The times of publication
on this blog are Unites States Times – at least 12 hours behind Cambodia times.
This is being published at 11 am, Friday 29th Jan Cambodia time – 6 hours
before Mr Fletcher’s deadline to submit papers to the Supreme Court.
Phillip Hammond
Foreign Secretary
Parliamentary House of Commons
London
SW1A
29th Jan 2016
Dear Mr Hammond
Only a few hours
remain before Mr Fletcher must deliver the relevant papers to the Supreme
Court. If he fails to meet the deadline he will have missed his last
opportunity of a fair trial and will die in jail.
With Mr
Fletcher’s death the FCO’s role in his pursuit and prosecution, in particular
the destruction of his passport, will be of little interest to anyone. This seems
to be the Foreign & Commonwealth Office’s preferred outcome. And the FCO is
not alone. Naly Pilorge, Scott Neeson and others who would be embarrassed (to
say the least) if Mr Fletcher were to receive a fair trial and certain truths
revealed, will breathe a sign of relief.
The FCO’s
treatment of Mr Fletcher has not only revealed your callous disregard for the
legal and human rights of a citizen of the United Kingdom, it has also laid
bare the UK’s hypocrisy when it comes to human rights.
Consider this,
published by the British Embassy in Phnom Penh just 8 days ago, on 21st
Jan:
Call for bids: 2016/17 Magna
Carta Fund for Human Rights and Democracy
The British Embassy is pleased to
announce that we are now accepting bids for new project concepts for Cambodia
under the FCO’s Magna Carta Fund for Human Rights and Democracy.
The Magna Carta Fund for Human
Rights and Democracy, previously known as The Human Rights and Democracy
Programme, is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s strategic programme
dedicated to the UK’s global human rights and democracy work.
Through targeted projects overseas,
it supports the promotion and protection of human rights, democracy and the
rule of law. It aims to further British interests by supporting high-impact
projects which promote institution-building, target universal issues and the
underlying causes of human rights problems.
The programme invites proposals
that support:
- Democratic values and the rule of law;
- The rules-based international order; and
- Human rights for a stable world
2016-17 bidding round in Cambodia
We are looking for creative and
original project ideas, for innovative activities that will have the greatest
impact on improving human rights in Cambodia.
We are less interested in
proposals which focus purely on seminars, workshops or the production of
research reports as ends in themselves. Instead, proposals should include
action-oriented ideas which will bring about concrete outcomes.
This reads well. Yes, there have
been enough seminars, workshops and research reports. Now is a time for action;
for the FCO to demonstrate that it is committed to action in the real world and
not merely the mouthing of well worn platitudes.
Is there a lesson to be learnt
from the shoddy way in which the FCO has dealt with Mr Fletcher’s case?
Imagine if the FCO had decided,
at any time in the past five years, to take an interest in the human and legal
rights of Mr Fletcher; his right to a fair trial.
Yes, I do understand that the
British Embassy (regardless of what goes on behind the scenes in the real world
of international diplomacy) cannot be seen to be trying to interfere in the
administration of the Cambodian justice. However, the Embassy could have sent a
representative to Mr Fletcher’s in camera (secret) trial back in 2011 and
observed. The FCO could have noted in a published report, in the most
diplomatically way necessary or appropriate, that there were aspects of the way
in Mr Fletcher’s secret trial was conducted that were of concern to the UK
government. The Embassy’s ‘concerns’ could have been in the public arena.
The same applies with subsequent
court appearances of Mr Fletcher in which it has been blindingly obvious to
anyone in attendance that the Cambodian Code of Criminal procedure was not
adhered to.
Being a witness to and
acknowledging breaches of human and legal rights is a necessary first step in
the improvement of those rights in a country like Cambodia. If there is no
witness (and there very often isn’t) the courts can behave as they like or as
they have been instructed, with no fear of exposure.
When the judges look out into the
court room and see that there is no representative of the British Embassy
present, they know full well that the UK government does not care about the
fate of one of its citizens and can deliver whatever form of justice they
choose – regardless of Cambodian law. In
short, if the judges wish to abrogate pretty well every part of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, they know that the UK Embassy will say nothing.
Impunity will continue to inform
the decisions made by judges for as long as there are no witnesses to their
actions.
It is now too late for the FCO to
help Mr Fletcher. However, the next time a British citizen finds himself (or
herself) in Mr Fletcher’s position, denied a fair trial, the very least the FCO
could do would be to monitor their progress through the court and to keep track
of how the case is dealt with by the Cambodian judiciary. The mere presence of
such a person could have a positive impact on the administration of justice.
Perhaps the FCO could spend some
of the money earmarked for human rights work on employing an Ombudsman-like
observer who could keep track of cases such as Mr Fletcher’s (and Matt
Harland’s), merely reporting the facts. Call this small NGO ‘Court Watch’ or
something along these lines. Court Watch’s role would merely be to bear witness
to what takes place in court – not just in the case of UK citizens but of Cambodians
also who get caught up in a corrupt judicial system.
The role of Court Watch would not
be to advocate; merely to report; to see to it that all facts relevant to cases
it reports on are made available to anyone who is interested. In one of Mr
Fletcher’s hearings, for instance, there was only one journalist present (no-one
from the British Embassy) and no record was made of the proceedings by the
court. In this instance, the judges adjourned for 15 minutes and returned with
a six page summation of the case that had clearly been written before the court
proceedings commenced. There will be no independent record of this having taken
place. And there should be – not just for Mr Fletcher but for others denied
natural justice.
Court Watch’s should not include
any interpretation of the facts. Its role would merely be to observe and record
impartially.
This is, of course, a part of the
media’s role, but realistically it is simply not possible for newspapers to put
in the time and effort necessary to track any more than a small number of cases
of interest.
What I have suggested in broad
brushstrokes here would not amount to interference.
I would like to add, having
observed the Cambodian judiciary fairly closely this past 15 months in the case
of Mr Fletcher, that it seems there are two diametrically opposed forces in
operation. On the hand hand there are those within the system who want to see
it reformed. On the other there are those who do not want the status quo to change
as this would impact in a negative way on their income and lifestyle. And for
certain NGOs reform of the judiciary would make it much more difficult for them
manipulate the judiciary to their own advantage.
In as quiet, subtle and
diplomatically appropriate way, Court Watch (of some similar body) could be
cheering from the sidelines as improvements are made and, through the mere
publication of facts relating to cases, be admonishing those who wish to retain
the status quo.
best wishes
James Ricketson
I wonder if anyone at the British Embassy in Cambodia reads the newspapers?
ReplyDeleteIf so, they would have discovered yesterday what David Fletcher has had to deal with for five years whilst they sat on their diplomatic asses and did fuck all.
BY ANTHONY JENSEN AND AUN PHEAP | JANUARY 28, 2016
Cambodia is now perceived to be the most corrupt country in Southeast Asia, according to Transparency International’s 2015 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), which was released on Wednesday and promptly dismissed by the country’s anti-graft chief.
…
The country’s 21-point total places it on par with Burundi and Zimbabwe, which tied for 150th out of the 168 countries surveyed in this year’s index—one place behind Burma. Singapore garnered a score of 85, the highest in the region and eighth highest in the world.
Speaking during the report’s launch in Phnom Penh, Preap Kol, executive director of Transparency International (T.I.) Cambodia, said Cambodia’s score landed it in the “highly corrupt” category.
Mr. Kol attributed Cambodia’s lack of improvement to corruption in the judiciary.
…
Pech Pisey, T.I. Cambodia’s director of programs, said Cambodia’s judiciary was firmly controlled by powerful individuals and unable to provide justice for “ordinary Cambodians.”
“I think a lot of the way the judicial system conducts their work is basically influenced by groups of elites—political elites and also commercial elites,” Mr. Pisey said.
“The ordinary people who do not have political affiliation with anyone, when they try to access judicial services, the judicial officials wouldn’t care to provide it to them. They demand things in return,” he said. “They do so because nobody prosecutes them, nobody watches them, [and] nobody sanctions them.”…
As for the country’s judiciary, Mr. Chhay (Senior CNRP lawmaker) said it was like a “fish market.”
“You go there and you are bargaining,” he said. “It depends on how much you are able to bribe the judge and prosecutor.
“It’s the powerless and poor who are the most vulnerable with this kind of corrupt judicial system in the country.”
I WONDER HOW MUCH MONEY CHANGED HANDS TO PREVENT MR FLETCHER FROM GETTING A FAIR TRIAL?
ReplyDeleteDietrich Bonhoeffer had some words to say about the kind of silence practiced by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office in the case of David Fletcher:
“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”
Mr Phillip Hammond and the FCO have demonstrated their moral bankruptsy with their silence.
And they revealed themselves to be corrupt when they destroyed evidence pertinent to the trial that Mr Fletcher deserved but which the FCO did not want to occur.
Given that the United Kingdom is happy to start a war on the basis of no evidence at all (Iraq) it comes as no real surprise that the FCO had no interest in the cogent evidence in support of Mr Fletcher’s innocence.
As for Naly Pilorge, I am afraid I am not surprised by her silence on the matter of Mr Fletcher though, mind you, she only chose to become silent after she had told anyone who would listen that she knew Mr Fletcher was guilty.
As for Scott Neeson, I do wish that there was such a thing as karma because if there is, he is in for some very hard times later in life when the PR façade he has created is revealed for what it is and he is revealed for the scamster he is.
Neeson, Pilorge, and Hammond are people that are supposed to protect human rights. But what have they done? Lied to reporters, ignored human rights violations, destroyed evidence and attempted to cover up their actions! APLE has created a case where there never should have been, ignored David Fletcher's human rights, abused the justice system, destroyed David Fletcher's life as well the life of Yang Dany and her mother! What incredibly corrupt people, NGOs, human rights organizations, and British public servants!!!!
ReplyDeleteWhere is the press on this? Isn't it a responsibility of the press to report corruption to its readers? Where is that great journalist CHAD WILLIAMS? Remaining silent fuels the corruption! CHAD have you totally sold out to Neeson? Is the PPP REALY A SUBSIDIARY of CCF???
ReplyDeleteFletch is fucked! At last! Best news all week. I'll crack a cold one in celebration. Now he can kill himself and put us all out of our misery. Do you have the balls to do it Fletch? Need a hand? I'll lend it.
ReplyDeleteDear Team Neeson, what despicable people you are. Do you celebrate every time you take a child from their family?
DeleteWell said anon 1.59am - I will celebrate as well. Another child abusing piece of shit that got caught and now paying the price.
DeleteThe Great Non Profits website has been brought to my attention again. This is where NGOs spruik their goods. The latest comment, posted by Alan Lemon under the name Anthony Levitt, is a crude attempt by Alan at discrediting me. Alan writes:
ReplyDelete“The newest negative posts all belong to an individual who is running a hate campaign against Cambodian Children's Fund. Great Nonprofits are aware of this and regularly remove the reviews. Unfortunately, this only leads to him posting them again and so they remain at the top of the page.”
In fact I have never once posted a comment on Great Non Profits. Maybe I should! And Alan Lemon knows that I have not; that these (deserved) negative comments have been posted by someone else – who has written to me, anonymously, to tell me so. And to tell me that Alan Lemon knows that it is he, not me, making these comments.
Alan Lemon, like his boss, Scott Neeson, is a liar.
Alan Lemon writes also:
“Cambodian Children's Fund is one among many to be targeted by his blogging and troublemaking. Other organizations have successfully sued for defamation. Others have restraining orders and he has been arrested for harassment.”
Alan has one of his facts right, but basically he is lying.
Yes, I was sued for defamation by Citipointe Church. I exposed Pastor Leigh Ramsey and Pastor Brian Mulheran as running an NGO that illegally removed children from their families. They did this with the tacit approval of Naly Pilorge, of LICADHO. This is all well documented and beyond dispute.
When Ramsey and Mulheran were exposed as liars and frauds and kidnappers of Cambodian children, and after Mulheran had put his threats against me in writing, the church arranged for the Phnom Penh Municipal Court to hold a ‘trial’ to which I was not invited to attend, to find me guilty of defaming the church.
To this day this NGO continues to remove children from their families (girls) and force them to become evangelical Christians and then raise money from donors and sponsors on the grounds that these girls have been ‘rescued’ from the sex trade. Pastor Leigh Ramsey should be in jail for her crimes. And Naly Pilorge should join her as an accessory to the illegal removal of children from their families.
To this day, LICADHO maintains a less than diplomatic silence when it comes to the removal of children from their families by evangelical Christians. LICADHO’S list of people deserving of having their human rights protected does not include children stolen by evangelical Christians.
I am not conducting a ‘hate campaign’ against CCF. I am merely trying to point out that CCF runs a variety of money making scams – the World Housing one of which is the most blatant in that Lemon and Neeson (CCF as a whole) tells sponsors and donors that houses are being ‘gifted’ to poor families when there are being gifted to whoever owns the land on which they are erected. This is stealing from the poor to give to the rich. Human rights organizations in Cambodia, the media in Cambodia, turn a blind eye to this scam of Neeson’s.
As for ‘restraining orders’ and being ‘arrested for harassment’ in Cambodia, Alan Lemon is lying yet again. He has learnt well at the feet of his master – Scott Neeson, a pathological liar and egomaniac who cannot keep himself out of any photo opportunity that presents itself and will enable him to con a new lot of sponsors and donors to contribute to his latest scam.
Check out Great Non Profits for yourself:
https://greatnonprofits.org/org/cambodian-childrens-fund
James,Why does Great Nonprofits take down posts? Aren't they supposed to be a site where people inform readers about the NGO? Are the posts that they take down true?
DeleteI suspect that 'Great Non Profits', like 'Charity Navigator' is another scam. The Neeson's of this world pay to have negative comments removed. A great scam, when you think about it - a bit like those guys you give money to to take care of your car when it is parked outside a restaurant(to prevent the tyres being slashed, for instance) and if you don't give them money they slash your tyres. The charity business is littered with rogues, thieves and liars.
DeleteEverything Neeson touches is a scam
DeleteBetween Lemon and McCabe, I don't think I've heard one good thing about either of them. They fit in very well with Neeson.
DeleteIt looks like great nonprofits, not only take down honest and informative posts that CCF doesn't like, but they also rig the way that posts are shown! Check it out yourself.
ReplyDeleteSo what kind of site is Great Nonprofits? NGOs pay a membership fee, then Great Nonprofits controls what posts remain on the site, scamming well meaning donors into believing things that are not true! They allow lies to be posted, but take down the truth! Where are the journalists to expose this deceitful scam?
ReplyDeleteHey fuckwit - why do you and the other rickets followers continue to cower behind an anonymous name, screaming blue murder and asking for journalists to write a story. if you are so concerned about all of this stuff, why dont you and the other morons setup your own blog, with your name on it and start writing this stuff in public. I will answer for you - you won't do it because you are a fucking loser, a cringing coward who is empowered behind a computer screen and gets his rocks off by egging others to write things on your behalf but when it comes to you putting your hand up, you slither back under the rock you came from.
DeleteIf what you say is true, seems to me that this would be consumer FRAUD! Is this a US NGO? If it is, it could have tax and nonprofit status implication.
DeleteDear Anonymous 7.08
DeleteHas it not occurred to you, as you complain about contributors to this blog writing anonymously, that you are doing the same? Why do you not reveal who you are?
Why don't you start up your own blog, as you are suggesting other do? Perhaps the answer you so kindly offer applies to you also:
"you are a fucking loser, a cringing coward who is empowered behind a computer screen and gets his rocks off by egging others to write things on your behalf..."
hahahah perfect anon 7.08pm - its also the reason why all of these cowards haven't protested in person at the prison where Fletcher is being held or protested outside the Cambodian Ministry of Justice, screaming for the release of Fletcher. Its easy to criticise behind a computer but these keyboard warriors will never put their own name on any of it or go out in public and protest. As much as Ricketson is blowfly, at least he has some small amount of balls to pit his name to his blog and posts.
ReplyDeleteThey say ANONYMOUSLY!
DeleteDear Anonymous 7.10
DeleteI suspect that you are also Anonymous 7.08 since two 'anonymous' commentators often make their comments just a couple of minutes part - both using the same language and sentence construction.
Why should anyone be standing outside the Ministry of Justice screaming for the release of Mr Fletcher? Has anyone ever advocated his release? Have I ever advocated his release? Has Mr Fletcher? No, what I have advocated this past 16 or so months is that Mr Fletcher (like all men and women accused of a crime in Cambodia) is entitled to a fair trial. If, as a result of a trial that is conducted in accordance with the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure, Mr Fletcher is found to be guilty on the basis of the evidence presented to the court, he deserves his jail sentence. It is as simple as that. If, after evidence is presented to the court by APLE (and is 'tested' by Mr Fletcher's defence lawyer) he is found to be innocent, justice will have been served.
You are a fuckwit ricketson!
DeleteAnonymous 11:37, would you be any relation to that fool, Anonymous 11:36 (below)? You look just like the same idiot! Something is very wrong with your genetics
DeleteHa, so they've taken down the "write a review" button!! What a joke great nonprofits is!!
ReplyDeleteThe fat lady has not sung yet.
ReplyDeleteI can say little more than this just now but rest assured Mr Fletcher still has a chance to present his case to the Supreme Court owing to the last minute intervention of a 'guardian angel'.
There are those within the Cambodian government, the Cambodian judiciary, who passionately want there to be reform of what is clearly a corrupt system. Mr. Fletcher's case is, of course, but one of many instances in which the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure has not been adhered to. If, as seems highly likely now, Mr Fletcher's appeal is heard in the Supreme Court, it will be a test case of sorts. The outcome might not only be significant for Mr Fletcher (if he is granted his request for a trial) but for others who have, like him, been denied natural justice.
Powerful forces have been arrayed against Mr Fletcher in his request for a trial so, regardless of the outcome of such a trial, the very fact that it happens will be a triumph of sorts.
There is still an 'if' hanging over this but those who do not want for there to be a fair trial are not necessarily going to get their way.
Watch this space.
Bullshit rickets. Stop trying to defend a fucking lowlife child abuser. Noone in cambodian government is going to help fletcher simply because there is nothing to help. He is a 2 time convicted child sex offender.
DeleteRicketson's a fucking moron and full of shit. Feltvher will die in jail. Good riddense. he might of had a chance to get out if Ricketson hadn't stuck his nose in to big note himself. The fat lady has sung Ricketson. Time for you to pack your bags and find some other way to big note yourself.
DeleteThanks for the update on David, James. Great news! Even half wits like the two idiots above would want anyone to have a fair trial. The evidence of David's innocence is overwhelming!
DeleteDear Alan (aka Anonymous 11.36)
ReplyDeleteIt may come as a surprise to you (perhaps an unpleasant one) that there are those within the Ministry of Justice that have an interest in justice. Yes, money talks but it will not always be so. As for my defending “a fucking lowlife child abuser” you should know, as a trained lawyer, that everyone accused of a crime (even in Cambodia) is entitled to a fair trial. This includes those Khmer Rouge cadres accused of genocide. Mr Fletcher has never received a fair trial. In the event that he receives one – which is looking quite likely now – and he is found guilty on the basis of the evidence, his 10 year jail sentence will stand. And so it should.
As a lawyer you will also be aware that in a fair trial Scott Neeson can (and will be) called to give evidence. He claims that Mr Fletcher was ‘grooming’ young girls – an observation that is, if Neeson cannot provide evidence in support of it, defamatory.
Given that Scott has passed up many opportunities (and invitations) to provide evidence of his ‘grooming’ allegation and has passed them all up I guess he is going to stick by his comments to Andrew Drummond and take whatever medicine comes his way if he is proven to be a liar.
Mr Fletcher’s case is about to get interesting. And, I should add here, this is not just about Mr Fletcher’s guilt or innocence of the charge of raping Yang Dany. It is about the administration of justice in a broader sense; about the right of any and all accused of crimes to be given a fair trial.
I call bullshit. I think you are bluffing Ricketson. Fletcher is in for there long haul. The fat lady has sung but you want to keep your ratings up with lies about the Ministry of Justice. Game over cunt. Time to pull up stumps.
DeleteRicketson is full of shit. I just spoke to my contact at MOJ - he said Fletcher will not be released early.
DeleteDear Team Neeson Trolls (aka Anon 1.11 & 7.15)
DeleteIt must be very handy to be able to call up the Ministry of Justice whenever you feel like it and ask questions such as "Is David Fletcher going to be released early?"
If you have, in fact, done this, you have admitted to being corrupt as no-one at the Ministry would be authorised to answer such a question if the rules of law were being applied.
if you did call and got this answer it is not surprising since I have not written here, suggested here, or even implied here that Mr Fletcher is going to be released early. You need to go back and read what I have written.
For those of you who regularly call me a 'keyboard warrior', a 'coward' or are prone to making thinly veiled (and not so thinly veiled) threats against me, I am in Phnom Penh for a couple of weeks if you would like to get together for a cup of coffee and discuss the latest developments in Mr Fletcher's case. My shout.
Why call me a troll. Im a businessman who works closely with the cambodian government and I called my contacts at the court to enquire about Fletcher after you openly insinuated that you knew more than others about Fletchers case. My comments rebuff your statement and people can choose who they want to believe. Its very funny how you go into defence mode Ricketson every time someone posts comments that are in contradiction to your views. Why is that? Are we to believe that you are always right or that the contacts providing you information about Fletcher are more credible than my contacts.
DeleteDear Anonymous 9.23
DeleteIf you are working closely with the Cambodian government and are able to call up the Ministry of Justice and find out information that should not be open to the public, you are corrupt.
Here is why I think you are a troll and made no such call.
Firstly, unless you are incompetent or simply cannot read, I have not, at any stage, suggested that Mr Fletcher is going to be released early. So, if you asked this question ("Will Mr Fletcher be released early?") it would be unsurprising if the answer was , "No."
In fact, if you bothered to read what I wrote, you would know that Mr Fletcher is not going to be released early. He does, however, stand a very good chance of receiving a air trial as a result of the actions of someone whom I prefer to refer to at present only as a 'guardian angel.'
If you spoke with someone well placed within the Ministry to know the answer to your foolish question s/he would have responded to you, "No, there is no talk of Mr Fletcher being released early. However, he will have an opportunity to appear before the Supreme Court and plead his case."
The fact that you seem not to know this suggests that your contact is not all that good in the Ministry or that you have no contact at all but are simply being a troll.
As for people believing who they choose to believe, time will tell.
@ Anonymous 9.23
ReplyDeleteAny businessman who can call the Ministry of Justice of obtain information over the phone regarding a case before the courts is, by definition, corrupt. The fact that you even think you have a right to do so is evidence of your corruption; of your contempt for justice.
For 'businessman' read Alan Lemon.
DeleteSo Alan Lemon is the corrupt businessman with direct access to the DOJ, but has reading comprehension issues? Is his GF still running the "hostess bar" on 136 or did she 'dump' him?
DeleteDear Anonymous 4.10
DeleteWhether it is is Alan Lemon or not, the 'businessman' who called the Ministry of Justice to make enquiries regarding a case before the court had no right to do so. More importantly, the fact that he felt he had such a right is evidence of his being corrupt.
Regardless of who the person is presenting himself as a 'businessman', he is clearly not all that smart (unable to read and comprehend what I had written) or he was just trying to undermine what I had written by making a false claim about his call to the Ministry.
Either way, the truth will emerge.
As for Lemon's girlfriend running a 'girlie bar' on street 136, she is no longer his girlfriend. A question of interest is:
"Was Lemon co-running and financially contributing to the running of a 'girlie bar' whilst also running (with Mc Cabe) CCF's Child Protection Unit?
I think we know the answer to that last question James! One poster said she now preferred a Nigerian fellow that she now has a child with.
DeleteAnonymous 7:00, are you saying that Neeson paid Lemon and Lemon used his funds from CCF to help run a "girly bar', while at the same time he was running the CCF CHILD PROTECTION UNIT???? OMG!!!
DeleteSo James, of course you might remember the promise of "a warm welcome" at the airport if you chose to enter Cambodia. Was this just more of the bull sh*t bluster by one of the lying Team Neeson trolls? Any problems entering Cambodia James?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous 2.25
DeleteI have become immune to the various threats that have been made. No doubt those who do not want Mr Fletcher to receive a fair trial will continue to do whatever they can to prevent such a trial from occurring.
It looks like the threats come from ignorant trolls, or business men, who imagine themselves to be powerful, but don't know sh@t!!
DeleteSo Ricketson and your idiot friends - you call me corrupt because I have contacted a friend at the MOJ and asked him questions. Im not sure if you know the definition of corruption but just to enlighten you, here it is - having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain. So, how is calling a contact and asking questions dishonest, I have not received or paid any money for the information and the information he gave me is not for my personal gain. To further reiterate my point - I have made s stamens based on information I receive an this statement is contradictory to our statement. Its very clear that you are never going to listen to debate or accept any opinion that is different to yours. Your agenda is opaque at best.
ReplyDeleteDear Alan (aka ‘a businessman’)
DeleteAs with all Neeson Trolls you either cherry pick statements of mine looking for anything that might appear to be an inconsistency or totally ignore what I have written in the hope (in vain) that no-one will bother to check back on what either I or you have actually written.
For you, facts are malleable.
So let’s go through this step by step.
(1) You write, “I just spoke to my contact at MOJ - he said Fletcher will not be released early.”
(2) Have I ever said or implied that Mr Fletcher was going to be released early? No. So, your basic premise is false. And you knew it to be false. Check out ‘straw man argument’ and you will see that you are not in any way being original or clever in your use of this ploy:
“A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.”
(3) You write, “I’m a businessman who works closely with the Cambodian government and I called my contacts at the court to enquire about Fletcher after you openly insinuated that you knew more than others about Fletchers case.”
Another false proposition from you. Where have I ever ‘openly insinuated’ that I knew more about the case than ‘others’? Read what I wrote; not what you think I wrote or what you would like others to think I wrote.
….to be continued…
Delete…following on…
Your comments are not “in contradiction to” my own. They are quite simply incorrect. I did not write what you say I quote. It is not ‘defensive’ to point this out to you, though it may be pointless since you have no interest in facts.
On the question of your being corrupt, I stand by it. There are only two ways that Mr Fletcher can be released early legally: (a) By a court functioning in accordance with the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure or (b) As a result of a Royal Pardon.
Mr Fletcher has made it clear that he would never apply fro a Royal Pardon. And nor has there been any suggestion from himself or myself that he is interested in or applied for one.
This leaves (a) as the only legal option – hence Mr Fletcher’s application to the Supreme Court.
There is, of course, another way that a prisoner can be released early – namely by making a substantial payment to achieve this end. The possibility of this happening was only ever put to me once. I was told that if either I or Mr Fletcher were to pay ‘big money’ his request for a trial would be granted. I made it quite clear that this option was not on the table and left the meeting immediately.
So, given that there can be no Royal Pardon and a Supreme Court hearing is pending, your ‘early release’ question can only apply to the remaining option – Mr Fletcher being released early as a result of corruption. As a businessman working in Cambodia you would know this. You would know that if such a corrupt payment had taken place someone within the Ministry of Justice would be unlikely to divulge this information to you and risk their own careers – unless, that is, they knew you well enough and trusted you well enough to feel sure that you would be ‘discrete’ with the information. You have not been discrete, of course. You have not only outed yourself as corrupt but whoever it was who gave you inside information re Mr Fletcher.
Now, here’s why I don’t think you made any call to the Ministry – because if you had (and given that you are a blabbermouth) you would have revealed what this person said to you regarding Mr Fletcher’s Supreme Court application. You haven’t.
If you are for real, if you really do have a contact within the Ministry, you should call him again and get a bit more information. If you do, and if the information is correct, I will stop calling you a troll and take you (a little bit) seriously.
Incidentally, “Ricketson is full of shit” is not an argument for or against any proposition. It is the kind of language one hears in pubs or amongst those who (in true troll-like fashion) think that the way to win an argument is to string together abusive words.
I look forward to the next update from your contact within the MOJ.
Anon 10.15 - no use posting anything that is against fuckwit rickets - he is a cunt, no a low dog, who hates anyone saying anything that may reduce his google ratings. Fletcher is where he should be - in jail known as a 2 time convicted child sex offender.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 10:15 and 10:19, aren't you the same troll that promised Ricketson would get a warm welcome at the airport on his arrival? How did that promise work out?
Delete@Anon 10.37 Team Neeson and Team APLE intimidation.
DeleteDear Anonymous 10.19
DeleteThe kindest response to your comment is that you wrote it when sober, it seems, judging by the lack of the usual spelling mistakes. Please keep making silly comments like this. They do wonders for my page views. We all need a little comic relief after a hard day at the office and you provide it. Thanks.
anon 10.37pm - sorry to disappoint you but no I am not a troll and I am not the same person who posted at 10.19.
DeleteRickets - so when you post comments with spelling mistakes, and there are many, does that mean you are drunk? - you fucking hypocrite
DeleteYes, I make some spelling mistakes, but in your comments as a rule, dear Anon 11.42, almost every third word is spelt wrongly when you have hit the bottle - which seems to be quite frequently.
Deletewell aren't you the fool as I don't drink and have never done so. Once again your opinion, comments and general interpretation is totally based around your dreamt up conspiracy theories. How difficult it must be to live in such a delusional world.
DeleteDear Anonymous 11.50
DeleteWhich conspiracy theory are you referring to? That Scott Neeson lied when he told donors and sponsors he was giving houses to poor families when he was, in fact, taking them and giving them to the owner of the land upon which they were (and continue to be) erected?
This is not a theory. It is a fact.
If not this 'conspiracy theory', which one? Let me know and I'll address whatever comments you might have to make. And, if you feel like getting together for a cup of coffee and a chat about all this, let me know. Strangely, not one of my critics has taken me up on this offer whilst, at the same time, calling me a 'coward' and a 'keyboard warrior.'
why would anyone want to have a coffee with a suspected pedophile?
ReplyDeleteDidn't know that you were a suspected paedophile Anonymous 6:47. Do you also work at CCF?
DeleteDo you actually have job in cambodia anon 1.55pm - I doubt it.
DeleteDear Anonymous 6.47
DeleteI try to be polite in my response to comments such as this but it is difficult! Have you any inkling at all of what a fool you make of yourself with a comment such as this?It is, alas, typical Team Neeson. Totally lacking in imagination.
So, following the logic of your argument, all that is required of any journalist is that he be a suspected pedophile and CCF is absolved of any requirement to enter into a dialogue with him? Wow! There must be a lot of pedophiles working as journalists!
You are a fool and you do a huge disservice to Team Neeson by making such a manifestly stupid comment. But please do keep them coming. Great comic relief!
exactly what a pedophile would say. no wonder rickets doesnt travel to the eu or states hed be arrested as soon as they scanned him in. no one owes an explanantions to a pedophile
DeleteRicketson may call you 'comic relief' Anonymous 7:55, to me you are just plain ignorant!
DeleteSome hours ago, Tom Selig posted a comment here. I wrote a response to it but when I revisited my blog, Tom's comment had disappeared. Here is what Tom wrote. My response following:
ReplyDeleteNo person who does not have a direct stake (or a business Interest) in
what is discussed in James Ricketson's blog about the denial of a fair
trial for David Fletcher would go to such length to do everything to
bring down or at least discredit this blog. It's also obvious that the
Anonymous Blogger has a split personality and claims to be several
people who have nothing to do with each other.
My best guess is that the Anonymous Blogger is indeed one of the people
James Ricketson mentioned on this blog. (Neeson, Lemon, etc.) If they do
not write these comments in person they will most likely pay someone to
do it for them.
One fact is clear now (and always was to me) that most
people in the Aid Industry fear nothing more than transparency. Be it to
write comments under their own real name or publish REAL Transparent
Budgets online. How else could more than 5000 NGO's in Cambodia stay
silent on this matter?
This is now slowly recognized by some State Donors as a recent
report on the Cambodia Daily showed. The German GiZ will support Human
Rights Organisations with a double digit funding in 2016. Not one Dollar
is going to either Licadho and Adhoc, both if which play in the first league when you rate them purely by the amount of reports and press releases. The
Report said that the funds will go to human rights org's that have a
proven track record and "The Will" to deliver by working with the
Government Institutions.(Not by trying to destroy the current government
or go to bed with the Opposition as preferred by the US Government).
Tom
DeleteI think it has been clear to anyone with a modicum of intelligence for the past year that no-one other than Team Neeson (Scott Neeson, James Mc Cabe and Alan Lemon) would put as much effort as has been evidenced on this blog to discredit me, abuse me and issue veiled threats.
I should qualify this. Yes, Action Pour les Enfants might also be motivated to do so but the writing style, the use of vernacular by these ‘Anonymous’ commenhtators, suggest not just English speaking trolls but Australian speakers of English. I am Australian and both the vernacular and speech rhythms are familiar to me.
It used to be that I could clearly distinguish those comments made by Neeson (the tone a mixture of hysterical and wounded pride with a dash of righteous indignation) but he has been careful to disguise his writing patterns and use of vernacular this past six months. Not so Alan Lemon, who can’t help but out himself. He might just as well sign in with Alan Lemon and do away with the pretense that he is a ‘businessman’ who just happens to be online all day and ready and raring to respond to anything I write at lightning speed.
As for Mc Cabe, I don’t think he makes many comments at all – though perhaps some of the late at night and very badly spelled comments can be attributed to him.
The latest Team Neeson comment (“Whyxxx) is indicative of how pathetic they are as a team. They never address any of the issues I raise, never answer any questions. The word ‘evasive’ does not come close to describing Team Neeson’s attitude towards the precepts of transparency and accountability.
As you say, Tom, Team Neeson is not alone, as an NGO, in keeping sponsors, donors and journalists in the dark. My experience is not unique. Scott Neeson will answer questions from no journalists – unless they be tame journalists from the Phnom Penh Post moonlighting as Cambodian Children’s Fund public relations spin doctors.
..to be continued…
…following on…
DeleteAs for LICADHO, I have a great deal of respect for Dr Kek Pung. My experience of her is that she is a kind, compassionate and big-hearted woman. The same does not apply for Naly Pilorge who I think to be a fraud. I do not use the word ‘fraud’ lightly. Back in 2008 Naly was complicit (as was Helen Sworn from Chab Dai) in their illegal removal of two children from their family by evangelical Christians based in Brisbane, Australia – Citipointe church. This is all very well documented. Naly Pilorge and Helen Sworn both knew that Pastor Leigh Ramsey had removed the girls from their family illegally but not only stood by and did nothing but both, in their own ways, aided and abetted Pastor Ramsey in this removal.
In a country in which the rule of law prevailed Pastor Leigh Ramsey would be charged in court with kidnapping. In a country in which the rule of law prevailed both Naly Pilorge and Helen Sworn would, if not charged themselves as accessories to kidnapping, would be pilloried in the media for having, at the very least, turned a blind eye to Citipointe church’s illegal removal of children from their families. Even today, 8 years later, you can conduct a google search and find that LICADHO has remained silent on the question of sham (and scam) orphanages and the removal of children from their families by evangelical Christians.
One thing I will say in Neeson’s defense is that he does not force the children he has removed from their families to attend church; does not force-feed them evangelical Christian doctrine; does not try to alienate them from their religion, traditions and culture.
In the moral universe in which I live these Evangelicals, in their removal of children from their families, are guilty of stealing children – in the sense that we, in Australia, refer to Aboriginal children removed from their families over more than a century – for reasons pretty much the same as those used by Evangelical Christians and NGOs such as the Cambodian Children’s fund. argument these child kidnappers run with is that the children are better off growing up in an institution than within the loving embrace of their families and communities. And, because these NGOs are cashed up (thanks to kind-hearted sponsors and donors who fall the PR spin) they can pay the relevant government officials to turn a bind eye to their illegal and immoral activities.
You are using tom selig as a reference point? He is fucking weirdo who is hated by many. Just read his post and you can see that he has an IQ of a mushroom. You really do shine a pathetic light on yourself ricketson when you use idiots like tom selig as a backup to your statements.
DeleteIt could be much worse Anonymous 8:13. He could use YOU!!
DeleteThanks for defending yourself Tom Selig you fucking moron - smoked any drugs lately
DeleteNice to hear from Tom Selig again!
DeleteDear Anonymous 8.13
DeleteDear anonymous
What does the fact that ‘Tom Selig’ is hated by many have to do with anything? Are only the opinions of those not hated by many of value? And who are these ‘many’ you are referring to? NGOs? If so, of course they would hate Tom. He is a harsh critic of the lack of transparency and accountability on NGOs. I agree with him.
I doubt, actually, that there is a person called Tom Selig. A pseudonym I suspect. This makes it easy for me to know who is commenting. With so many people calling themselves ‘Anonymous’ it can be difficult to know at times if this person has made lots of comments before or is a newcomer. Except in the case of Team Neeson – readily identifiable now.
You are an idiot Ricketson!
DeleteThere is a rumour going around that several organisations have been looking at Ricketsons activities in Cambodia, particularly involving his engagement with poor families who have young daughters. A strong suggestion that his activities are considered suspicious. Well this does now make perfect sense as to why he would want the anti-child sex abuse groups out of the way. Funny how things catch up with you!
ReplyDeleteDear Team Neeson (aka anonymous 10.53)
ReplyDeleteI would have thought (or at least hoped) after the damage you caused to David Fletcher with this sort of rumour-mongering, that you would be cautious about going down this path again. It seems not. Good luck with it. Yes, you can afford to pay the relevant authorities to run with it and you have some tame journalists that would be happy to make a story of it, but there are those also whose opinion of Team Neeson would sink even lower than it has sunk already.
On the other hand, this comment may be less about character assassination than yet another attempt at intimidation.
If you wish to retain a little credibility, stop this king of schoolboy nonsense and answer some questions. Like:
"Who owns the land upon which the World Housing homes are being erected and so is the beneficiary of 100s of 1000s of $ of 'gifted' houses that have been taken from the poor families to whom they were gifted?"
why is it ok for you to defame people and yet its not ok when someone posts something about you. Seriously rickets, give yourself a lead earring and make everyone happy.
DeleteDear Team Neeson Troll (aka Anonymous 5.27)
DeleteIf I really believed that it was inappropriate for me to be defamed I could very easily have deleted the comment when it was posted. I did not.
If Scott Neeson or any of his Team Members wish to go down the same path that Scott when down with David Fletcher there is nothing I can do to stop them. And nor will I censor such defamatory comments. What I would suggest, however, is that anyone who believes they have evidence that puts some flesh on the rumour should go to the police with it and let justice runs its course.
On the question of defamation, please point out to me one occasion when I have defamed Scott Neeson? Or two occasions? Calling Scott a liar could, I suppose, be defamatory if it were not true. It is true, as any independent observer would verify. The same applies with my accusation that Scott steals houses that have been 'gifted' to poor families and gives them to the owner of the land upon which they are being erected. If this were not true Scott could sue me for defamation. However, as anyone who can simply read what Scott has said, can read the World Housing press releases, would verify - Scott has stolen these houses and he is a liar.
Hey fuckwit Rickeson - I know your IQ level is very low but here it in simple terms. Defamation is a statement that injures a third party's reputation. So if you think you haven't defamed anyone on your blog then you seriously are a loser.
ReplyDeleteDear Alan Lemon (aka Anonymous 8.42)
DeleteOne has to wonder about the IQ of anyone who prefaces a statement with "Hey fuckwit".
If I have made any defamatory statements about Scott Neeson you, as a trained lawyer, should be able to readily identify them. SInce you will not reveal what they are here on this blog I suggest that you recommend to your client (Scott) that he commence defamation proceedings against me. If you do I will be in Cambodia for a few more weeks so can easily be contacted.
As for any injury to Scott Neeson's reputation, it is a reputation badly in need of being 'injured'. At present his reputation rests almost solely of what he writes about himself or has tame journalists write about him. He is, as you know, a liar. He spent well over a year telling all and sundry (including said tame journalists) that CCF was 'gifting' homes to poor Cambodian families.
It was blindingly obvious to anyone who bothered to ask a few questions that Neeson was lying about the 'gifting'. When he could no longer maintain this illusion, admitted that the houses are rented to poor families; not 'gifted' to them'; that he had been lying.
He hoped, by telling some of the truth, that all questions would cease about this scam; that no-one would ask him just who the beneficiary was of this 'gifting'? If not poor families, who was being 'gifted' all these houses donated to poor families?
So, in addition to being a liar, Neeson is a fraudster, a scamster. If I have just, in your legal opinion, defamed Neeson, commence legal proceedings now in whatever court you choose, Alan. I look forward to it.
I heard Fletcher has been threatening to commit suicide again. Has he read the story 'the boy who cried wolf'
ReplyDeleteHey Team Neeson
ReplyDeleteJames has called you out !
Do you have the guts to take him on ?
or as they say in Oz you are full of piss and wind ?
You will not because you do not want your criminal organization to be exposed to public scrutiny.
I await your reply with great interest
Well said Anon , 1.54AM
ReplyDeleteTeam Nesson is like the king hit merchant that will through a cheap shot at you when you are not looking but ask them to get into the ring and stand toe to toe they baulk and run the other way !
Neeson is too rat cunning to sue Ricketson and get bad publicity but Im sure he could pull the same stunt he did with Fletcher and set him up on some bodgy sex charge
DeleteAnd get a dodgy NGO to find some 'victim' to scram 'rape' if she is offered enough money
DeleteNo shortage of dodgy NGOs in SCAMBODIA!
DeleteDoes Alan Lemon have a job with CCF other than posting on here and covering McCabe's ass?
ReplyDeleteFor anyone interested in viewing a first hand account of how damaging the label 'sex offender' can be, watch this:
ReplyDeletehttp://californiarsol.org/2016/01/are-we-all-sex-offenders-galen-baughman-tedxcuny
Youve shown your true colours Rickets defending sex offenders. Youve got no credibility. Fuckwit
DeletePersonally I would no more let this guy spend time with my kids than I would Fletcher (or Ricketson for that matter)
DeleteDear Anonymous 6.17
DeleteYou are a fool. An ignorant fool. The guy in this video, at the age of 19, had consensual sex with a teenage boy. As a result, he spent years in jail and his life has been ruined. He is now a generic 'sex offender'. And the point he is making is a good one - namely that the same epithet (along with its legal consequences) is applied to a man who pinches a woman's bottom in a a pub, who plants an unwanted kiss on a woman's cheek, as is applied to a rapist.
David Fletcher's consensual sexual relationship with a 15 year old girl was illegal but in the moral universe that you inhabit (and that so many members of Team Neeson inhabit) this means that he deserves the epithet of 'sex offender' or 'child rapist' and so, having been thus labelled, deserves to spend the rest of his life in jail (to die in jail) because it suits the fund-raising purposes of certain corrupt NGOs.
Get this into your thick head Ricketson. You cannot have consensual sex with someone below the age of consent. That is the whole point of the law. Someone below the age of consent is too young to be able to make a proper judgement. Thus preventing filthy fat seventy year old perverts like Fletcher from talking their way into little girls knickers.
ReplyDelete@ Anon 1.33 Tell that to James Mc Cabe you fuckwit. Is it OK for the head of a Child Protection Unit to fuck a 15 year old girl? Why isn't Mc Cabe in jail? You and I both know why. The same reason Fletcher is in jail. Money talks.
DeleteDear Anonymous 1.33
DeleteNo, you cannot have consensual sex with someone under the age of consent. The description of this crime is ‘statutory rape’.
This was not really the point of the video link that I posted, however. If you had actually watched it (which I doubt) you would have discovered that the man speaking was labelled a ‘sex offender’ on the basis of having consensual sex, at age 19, with another teenage boy. Yes, technically this is against the law. However, given that 25% of girls in the UK have had sex by the age of 15 this means that at least 25% of girls (and I suspect the figure is similar in Australia, the US etc) and a similar percentage of boys are guilty of ‘statutory rape’. Does this make any sense? Should a 19 year old man who has sex with a 15 year old girl or boy be sent to jail, go into a sex register and have his life destroyed because he has consensual sex with a 15 year old boy or girl? You seem to think so and my response is to call you a fool because I think you are one. You are also a hypocrite because you apply your principles selectively. In the moral universe you inhabit David Fletcher deserves to spend the rest of his life in jail for having sex with a 15 year old, whereas James Mc Cabe (a convicted criminal) has sex with a 15 or 16 year old (now his wife) and is rewarded by being made head of a child protection unit – one of whose roles is to pursue and prosecute men who have sex with 15 year old girls.
In future, if you choose to advocate that Mr Fletcher should die in jail without a trial for the alleged rape of Yang Dany, please do apply the same moral principles to James Mc Cabe.
Exactly why am I a fool, an ignorant fool for not wanting my children to spend time with somebody who has sex with teenage boys, somebody who has been imprisoned for statutory rape or somebody who campaigns on behalf of convicted sex offenders. I think it is you that is the fool James as many readers of this blog realise.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous 8.08
DeleteYou are a fool on many counts. See my response to Fool # 1 above (though I suspect that you are he also).
As for the ‘somebody who campaigns on behalf of convicted sex offenders,’ this reference to myself is yet more evidence of your stupidity. What I have ‘campaigned’ for (though I prefer ‘advocated’) is Mr Fletcher’s right to a fair trial. You might just as well say that a lawyer representing a Khmer Rouge cadre is ‘campaigning on behalf of genocidal killers’. You either have no understanding of the law (and are thus stupid by definition) or you do understand the law but do not believe that the rules of law should apply to men like David Fletcher; that they should be sent to jail for life on the basis of scuttlebutt spread by the likes of Peter Hogan and Scott Neeson and with the blessing of a variety of NGOs (including LICADHO) who (a) know that the alleged victim remained a virgin after her alleged rape and (b) that even Action Pour les Enfants (APLE) acknowledges that perhaps no rape took place, (c) the alleged victim says no rape took place and (d) the medical report prepared for the Phnom Penh Municipal Court says no rape took place and (e) that the only witness for the prosecution has been sent out of Cambodia (perhaps even trafficked) to prevent her telling the media (and court) her side of the story. And it is a story that would be highly embarrassing (to say the least) to a variety of NGOs. Hence the enormous efforts that have gone into seeing to it that Mr Fletcher gets no fair trial.
On the one hand Mr Fletcher deserves a fair trial (ass do all accused of a crime in Cambodia) and on the other there is a legal principle at stake that is important. If Mr Fletcher can be found guilty of a crime without even the opportunity of a trial the same can apply to any and everyone who either gets in the way of someone with a lot of money or whose incarceration suits a fund raising model of an NGO that requires a constant stream of convictions.
If anyone or any institution feels that they have been defamed here, you know where to send the court papers. Please don’t send two out of uniform policemen to intimidate me. If this happens again I will photograph them, post the photos on the internet and report them to the Anti Corruption Unit.
And if any of the gutless Anonymous men who make comments here grow some balls and feel like having a chat with me over a cup of coffee I can be found at Brown’s coffee on the riverside, just 50 metres from the Post Office, most mornings.
photos of my morning workout
Deletehttp://xxxonxxx.com/homeswingerclub/amazing-sex-orgy-tight/6pic/
Now now James, settle down a little. I stated that I did not want my children to spend time with somebody who has had sex with a child, has had sex with a fifteen year old boy or somebody who campaigns for them. That is what is known as free speech you dummy.In the same way that you have the right to speak your thoughts I have the right to speak mine. Just because you disagree with people you seem to think that makes them fools. As I claimed earlier it actually makes you look like a fool and hypocrite.
ReplyDeleteWe agree on one thing, then - freedom of speech. You are free eto write whatever you like here and I am free to respond to it as I see fit. Others who read this are free to draw their own conclusions based on what you write, what I write and what others write.
DeleteYes James, but why the need to call them a fool because they express free speech. Your problem is that you think you are the oly one who can enjoy free speech
DeleteDear Anonymous 5.58
DeleteGiven that you have had your say and have not been censored (as could so easily occur if I decided to delete your comments) what is the problem?
You write what you like, I write what Iike. Some who comment here call me a 'fuckwit', a 'loser' a 'cunt' and use other unpleasant epithets to describe me. And, from time to time, I will call them fools. Free speech.
Whilst you are, of course, free to keep wiring the same comments time and time again you could, if you so chose, share with us your thoughts about (for instance) Scott Neeson's 'gifting' of homes to poor families? Was he playing fast and loose when he led sponsors and donors to believe that they were 'gifting' homes to poor families when in fact they were being 'gifted' to whoever owns the land upon which they are being built?
You will not share your thoughts on this question, or any other, because your role here, as you see it, is to shoot the messenger and hope, in so doing, that readers will be so stupid as to not notice that questions are never answered.
APLE run by Pedophiles ?
ReplyDeleteHang Vibol, former country director of Action pour les Enfants was sentenced to 3 years in prison.
https://www.cambodiadaily.com/news/orphanage-head-convicted-of-child-sex-abuse-108116/
http://www.khmertimeskh.com/news/21240/sex-offender-given-light-sentence-after-years-of-abuse/
quote khmertimes:
“He asked boys to do massages for him inside his room in his organization’s center,” he said. His sexual offenses included the touching of genitals, and oral and anal sex. He also sexually abused his two adopted daughters, one five-year-old and one seven-year-old.
unquote
According to the Phnom Penh Post Hang Vibol asked the children in his private room to play with his genitals.
Thierry Darnaudet, the founder of Cambodia's most controversial anti pedophile NGO himself was accused of sexual child abuse several years back but seems to be immune to any scrutiny.
Conclusion:
Let's imagine all went according to the (Law) Book and Judge Rathnarin had every justification to sentence Hang Vibol for the abuse of 11 dependent kids in his Our Home Orphanage. Why on earth did he (Hang Vibol) got away with a 3 Year Jail Term while David Fletcher got a 10 Year Term for doing nothing ?? It's also pretty clear now that APLE was run by a Pedophile while it's founder was also accused of being one.
Licadho was apparently not asked by any of the leading english speaking Media about the large gap between the sentences in both cases.
photos of james ricketson "at work"
Deletehttp://xxxonxxx.com/homeswingerclub/amazing-sex-orgy-tight/6pic/
APLE run by pedophiles! No surprises there. Cambodia is full of pedophile NGOs with the perfect cover. "We are here to rescue kids from pedophiles," sing the pedophiles making megabucks along the way.
ReplyDeleteI call bullshit. Who says Mc Cabe's wife was only 15 when he met her? And even if she was who knows apart from Mc Cabe and his wife if they had sex when she was underage?
ReplyDeleteI thought she was 15 also, then he knocked her up before his trial, hoping to get a lighter sentence (which I believe that he did get) as an expectant father.
Deletei thought james ricketson raped young boys and girls
Deletethe only thing mentioned here in relation to mccabe is heresay and bullshit without any evidence being put forward. and then people jump onto the bandwagon and say mccabes wife was 15. not only do i know her quite well i know her to be in her late 30's. by the same line of logic that allows people to make statmenets about mccabes marrige, so to i make the exact same comments about ricketson and david.
Deletedavid fletcher professed to me his love for underage girls, telling me that 1- years were his favourite because of their tightness. ive spoken to numerous families that have begged for help in keeping james ricketson away from their children as they know he is trying to buy girls viriginities for himself.
photos of james ricketson "at work"
Deletehttp://xxxonxxx.com/homeswingerclub/amazing-sex-orgy-tight/6pic/
Dear Team Neeson (aka Anonymous 6.09)
DeleteOn the question of hearsay:
So, you've "spoken to numerous families that have begged for help in keeping James Ricketson away from their children."
Have you reported this to the police? Have you attempted to ascertain from me whether there is any truth or not in the allegations these families have made? If you have not, you have failed in your duty of care to these children and their families.
Have you reported my alleged activities to the media and asked them to investigate to find out if there is any truth to the rumours or not? No, you have not.
My point is that when any of us is confronted with rumours, with scuttlebutt we can (a) believe it unquestioningly of (b) ask questions in an attempt to find out whether there is any ruth to the rumour or not.
I can say to, unequivocally, that you are a liar; that no families have begged you (or anyone else) to keep me away from their daughters. If you have any evidence that I am lying, take it to the police; take it to be media.
In relation to Mc Cabe's wife, that she was 15 or 16 years old when he and she commenced their relationship comes from a number of sources. One of these is the Australian Federal Police who know precisely how old she was when she took up with Mc Cabe. The AFP will not release the evidence to this effect but I can assure you (and others reading this) that you are lying about Mc Cabe's wife being in her late 30s.
Because you write anonymously you can, and do, write whatever nonsense you like and will not be accountable for it. This is what you have done here. That you are scraping the bottom of the barrel in your attempts to shoot the messenger is evidenced by your continuing to post pornographic pictures that quite clearly do not have me in them.
Scott Neeson, Alan Lemin, time to grow up and answer some questions.
Starting with Neeson, it seems that that are liars ALL!
DeleteHa,ha,ha !!
ReplyDeleteI'm so happy I've found this blog, funnier than "Viz" magazine ever was, even in it's pomp!!
A deluded,bitter, bullshitting,barflying Aussie with an axe to grind, spending untold days hammering away at his keyboard until his fingers bleed all the while slowly becoming more and more bitter and twisted.
Meanwhile in the real world good people(people like Bob Tutt for example!) are getting on with the business of trying to make a real and tangible difference in an increasingly cynical fucked up world.
You do write well James I'll give you that !
Problem is what you write it's 99% pure and unadulterated shite and 1% rumour.
So in closing I'll just refer you back to your own post 2nd paragraph above if I may?
"Have you reported this to the Police"? Have you attempted to ascertain from credible sources what you post is factual"?
I would offer that anybody with half a brain, already knows the answer to that question James?
Dear Scott Neeson
DeleteYour writing style, you off sense of humour (ha ha) are readily identifiable. You should, at the very least, make some effort to conceal your identity.
All of what I write is based in fact and much of what I write is in the form of questions for you, for Alan Lemon and for the Cambodian Children's Fund board. You refuse to answer any questions and hope, if you keep writing these silly abusive comments, that the messenger will be killed. Keep it up. It makes you and the rest of Team Neeson look very foolish. Of the 250 or so page views I get each day I suspect that most are interested in facts and not in the kind of personal abuse you engage in - except insofar as it reveals so much about you.
You are a liar and a con man. You lied about 'gifting' houses to poor families and you are engaged with the full knowledge of Bob Tufts (and the CCF board) in essentially stealing the houses 'gifted' to poor families and giving them to the owner of the land upon which they are erected.
This is just a common and garden con job.
Worse is the way in which you exploit poor families for CCF's financial gain.No, this is not scuttlebutt. It is fact. Clearly Bob Tufts is not interested in talking with families and discovering for himself (from the mouths of the families) what actually takes place when CCF claims to be helping families. As I mentioned in my opening comments to Bob, I had heard that he is a decent man. Clearly he is not. A decent man would have shown some interest in meeting with the families and finding out for himself what is going on - from their point of view as opposed from the point of view of a man (you, Scott Neeson) who has demonstrated time and time again that he is a liar.
There is plenty more to come, Scott, so get your Team ready with their poisoned arrows.
cheers
Delusional piffle I'm afraid old boy and anyone who puts any store by your 99% rumour 1% guesswork rantings really does need their bumps felt!
DeleteDear Anonymous 6.52
DeleteForget about rumour and guess work and just answer me this one question:
"How do you account for the fact that Scott Neeson spent well over a year telling anyone and everyone who would listen that CCF was 'gifting' houses/homes to poor families when it was not true?"
Just a brief response will suffice. If Neeson was not lying, how do you account for the discrepancy between what he said and the undeniable facts? And whilst you are at it, how about the owner of the land upon which the houses are being built? Is it a matter of any concern to you that the owner of the land is the actual owner of the houses that were (are being) gifted to poor families? This deception doesn't bother you? Your spin, the spin of all members of Team Neeson, is not very convincing. You need to try harder.
Ha,ha you are a mental! Reading your insane rantings is even more comical than "Viz" in its pomp!
DeleteAs to your statement that 'the owner of the land is the actual owner of the houses " .Where is your proof ? You make many,many assertions ,but nothing concrete is ever forthcoming , why is that?
Is it -A because you have no proof .
Is it -B. because you're making it all up as you go along .
Is it-C Because you're a delusional certifiable bitter twisted lunatic?
I going for the banker , It's "C" all the way for me .
All the best have a nice weekend James old boy!
Dear Scott Neeson (aka Anonymous 1.58)
DeleteI have no idea of what "Vis" is! Please enlighten me.
You are trying to cloud the issue here, Scott. Let me make it really simple; in point form:
(1) The families living in the houses do not own them.
We can agree in that, right? Yes, you said World Housing was 'gifting' them to the families, but you lied.
(2) If someone owns a block of land in Cambodia and a dwelling is constructed on that land it is usually the case that the owner of the land is the owner of the structures built.
(3) If a contractual arrangement has been entered into with the owner of the land such that s/he does not own the houses built on it, the question remains: "Who owns the houses?"
(4) If (3) is the case, what happens if the owner of the land decides, at the end of a lease, that s/he doesn't want the houses anymore on his/her land?
(5) If the houses can readily be dismantled and put up on another block of land the fact remains that someone owns the structures themselves and the owners are not the families renting them.
So, Scott, instead of asking me for proof, why not simply come out and let us all know (a) who owns the land and (b) who owns the structures - valued at $1 million?
As for your description of me as a "delusional certifiable bitter twisted lunatic?" you still seem to be labouring under the belief that shooting the messenger is going to get you out of the swamp of lies you must now flounder in.
No,no,no James ,it's "VIZ' not Vis !
DeleteBut anyway for your information "VIZ' magazine was one of the wittiest UK publications to come out of the 1990's-2000's . Laugh out loud funny adult humor and close to the knuckle (Non PC) as you could get.
And I never thought for a minute that I would ever find a publication to match it for sheer laugh out loud stupidity ,not until I came across your "Blog" that is !
You're a natural comedian mate! To be able to make up such outlandish unfounded shite as you do but still keep it as funny as it is, you have to have a real talent.
I love the way you play guessing games also really keeps the readers(If there are any apart from me?) entertained .
I'm Scot Neeson ! No I'm Scot Neeson ,No,no I'm Scot Neeson!
Oh no err! I'm actually Alan Lemon!
No your not I am!
No.no,no you're both wrong I am!!
Oh fuck it !Ok then ,I'm Spartacus !!
As you can gather ,I'm not Scot Neeson or Alan Lemon I'm actually Spartacus and I'd like to ask you one more time as you are the comedian throwing out all the accusations ,where is your proof ? If you can supply some I might actually take you seriously!
But you can't can you ? And any sane person who reads this shite can see it a mile off !
All the best old boy ,and wenjoy the rest of your weekend.
Spartacus!!