ houses  have been erected to date?”

In the interests of transparency and accountability the answers to these questions should be provided to the generous sponsors and donors who, until very recently, believed that they were buying houses for poor families’ not for Kram Sok Channoeurn. Or whoever else might be the owner of the land.

Whilst you all, as board members, may not be legally responsible for what is clearly a scam, you are morally responsible. Your very presence on the board, in the knowledge that a scam is taking place, is tacit acknowledgment that you either support the scam or that your consciences are untroubled by it.

If you do not approve of such scams, if your consciences are troubled, you should resign from the board.

No doubt the Scott Neeson Trolls who believe that I do not have a right to ask these kinds of questions will, in their usual fashion, seek to shoot the messenger on this blog; make thinly veiled and not so thinly veiled threats. C’est la vie!

It is up to you, as board members, to decide whether to turn a blind eye, to bury your heads in the sand on the question of who is the beneficiary of the free housing.


However, when the full extent of CCF’s scams becomes known (and it will) you will not be able to plead ignorance.






















138 comments:

  1. This boards entire make is to be yes men to Neeson and to bring in large donations. Who amount them would be qualified to run learning institution? Who would be qualified to run a Cambodian Housing community? Who would be qualified to raise 700 children taken from their families? They are simply yes men to Neeson. They even backed him for hiring McCabe and Lemon!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Have you ever noticed Mr Ricketson who writes these press releases pretending to be news stories? Read between the lines and you'll see the marketing footprint of Scott Neeson .

    ReplyDelete
  3. Neeson is famous for creating and grafting stories aimed for your heartstrings and wallet. With his World Housing scam, ‘gifting’ houses to families in Steung meanchy, he was trying to shift focus from a very questionable charity that still to this day holds hundreds of children within the confides of its dark age institutional facilities . A stolen generation of children removed from poor families. Donors are fed lies that the children in dormitories – 2, 3 and 4 to a bed - are unwanted or abandoned by dysfunctional parents. Not true. Their parents are just poor that’s all. Very poor. And Neeson exploits them. Shame, shame, shame

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ricketson you are up against a tough nut to crack !! Neeson surrounds himself with former Australian police, one of whom was jailed for armed robbery and drug offences . The other was demoted and kicked out for aiding and abetting the other while working as an AFP officer and helping run away cop McCabe . Neeson surrounds himself with persons of utter distaste to protect himself from questioning .
    Australian police are well known for intimation and threats . Throw in a mix of corrupt Cambodian law enforcers , who on any given day with beat and jail anyone who is considered a problem and you have CCF, golden charity egg that has been feeding these pigs lifestyles for years. They will never stop . NGO propaganda: keeping the poor poor so that suckers who cant see through their bullshit keep throwing money at them .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well anon 9.24pm out of all the losers who post comments oaths blog you would have to take the cake as biggest fuckwit. On what basis do you make the statement that Australia Police are well known for intimidation and threats. Did you read this at play school yesterday or perhaps you got yelled at when being arrested. Fucking moron!

      Delete
    2. Well we do have McCabe as evidence! Is it necessary to repeat his history?

      Delete
    3. Geez, thats a great reply fuckwit. First off, McCabe was jailed of corruption, not intimidation or threats. Secondly, I think there are about 50,000 police in Australia. So one bad apple (McCabe) that you know of and you state that Australian police are well known for intimidation and threats. I will say it again. You are a fuckwit!

      Delete
    4. You must be Lemon trying to stick up for your mate. I thought that had already caused you enough trouble? Well without looking it up, I believe that McCabe admitted to taking drugs from dealers at gunpoint. Before he resold them. So you think stealing drugs at gunpoint isn't threatening and intimidating? We might have to repost the entire McCabe story!

      Delete
  5. I notice that John Hewson is no longer associated with CCF. It seems as though he has seen the light. I wonder if the board members shamed here will see the light and abandon the Good Ship Neeson before it sinks?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If this is true about Hewson, perhaps we owe a debt of gratitude to Mr James Ricketson. See blog #164! Keep up your good work Mr Ricketson!!!

      Delete
  6. If World Housing was a Somaly Mam scam the English Language Cambodian media would be all over it.Front page news. Neeson's scam goes unreported! Why is that? Is there a 'White Men's Club' thing happening here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well the newspapers aren't reporting in it because it isn't a scam. The only person who thinks it is, is Ricketson and he makes this assumption because he is jealous that he can only afford to donate 2 bark huts to some poor rice farmers in the province whose daughters he has been targeting. Pretty simple really.

      Delete
    2. If it isn't a scam why did Neeson lie about the 'gifting'? Why won't he and the CCF board make public who owns the land?

      Delete
    3. Because they dont need to tell anyone fuckwit

      Delete
    4. @ Anonymous 8.23

      Why keep it a secret? If Mr Neeson owns the land then he has given himself 100s of 1000s of $ worth of housing. If Kram Sok Channoeurn or any of the 20 or so of her family members working for CCF own the land she or they have hit the jackpot with hundreds of houses stolen from poor families and given to them. its called a scam fuckwit

      Delete
  7. Keep going Mr Ricketson. You are getting close. CCF Country Manager Kram Sok Channoern does own the land CCF is building the ‘gifted’ houses on. This is just the tip of the iceberg though. There’s a bigger scam waiting to be discovered and one that the newspapers will find it hard not to report on no matter what inducements Neeson might have to offer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am aware of the much bigger scam that you are referring to - unless, of course there is another (or more) that I do not know about yet.

      The one to which I think you are referring is complicated by the fact that those who have first hand knowledge of it work for CCF. Whilst one was, until recently, prepared to blow the whistle, this individual is now frightened to do so. It is not simply as a result of intimidation (though there is that), but also because reasonably well-paind jobs for relatively unskilled Cambodians are thin on the ground. It would be a rash move for a Cambodian with a family to support to risk such a job simply to become a whistle-blower and, as a result, become unemployable. Then, of course, there are the non-disclosure contracts that Neeson forces all CCF employees to sign.

      Despite Neeson's attempts to keep dissent within CCF secret it is inevitable that one day he (and CCF) will push one person too far and s/he will go public with what s/he knows. Others will follow and the whole house of cards will come tumbling down. It is just a matter of time.

      Delete
  8. James, you clearly state "CCF asks sponsors and donors to put up $5,000 to buy one house for a poor Cambodian family."
    Could we please see just one place that CCF has asked anybody to put up US$5,000 for a house please just to give this blog one second of credibility.

    As is often the case you cannot give me an example can you. We both know the smoke and mirrors game you are trying to play and we both know I am going to prove you are playing with numbers when you reply. You are not as stupid as you try to make us believe.

    And before you accuse me, no I am not Scott, Allan or James (or the Queen mother

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Scott Neeson

      From blog entry # 176:

      From: Graham Brewster
      Date: 16 December 2015 1:01:11 pm AEST
      To: xxxxxxx
      Subject: Re: Info pack

      Hi xxxxxxx,

      Great to hear from you, and thanks for reaching out. Not too sure what happened on the first go-round, but I will look into it for sure. If it was around December 1 there was a short period of time when some emails were lost as we were having the new website/domain go live. If that was the case the best I can do is apologize!

      As for sponsoring a home, we would be extremely grateful. The cost to gift a home in your name is $5,000, ..."

      Now, since you seem to know more, or better, than Graham Brewster, you give us your figure per house?

      Delete
    2. OK Scott (smoke and mirrors) Neeson, prove that Ricketson is playing with numbers. Your numbers please.

      Delete
    3. Der Scott

      Whilst waiting for the figures from you that will prove me wrong, lets look at a few possibilities:

      Graham Brewster made a typographical error. He wrote $5,000 by mistake. The ‘5’ was supposed to be a ‘4’ or a ‘3’ or maybe even a ‘2’!

      Before going through this little exercise, let’s see what we can agree on.

      CCF has constructed 300 houses, right?

      300 families are now living in these houses, right?

      CCF does not own the land upon which the houses have been constructed, right?

      The land upon which the houses have been built is owned by someone who charges $15 a month per family for the rental of the houses, right?

      The owner of the land the houses have been built on becomes the owner of the houses, right?

      Since the World Housing incentive was initiated, and until just a few weeks ago, CCF has (and you have) been saying that these 300 houses had been ‘gifted’ to the families, right?

      Now, CCF admits that the families to whom the houses have been ‘gifted’ have not been given their homes, right?

      (When I get one of my facts wrong please do feel free to correct me.)

      If the houses cost $1,000 to construct the owner of the land has received $300,000 worth of ‘gifted’ houses, right?

      The re-sale value of the land upon which the ‘gifted’ houses have been built has thus risen by at least $300,000, right?

      If the new houses cost $2,000 the owner of the land is now in possession of $600,000 worth of ‘gifted’ houses, right?

      Even allowing for a possible Graham Brewster typographical error, the owner of the land is cleaning up. Each week, each month, at no expense to herself, the value of her land increases, right?

      Any factual errors so far, Scott?

      The bulk of these ‘gifted’ houses were paid for by sponsors and donors who believed they were giving them to poor families, right? They did not know that they were giving them to CCF’s Country Manager, Kram Sok Channoern, right?

      As of a few weeks ago sponsors and donors know that they are not giving houses to poor families it, that is, they read CCF press releases carefully. You still use the word ‘gifted’ and I think that most people with hearts big enough to wish to help poor families in Cambodia believe that a gift is something you give to someone; not rent to someone.

      I wonder if sponsors and donors will be as keen on the World Housing initiative if they know that they are giving houses not to poor families but to your Country Manager, Kram Sok Channoern.

      When I ask you questions such as these, Scott, the usual response from yourself and/or your Trolls is to accuse me of being jealous, of being a bitter old man, of being a loser, a cunt and making thinly veiled threats about my being arrested when I return to Cambodia.

      There is another way to go with this, and this will not have escaped the attention of any reader of this blog with a modicum of intelligence:

      Demolish me with facts. Write, “Ricketson is wrong. The houses cost $x to manufacture; they cost $y to construct on site, $z per house for maintenance each year and so on.”

      You could make public the contract that renters of Country Manager Kram Sok Channoern’s houses enter into with her, let sponsors and donors know what the terms and conditions are. And so on.

      If any of the facts I have presented here are wrong, demolish me comprehensively with facts that you are prepared to stand by and which you can demonstrate to be true. Do this and you will destroy my credibility and I am sure that visitors to this blog will simply stop reading.

      Your call, Scott.

      Delete
  9. Mr Ricketson, Neeson is already on the defense, just look at his latest
    press release, published by the Khmer Times:

    This part is the most important part:

    “We have CCF officers visit the community regularly to check on the
    families and see whether they follow CCF’s policy or not,” Mr. Theara
    said. “If any families are found in violation, they will have to move
    out.”

    Each house costs $2,600,

    http://www.khmertimeskh.com/news/19878/another-41-stung-meanchey----dumpsite-families----get-homes/

    Here is an example of how much a home for poor Cambodians costs.
    http://www.gizmag.com/framework-house-us2500-cambodia/38076/

    Wikipedia has several alerts on it's website about CCF and Neeson:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Neeson

    This article contains content that is written like an advertisement.
    Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate
    external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a
    neutral point of view. (August 2015)

    Neeson at CCF

    This section of a biography of a living person does not include any
    references or sources. Please help by adding reliable sources.
    Contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly
    sourced must be removed immediately. (November 2015)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let me get this straight. CCF kicks families out of the houses that have been ‘gifted’ to them if they don’t obey Scott Neeson’s rules. But if CCF does not own the land what gives Neeson the legal right to be laying down rules for tenants?

      These rules must be imposed by the owner of the land, Country Manager Kram Sok Channoern. So, Kram Sok Channoern is not just getting hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free houses but will also kick out any family that does not abide by her rules? Is doing this on her own initiative or because she is a Scott Neeson puppet and Neeson is the real owner of the land and Kram Sok Channoern his silent partner? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

      Oh, and if the houses cost $2,600, Kram Sok Channoern has been ‘gifted’ $780,000 worth of free houses and the value of her land has risen by about $780,000.

      Delete

  10. Scott

    Let’s work on the presumption that the $2,600 figure per house is an accurate one.

    And let’s work also on the presumption that Graham Brewster’s $5,000 per house quote is not a typographical error; that $5,000 is what Graham is asking for from sponsors and donors.

    Where does the difference between money donated ($5,000) and money spent on a house ($2,600) wind up? That’s $2,400. Multiplied by 300, that’s a lot of money.

    If these figures are not accurate, please provide us with figures that are.

    If Kram Sok Channoern is not the owner of the land upon which the houses are being constructed, please indicate who is. Or at least confirm that no-one from CCF, or closely associated with CCF (like a member of Kram Sok Channoern’s family) is the recipient of the $780,000 of free housing.

    As I’ve indicated many times now, Scott, if you want to destroy my credibility do so with facts and figures; not by getting your trolls to abuse me verbally (shooting the messenger) and issuing thinly veiled threats.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So Neeson was hiding the land ownership because he is "gifting" housing intended for the impoverished, to his own Country Manager? REALLY!!!! And the Neeson trolls still defend this crook?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think most that defend him are on his payroll.

      Delete
    2. I have been reluctant to use the word 'pathological' to describe Neeson to date but I no longer have any qualms at all. Scott is a pathological liar. And he is guilty of fraud - telling sponsors and donors that he is giving houses to poor families whilst giving them to his Country Manager.

      History will not be kind to you, Scott. Somaly Mam is an angel by comparison with you. Yes, she told lies, as you do, but to the best of my knowledge she was not stealing from the poor to give to the rich

      Delete
    3. Your a cunt Rickets. I hope Neeson dues you for defmation.

      Delete
    4. Is it defamation to say that Neeson is lying scum and that you choose to defend him?

      Delete
    5. Dear Anonymous 9.55

      So good to have you back, providing some comic relief with your alcohol fuelled comments.

      I too hope that Neeson sues (as opposed to 'dues') me. Would make for an interesting court case.

      Mind you, I'd like to be invited to attend if such were to occur - a privilege not accorded to David Fletcher - the man Neeson helped have arrested and jailed for 10 years without the benefit of any trial at all.

      Much as I wish he would, Neeson won't sue; not even in Cambodia, where he could well afford to pay for the verdict he wants. No, Neeson does not want his dirty laundry washed in public. For as long as he can work in the dark, in the absence of any real scrutiny, he will grin and bear the pin prick wounds he suffers each time I expose yet another lie; yet another scam.

      Delete
  12. So this liar,scum and thief (Sort Neeson), is the one who lied about David Fletcher with his assertion that David was grooming young girls. Yet he has offered no proof of that, only wanted David's project of feeding the poor out of the dump. All evidence is of David's innocence yet this scum walks around free? What a travesty of justice!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. James, point number one, I asked you to show me one place that CCF has asked sponsors and donors to put up $5,000 to buy one house for a poor Cambodian family. As with most things you touch you failed miserably. You put up part of a letter from Graham Brewster who as far as I am aware works for World Housing (who build homes in other countries as well as Cambodia) and does not work for CCF.

    Secondly and maybe a lot more importantly you forgot to mention he is representing a Canadian organisation who do business in CANADIAN DOLLARS and not US$ hence my request for you to show anywhere CCF had mentioned US$ which again you have failed miserably in doing.

    As you are claiming there is a discrepancy of US$2,400.00 this is grossly misleading and as stated earlier is just playing smoke and mirror games Since US$1 buys CA$1.45 the $5,000 has instantly diminished to close to $3,450 and trashing your figure of the missing US$2,400 by approx 70%. Will we expect to see an apology for your lack of suitability to be an investigative journalist as has been displayed once again, or of course an apology to CCF for having got things wrong yet again.

    As for the balance quite honestly I have no idea what the answer is, it could be that as with Australia many overseas organisations need to pay a fee to an independent auditor to comply with tax leglisation in their country regarding donations, it might be that there are some sort of Canadian government fees or associated fees in Cambodia or the Philippines.

    Like you I have no idea of the reason and I am sure if CCF and World Housing think it is any of your business or mine they will give us details. You seem to forget James that most people do not hold you in particular high esteem and have no interest in communicating with you.

    The only reason I have wasted time on you is to show some of your readers that you have very little credibility when it comes to doing any sort of sensible research. You just grasp out and grab any snippet of information that in your eyes might harm CCF or Scott Neeson and publish it irrespective of the source or credibility of the source of the information.

    Cheers (not Scott Allan or James or Somaly)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't try to speak for MOST people! You are one person who chooses to defend a liar, child abuser and a thief!! Did Scotty let you use his computer on a Saturday?

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous 11.13

      Precisely who you are is not that important. It is the subject in hand that matters; not your name.

      You are a Neeson Apologist, whoever you might be.

      (1) Scott Neeson and CCF are in partnership with Graham Brewster’s World Housing. Do your research.

      (2) The $5,000 figure is US$. Again, do your research.

      (3) Even if it were Canadian dollars the same key question still applies:

      “Who is the be beneficiary of the free houses?”

      (4) If you value the houses at $1,000 per unit (the figure given to me from within CCF) that’s $300,000 worth of free houses (300 of them) for the owner of the land. If you value the houses at $2,600, that’s $780,000 of free houses for the owner of the land.

      Neither of these is a small sum.

      (5) That I am not held in high esteem by ‘most people’ is of no concern to me. My job as a journalist, in this instance, is to expose Neeson as a liar (‘gifting’ houses) and as someone who steals houses given to poor families by sponsors and donors and gives them to his Country Manager, Kram Sok Channoern.

      This is what journalists do. And if some journalist finds that I have lied or stolen from poor people I should be exposed by them also.

      Delete
    3. Smart arse., You are riding for a fall Rickwetosn. Neeson will get the last laugh and we'll all be celebrating when you join your buddy Flwetvher the Lewtch in jail

      Delete
    4. James you claimed "CCF asks sponsors and donors to put up $5,000 to buy one house for a poor Cambodian family." This is simply untrue, as previously requested please show proof. You cannot because it does not exist.

      Where is there any proof or suggestion that the $5,000 is in US$. There is not because it is in Canadian Dollars. Both you and I know this and so are many of your readers beginning to question it I suspect.

      The fact that you say "even if it were in Canadian Dollars" confirms that you have been caught out again fabricating the truth. You have stated many times that the land is owned by his Country Manager, Kram Sok Channoern which I personally know not to be true so please provide supporting evidence (and not troll gossip) of this fact.

      No this is not what journalists do (or at least not the reputable ones) do. The reputable ones publish proven facts that can be substantiated, you have never been able to do this, you just keep publishing your "I hate Scott Neeson" lies.

      Please feel free to reply confirming where CCF ever asked US$5,000 to help with a home for a poor family or where a Canadian company asks for support in US$. You cannot do either. Never mind all the other nonsense you publish, please humor me and answer these two simple questions. We both know you can't.

      Finally if names do not matter then answer why you respond to many comments addressing the person that posts them as Scott Neeson (or Allan Lemon) If names do not matter then how about Sir or Madam.

      Delete
    5. @ Anonymous 5.14

      Neeson lied about 'gifting' houses to families in Stung Meanchey when CCF was renting them. This is a fact. And it is a fact that would never have come to light if Ricketson hadn't done some investigations.

      Neeson forces families who rent his 'gifted; houses to sign contracts they can't read and don't understand and then refuses to allow them to keep a copy of it. This is a fact. And it is a fact that would not have seen the light of day if Ricketson hadn't done some investigation.

      Neeson claims in his tax return to spend $4000 on every child in his care. This is a fact and we have Ricketson to thank for bringing this fact out into the light.

      Neeson operates in the dark. He is a cunning bastard and a master manipulator. It is a good thing that some light is being shone on to his shady operations.

      Delete
    6. So Anonymous 5:14 KNOWS who owns the land, but continues to hide who the owner is! Something diabolical is going on here James!

      Delete
    7. Yes, Anonymous 2.18

      Anonymous 5.14 fell straight into the trap I had laid for him and has provided me with some very valuable information. Another piece of the jig saw puzzle that is slowly coming together to reveal what a corrupt house of cards CCF is.

      Thank you, Anonymous 5.14

      Delete
    8. I really could care less if it is US or Canadian funds. Currency exchange rates change everyday. I really would like to know where all of the extra money goes after they pay the $1000 for the 120 sq. ft. slum they are building to put on a field of raw sewage.

      Delete
  14. @ Anonymous 11.13

    Neeson Apologist
    Check out the World Housing website. See how many homes World Housing claims to have built in Steung Meanchey: 360.

    World Housing is still saying they give the houses to family while Neeson has at least come clean and said that CCF is renting them to families. Big difference between owning and renting a house. Especially when you can get kicked out of the house if you don’t abide by Neeson’s rules. Is this what donors signed up for – to see poor families totally dependent on Neeson’s whims? And while on the subject of signing, you do know don’t you that these families (the ones renting the houses that were given to them!) are forced by Neeson to sign a contract that gives Neeson the right to kick them out. And what is in this contract? No-one knows because Neeson does not let families keep a copy and will not show a copy to any journalist whoasks to see it. Every time you and the other Neeson trolls write nonsense such as what you have just written you destroy Neeson’s credibility a little bit more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And every time they write nonsense they reveal just a little bit more information that is of value to someone like myself who is trying to piece together all the pieces of the jig-saw puzzle. If they had any sense, or insight, they would think very carefully before they post.

      Delete
    2. None of these members of Team Neeson care that Neeson is renting Housing to the impoverished, taking children from their families to be raised in institutional care, breaks up families and even siblings in his care, violates Cambodian law and scams donors? Where are these people from??

      Delete
    3. You really do have a Walter Mitty part of you James and are still unable to answer the two original questions regarding US$ vs CA$ and where CCF has ever asked for $5,000.

      Delete
    4. Is it true that Neeson has taken over 700 children from their families to be raised in institutional care? Is it it true that Neeson rents houses to the impoverished that were donated to be gifted to the impoverished? Is it true that his employees must sign an agreement to not divulge what goes on at CCF? Where does all the money that is donated for housing?

      Delete
    5. Dear Anonymous 5.30

      You should stop making such a fool of yourself with your obsession about the $5,000 - whether these are Canadian or US dollars?

      But I do have to thank you for providing me with some information that has opened up a new and interesting line of enquiry. Indeed, in a day or two I will have enough material to write a whole blog in response to what you have written in your past few comments. Stay tuned. And many thanks.

      Delete
    6. You are a total idiot Ricketson

      Delete
    7. Ricketson exposing your boss's lies doesn't fit your agenda now does it?

      Delete
    8. Scott Neeson and you pray at his feet. You defend him for taking children. You defend him for taking Housing intended for the poor. You defend him for hiring Lemon and McCabe. You defend him for lying to and scamming donate! What a great humanitarian you are.

      Delete
    9. I am confused! Scott Neeson is my boss! I pray at his feet!!!!
      Oh, I see what has happened, I have misread the comment. Sorry. :-)

      Delete
    10. Note: not to you James!

      Delete
    11. Yes, I finally figured that out. I read a comma (,) into the statement that was not there.

      Delete
  15. Chad Williams
    Editor
    Phnom Penh Post

    Dear Chad

    If you ever decide to stop providing Scott Neeson with free public relations puff pieces in the Phnom Penh Post (at least I hope the service is provided for free!) and decide to practice a little regular journalism, you might like to read this article from the Phnom Penh Post:

    http://www.phnompenhpost.com/real-estate/world-housing-builds-community-oriented-homes

    Here’s relevant part. Do note the date.

    “World Housing builds community-oriented homes
    Thu, 24 December 2015
    Moeun Nhean

    “Over the past year-and-a half, Cambodia Children’s Fund in Partnership with World Housing has built 360 homes for underprivileged families in Stueng Meanchey.”

    So, on 24th Dec 2015, CCF built its 360 th house. And yet…

    A little over 3 weeks later, on 15th Jan 2016, CCF announces proudly the construction of its 300th house.

    CCF Opens 300th World Housing Home
    Facebook
    Twitter
    Google Plus
    Linkedin
    JANUARY 15, 2016

    https://www.cambodianchildrensfund.org/news/ccf-opens-300th-world-housing-home/

    Maths may not be your strong point, Chad, but the 360th house in Dec and the 300th house in Jan!

    Mmmmmm, doesn’t this strike you as odd! Do you not smell a rat!?

    It gets better (or worse, depending on your point of view)

    If you go back to June 9th 2015 you will find that CCF was proudly announcing the construction of its 300th house.

    I have attached photos of this Facebook post but you should check it out for yourself before Scott takes it down and then accuses me of being a liar; of being delusional.

    https://www.facebook.com/WorldHousing/photos/pb.254777251254631.-2207520000.1452908283./866418046757212/?type=3&theater

    “At World Housing we like to celebrate major milestones, so we are happy to announce that we just opened the door to our 300th home!”

    When I was filming at the World Housing building site in Nov this year it was swarming with builders!

    Strange.

    300 houses in June 2015

    360 houses in Dec 2015

    300 houses in Jan 2016

    You would find our such things about Neeson, Chad, if you just did a little research; instructed your journalists to stop providing Neeson with free publicity and asked some proper journalists’ questions. Like:

    “Who owns the land upon which the 300 (?) or 360 (?) houses have been constructed.”

    In asking such a question it might be helpful to know that the number of houses that have been built, according to my inside CCF source, is 180.

    Clearly someone is lying.

    Go for it Chad. See if you can find out who. Demonstrate that you are a journalist and not just a Scott Neeson lackey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What does add up is that Neeson lies and lies and lies!! NO ONE should believe anything that he says. ZERO credibility, gives him too much credit! Meanwhile his staff and corrupt ex-policemen say "yes Sir Mr Neeson, anything else you'd like"?

      Delete
    2. This guy Neeson looks like the kind of guy that lies so much, he doesn't know what the truth is!

      Delete
    3. Its going to be fun seeing how Neeson and his trolls explain away this lie. Like Ive said before Scott you need better quality trolls

      Delete
  16. Dear Mr Neeson

    You have been a good and industrious student of the art of lying and, whilst you have certain skills, you still have things to learn. You must remember that to be a good liar you must remember which lies you told to whom. Otherwise you will find yourself in the awkward situation you find yourself in now - what with 300 houses becoming 36 houses and then back to 300 hundred again! Goodness gracious, how could you make such a foolish error. I advise that from now on you keep a notebook of your lies and who you have told which lie to such that you can refer to it the next time you need to lie. An awful shame to get lies mixed up and to find yourself in a pickle. Let this be a lesson to you and also a challenge. You must now think up a new lie to account for the expanding and contracting number of houses. I doubt that 'typographical error' is going to work; however, blaming a member of your staff might just squeeze by. No, on second thought, I think not. Wait, I have just the lie you need to tell...But I will not tell you what it is. You should be abel to figure it out for yourself and not only get yourself out of the poo you have trodden in but make that annoying Ricketson look very foolish indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I worked one time for CCF. I never knew who owned the land the houses have been built on. I just presumed that CCF owned it. I can say for sure though that one of the rules that CCF imposes on families who rent houses is that they can have no visitors. If their relatives come in from the provinces they canpt sleep over. If they do the families are kicked out. All of these poor workers in the rubbish dump come from the provinces so of course their families are going to come and visit when they are in Phnom Penh. Fuck CCF. Neeson is a control freak.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No visitors just goes right along with Neeson's theme to break up families!! What a guy!

      Delete
  18. So let me get this straight

    Sponsors give houses to poor people in Cambodia
    Neeson steals the houses and gives them to someone who works for CCF, who then rents them to the poor families they were given to and kicks them out if they have relatives come and stay.

    Am I missing something here?

    Why is this not a HUGE FUCKING FRONT PAGE SCANDAL?

    Can Neeson do this legally? Is there no-one who will stand up to this guy? Licadho? Adhoc?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Very quiet from Team Neeson about these lies! Are you busy taking children from their families? Gotta keep those funds rolling in!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that it is beginning to dawn on Team Neeson that shooting the messenger has the reverse effect to the one desired, in that it points out (yet again) that Neeson does not answer questions. Never. Not just questions from me. Questions from any journalist who is not providing him with free public relations content.

      Delete
  20. Dear Alan Lemon

    You have been very silent this past 48 hours, since CCF’s rubbery figures have become public knowledge: 300 houses in July 15, 360 in Dec 15 and 300 again in Jan 16.

    Whilst ignoring all questions put to you (as is the way with CCF) you made a big point of the fact that the $5,000 quoted by Graham Brewster were Canadian dollars, not US dollars. I suggested that you do a little basic research. You also suggested that Graham Brewster (representing World Housing) had nothing to do with CCF.

    Perhaps you’d care to respond, in some way, to these extracts from an article published in the Wall St Journal six months ago

    Condo Pitch: We’ll Donate to Charity for Every Property Sold
    High-end developers add philanthropy angle in bid to appeal to socially conscious buyers

    By ROBYN A. FRIEDMAN
    Updated July 7, 2015 6:47 p.m. ET

    “As the competition to sell luxury condominiums heats up, some developers are embracing an unusual strategy to attract buyers: offering to donate a portion of the sales proceeds to charity….

    Last year, Canada’s Westbank Projects Corp. said it would donate money to World Housing, an organization that builds and donates houses to families in underdeveloped countries, for each condo it sells at Vancouver House, a 59-story building designed by Danish architect Bjarke Ingels that is slated for completion in 2019. Under the partnership, for each condo sold at Vancouver House, where prices range from 395,000 Canadian dollars (about 312,000 U.S. dollars) to C$10 million, Westbank will donate US$2,900—the cost for each of the homes being built in Cambodia. All units at Vancouver House have sold, except for a few penthouses.

    “Homeowners in Vancouver are now inextricably linked to a family in the Third World, and they have transformed lives,” said Ian Gillespie, Westbank’s founder and president. “This is about connecting communities and people. Each purchaser at Vancouver House is connected to the family that a home is being built for. It’s not anonymous—it’s personal.”
    Mr. Gillespie said a representative of the Cambodian Children’s Fund, the beneficiary of the Vancouver House donation, visited Vancouver last November to personally thank unit purchasers. “It was quite profound,” he said. “When purchasers were given a certificate with the name of the family gifted, it got emotional.”

    Mr. Gillespie said he is committed to building 400 Cambodian homes as a result of the Vancouver House. So far, 280 have been built.

    The article is to be found at:

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/condo-pitch-well-donate-to-charity-for-every-property-sold-1436302885

    Note the following:

    “WHEN PURCHASERS WERE GIVEN A CERTIFICATE WITH THE NAME OF THE FAMILY GIFTED, IT GOT QUITE EMOTIONAL.”

    Purchasers of condominiums thought they were giving homes to poor families. And it was personal.

    What a cynical scam this is – deceiving donors in this way. There they are with their certificate proudly displayed at home, experiencing the warm inner glow that comes from such generosity, but little realizing that the family whose name appears on the certificate got no home at all. They got, instead, the opportunity to rent a home from CCF or whoever owns the land.

    Scott Neeson and CCF have lied to the generous donors who gave these homes. They have not gone to poor families but to…to…to who, Alan?

    You write that the owner of the land is not Country Manager Kram Sok Channoern (as is generally believed to be the case within CCF) so would you like to share with us (in the interests of transparency and accountability) just who the owner is? After all, whoever it is is in receipt of hundreds of thousands of free housing.

    Scott Neeson and his corrupt NGO (of which you are a senior member), make Somaly Mam look like a saint.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Perhaps Westbank Projects Corp would be interested in the scam information that you have discover? If not them, then the individual condo owners with a mass mailing to each condo in the building.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous 11.37

      I alerted Westbank a few months ago that they were, perhaps unknowingly, party to a scam. No-one from Westbank responded to my emails – sent to the following:
      infochina@westbankcorp.com
      infochina@westbankcorp.com
      infohk@westbankcorp.com
      info@vancouverhouse.ca
      info@kensingtongardens.ca
      info@granvilleat70th.com
      info@188keefer.com
      info@living180university.com

      Senior Westbank employees cannot now pretend not to know that they are participants in this housing scam.

      I have to give it to Neeson (the brains behind the scam), it is very clever:

      (1) Donors, for the most part wealthy, can feel the warm inner glow of having shared their wealth, in a small way, with a family on the other side of the world less fortunate than themselves.

      (2) Property developers can experience the warm inner glow of being perceived to be concerned about the plight of poor families in 3rd world countries. And, until recently, they may well have had good reason to believe that they were engaged in ‘good works’.

      (3) World Housing benefits in two ways:

      (a) Money flows into its bank account from donors who believe that they are ‘doing good’; helping poor families with free housing, and (b) experience the warm inner glow of being perceived to be humanitarians concerned with the plight of their fellow man on the other side of the world.

      (4) Without spending one cent, Scott Neeson (angling for sainthood and a United Nations award of some kind) also experiences the warm inner glow of being perceived to be someone who, out of the goodness of his heart (having given up his Hollywood life etc) is ‘gifting; houses to poor families. (They don’t cost him one cent)

      All the white middle class (and wealthy) first worlders are doing well out of this. But what about the families to whom the houses have been ‘gifted’?

      The reality, as opposed to the Scott Neeson Facebook fantasy, is that the poor fmilies get to rent the ‘gifted’ houses and are kicked out of them if they cannot, will not, abide by Neeson’s rules.

      There is much more to be written about this (lots of smoking guns!) but for the time being suffice it to say that when Neeson says World Housing is keeping families together, he means the Scott Neeson version of a nuclear family. The relatives want to visit from the provinces? No way! Against Neeson’s rules.

      More of this later.

      Delete
    2. Why isn't the Cambodian press reporting on this Neeson scam? Are they really in Neeson's pocket to the point where they deny their readership the facts? Donors are getting scammed, the public and government officials are getting mislead, and the impoverished are getting cheated! Neeson's activity is criminal and the Cambodian press ignores it! WTF?

      Delete
    3. Yes, Anonymous 3.41, I most say I find it extraordinary. For the most part the English language media in Cambodia dutifully reports on whatever Press Release Neeson provides them with, with few if any questions asked about whether the information is accurate or correct. Neeson plays the media for suckers and, for the most part, the media falls for it.

      I expect other journalists to take what I write with a grain of salt but they might, at least, spend half a day talking with the families who live in CCF houses and with those who have been kicked out of their houses. From the horses mouth. Neeson is terrified of this happening and will almost certainly place any and every obstacle he can in the way to prevent such research from happening.

      But here's an interesting thing for any curious journalist to bear in mind.Neither Neeson nor CCF owns the land upon which the houses have been constructed so can do nothing to prevent any journalist from visiting the families. Not legally, at least.

      However, whoever is the owner of the land could well call the police and have such a curious journalist charged with trespassing. This would make for an interesting case since any court proceedings that resulted from such a trespass would necessitate that the owner of the land's identity would be revealed.

      This is the last thing Neeson would want so any inquisitive journalist can be reasonably assured that s/he will be able to move freely amongst the families and their dwellings, asking whatever questions the like.

      This is certainly what I will be doing when next I return to Cambodia.

      Delete
  22. How many people know about the scam? I'd love to hear more about this topic. I've got a friend in Cambodia that is looking to make a documentary - this sounds right up his street.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Get your friend to send me an email:

      jamesricketson@gmail.com

      Delete
  23. Dear James,

    My name is Richard Currie and I am the production coordinator at Cambodian Productions in Phnom Penh. I have been reading your blog with great interest. Cambodian Productions has a team of highly experienced researchers and crew who could assist you should you wish to come to Cambodia to explore this subject. We are experienced in not only research but filming permits and logistics. If you should require information regarding filming in Cambodia please contact us by email info@cambodianproductions.com or directly via telephone +855 (0)78 572 466.

    I hope we can get in touch soon.

    Regards Richard

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Richard, you may well be able to help me with some research as I am in Australia and unable to do it myself just at the moment. You can contact me at: jamesricketson@gmail.com

      Delete
    2. Hi James,

      PM sent to your email account.

      Delete
    3. Hi James,

      My website can be found here:

      www.cambodianproductions.com

      Regards Richard

      Delete
    4. Sounds like they are just trying to make a buck.

      Delete
  24. Dear Westbank Projects Corp

    It is a few months now since I pointed out to you that World Housing was a scam; that Scott Neeson Graham Brewster, Sid Landolt and Peter Dupuis are deceiving donors in telling them that houses are ‘gifted’ to poor Cambodian families.

    The option of plausible deniability is no longer open to Westbank Projects Corp. You know it is a scam and yet you are still involved in it. Your behaviour is morally reprehensible and I hope, at some point, that the Canadian media, if not the Cambodian media, starts to ask some questions of Scott Neeson Graham Brewster, Sid Landolt and Peter Dupuis and exposes them as fraudsters.

    The World Housing scam will be exposed for what it is one day. Hopefully soon.

    My latest blog entry may be of interest:

    http://cambodia440.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/182-ccf-board-members-turn-blind-eye-to.html

    ReplyDelete
  25. A previous poster suggested posting referenced materials on the Wikipedia sites of those that have them. Scott Neeson, CCF, World Housing, any board members, etc. I think that is a great idea!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds good. What referenced materials do you suggest?

      Delete
  26. Published material on McCabe, confessions and conviction. Admission from World Housing on not gifting home, tax return information stating over $6.1 million in cash and investments, admission of having over 700 children in institutional care. Applicable on Neeson's site as well as CCF.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dear Alan Lemon

    Is this you commenting on Great Non Profits?

    For the record I have never posted a comment on Great Non Profits so am curious to know who you think is actively supporting “two UK paedophiles that CCF have assisted in imprisoning for abuse in Cambodia”

    https://greatnonprofits.org/org/cambodian-childrens-fund

    January 19, 2016


    “To all who read the reviews. Please, please ignore the negative rantings of the man ( yes it's the same person despite the different names) who is posting the regular negative reviews on this site. We know who he is and he has just found a new platform for his ongoing deranged views on those who would protect the world from child abusers. He actively supports two UK paedophiles that CCF have assisted in imprisoning for abuse in Cambodia ( one who was on the run from my team for child abuse in the UK). I have been honoured to be involved with the CCF and their Child Protection Unit for the last few years and remain a committed and full supporter of Scott and his team who do so much for the impoverished children of Cambodia. I am a respected professional in the world of child abuse investigation and sex offender management and fully support and trust the CCF. I have previously posted my support on this site.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't see how it could Lemon. He says he is a "respected professional"!

      Delete
    2. A disgraced former Australian Federal Police officer, joined in business with another disgraced Australian Federal Police officer (James Mc Cabe) and a Hollywood marketing whizz kid (Neeson) to con donors into giving houses to poor families which wind up int he hands of someone working for CCF! Gotta give it to the Three Amigos, when it comes to scams they are the best.

      Delete
    3. When they don't like the facts, they make up their own and try to shoot the messenger! Sorry Team Neeson, that is your MO!

      Delete
    4. Rickets you aren't very smart or very good at research are you. My 8 year old son has better skills. I will ask you some questions and then maybe you can work out the answers yourself. Who do you think provided training for the CPU and is actively involved with them - dont worry i will tell you - its CEOPS and if you look on Google hard enough you will see that one of their police officers who investigated Fletcher is a person by the name of John Geden. He is the one who is posting those comments. Now for me this is very strange - I believe Geden is a high ranking police officer - one would think that the British police wouldn't be too impressed if one of their high ranking police officers was working closely with convicted criminals in McCabe. Perhaps they dont know - I'm not sure - what I do know is that McCabe is an expert in bullshitting and many people who have been bluffed by his shit all say that his ability to bullshit stands out as very creepy.

      Delete
    5. So then John Geden is another 'top cop' that just makes up stories that aren't true? Wow, sounds like a perfect fit for CCF!

      Delete
    6. If you are right, if the comment can be attributed to John Gedden - formerly of CEOP, it is worth pointing out, again, that CEOP, along with SISHA and APLE could find no evidence of wrong-doing on the part of Mr Fletcher in the court of a two year investigation.

      The following letter to CEOP, from Nov 2014, covers a lot of ground that readers will be familiar with. CEOP did not respond to it:

      Debbie Chisholm
      Press Officer
      National Crime Agency
      1-7 Old Queen Street
      Westminster
      London, SW1H 9HP

      3rd Nov 2014

      Dear Debbie

      re David John Fletcher

      Your email of 31st. Oct, far from being helpful, raises more questions:

      “What are the names of the ‘partner agencies’ that led CEOPS investigation into Mr Fletcher?”

      Is CEOPS happy with the way in which these ‘partner’ agencies’ have used the results of CEOPS’ investigations in legal proceedings?

      These questions are pertinent both to Mr Fletcher’s forthcoming court case and to my own desire, as a journalist/writer and documentary filmmaker, to be in possession of as many verifiable facts as possible regarding this matter; to give all involved an opportunity to present their side of the story.

      CEOPS investigators came to Cambodia in 2010 with the express intention of investigating allegations made by Scott Neeson that Mr Fletcher was ‘grooming’ young girls. In none of the court documents can I find any reference to CEOPS having uncovered evidence of Mr Fletcher’s being guilty of doing so. This leads me to believe that CEOPS did not find anything illegal or untoward about Mr Fletcher’s behavior towards young girls. Is this correct?

      As CEOPS is well aware, Mr Fletcher was not charged in Cambodia with ‘grooming’ but with rape. As CEOPS is also aware (and has been since September 2010) the ‘rape victim’ was found by an examining doctor to be a virgin after the rape. And, as CEOPS is also now aware, the ‘victim’ has recently admitted, both to my camera and to other journalists, that no rape took place.

      ....to be continued...

      Delete
    7. … following on…

      Whilst evidence pertaining to ‘grooming’ was not, in accordance with the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure, admissible in Mr Fletcher’s secret rape trial, Scott Neeson’s allegations (not backed up by any hard evidence) were aired in court and these played a role in the judges finding Mr Fletcher guilty of rape! (If you trace Scott Neeson’s allegations back, you will find that they begin with Peter Hogan, the owner of a Cambodian blog by the name of Khmer440; they began with a man who, by his own admission, spent 4 years pursuing Mr Fletcher with the intention of having him imprisoned.)

      If CEOPS is in possession of evidence that Mr Fletcher was guilty of ‘grooming’ (or of any other offence against children) he should be charged with such offenses. He has not been. In flying all the way to Cambodia to investigate Mr Fletcher, and making your investigation publicly known to Peter Hogan, CEOPS cast a shadow of doubt over his behavior – raising in the minds of the general public the legitimate question: “Why else, readers of Andrew Drummond’s June 2010 article would quite legitimately ask, would CEOPS be in Cambodia investigating Mr Fletcher if there was nothing to investigate?”

      The appropriate course of action for CEOPS to have taken, once it had completed its investigations in June 2010, would have been to announce: (a) We have found no evidence of Mr Fletcher’s guilt or (b) We have provided the Cambodian authorities with the results of our investigations.

      Perhaps this is what you mean with your reference to ‘partner agencies’. If (b) be the case, the question arises:

      “Is CEOPS happy with the way in which these ‘partner agencies’ have used the results of its investigations to have Mr Fletcher imprisoned for 10 years for rape?”

      I am trying to place CEOPS’ involvement in a time line, Debbie, and I hope you can help me.

      At some point in June 2010 CEOPS completed its investigation into allegations that Mr Fletcher had ‘groomed’ young girls. CEOPS had not come to Cambodia to investigate allegations that Mr Fletcher had raped Yang Dany. Indeed, at the time CEOPS completed its investigations (June 2010) no such allegation had yet been made. It was not until after Mr Fletcher had left Cambodia that the rape allegations were made.

      …to be continued…

      Delete
    8. …following on…

      Shortly after their return to the UK (June 2010), CEOPS investigators familiar with the case would have learned that Mr Fletcher had been charged with rape. Given that there had been no talk of rape a few weeks earlier, surely this must have caught their attention and made them wonder how this rape allegation could come out of the blue as it did, after they had left the country. And by September 2010, when a doctor’s report was prepared for the court, these same CEOPS operatives would have become aware that Yang Dany remained a virgin after her rape. Did no alarm bells ring for these CEOPS investigators? Did it not occur to them that Mr Fletcher may have been set up on fake rape charges to extort money from him? The CEOPS investigators could not fail to be aware that Cambodia is amongst the most corrupt countries in the world!

      “Did CEOPS, in September 2010, ask any questions of its ‘partner agencies’ in Cambodia regarding Yang Dany’s intact hymen after her alleged rape?”

      “If so, did CEOPS accept the proposition, endorsed by the judges in the secret trial, that Yang Dany’s hymen must have grown back?”

      If CEOPS does not accept the ‘hymen-grown-back’ explanation for Yang Dany’s remaining a virgin after her rape:

      “Has CEOPS made any representations at all to its ‘partner agencies’ – asking for more information? Particularly now that Yan Dany has admitted that no rape took place?”

      Or has CEOPS washed its hands in the investigation and is prepared to see Mr Fletcher die in jail on the basis of evidence that would not stand up in any court of law in any country that actually abided by the rule of law?

      By now, I think you will agree, CEOPS had been identified in a very public manner as being very much involved in both the investigation into Mr Fletcher’s activities in Cambodia and his conviction for rape. Refusing to answer any questions at all is not, from a moral point of view, an option.

      …to be continued…

      Delete
    9. …following on…

      Whilst I am primarily concerned with Mr Fletcher’s right to a fair trial, I am also interested (as both a journalist/writer and filmmaker) in the question of his ‘grooming’ of young girls. If he has done so, if there is evidence that he has done so, he should be charged with this offence.

      This brings me back to my original question:

      “Does CEOPS have any evidence at all that Mr Fletcher is guilty of ‘grooming’?”

      If you simply refuse to answer this question, as I suspect will be the case, this will leave Mr Fletcher in a no-man’s land vis a vis his guilt or innocence. Some readers and viewers will conclude that CEOPS must have evidence of his guilt. Others will conclude that CEOPS found nothing and draw their own conclusions from CEOPS’ silence, in Nov 2014 - now that Yang Dany’s post-rape virginity and her denial that any rape took place are in the public arena.

      One last question:

      “If CEOPS found no evidence that Mr Fletcher was guilty of ‘grooming’, will CEOPS testify to this effect at Mr Fletcher’s forthcoming trial?”

      I passed your email on to Mr Fletcher. He wrote an email back to me, asking that I pass it on to you. It reads:

      Dear Debbie,

      A recent communication from CEOPS to Mr James Ricketson has come to my attention that suggests and implies you have evidence of unsavoury acts with children by myself.
      I officially request from CEOPS, as my right under the F.O.I. act that you supply me with copies of all documents you hold pertaining to me.
      I attach a copy of my drivers licence as I.D. and i am very sure you are aware i am known by the the British Embassy in Phnom Penh. I do not have a valid passport as this was destroyed ' by mistake' by the fco in Bangkok,  according to their unsubstanciated explanation.
      Furthermore, i request a fully itemised receipt and the return of my personal property that was in store and stolen in Phnom Penh in 2010 by CEOPS personell.
      I also request the percentage of funding you receive from the fco, as an ngo this information should be freely available to the public.
      This letter, your reply, or lack of may be published.

      Regards,

      David John Fletcher.

      On a final note on my return to the UK i shall be paying CEOPS a visit for an explanation of their agenda.

      I have attached a copy of a document signed by David Fletcher giving me the right to ask questions on his behalf. My question is: “What must Mr Fletcher do to make an FOI request to obtain copies of documents relating to his ‘grooming’ of girls held by CEOPS and relating to his forthcoming court case.”

      best wishes

      James Ricketson

      Delete
    10. Are the police, in general, averse to the truth, or just the corrupt ones? They sure have propensity to make up their own truth. How could these policemen have any credibility in a court of law or even in society?

      Delete
  28. James, you are indeed a very bad person for exposing my boss as a liar and a crook, a person that takes children and homes, a person who defrauded donors! Now you expose another corrupt lying cop! How dare you? Exposing the truth is a crime, as is honesty, and these people will sue you!!

    ReplyDelete
  29. IF it is John Geden, he is liar. Liar, liar pants on fire. If a lying cop is a corrupt cop, he is a corrupt cop. The interesting thing is that he doesn't say any posted facts are wrong, only makes up lies to try and shoot the messenger.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The PPP is really in bed with McCabe. Now he is the expert on the Kampot Murder of a 14 year old girl.


    http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/suspect-detained-rape-murder-kampot-teen

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Below is the story, quoted above, in which James Mc Cabe’s name is mentioned.

      Why?

      Was Mc Cabe present at the scene of the crime?

      Is Mc Cabe the official spokesperson for the Cambodian police?

      This certainly looks to me like a fairly straight-forward (and tragic) case into which the Phnom Penh Post has decided to insert a free advertisement for the Child Protection Unit.

      I wonder what the Cambodian police make of the fact that CCF’s Child Protection Unit is so often credited with having performed the duties that have been performed by the local police?

      The cumulative effect of such reportage is to make the Cambodian police seem incompetent and requiring the white former Australian police officer to ride up on his white charger and solve the crime that they are too stupid to solve.

      Question for Chad Williams:

      “Other than providing, yet again, a free plug for the CPU, what purpose is served by quoting Mc Cabe and not a spokesperson for the Cambodian police?”

      Another question for you Chad:

      “Was Mc Cabe even present at the scene of the crime or did he call his comment in from Phnom Penh?”

      THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION

      A teenage suspect has been detained in the suspected rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl whose body was found in a rice field in Kampot province yesterday.
      On Monday evening, Khun Nay disappeared from her house in the Lboeuk commune of Chhouk district.
      Yesterday morning, Nay’s body was found a few hundred metres from her house, with severe injuries to her neck, face and jaw.
      According to James McCabe, director of the Phnom Penh-based Child Protection Unit, a witness heard a scream in the distance around the time Nay disappeared, but thought nothing of it.
      Nay’s disappearance went unreported because her family believed her to be staying at a friend’s house.
      “We can conclude this is a rape-murder case because the victim’s underwear was taken off,” said Sok Sokkan, technical office chief at the Kampot police department.
      Deputy Chhouk district police chief Huorn Sivutha said that the death was likely “not a robbery because the victim is poor”.
      Commune police detained a 17-year-old neighbour in connection with the case yesterday after finding one of his shoes 70 metres from the crime scene, said Mun Phal, Lboeuk commune police chief.
      The teen is being temporarily detained at the commune police station.
      Rights group Adhoc said Khun Nay’s case was the fourth underage rape incident reported this month in Kampot province.

      Delete
    2. You people are fucking disgraceful, particularly you Ricketson. The CPU's mandate is to assist with crimes against children so thats why they are there. I for one am very happy that guys like McCabe and Morrish from SISHA are working with the Cambodian police to solve these crimes because if they weren't then there would be a massive chance that the crimes would be either swept under the carpet or if they were investigated then, done so in a terrible fashion. Lets give credit where credit is due - who really would want to be looking at dead children who have been violently murdered. I certainly wouldn't. So how about paying a little respect for once and give those two guys some credit. Your constant bashing of them and others who work in the field of helping abused children is disgraceful.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous 6.27

      It is not the nature of the work I was making an observation about but the gratuitous insertion of Mc Cabe and the CPU into the story with no reference the the Cambodian police. The very tone of your response suggests that the Cambodian police are ill-equipped to carry out an investigation. This may well be the case but if the impression is created that only with the help of clever white men will anything ever change in Cambodia, NGOS (of which CPU is one) infantalise the Cambodian people whilst at the same time creating jobs for themselves in perpetuity. NGOS should help from the sidelines and not be doing so to place themselves in the limelight. I think that Phnom Penh Post journalists would find, if they did a little digging, that there is some resentment amongst police who see all the credit for the work they do with the CPU going to the CPU.

      Delete
    4. Isn't James McCabe the one who is disgraceful? A corrupt ex-policeman who stole drugs at gunpoint, sold the drugs and has been hired by Scott Neeson. Was James McCabe paid out of donor funds by Scott Neeson during the time he was imprisoned? Ricketson makes a valid point what was James McCabe's role in this AND why does the PPP continue to make the Cambodian Police look incompetent when the good work that was done, was done by the Cambodian Police! I think this question needs to be raised in every Police jurisdiction that Scott Neeson and Chad Williams drive through!

      Delete
    5. Rickets - once again you open your mouth and shit comes out. Your comments are coming from someone who has zero experience working with local police or even investigating serious crimes. The Cambodian police are under-resourced, ill-equiped and in m,any cases non-willing to investigate anything. The mere fact that NGO's who work with the police actually pressure local police to work is a fantastic thing. The fact that there are so many races occurring in Cambodia is also indicative of the fact that more pole are reporting them simply because they know that NGO's are making local police act. Whats is disgusting is that constantly look for a negative. I feel pity for you that your entire life is so filled with negativity - it must be difficult.

      As for you anon 7.01pm - of course you have evidence that McCabe was paid by donor funds whilst he was in prison. Oh thats right, you are just one of the fuckwits who listens to gossip and comments off the back of the gossip, actually having no intimate knowledge yourself. How about producing some evidence that he was paid whilst in prison - you do have this dont you dickhead!

      Delete
    6. Dear Anonymous 7.25

      You do Team Neeson no favours sprinkling your comments with expletives - 'shit', 'fuckwits', 'dickhead'. Can no Team Neeson commentators write without swearing? Do you believe that it enhances your argument in some way?

      Yes, the Cambodian police are under-resourced and, I suspect, unwilling to investigate certain crimes and/or crimes committed by certain people.

      Yes, if the CPU is pressuring the police to investigate where they might otherwise not do so, this is a good thing.

      Yes, if the CPU is passing on valuable skills to the Cambodian police, this is a good thing.

      However, as with all 'capacity building' the passing on of skills is designed to enhance the skills of Cambodians in all sectors and not be seen as a permanent and necessary replacement of their Cambodian counter-parts on the grounds that they are incompetent.

      Inevitably, when the Phnom Penh Post reports any story involving the CPU and the police it is the CPU that gets the spotlight and not the local police. This a matter of how a story is reported and, when it comes to CCF, the Post's stories are all about how terrific CCF is.

      Now, this would be fine if, indeed, everything that CCF did was terrific. It is not. It's World Housing initiative is a scam but you will never see a story in the Post about this. You will never see any story in the Post that is in any way critical of Neeson or the CCF.

      As for Anonymous 7.01's comment, I cannot comment. It falls into the category of scuttlebutt - just as David Fletcher's 'grooming' of young girls was scuttlebutt started by Peter Hogan and given a world-wide audience by Scott Neeson in his comments to Andrew Drummond.

      Delete
    7. Rickets you are lowlife - you say that the comments from anon 7.01 are scuttlebutt and yet you are more than happy to leave the comments on your blog. You have been warned before. You are responsible for this blog and anything posted on it is your responsibility. So what this moron has posted about McCabe being paid by donor funds whilst in jail is absolute defamation because there is absolutely no evidence to show that it occurred. I would suggest you remove it before you end up in jail at the expense of the idiot that posted it.

      Delete
    8. Sorry, Team Neeson troll

      Scott Neeson's spreading of scuttlebutt (Mr Fletcher 'grooming' young girls) played a significant role in Mr Fletcher receiving a 10 year jail sentence without the benefit of a trial.

      Yes, I have been warned. If you want to sue me for defamation, go for it, Alan. Send the papers to me in Australia and I'll respond accordingly

      Delete
    9. Well its not scuttlebutt you fucking goose because Fletcher was convicted by a court.

      Delete
  31. Was he at the crime scene? That looks like him in the photo you fucking moron.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Alan Lemon

      Are you also the one who posted the 7.25 comment? I think so, since it is you who persists in calling me Rickets and uses the word 'moron' frequently.

      If Mc Cabe is in the photo then you have answered my question, thank you.

      Delete
    2. Its not Lemon - its another person, one of the many, who thinks you are a fucking moron.

      Delete
  32. Rickets you dumb fuck - Surely you can't be so dumb - its impossible. You make the comments about McCabe being at the crime scene. Of course he was there, he is investigating the crime and he is seen in pictures taken by police and media showing him there with local police. You are a fucking idiot!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Team Neeson (aka 7.27)

      I asked a question about Mc Cabe's presence or otherwise at the crime scene. It has been answered. Having never met James Mc Cabe I am sure I am not alone in not recognising one of the men in a mask as James Mc Cabe.

      Delete
    2. Bullshit Ricketson - you know exactly who McCabe is - you are blatant liar!

      Delete
    3. Anon 8.20

      Looking at the article (and photo) on my smart phone I can see some guys in masks and could not identify them in a line-up. I'll take your word for it that it's Mc Cabe

      Delete
  33. let me get this correct Ricketson - in one breath you criticize the Cambodian police and say they are incompetent because they couldn't investigate Fletcher and botched everything up. Then in the other breathe you say that its the Cambodian police who should be investigating child murders and not the CPU because the Cambodian police are good at investigation. make up your mind - which one is it? Cambodian police are good at investigation or they are bad at investigation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous 7.30

      Do you really live in a world in which there are 'goodies' and 'baddies'?

      I have had some experience with some very good and decent Cambodian police and I have had some experience with some uneducated and, frankly, quite foolish police. And I have had at least one experience in which, regardless of whether the police were 'decent', 'foolish', 'trained or untrained, they were clearly doing the bidding of the person who had paid them to get a particular result.

      In the case of the 'botched' Fletcher investigation, the 'botching' was done by expatriate investigators; not the Cambodian police.

      SISHA, CEOP and APLE all spent 2 years looking for evidence that Mr Fletcher was engaged in illegal and immoral activities with young Cambodian women and girls. Foolishly, SISHA, CEOP and APLE made no real effort to hide the nature of their investigations. Indeed, they shared their activities with mates over beer - guaranteeing that if Mr Fletcher had been guilty of any crime he knew he was being watched by three different investigative bodies.

      Given the nature of the Phnom Penh rumour mill it was not long before these investigations into Fletcher were public knowledge. This in turn led to scuttlebutt and innuendo and before long Peter Hogan had found himself yet another victim he could play with for his own (and Khmer440's) sport. Steve Morrish was another of Hogan's 'victims'. Hogan loved what he did. It was blood sport to him. And Khmer440 readers lapped it up. The more they lapped it up, the more Hogan gave them.

      By June 2010, when Mr Fletcher left Cambodia the Cambodian police had conducted no investigation at all into the allegations made by Hogan and Neeson. None. The investigations had been conducted by SISHA, CEOP and APLE. And they had come up with nothing. Nothing.

      All this is well documented in court documents.

      The Cambodian police only became involved in Mr Fletcher's case AFTER he had left the country. The Cambodian police were relying 100% on what SISHA, CEOP and APLE had told them - namely that they suspected Mr Fletcher was 'grooming' young girls.

      The key word here is 'suspected'. They had no evidence despite the six years of investigating (between them) that had taken place.

      During the final stage of this investigation pressure was place don Yang Dany to say that Mr Fletcher had behaved inappropriately with her. She refused to go along with it. The pressure grew. Yang Dany still refused to play ball. And then, after Mr Fletcher had left Cambodia, Yang Dany's mother, Sekun, was told that she and her daughter could claim $30,000 in compensation if Yang Dany were to accuse Mr Fletcher of raping her.

      Some strings were pulled behind the scenes and Mr Fletcher was arrested in Thailand and held in prison with no charges laid until close to three weeks later when, for the first time, the rape allegations were made.

      From an investigative point of view, the Cambodian police had nothing to do with the Fletcher case up to and including his arrest.

      Where the Cambodian police fell down was later, after his arrest, in never seeking to interview him about the charges levelled against him. To this day no such interview has taken place.

      So, you see it is a bit more complicated than 'goodies' and 'baddies'.

      The world is not that simple.

      Delete
    2. Wow lots of sensitively fom Team Neeson this morning after you have expossed their boss as a crook, a liar and a swindler. It must not suit their agenda. Keep up your good work James!

      Delete
    3. You keep speaking shit Ricketson. Their investigations weren't botched and they did uncover evidence - thats why Fletcher is now doing 10 years jail. Carry on all you like about corruption and conspiracy and all the dream world antics you try to tell everyone about but reality is that Fletcher is a 2 time convicted sex offender and he is now paying the price.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 10:11, did you get that evidence from the court records, which you've never seen, or from your friend John Geden? I think any testimony from John Geden will be seriously scrutinized.

      Delete
    5. Dear Anonymous 10.11

      As some wise person said (I can't remember who, just now) "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts."

      You can keep making this same statement until you are blue in the face (you have been doing so for the past year) but it will not come true through repetition.

      Some facts:

      (1) Yang Dany denies she was raped.

      (2) Sekun, Yang Dany's mother, denies her daughter was raped.

      (3) The medical report prepared for the Phnom Penh Municipal court confirmed that Yang Dany was still a virgin - after two hour long and 'brutal' rapes.

      There are facts. Awkward for people such as yourself who have no interest in facts, in evidence, in the truth.

      All three of these facts should, of course, be tested in a proper court of law. They haven't been. There has been no trial that comes even close to adhering to the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure. You know this and yet you keep making the same statement over and over again.

      In a proper court of law both Yang Dany's and Sekun's allegation that Yang Dany was not raped would be tested. Perhaps someone (even me) offered them money to change their testimony?

      Likewise, in a proper court of law the question of who told Sekun that she and Dany stood to receive $30,000 in compensation if Dany accused Mr Fletcher of rape would be canvassed.

      This is what courts do - look at facts such as these from the point of view of the prosecution and the defence; allow both sides to present arguments in support of their propositions.

      The same applies for Yang Dany's intact hymen. APLE can, if it so chooses, bring in an expert witness to argue that it is possible for a 17 year old virgin's hymen to remain intact after two 'brutal' rapes. And Mr Fletcher's defence can call an expert witness to argue that Yang Dany's retention of her virginity under such circumstances is highly unlikely.

      This principle applies to all the evidence. Or should do.

      Mr Fletcher has never been interviewed by either the police or an Investigating Judge. He has never had an opportunity to even address a court in his own defence in the form of a statement to the court.

      Action Pour les Enfants has already conceded that Mr Fletcher probably did not rape Yang Dany. However, Samleang Seila has made it clear in public statements that it does not matter whether or not Mr Fletcher rapedYang Dany. What matters is that the papers he submitted to the Phnom Penh Municipal court arrived late. So, in the moral universe inhabited by Samleang Seila a man who has been denied even the semblance of a fair trial should spend 10 years in jail (effectively a death sentence for a 70 year old man) for getting his paper work to the court late.

      I will leave it to readers to make their own determination of what this says about Samleang Seila.

      Just to clarify any questions arising regarding the court documents. I have them all. I know what submissions were made and by whom.

      Delete
  34. You keep saying crooks, swindlers and scams but it matters not. All that matters in this world is winners and losers and Team Ricketson you certainly are not winners hahahahahaha

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So Neeson is a winner for taking hundreds of children from their families and raising them in institutional care? You support that, right?

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous 10.12

      I feel for you. What a sad individual you are. Do you really believe that all that counts in life is being a winner? And if being a winner necessitates being a crook, a swindler and a scammer it matters not!

      I suspect that you are not a member of Team Neeson but an unfortunate human being who has sought refuge (and God knows what else) in a country in which is is very easy to be a scammer, a crook and a swindler and get away with it.

      For the sake of Cambodia I hope that you are not a teacher or an NGO and inculcating your dreadful values in the minds of impressionable students.

      Delete
    3. @ Anonymous 10.12

      Your troll has revealed Team Neeson’s true colors here, Scott. Winning at all costs is what it is about, eh! You don’t want to be a loser. And if it takes being a crook, a scammer, a charlatan who gives a shit, as long as you are a winner. Great philosophy of life!

      Delete
  35. Who is Kevin Shoeler?

    Scott

    I’ve been doing a bit of ‘googling’, trying to find out a little more about CCF’s board members. And what did I find out about Kevin Schoeler? Not much, actually, because there’s not much to find out about him. Oh, other than that he earns $55,000 a year from CCF?

    For what? What does Kevin actually do to deserve to earn about the same in a week as a scavenger in the Phnom Penh rubbish dump earns in a year?

    Here’s how you describe Kevin on the CCF website:

    "JUNE 17, 2015

    Kevin established his early career at AOL (prior to its merge with Time Warner) and from there spent several years building DirecTV’s online efforts in Southern California. He left DirecTV to focus his energy on food and travel writing, and philanthropy through the Kevin G. Schoeler Foundation."

    The Kevin G. Schoeler Foundation! Wow! Sounds impressive. And what do you find when you google the Kevin G. Schoeler Foundation? Nothing. Or next to nothing. This is it:

    "Assets: $550,511 (market value)
    Expenditures: $31,815
    Total giving: $23,445
    Qualifying distributions: $23,445
    Giving activities include:
    $23,445 for 7 grants (high: $15,445; low: $1,000)"

    That’s it!?

    Again I ask, Scott, what does Kevin do for CCF deserving of an income of $1000 a week? Or $4000 a month?

    And what do you pay CCF school teachers? $140 a month?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Money for nothin' and chicks for free"

      With apologies to Dire Straits

      Delete
    2. Dear Mr Neeson

      I'd like a $1000 a year job please. DoI need any qualifications?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 12:31, Are you able to lie, not laugh at Neeson in staff meetings, and defend McCabe and Lemon?

      Delete
  36. Everything that comes out of Neeson's month is utter bullshit . And look at the company he keeps. Dodgy ex cops that own girly bars . Cops convicted of armed robberies and drug dealing . FIf you made up such a story no one wouldbelieve it.
    Its people like Neeson who give charity a bad name. Neeson will go down in history as a cheat . But this won’t affect his lifestyle. It will will remain the same . Millions tucked away for a rainy day. His only friends a the fools and corrupt fuckers who only put up with his shit because they are on the make too! Money hidden in the books amongst the shit salary they pay their Cambodian staff. Who the fuck is Kevin Schoeler to be earning 50 grand a year? Doing what? And these people say they are helping the poor and creating tomorrow's leader. What a joke! Cheap beer and bar girls is what its all about. How's Neeson going with his book a wonder? Your need a mask and gloves to read all Neeson and his cronies shit. What a creep

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What ex-cops own girly bars?

      Delete
    2. You dont have an answer to this question do you Rickets? You are happy to deframe peopke but gwet your knickwrs in a knot if anyone deframrs you buddy Flwch the Letch. I am not Alan lemon in case your wondering but I can tell you that there will be a a warm welcome for you at the airport if you try to come back to cambodnia. Your a cunt Rickewts and you kjow it

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 3:00, drinking much today? Drunk already?

      Delete
    4. @ Anonymous 4.59

      Oasis Bar. Street 136. Alan Lemon & Khmer girlfriend. Common knowledge.

      Delete
    5. @ Anonymous 9.58

      Old news. Girlfriend gave Lemon the bum's rush. Took up with a Nigerian. Had a kid with him.

      Delete
    6. Gave (Alan) Lemon the bum's rush! How appropriate. Well said Anonymous 10:18!!

      Delete
    7. Let me get this straight!

      One of the guys who runs the Cambodian Children’s Fund’s Child Protection Unit runs a girlie bar!

      Another of the guys who runs the Child Protection Unit is a convicted corrupt former Australian Federal police officer who did time in stir for drug dealing!

      And the third member of the Cambodian Children’s Fund executive team is a former Hollywood marketing guy who steals houses donated to poor people and gives them to rich people!

      Am I missing something here!

      Delete
    8. Don't forget that he also takes children from their families, to raise them in institutional care, so that he can PIMP them to donors.

      Delete
  37. Has Scott Neeson got no shame. Today on Facebook he is displaying pics of young children whose parents were murdered by an axe wielding lunatic. Trying to pull the heart strings of people by saying CCF is now looking after them. For fuck sake Scott - how low will your ethics drop. Using these children to better your cause. You should not be displaying images of children in the first place, let alone victims of a murder case. Have you got their signed consent allowing you to display their images?. Seriously, i have been a supporter on some things you do but you have lost the plot with this and need to be stopped. This is straight out exploitation!
    https://www.facebook.com/scottneesonccf/photos/a.588811434572562.1073741828.588767697910269/899911733462529/?type=3&theater

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, Neeson has no shame. He will make good use of whatever photo opportunity comes his way or he can manufacture. "Find me a hard luck story....find me an old granny....find me a cute kid I can cuddle....quick!"

      MEDIA WHORE

      Delete
    2. You are 100% correct Anonymous 7:50! It is child abuse at its finest! That a person like this is in charge of hundreds of children in his institutions is a crime and Scott Neeson should be in n the goul!!

      Delete
  38. Well one thing is for sure, CCF and CPU musn't have a child protection policy because if they did then Scot wouldn't be allowed to display children images without their parents expressed consent.

    ReplyDelete
  39. My estimation of Scott Neeson has sunk even lower. I did not think that this would be possible. He has exploited a family tragedy for his own fund raising purposes. He gets his staff to round up the survivors of this tragedy because they represent a photo opportunity to him. One week its the Dalai Lama, next week it someone else's cute child in his arms (usually a girl) and then its a granny and now the survivors of a tragedy. Scott is a man with no principles at all that are not related to presenting himself to the world as some kind of secular saint and as the only person who can rescue materially poor Cambodians from the plight that circumstances beyond their control has forced upon them. Are there really donors and sponsors who are taken in by the cynical marketing exercises that Scott Neeson engages in? He is stealing homes donated to poor people by generous sponsors and donors but all he has to do, it seems, is post a photo of him hugging a 'granny' or the survivors of a family tragedy and no questions are asked - not just by sponsors and donors but by a Cambodian media that would, if he were Somaly Mam, crucify him in print.

    ReplyDelete