Paul Hanneman
President
Worldwide Theatrical Marketing & Distribution
Twentieth Century Fox
10201 West Pico Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90035
United States
26th March 2016
Dear Paul
I read with interest, on the Cambodian Children’s Fund (CCF) Facebook page, of the humanitarian award to be
‘gifted’ to Scott Neeson in June.
I wonder if you
are as well informed about CCF as you should be? Given that you are also in the
marketing business, perhaps you should take Scott Neeson and his public
relations pronouncements with a grain of salt!
I believe that
there are some questions you and Twentieth Century Fox should ask before
providing Scott with photo opportunities
that create the impression that you and Twentieth Century Fox are endorsing
CCF. Scott is a master of the photo opportunity (see photos of Scott and the
Dalia Lama and famous Hollywood actresses) and will milk his ‘award’ on his
Facebook page and in his press releases (which will be dutifully published by
the Cambodian print media) to guarantee and sponsors and donors open their
wallets and keep the dollars flowing into CCF bank accounts.
Here are a few facts
about CCF that Scott Neeson hides as well as he can but which are available, on
the internet, to anyone who decides to do a little research.
I would strongly recommend
that someone within Twentieth Century Fox do a little research to find
out who plays fast and loose with the truth – Scott or me!
Since 2010 CCF has
taken in $36 million dollars in sponsorships and donations.
Some simple
mathematics will reveal to you the kinds of questions you need to ask.
CCF is, according
to its own publicity, taking care of 2,700 children. Most of these children
live with their families, but leave this fact to one side for the moment.
Divide this $36
million by 2,700 and it emerges that CCF’s ‘taking care’ of these children has
a $13,000 price tag per child attached to it.
The observation
could be made:
“Yes, but
that’s $36 million spread over 6 years.”
Fair enough.
Taking this into account simple mathematics reveals that CCF is ‘only’ spending:
$2,000 per year per child.
And what is the
per capita income in Cambodia? A little more than half of this sum.
“Is this,
Paul, a financially efficient way to
assist children from impoverished families?”
Some more
mathematics, this time applied to CCF salaries.
CCF’s staff salary
bill for 2014 was $3.7 million. This was for a program that was, purportedly,
taking care of 2700 young boys and girls – most living with their families and
attending public schools.
That’s $1,370 in
staff salaries to take care of one child.
CCF is paying more
per child in staff salaries than, on average, the child’s entire family earns
in a year.
Leaving aside the
damage done to children by institutional care, does this removal of children
from their families make economic sense?
I raised some questions
similar to this in Feb 2015 on my blog entitled:
# 96 A message for Heather Graham re the Cambodian
Children's Fund
An extract:
“CCF is a
registered charity in the United States. Each year the NGO must file a tax
return.
The Cambodian
Children’s Fund 2013 “Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax” is to be
found at:
In Line 4a the
figure of $1,603,309 appears alongside a list of educational programs servicing
760 kids.
Simple
mathematics reveals that CCF claims to be spending roughly $2,000 per child per
annum for education.
Does this
figure seem realistic, Heather, in a country in which the per capita income of
most Cambodian families is below $1,500?
In Line 4b the
figure of $1,423,298 appears alongside:
“Childcare –
CCF provides housing and transportation to over 700 impoverished Cambodian
children.”
CCF claims to
be spending roughly $2,000 per child for housing and transportation per annum
and yet these children sleep in dormitories, often 3 and 4 to a bed!
Given that the
cost of transportation within Steung Meanchey would cost very little, it is
fair to assume that the bulk of the $2,000 CCF claims to spend per child in
institutional care is for ‘housing’.
How and why does it cost more to house and educate one Cambodian child
in a CCF institution for one year than it costs for an entire Cambodian family
to live for one year?”
I do not expect
you, Paul, to accept that my mathematics is correct. However, I do think that
someone within Twentieth Century Fox should set aside an hour or so to do some
basic internet research to determine whether or not I have my facts right.
Your researcher
will find, if s/he asks the right questions that a very high proportion of
these families wind up working in the Phnom Penh rubbish dump because they have
lost their homes and land as a result of debts accrued through family illness
or some other financial disaster they were ill equipped to deal with.
I know from
experience that for many of these families the sum of $5,000 will enable them to
buy land and a modest home back in the provinces they come from and become, as
they were before financial disaster struck, self-sufficient. Divide $36 million
by $5,000 and you get 7,200.
So, 7,200 families
could have been provided with $5,000 to buy land, a house or to set up a
business that would make them self-sufficient. Or 3,600 families with $10,000
to get them on their feet – either in the provinces or through setting up their
own businesses in a Cambodian city.
Again, the
question arises, is the money provided to CCF by donors and sponsors being used
efficiently?
Paul, in the interests
of transparency and accountability you might like to ask Scott Neeson to
explain how and why it is that salaries for CCF staff more than doubled over a
period of two years?
2012 - $1.5
million
2013 - $2.3 million
2014 - $3.7
million
In 2014 CCF had a
little under $5m in land and 3.5 million in investments. This, at the same time
that CCF was locking families out of their homes for being less than $20 behind
in their rent! See:
http://cambodianchildrensfund.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/25-scott-nesson-locks-poor-family-out.html
Questions abound.
See my most recent blog entry for some of these:
http://cambodia440.blogspot.com.au/2016/02/187-some-questions-for-scott-neeson.html
Before being a
party to awarding Scott Neeson with a humanitarian award you might like to ask
Scott who is the owner of the land upon which World Housing homes are
constructed?
For 18 or so
months Scott Neeson lied to donors and sponsors, leading them to believe that
these homes were being ‘gifted’ to poor families. When this ‘gifting’ was
exposed as a lie, Scott Neeson came clean and admitted that the houses are
being rented to the poor families to whom donors and sponsors believed they had
been given.
Does this lie of
Scott Neeson’s, and others that can be discovered with a little research, bother
you at all, Paul?
I know, from doing
my research, that bought in bulk, each of these pre-fabricated houses costs
$1,000 to manufacture. Allowing for, say, $200 per house in construction costs,
the owner of the land upon which they have been erected is now the owner of 360
houses valued at $1,200 at the very least. That’s $432,000 of houses now owned
by whoever owns the land.
Please, Paul, ask
Scott who owns the land and so is the beneficiary of this financial windfall.
Does Scott Neeson own the land? Does Kram Sok Channoeurn, Country Manager? Surely, the owner of
$432,000 worth of housing, ‘gifted’ to him or her (instead of to poor families)
should be made known to donors and sponsors who will be impressed by the
humanitarian award being given to Scott in June!? Will their money, through sleight
of hand, go towards enriching private individuals and not towards the poor
families for whom it is intended?
Lending your name
and that of Twentieth Century Fox to a worthwhile project is both understandable
and commendable. However, you must also be aware that Cambodia has not acquired
the epithet ‘Scambodia’ by chance.
Take what I write
here with the same grain of salt that I hope you take whatever Scott tells you.
Ask some questions, Paul. You are experienced enough in the world of pubic
relations to know that when it comes to selling a product (as when starting a
war) ‘truth’ is the first casualty.
cheers
James Ricketson
It is criminal that 20 Century fox would aggrandize this criminal and applaude his taking children from families and taking houses from the impoverished!! What is going on here. I hope, James, that you will continue to educate these people that do no research into who/what they encourage. I hope that they pay a huge price for their ignorance!!
ReplyDeleteThere's a sucker born every minute and Paul Hanneman is obviously one of them
DeletePaul is an old mate of Scott’s, doing him a favour. Just like Charity Navigator and Great Non Profits these kinds of awards are just another scam organized by Neeson to make him look good and smell sweet but as the Aussie saying goes you can’t polish a turd.
DeleteIt is a made up award with no value. Shouldn't get one inch of newsprint. Doesn't change anything about Scott Neeson being a thief, a liar and a scoundrel.
DeleteWas last year's winner also a child stealing, home stealing, liar?
DeleteDear Anonymous 4.15
DeleteThe Variety International Children’s Fund Humanitarian Award is not a made up award. It does actually exist, and has done since 1941.
My question, for the organisers (I will enquire after the Easter break) is whether or not they took a close look at CCF or if they simply relied on the public relations material presented to them by Scott in order to single him out.
The other candidates for this award were Pol Pot, Hitler, and Atilla the Hun. Child abusers all! The award should be called "Leading Child Abusers of the last 100 years"!
DeleteSo he gets an award for depriving children of their right to a family?? How sick is that?
ReplyDeleteI suggest you cc the Hollywood Reporter Newspaper. The leeches are usually hungry for such a story but than they are also neeson's former friends. Let's see !
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hollywoodreporter.com/
The following has been posted twice on this blog, only to disappear each time. This happens from time to time for reasons I do not understand!!!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous has left a new comment on your post "# 188 Scott Neeson exploits 20th C Fox for his lat...":
Another Captain America "Child Protection" Specialist ?
Just imagine this:
A US ex Afghanistan special forces veteran comes back from his mission , wounded and impaired for life. He has seen some of the worst atrocities a man can ever see in his life. Upon his return he realizes that there really isn't much left that he could do with his life. And than he discovers PROTECT, the Program invented by APLE founder Thierry Darnaudet and copied by the US Government. His new job ?
He will become a Kiddie Porn Viewer Specialist !
quote:
Developed by Protect, in conjunction with Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), the veterans receive 11 weeks of intensive training and 10 months of on-the-ground experience.
They work alongside law enforcement teams executing warrants and serving as computer forensic analysts as part of a year-long unpaid internship. That means scanning computers and external hard drives on-site to determine whether the suspect possesses child pornography and, critically, whether the suspect is also producing child pornography.
During that year-long internship, HERO Corps trainees will sift through thousands of disturbing images of adults sexually assaulting children.
One HERO can stop or prevent the exploitation of as many as 50 children per year, by providing law enforcement with the digital evidence they need to identify and locate endangered children. (wow, how did they get this statistic ??)
unquote
If it was only as easy as this. Give an ex Marine a computer and make him watch kiddie porn all day after he is QUALIFIED: 11 weeks of intensive training and 10 months of on-the-ground experience.
He wouldn't be the first one to join the kiddie fiddlers in the US. A few years back, one of the ICE (Immigration / Customs/ Enforcement) leaders in Florida was found hauling the kiddie porn he copied during his PROTECT Job in the office back home for further USE !
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/29/us/freedom-project-hero-
corps/index.html
I hope this guy never makes it to Cambodia where he could join ranks with Morrish, Mc.Cabe and all those other creeps claiming to protect children.
Neeson would claim that he "protects children" also (see photo of the deranged man above). He is one who has taken hundreds of children from their families! Wasn't McCabe also a drug dealer?
DeleteWe go again!
ReplyDeleteInnuendo and smear without a hint of evidence as per usual.
You're like a relentless psychotic deluded woodpecker James.
Anonymous 11:34, are you saying that Neeson and CCF don't take children from their families, and don't take houses intended for the poor? Ricketson is making that all up??
DeleteDear Scott Neeson, Alan Lemon or Neeson Troll (aka anonymous 11.34)
DeleteThe questions I am suggesting Paul Hanneman ask are the same questions I have been asking this past 18 months. If you have good answers to them, perhaps you will provide them to Mr Hanneman, since you have declined to do so for me or any other journalist who asks them.
As I have written many times now you could easily discredit me entirely if you were to demonstrate that the facts presented here about you andCCF are inaccurate, wrong or out right lies. You choose not to do so, instead hiding behind the hurling of insults and verbal abuse. Such evasion will only work for so long before someone other than myself (perhaps Paul Hanneman) says to you, "Yes. Scott, Mr Ricketson may be all the things you describe, but could you please answer the questions he has asked of you. They are valid and of interest to myself and all those who, though donations and sponsorships, provide support for CCF. You claim to be an open and transparent NGO. Please prove it and put my mind to rest."
When your major sponsors and donors start to talk like this (as opposed to your minor Facebook donors) you will not be able to respond with verbal abuse but will have think up some credible answers to questions.
This time will come.
Oh go on then ,you can call me Neeson Troll it does have quite a nice ring to it! Just like the one that you permanently spout out of !
DeleteAs for discrediting you? You're doing that all on your own mate !
I could enlighten you James but it's much more fun just watching you make an even bigger cunt of yourself every time you post .
You're fucking nuts mate and I really can't make my mind up whether you deserve sympathy or a good kicking .
Anonymous 11.34 , Here YOU go again , James has supplied evidence of Neeson's lies time and again such as gifting (giving ) houses to the poor (IN HIS OWN WORDS ) , in fact he steals them from the poorest of society then rents them back . What about the massive difference in salaries in CCF between 2012--2014 $2.200.000? according to CCF's own figures. The ILLEGAL contracts that parents are forced to thumbprint and are not given copies , these are just some of the FACTS that James has exposed , you have never once on the many times you have used this blog provided any facts to support your agenda, if I am wrong please give me an example ? When you have tried to distort the truth and been challenged to provide facts you are either silent or resort to smear .
ReplyDeleteListen James ,
DeleteNobody is fooled by your multiple sockpuppets on this slanderfest James!Why don't you give it up and get back to your doctor.
By the way I don't have to provide anything as the onus is on the accuser ,and so far no evidence of wrongdoing has been forthcoming from you James has it?
Dear Scott Neeson, Alan Lemon or Neeson Troll (aka Anonymous 6.03)
DeleteI doubt that there will be very many people fooled by your persistent refusal to answer even the most basic of questions - like, "Who is not the owner of the houses that were donated to poor families?"
I have not accused you of anything. I have asked you questions. My questions are based on facts that are in the public domain and available to anyone who wishes to do a little research.
As for 'wrongdoing', saying that homes are being 'gifted' to poor families, when they are not, is not only a lie but an unconscionable scam in the eyes of those who adhere to, live their lives in accordance with, certain basic ethical standards.
You wouldn't recognise ethics if they bit you on your arse James.
DeleteTo the Neeson Team and APLE too, right now I am sure you feel comfortable in your present environment in Cambodia and believe that nothing will change! WRONG ! change is an inevitable constant of life .
ReplyDeleteAs someone in his twilight years who has had the opportunity to travel the world .
I was in Germany when the young people I spoke to believed The Berlin Wall would never fall in their lifetime .
I was also in South Africa when Nelson Mandela was in prison and apartheid was the law .
Within just a few years we saw Germany united and Nelson Mandela become The President of South Africa and also the collapse of The Soviet Union .
Today we see a man of colour as President Of The United States.
Change will come to Cambodia ! I believe it will be sooner rather than later.
For CCF and Aple Karma will prevail.
Institutional Care - Press Reports - same same , little difference
ReplyDeletehttp://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/orphanages-go-unregistered-uninspected
The ministry will also forbid the admission of children to NGO-run facilities without its authorisation; severely limit the placement of children under the age of 3; and establish a rapid-response team for cases of abuse or non-compliance, according to the report.
The survey identified 401 facilities (including residential care, faith-based care, group homes and others) responsible for 18,451 children and an additional 7,708 young adults over the age of 18, based on self-reported data collected by ministry staff.
https://www.cambodiadaily.com/news/110401-110401/
The government was unaware of about half of the residential child care centers operating in four provinces and Phnom Penh prior to a study conducted last year, according to a report released on Thursday.
The report, which was conducted by the Ministry of Social Affairs in cooperation with Unicef, maps residential care facilities in Phnom Penh, Siem Reap, Battambang, Kandal and Preah Sihanouk provinces. The sites included 267 institutional care centers as well as 134 informal facilities, including group homes, boarding schools, pagodas, transitional homes and other forms of emergency accommodation.
One can only hope that you have a very nasty and painful accident Ricketson - you are a dog!
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous 12.35
DeleteWhy am I a dog? For asking questions?
What do you think the role of the media is, if not to ask questions of people in positions power, in positions of trust, in positions which require that they be transparent and accountable? CCF collects in excess of $10 million a year in donations and sponsorships
Scott Neeson should be accountable to his donors, to sponsors and to the people of Cambodia for how this money is spent.
Let me ask you this? If the questions I have been asking this past 18 months had been asked by a journalist from the Cambodia Daily, The Phnom Penh Post, the Khmer Times, would you call the journalist a ‘dog’ for asking them?
More importantly, if Paul Hanneman or anyone else actively supporting, endorsing, CCF, were to ask these questions, would you call them a ‘dog’.
As with all members of Team Neeson, you have no answers to questions and this will be blindingly obvious to readers of this blog. If you had answers you would be able to write, “Rickets, you are wrong about x, y nd z and here’s the reason why….”
Present an argument as to why I am a dog. If you have the relevant facts at your disposal demolishing my credibility should be easy.
You are a fool Ricketson - you criticize all of the good people for doing good work for people less fortunate than themselves, you criticize good people for supporting those people doing the work and you criticize anyone who says good things about anyone who you don't like or agree with. Why should anyone have to answer you? Who do you think you are? You say you are a journalist - but here's the catch - not one credible media outlet will publish your work or print your comments. Why is that?
ReplyDeleteYou call taking hundreds of children from their families good work Anonymous 2:11? You call taking Housing from the impoverished good work?? You are one sick human being!!
DeleteDear Anonymous 2.11
DeleteIt is hard to know how to respond to such a comment! You are clearly a member of Team Neeson (if not Scott Neeson or Alan Lemon) and totally committed to not answering questions but to repeating the same old mantras about the good work that Scott does.
Scott has scammed donors and sponsors into giving houses to himself, or a friend, when they believed they were giving them to poor families! And you don’t find this unethical!?
Each member of CCF’s staff earns more in one year than it would cost to support an entire family for a year!? And you don’t find this an inefficient use of donor’s money?!
I do not need to, and will not, repeat the questions I have asked so many times. You have no desire to answer them. Nor do Scott Neeson, Alan Lemon or any members of the CCF board. If you are not one of these (as I suspect is the case) you are certainly cheering the CCF scams on and hoping that by saying “good people doing good work for people less fortunate than themselves” over and over again that the readers of this blog will forget my questions and focus only on your slogans.
Time will tell whether your slogans, your slick public relations, your photos of 104 year old grannies and smiling kids in Scott’s arms (other people’s kids!) is more persuasive for CCF donors and sponsors in the long run than answers to questions.
I wonder if anyone else on Facebook is getting Neeson’s paid-for spam about his upcoming award? I wonder how much it costs Saint Scott to send such self-promotional spam out to thousands of people on facebook?
ReplyDelete@ Anonymous 12.04
DeleteThe fucking thing keeps popping up in my feed too. I visited the site and couldn't find any reference to any award for Neeson! Another scam?
Why is it that CCF is all about Neeson. Sure he has founded the organisation but why have him at the center of everything. Its about the kids and projects isnt it - not Neeson himself. Seems to me that he is milking it for his own self gain and stardom.
ReplyDeleteNeeson wants the children that he has stolen from their real families to call him DAD! How sick is that?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous 9.11
DeleteYou should not read too much into this. The kids call Scott 'Papa' -a common practice in Cambodia. I am called 'Papa' by three generations of one family. It is a mark of respect.
Of greater concern is the way in which Scott Neeson presents countless photos of himself with other people children (usually girls) in his arms. He is keen to create the impression that without him these kids would have no-one to take care of them
You are much to quick to defend this bucket of scum, Ricketson. You see Papa can easily be Grandpa. Dad means one thing...it the person who is your Father. This is just another way of brainwashing the children into institutional care and satisfying Scott's huge ego!
DeleteI agree with you that Scott may well be 'brainwashing' the children to satisfy his huge ego but I think that the kids calling him 'Papa' is the least of the problems inherent in CCF. Rather than focusing on this word, why not on the fact that he has defrauded sponsors and donors into thinking they are 'gifting' homes to poor families? This is, at least from a moral point of view, a serious crime. having kids call him 'Papa' is minor by comparison.
DeleteI didn't say "Papa", James you did. I said he wants to go by DAD! Yes I agree stealing children from their families and houses from the impoverished is morally corrupt and Neeson is morally bankrupt!!
DeleteDear Variety International Children’s Fund
ReplyDeleteRobert H. Sunshine
Marie-Curie-Strabe
Edith Malijan
and corporate sponsors:
Coca Cola
ComScore
DLP Cinemas
IMAX
NEC
PCO Group
Real D 3D
Studio Canal
uniFrancefilms
I wonder if anyone representing Variety International Children’s Fund has done any basic internet research into just who it is you are giving an award to? Has anyone actually been to Cambodia to check to see if Scott Neeson is deserving of his award? If not, on what basis is it being given to him? On his own reporting about himself on Facebook and in hagiographic press releases in which he lets everyone know what a huge sacrifice he made giving up his career marketing films in Hollywood to market himself in Cambodia? Are you aware of the fortune he is amassing in Cambodia as he takes hundreds of children from their families to raise them in institutions?
If you want to find out a bit more about who you are giving an award to you could start here and work backwards:
http://cambodia440.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/paul-hanneman-president-worldwide.html
If you decide that there are a few questions you’d like to ask Scott, you should do so. If you are satisfied with his answers, by all means give him the award. If you get no answers, or answers that are little more than spin, perhaps you should consider giving the award to someone other than a former business associate and friend of Paul Henneman.
Dear Scott Neeson
ReplyDeleteI have been hearing for some time that you are the part owner of the Phnom Penh Post.
Until the last 24 hours, this has fallen into the category of ‘unconfirmed rumour’. Now that it has been confirmed, I wonder if you would like to make any public comment?
There is nothing wrong, per se, with you being a part-owner of the Phnom Penh Post. However, I believe, in the interests of transparency and accountability, that this should be public knowledge.
I believe also that your being a part owner of the Phnom Penh Post should not prevent journalists working for the newspaper from investigating and reporting on yours and CCF’s involvement in the World Housing scam. In brief this involves the ‘gifting’ of in excess of 360 houses to yourself (or your Country manager,) that donors believed were being ‘gifted’ to impoverished families.
The sum of money involved is somewhere between $0.5 million and $1 million – a significant amount of money and one that should be accounted for one way or another.
Since you became a part owner of the Phnom Penh Post the newspaper has published 72 positive stories about you, CCF and the CPU and not one negative one. Or, more importantly, not one story that raises questions of any kind regarding the World Housing scam? Is this because, in meetings with journalists, you have made it clear that you do not wand stories to be published that might reflect on you, on CCF, on the CPU in any way that is not positive?
Another fraud from Neeson!! You must be joking? He mean he is an owner in the newspapers printing his press releases and that refuses to ask any questions about his scams! You mean he is Chad Williams boss? What a fraud this is!!!
ReplyDeleteWhy do you keep deleting posts that do not support your twisted viewpoint James?
ReplyDeleteYou really are a sad deluded individual!
I haven't deleted anything, Anonymous 11.58. Post it again and I can assure you it will be posted.
DeleteIt sometimes happens, even with my own posts, that they do not go up or disappear in less than a minute. It's just one of those things that happen in cyberspace.
Ok !
DeleteLet's start with "you wouldn't know ethical behaviour if it bit you on the arse" !
You can't be a bit more specific than this? And point to an instance in which I have behaved, here, in an unethical manner?
DeleteThe poor boy (Anonymous 11:58), doesn't realize that if you delete something, it leaves a 'trail', telling us that something was removed. He must be a graduate of one of Neeson's quality award winning educational institutions!
DeleteNot much of a surprise considering the way Chad Williams kisses Neeson's ass. He better be careful when Neeson stops that Williams doesn't break his own nose!
ReplyDeleteHow many part owners of the Post are there determining what stories to publish and which ones to ignore like the World Housing scam!
DeleteHa, ha, ha, ha...just as I thought. Chad is Scott's go to PR guy.
ReplyDeleteI smell a rat. More than one rat. Scott Neeson, King Rat. His partners in crime, Rat Mc Cabe and Rat Lemon. Then there’s the Board Rats, all knowingly involved in the Team Neeson scams. And Rat Chad, Neeson’s chief publicist, using the PPP to keep the whole Rat Show smelling sweet. It will be interesting to see which Rat flees the sinking ship of CCF first! Which Rat will go down with the ship? This is not going to be pretty!
ReplyDeleteOnly in Scambodia!
ReplyDeleteEmail to Chad Williams
ReplyDeleteDear Chad
I believe that you, as editor of the Phnom Penh Post, owe it to your readers to let them know that Scott Neeson is a part owner of the Phnom Penh Post. You need to let them know that Neeson's stake in the Post is sufficiently large for him to be able to come to board meetings. You need to reassure Post readers that Scott plays no role at all in editorial decision-making; that he has not made his part-ownership of the Post contingent on only receiving good press from the Post. The evidence strongly suggests that Scott does play a significant role in editorial decision-making when it comes to stories about himself, CCF and/or the Child Protection Unit. Perhaps you would like to comment on this?
cheers
James
How about you post the evidence you have that Neeson is part owner of PP Post instead of just making up stories. Typical of you Ricketson, you never produce any evidence, original documents or anything other than your deluded made up stories.
ReplyDeleteWho gives a shit if Neeson is a shareholder in the PP Post - whats the issue? Is it just that you Ricketson are jealous or perhaps its another example of you just hating anything that Neeson does. What an insipid individual you are. I have pity on you for having such a sad and useless life.
ReplyDeleteAnyone that believes in unbiased reporting gives a shit Anonymous 6:57! Now the PPP is just a media outlet for Neeson! If you just want to hear Neeson's bullshit, go to the CCF webpage or Facebook page. Isn't it refreshing to hear some real truth and wouldn't it be great if the Cambodian newspapers were reporting it?
DeleteDear Anonymous 6.57
DeleteI don't give a shit if Scott Neeson is a part-owner of the Phnom Penh Post - as long as both he and the Post make a declaration to this effect. This is particularly important in relation to stories about Neeson, CCF and the Child Protection Unit. It is standard practice in the world of journalism these days to declare such allegiance, alliances so that readers can form their own judgment regarding the objectivity of what has been written.
The problem with Neeson and the Post is that ALL the stories about Neeson, CCF and the CPU this past year have read like public relations exercises and readers might have taken them with a little grain of salt if they had known not only that Neeson is part owner of the Post but actually sits in on board meetings.
Whilst it has been obvious for some time that the Post was playing a PR role for Neeson and CCF, now it is official I (and I suspect many other readers of the Post) will take with a huge grain of salt any further articles by the Post about CCF.
Thank you for your pity but it is really misplaced as I have a good life :-)
there's the issue Ricketosn - you want Neeson and the PP Post to make a declaration that Neeson is part owner. All this means is that you dont have any proof and you are hoping that Neeson and anyone for that matter, will be stupid enough to dumbly admit to one of your fishing exercises. Show us the proof that Neeson has paid money to PP post or is registered as an owner. You are a fraud Ricketson!
DeleteDear Anonymous 8.22
DeleteIt would be very easy for Scott Neeson, Chad Williams or the publisher of the Phnom Penh Post, Chris Dawe, to say, "Scott Neeson is not a part owner of the Post."
You are a fucking idiot - you just dont get it - you are just a loser who throws out defaming comments in the hope that someone will stupidly entertain you. You dont have any proof do you?
DeleteDear Anonymous 10.22
DeleteThere is nothing defamatory about saying that Scott Neeson is a part-owner of the Phnom Penh Post. Indeed, there is nothing at all wrong with him being a part owner – as I made clear in my original comment. What is wrong, from the point of view of journalistic/publishing ethics, is for the Post to publish articles about Neeson, CCF and the CPU without acknowledging that Neeson is part owner of the newspaper.
Fuckwit - you said you want Neeson to admit this - why should he? is it a crime? Keep talking to yourself you delusional fucking idiot. I have seriously never come across such a fucking moron as you. The great thing is that the longer this stupid blog goes on, and the more you open your mouth, the more you make yourself look like an ever greater fool.
DeleteDear Anonymous 11.34
DeleteLet me say it one more time. Hopefully this time it will sink in.
There is nothing wrong with Scott Neeson being a part-owner of the Phnom Penh Post. No, it is not a crime.
There is something wrong, however, with the Post publishing articles about Neeson and CCF without acknowledging his proprietorial role.
Phnom Penh Post journalists should be free to write without fear of favour about Scott Neeson and CCF, regardless of his role as part-proprietor.
The fact that the Post publishes nothing but positive articles about Neeson and CCF suggests that journalists are either practicing self-censorship or that pressure is being placed on them to steer well clear, for instance, of the CCF World Housing scam.
Now, before you write back to me again accusing me defamation, tell me what word you would use to describe the process whereby houses ‘gifted’ to impoverished families wind up in the hands of Neeson or someone else at CCF to be rented to these impoverished families? If not a scam, what is the word you suggest I use?
Ricketson, you expect Chad Williams to do the 'right thing' and expose the corruption that exists within the Cambodian media. I know you have high ideals, but on this one, you will be sorely disappointed! Williams is a waste of space!
ReplyDeleteROFL, this awesome, it must be the final nail in the coffin...
ReplyDeleteFor Ricketson and his ilk who have now provided so much evidence that they've completely lost the plot. Starting with little credibility, each new post shows them up as a bunch of imbeciles, circle-jerking their way through a fantasy land where they can pretend to be the heroes taking on the big bad guys.
Go Go Power Retards!
https://youtu.be/q0YkXmebAGM?t=19
Dear Anonymous 7.48
DeleteI have to give it to you and your fellow Team Neeson mates, you are relentless in you capacity to ignore all questions, to provide no answers, but instead to heap abuse on anyone who asks them.
Who owns the land upon which the World Housing homes have been and continue to be erected?
To put the question another way: Who is now the lucky beneficiary of between $0.5 and $1 million worth of free housing?
Are you suggesting that Scott Neeson is NOT a part owner of the Phnom Penh Post?
You can hurl as much abuse back at me as you like but any sensible reader will register that these are simple questions that can be answered in a simple manner if you so choose. You will not choose to do so, of course.
No sensible readers believe a word you print James! I personally am only reading your drivel for the comedy value.9You are very good by the way!)
DeleteYou are also right that they are simple questions, but they are being asked by asked by a twisted deluded pretend journalist with no credibility that is the problem.
How are you getting on with the Nourn bird owning the land that World Housing are building their homes by the way?
Dear Anonymous 3.00
DeleteReaders of this blog are free to believe what they want. And, of course, not believe what they want. The role of the media is to give readers (and viewers) the information they need to make up their own minds about whatever the issue is at hand. In the case of Scott Neeson and the Cambodian Children’s Fund it is difficult for readers to know what to believe since they are denied anything resembling impartial reporting from the Phnom Penh Post – a newspaper part-owned by Scott Neeson. The same applies for Khmer440.
Why, you have to ask (though I know that you, for one, won’) does an NGO need to own (part own) media outlets? The answer if pretty clear – to be able to control reportage about the NGO. The Phnom Penh Post has sold its soul to the devil by allowing Scott Neeson to exert editorial control over the newspaper. Khmer440 never had a soul in the first place but Scott has, nonetheless, now guaranteed that any comments critical of himself, of CCF and the Child Protection Unit, will not make it onto that social media site.
As for your ‘Nourn bird’ comment, please expand on this a little. It makes no sense!
Looks like you've hit another tender point and Team Neeson won't be happy, James! Add controlling the media to Neeson's list of improprieties! Scandalous indeed!
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous 5.37
ReplyDeleteScott Neeson is a control freak. In order for his CCF house of cards to keep standing he need two things: (1) A constant stream of donations and (2) PR of the kind that both leads to the donations and sponsorships continuing and to the maintenance of the Scott Neeson myth - the selfless man who gave up his millionaire lifestyle in Hollwood etc.
In order to maintain this facade he needs good press. In the case of the Phnom Penh Post he found a way of getting this by becoming a part owner of the newspaper. I have no idea what Neeson's relationship is with the Khmer Times but it will not surprise me to learn that he is a part owner of that also, given the hagiographic stories the newspaper publishes; the lack of any stories that look in a critical way at, for instance, Scott's World Housing scam.
There there is Khmer440! it is one of the wort kept secrets in Cambodia that Scott owns Khmer440 and uses it (without much subtlety) to boost CCF and the CPU and to heap abuse (always anonymously) on enemies, perceived enemies and on journalists who have had the temerity to ask him questions that he does not want to answer.
Of course some member of Team Neeson, if not Scott himself, will be very quick to ask me what evidence I have that Scott owns Khmer440. There will be a new stream of abuse. I am a fuckwit, a moron, a cunt, a jealous loser an imbecile and so on.
Just shows how much you actually know and what you make up. Neeson doesnt own Khmer440 you twat. I should know as I am the person who does own it! There is a reason why we dont allow you to post on the blog anymore.
DeleteSo, Kevin Nudd, Head of Marketing & Business Development, DFDL Legal and Tax Services, you have gone into partnership with Scott Neeson!
DeleteWatch your back.
You are an idiot. Another example of you not knowing anything. I left DFDL months ago. Idiot!
DeleteAnd now you are working with (or is it for?) Scott Neeson, Kevin?
DeleteI repeat: "Watch your back!"
James - Im not telling you who I now work for. It is inconsequential. I will say that it is not for CCF or for Scott Neeson. I suggest you do more research instead of casting speculative information across your blog which seems to be the norm these days.
DeleteKevin, in the interests of clarity, is Scott Neeson now a part owner of Khmer440 or does he have a financial interest in it?
DeleteWhy is it that you believe you have a right to demand myself or anyone else to disclose our business interests to you?
DeleteI did not 'demand', Kevin. I asked. This is called 'research' - the very thing you have complained that I do not do.
DeleteAs the CEO of an NGO that brings in about $10 million a year in donations and sponsorships I think it valid to ask of Scott Neeson (and his associates) if he is also a part-owner of significant parts of the media. This is particularly relevant, in my view, given that no newspaper in Cambodia (and certainly not Khmer440) has raised any questions at all about the propriety of Scott's lying to donors and sponsors about the World Housing homes 'gifted' to poor families. When the truth about Neeson comes out (as it will) it will not only be him who has egg on his face (at the very least) but also all those who knew he was engaged in scams and turned a blind eye or co-operated in keeping his dirty linen from public view.
Since he is wearing so many other hats, will he still be drawing his full salary from CCF? Of course Team Neeson will want to point out that it is only about 100 times what a Khmer family lives on at the dump!
ReplyDeleteYes,he wants to control the media the same way that he controls posting on the Facebook page and on GreatNonprofits!!
TO Chad Williams , Scott Neeson and Team .. The recent disclosures contained in The Panama Papers , once again highlights a recent comment on this blog that "change is a constant in life" A comment in the Russian Media by a Russian Octogenarian "That in the end the truth always comes out " . Even in Cambodia this is a self evident truth. History will be your Judge, and you will be damned by it .
DeleteNot in your lifetime fuckwit. Keep earning your $1000 a month teaching english
DeleteDear Anonymous 11.21
DeleteYes, the truth will eventually come out. Disgruntled former Phnom Penh Post journalists will complain about the way in which Neeson, through Chad Williams, interfered with their work. Former CCF staff and kids (now adults) will talk about how they had to share a bed with 1, 2 and 3 others. Recipients of ‘gifted’ homes will tell of being kicked out because they could not abide by Scott Neeson’s rules – rules which, for instance, prevented them from having relatives from the provinces sleep overnight in their homes. And so on. By then most of those benefiting from such scams will have moved on. They will no longer be living in Cambodia but, like Thierry Darnaudet, be carrying on their scams in some other part of the world or living a life of luxury in some exotic location – all paid for by sponsors and donors who were conned into believing that they were, for example, buying homes for impoverished families in Steung Meanchey.
I wonder how much it costs to buy a big enough share in the Phnom Penh Post to get to sit in on board meetings and have a say on editorial policy? Did Neeson pay for his share with money given to CCF to help impoverished families in Steung Meanchey?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 1.13 AM .Interesting that you don't disagree with me that the truth will eventually come out in Cambodia , only on the timing (Freudian slip ?) .
ReplyDeleteI am not working as a teacher nor do I live in Cambodia, I live in a very comfortable two story house in a beautiful provincial city. I retired at 53 and traveled the world after a career with a Major Company in Australia . My children are all successful and prosperous . How about you ? let the readers here judge who is the fuckwit .
Anonymous 1.13 AM .Interesting that you don't disagree with me that the truth will eventually come out in Cambodia , only on the timing (Freudian slip ?) .
ReplyDeleteI am not working as a teacher nor do I live in Cambodia, I live in a very comfortable two story house in a beautiful provincial city. I retired at 53 and traveled the world after a career with a Major Company in Australia . My children are all successful and prosperous . How about you ? let the readers here judge who is the fuckwit .
Yes, James, Kevin Nudd and Scott Neeson are co-owners of Khmer440. And I have been present at a PPP board meeting with Scott present and seeming to be stoned on some substance.
ReplyDeleteWhat a load of bullshit
DeleteBy the same logic used here i once saw James ricketson giving David Fletcher a blowjob at pj prison and David had his finger up James areshole
ReplyDeleteHahaha I believe that. Ricketson is a rock spider. Pretends to want to help very poor families but instead is grooming their children.
DeleteDear Anonymous 11.35
ReplyDeleteShit! You saw that. I didn’t think anyone was looking. Fuck, my cover is blown!
Well its very evident that you have used up Fletcher for your self serving blog. Funny how you have stopped mentioning him - did you work out that he is a creep or is it that you have moved onto someone else that can give you ratings.
DeleteDear Anonymous 7.37
DeleteI have only stopped mentioning Mr Fletcher because there is, at this point, no real news to report regarding his upcoming Supreme Court hearing.
The fat lady has not sung yet. Be patient.
She has sung long ago. Stop trying to convince everyone that you somehow will have the ear of anyone important. Its rubbish and Fletcher is going to do his full sentence. I guarantee it!
DeleteDear Anonymous 11.24
DeleteI have never suggested or implied that I have the ear of anyone important. Perhaps you do, though, since you are prepared to guarantee that Mr Fletcher will serve his full 10 year sentence.
The Supreme Court has accepted Mr Fletcher’s application to appeal to it. What the Supreme Court has not done yet is set a date on which the hearing will occur. Will it be in a month? Six months? Three years?
This is where it gets a little complicated. In previous situations similar to this one I have been informed by a 3rd party that I would have to pay ‘big money’ in order for the next stage of the legal process to proceed. Not only do I not have ‘big money’ but even if I did I would not pay it.
A further complication lies in the fact that since before Mr Fletcher was arrested in Bangkok in June 2010 (on no charges) there has been someone or some organization that has been working behind the scenes to guarantee that Mr Fletcher goes to jail and, once there, stays there for the rest of his life. So, in April 2016 this person (or organization) is in possession of ‘big money’ and so can, if they so choose, make sure that a Supreme Court date is never set or that Mr Fletcher’s appeal to the court is saboutaged in some way. The list of people and organizations that do not want Mr Fletcher to receive a fair trial is a fairly long one – not because they are engage din a conspiracy but because they all, each in their own way, cocked up badly by jumping on the ‘let’s get Fletcher’ bandwagon without thinking (and without evidence of his guilt) and to get off not would make them look very very stupid indeed. And, in some instances, totally corrupt.
So, one of two things may happen now: (1) the Ministry of Justice and the courts will allow the Supreme Court hearing to proceed in accordance with Cambodian law or (2) One of those with ‘big money’ will pay however much they need to pay to see to it that there is no Supreme Court hearing.
Given that you feel you can ‘guarantee’ that Mr Fletcher will serve his 10 years, perhaps you are one of those with ‘big money’ who can afford to see to it that this is the case.
On the other hand the Minister for Justice might do all that is in his power to guarantee that the Supreme Court hearing takes place in accordance with the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure and that anyone who tries to prevent this from occurring will find themselves in trouble.
We shall see. Of only one thing can we be certain at this juncture – that neither the Phnom Penh Post nor Khmer440 will publish anything that touches on the many questions Mr Fletcher’s case raises – the alleged victim’s insistence she was not raped and the doctor’s report stating that she remained a virgin after the alleged rapes, for instance.
Whilst both media outlets (and maybe the Khmer Times also, as it seems to be yet another arm of the Neeson PR empire) will gleefully report on a verdict that goes against Mr Fletcher, neither will say one word about the role played by Scott Neeson in the pursuit, persecution and original prosecution of Mr Fletcher without even the semblance of a fair trial. Scott Neeson has effectively bought the silence of as much of the Cambodian media as he is able to. This will become apparent in the fullness of time, as I am sure Neeson must be aware. You can only intimidate into silence and buy the silence of so many people for a limited amount of time before someone breaks ranks.
Dear Anonymous 11.35
ReplyDeleteTo use your quaint example, one person claiming to see David Fletcher giving me a blow job is just scuttlebutt. However, if three other people, unbeknownst to each other, say they saw the same thing in different locations, then maybe there is some truth to it. This then becomes a working hypothesis – neither proven to be true, nor untrue. It falls into the category of ‘maybe’ – maybe this is symptomatic of James’ behaviour and neds tobe looked at more closely.
I have heard several stories now, from people who do not know each other and who have no reason to wish him harm, of Scott Neeson appearing to be stoned in meetings they had with him. Not just stoned but angry, paranoid, raving, ranting, jumping up and down and generally behaving in a strange way.
So, my working hypothesis is that Scott has a drug problem that induces paranoia and gives rise to bouts of extraordinary anger. Judging from the reports I have heard, his behaviour suggests that it is a meth-amphetamine problem.
Your response to this might be: “You are making this up, James.” Fair enough. Time will tell if I am or not. Scott is a public figure and has had meetings with many people. If I am making it up, the truth will come out.
Or “These reports are just scuttlebutt spread by people who are jealous of Scott or who want to bring him down.”
It is highly unlikely that people who do not know each other could all tell much the same story about his strange behaviour. One of those who had this experience was a close associate of Scott’s who was, to put it mildly, shocked by his behaviour.
And then there are members of CCF staff who, whilst employed by him, are not just fearful of speaking out but have signed non-disclosure contracts with CCF.
The problem for Scott (and the same applies to me if I am lying) is that it is very difficult in this day and age, with social media, the internet, the ease with which email accounts can be hacked and emails tracked back to the computer from which they were sent, to keep secrets. Scott’s attempt to be the Rupert Murdoch of Cambodia, to control what is said about him and CCF, may well work for a while, but it is doomed to ultimate failure. I suspect that Scott knows this – hence his paranoia; a paranoia not helped (if my working hypothesis is correct) by his drug problem.
All this applies to myself also. I would be very surprised if Team Neeson were not looking for evidence in what I write on this blog for my having lied. I would hope that there is some journalist (amateur or professional) who is also on the lookout for any lies I might tell. They know, as I do, that if I am caught out lying, my credibility goes out the window.
hey ricketson - rumour has it that you are being bankrolled by a pedophile group. In the interests of clarity can you please put a copy of your bank statements, showing incoming revenue, on this blog?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous 7.41
ReplyDeleteDoes this 'pedophile group' have a name?
Have I asked Scott Neeson for a copy of his bank statements? No.
The US $10 million that CCF takes in each year is (reasonably) well documented in CCF's IRS statements each year. I qualify this with 'reasonably' because great efforts have been made to make the reading of CCF's financial statements difficult. Nonetheless, with a bit of homework, it can be figured out.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteLets be realistic for a minute. Why would anyone want to invest money in any blog in Cambodia. Khmer440, Cambodia440 and Penhpal - all 3 blogs comprise of defaming drivel posted by low life deadbeats. There is no commercial benefit and there certainly is no media benefit. And lets look at the owners of these blogs - Khmer440 - ex owner Peter Hogan (what a gem he was. A low life, drug using school teacher) - current owner Kevin Nudd - was sacked by DFDL, now working as a 2nd tier advisor at another tax firm. Cambodia440 - well say no more here - ricketson tells everyone that he is a movie producer but we havent seen any movies from him, and last but not least Penhpal - Robert Jamieson - I dont even think that idiot is still living in Cambodia. Couldnt get a job even as a teacher. So the moral of the story is, people who create blogs that criticise others are in nearly all cases failures, losers, deadbeats and generally bottom feeders of the world. So who do you believe, Ricketson and Fletcher or Neeson. Pretty easy really.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous 4.41
DeleteScott Neeson would want to have editorial control of Khmer440 for the same reason he wants to influence the editorial policy of the Phnom Penh Post. He does not want any negative stories (or comments) published about him or CCF.
Thanks to CCF Scott is now a very wealthy man and he can afford to own as much of the media as media proprietors will sell to him. In the case of Kevin Nudd if, as you say, he is working as a 2nd tier advisor for another tax firm, he is probably not earning a huge amount and the extra income derived from a sale of part of Khmer440 was probably most welcome.
I don’t actually tell everyone I am a movie producer. I barely mention it at all other then when it is in context. I earn my living as a filmmaker and the fact that I have not had a film up on the big screen (or on a small screen) for some years is par for the course for all filmmakers.
As for who you believe, as you put it, those reading this blog should take in all they read here (including the Team Neeson insults) and make up their own minds. This is the role of journalism – to inform the public, to raise questions; to present the known facts. In making their own individual assessments readers will, I feel sure, take into account that for all of Team Neeson’s bluster, questions never get answered. Months after the question was first asked, no one from Team Neeson has yet answered the simple question:
“Who owns the land upon which the ‘gifted’ houses have been erected?”
James ricketson owns the land
ReplyDeleteHow genius you are Team Neeson!! How genius you are!! Neeson must be so proud to have you on his team.
DeleteThis blog delivers ,I say ,this blog delivers!!
ReplyDelete"Wonderful just wonderful"