Scott
Neeson is a liar and a thief. His Cambodian Children’s Fund is, on so many levels, a fraud.
A bold
statement and one that should not be taken at face value by any potential
sponsors or donors who might be reading this.
Take what I
write here with a grain of salt. Take what Scott Neeson writes with a grain of
salt. Be sceptical and ever-vigilant for spin and lies – either my own of
Neeson’s. Work on the presumption that we both have our different agendas and
let facts be your guide. Where you cannot be sure what is a fact and what is a
presumption, opinion or prejudice, ask. Ask Scott Neeson. Ask me. Ask someone
who has worked at the Cambodian Children’s Fund.
Start with
Scott Neeson’s World Housing. I have written about this extensively. Other than
the taking of a few photos myself I have relied entirely in what I have written
about World Housing on Scott Neeson’s own words – spoken and written and on
what information about World Housing has been available on the internet this
past 18 months. And I have included the words of his partners in World Housing.
Check out
the following blog entries. Double check online to see if I have played fast
and loose with the truth. If you find that anything I write is not supported by
what you read, let me know; challenge me. Call me a liar by all means if you
have the facts to back this up. I mention this because this blog attracts some
Trolls for whom facts, evidence and truth are irrelevant:
http://cambodia440.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/166-scott-neesons-world-housing-scam.html
http://cambodia440.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/177-scott-neesons-world-housing-scam.html
http://cambodia440.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/178-scott-neeson-admits-that-homes-are.html"
If you read
what I have written about World Housing (and there is more if you are interested) and wonder why Scott Neeson said that
CCF was ‘gifting’ houses to poor Cambodian families when he was, in fact, ‘gifting’
them to the owner of the land upon which they were built, ask him why he lied.
If you wish
to give him the benefit of the doubt, ask him if he can explain the discrepancy
between what what he said about the ‘gifting’ of homes and the fact that no ‘gifting’
has taken place. Ask him if can please
tell you who is the owner of the land upon which the houses have been build and
so the recipient of between $500,000 and $1 million worth of free housing?
Scott
Neeson does not like to be asked such questions and goes out of his way to be
uncontactable. He is allergic to journalists other than those he can rest
assured will ask him no questions but publish whatever press release he
presents them with. You could, however, ask Scott Neeson questions via the
generic Cambodian Children’s Fund contact email address:
If you do
not receive any reply at all, or if you receive a reply that seems to be evasive,
draw your own conclusions.
If you
arrive at the same conclusions I have arrived at (based on facts and not on
spin or lies) you will agree that Scott Neeson has defrauded the sponsors and
donors who gave their money in good faith, believing they were giving houses to
poor families. He has stolen 360 homes intended for poor families. He is thief.
If you want
to support a liar and a thief, go ahead.
Within
hours, perhaps minutes, comments will appear on this blog entry from people
whom I refer to as Team Neeson. These are anonymous commentators who see their
role not as the answering of questions such as the ones I am posing here but in
shooting the messenger who asks the questions. This can be tiresome at times
and quite entertaining at others.
You are certainly being 100% accurate when you say that Scott Neeson is liar and a thief. His judgement is flawed and it results in harming hundreds of children, even killing one!
ReplyDeleteHe did not kill the girl. CCF did not kill the girl. She died as a result of CCF incompetence - which is a different thing. That CCF covered up the death is appalling. That CCF refused to allow her friends to attend the funeral is appalling. However, to be fair, CCF did not kill her.
DeleteIn Australia, we would call it negligent homicide.
DeleteMore lies and bullshit from Rickets
ReplyDeleteWhy is Scott Neeson groping that young Cambodian girl. He looks old enough to be her grandfather!!
ReplyDeleteLook at his eyes his manic stare
ReplyDeletejust confirms , what has been reported here
and is common knowledge among his inner circle
Cocaine Addict
Interesting that his trolls have never tried to defend him on this
Just the kind of person who should be around at risk children! This high school flunk out, has taken over 700 children from their families to be raised in institutional care!!
DeleteThere you go, Alan. Your comment has been posted. For the second time. Happy now? I will respond to it in due course,
ReplyDeletecheers
Now that is interesting. I saw your comment, Alan and responded to it with my own a minute or two after you posted it. I can assure you I did not delete it and will retrieve it from my email and post it for you.
DeleteI have a theory as to what has happened. if the wording of your comment is the same as the one published at # 197 it may be that 'blogger' has decided that it has been published already and doesn't need to be published again! Weird!
I saw it happen myself. The following comment from Alan Lemon (and it is hard to imagine why anyone else would go to so much trouble) appeared on the blog and then promptly disappeared. Hopefully this will not happen again, though i might add, Alan, that the comment does appear at # 197
ReplyDeleteAnonymous has left a new comment on your post "# 198 Scott Neeson is a liar and a thief. His Camb...":
You mentioned in the other thread that “sometimes posts just disappear when there are more than 100.” So, since this post has general applicability, and I am sure you would not want to lose is against to this fluke glitch in your blog platform, I have posted here too where there are well less than 100 posts.
Per your request, here it is again:
Very odd, James. It appears you deleted my post and then went ahead and posted a 3500 word response to it. That would seem unfair and unjounalistic of you, but perhaps it was just an accident. I mean, why would you delete it, except perhaps that it puts you rhetorical techniques in a questionable light? The post was factual, I cited my sources, I didn’t use innuendo, loaded questions, lies or name calling and it was relevant to a question at hand, unlike what you and your cohorts here use on Lemon, McCabe and Neeson here regularly. If you can lie and distort in your attempted character assassination of Lemon, you can allow me to impart some media-supported facts about the credibility and motivations of the person making those accusations. Surely what is good for the goose is good for the gander, especially when I have been kinder and more honest in my presentation of you than you have of them. So now that you have inserted your say first, here again is the post of mine that you were reacting to, and that somehow got deleted.
“Am dying to know more about my 'profiting from prostitution'. Do tell. Sounds exciting! Sensational even. I wait with bated breath :-)”
By your own admission you were charged ‘profiting from prostitution’ in Cambodia. You wrote extensively of it in one (or more) of your blogs and it is a matter of public record. Because of conflicting information online, it is not clear whether you were convicted of it or you managed to beat the charge (this being Cambodia,) but you did face that charge (and a porn charge) in Cambodia.
...to be continued...
...continuing...
DeleteWhat is certain also is that you were not only charged but convicted of “blackmail” in Cambodia for your harassment of another child protection organisation, doing essentially the same thing you are now doing to CCF and the people who work for it. This is documented in both the Phnom Penh Post as well as the Cambodia Daily. How does this speak to your fair-mindedness and credibility these
What is certain also is that you were not only charged but convicted of “blackmail” in Cambodia for your harassment of another child protection organisation, doing essentially the same thing you are now doing to CCF and the people who work for it. This is documented in both the Phnom Penh Post as well as the Cambodia Daily. How does this speak to your fair-mindedness and credibility these matters?
And all of this occurred much more recently than that old photo you posted and said was taken “recently.” That photo is at least 6 to 10 years old. Your court case for profiting from prostitution and conviction for blackmailing a child protection organization was just 2 years ago. And here you are again, doing much the same thing to another child protection organisation.
How does this speak to your credibility these matters?
Speaking of which…
“Even if the story were an accurate record of the facts (well known to the Phnom Penh Post at the time), of what relevance is it to the question of whether or not Scott Neeson…”
It is relevant in that you and your cohorts here have repeatedly accused a man of being a “pimp.” This man is a former policeman with a no criminal record, who is now dedicating his time helping protect children for one of the most reputable child protection organisations in Cambodia. Whereas you, James Ricketson, really have been charged with ‘profiting from prostitution’ in Cambodia, and have been convicted of charges stemming from harassing a child protection organisation, are currently involved in a campaign to defend a convicted pedophile and damage the reputation of a child protection organisation. Do you not see the hypocrisy if not the irony in this, let alone how it speaks to your credibility when you accuse NGO workers of “pimping”?
Perhaps before you choose to distort facts, lie and engage in character assassination against good men in order to further your private little war with yet another child protection organization, you should consider whether sticking to the issues and being an honest reporter of the facts might be a better course of action.
Indeed, Alan, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. And as far as media-supported facts I should have a blow-torch applied to my belly as much as you should, as James Mc Cabe should, as Scott Neeson should.
Delete“By your own admission you were charged ‘profiting from prostitution’ in Cambodia”
I have never been charged with ‘profiting from prostitution’. Read what I wrote carefully and come back to me with a quote in context.
Nor was I, as you assert, charged with anything to do with porn. Read the piece I write and come back to me with a quote in context.
I was not charged with ‘blackmail’. Get your facts right. I was charged with ‘threatening to dishonour’ Citipointe church. As a lawyer you will be aware that there is no such crime in Cambodia. The notion that someone can be convicted of threatening to dishonor a church is like something out of Monty Python. Only in Cambodia.
Which is the other organization I was harassing? I guess that would be Citipointe church – a corrupt religious organization that illegally removed children from their families, detained them illegally and then, when I commenced legal proceedings against them in the Phnom Penh Municipal Court, decided to sue me for ‘threatening to dishonour’ the church and then did what was necessary to guaranteed that I did not appear in court to defend myself. And then, both the Cambodia Daily and the Phnom Penh Post – both aware that the church had illegally removed the children (I had provided both newspapers with irrefutable evidence) – simply reported the court outcome and none of what preceded it. Bad journalism.
As for my harassing CCF I need hardly point out, yet again, that I am seeking to hold CCF (and Scott Neeson especially) accountable for its actions. This blog is specifically devoted to Neeson’s World Housing scam. It contains an open invitation to anyone, including you, Alan, to demonstrate that I have played fast and loose with the truth regarding World Housing. This will be difficult since all of the information I have used comes from the mouths or press releases of Scott and his World housing partners.
If the photo of you at the Oasis Bar is 6 – 10 years old then the person who supplied me with the photo and described it as ‘recent’ was wrong. It does not change anything though. I was merely making an observation about the propriety of your wearing a CCF t-shirt whilst visiting a girlie bar. If you want to make a feast of this storm in a tea-cup, go ahead.
As for you being accused of being a ‘pimp’, I have never done so. Your former girlfriend owned the Oasis and, as you know, the bar is a pick up joint. Men, alltoo many of them on the wrong side of 50, hang out there in hopes of finding a young woman to fuck. I have walked by the Oasis many times and have never seen any young women under the age of 18 so these men are not, technically, of the kids that it is your job to protect boys and girls from.
As for you having no criminal record, Alan, this is so. However, let me ask you a question: were you ‘let go’ by the Australian Federal Police for the role you played in protecting James Mc Cabe whilst he was on the run from the Australian Federal Police?
As for my defending a pedophile this reads well, Alan, but you know that it is nonsense. Firstly, Mr Fletcher has never been charged with or found guilty of an offence to which the word ‘pedophile’ can be applied. Secondly, as you know all too well as a lawyer, anyone accused of a crime is entitled to the presumption of innocence and entitled to a fair trial. If Mr Fletcher were to be found guilty of rape in a properly constituted court, one where he was able to present a defense, I would have no problem. Until such time as he receives such a trial I will continue to advocate his right to one.
Who on Team Neeson is going to take Ricketson's challenge on Neeson's lies and deception about gifting homes to the impoverished. I guess like about the coke head (Scott Neeson), there is no defense? I'm hearing CCF's donations are way down, causing serious financial difficulties and that Neeson is responding by sending children back to their families, but without "reintegration" or support for the family unit. Can he mastermind any more ways to damage these children? Where are his tax returns from 2015, after all, he is transparent! Seems prior year returns have disappeared from the website also and only high level summaries are now available?? Where's the transparency Scotty?
ReplyDeleteYes, there are lots of young men and women who have been kicked out of CCF lately who are not at all happy to have been unceremoniously dumped. Some, in their mid-20's, have been in CCF residential care for a decade and have no survival skills. They are back where they started and they are not happy.
DeleteI saw the post before James deleted it. Here is a link to a screenshot: http://extraimago.com/image/wyOl
ReplyDeleteShame on you James
Alan
ReplyDeleteAfter posting my comment above I discovered that you had tried to post/re-post your comment 21 times in the past half hour. My guess is that blogger, figuring that this was spam, deleted it for me. In future, why not just post your comment once; not 21 times?
As for you, Anonymous 1.51, with your screenshots, what a great detective you'd make! :-)
The comment is being posted now about once every minute. Have you not see, Alan, that I have responded to it already? Scroll up a little way
DeleteJames, does Scott Neeson answer any questions?
DeleteNo, never, Anonymous 2.07
DeleteHe and other trolls try their hardest to shoot the messenger - presenting me as someone who gets his facts wrong, as someone with a vendetta etc, as a reason why there is no need to answer any questions from me. Oh, and I'm not a proper journalist and anyway what right do I have to be asking questions? And so on.
As it happens I am not alone in asking questions. There are a couple of other journalists who do, or who have tried. Neeson makes it virtually impossible for any other than tame journalists to talk with him. He is very fearful that one of them might ask questions of the kind I ask and avoids this possibility like the plague.
This game of hide and seek can only go on for so long. Sooner or later Neeson will be cornered by a journalist in a situation in which it will be very difficult for him not to answer legitimate questions without appearing totally evasive. I would like to think that there are Phnom Penh-based journalists looking for, waiting for, this opportunity. My guess is that Neeson will go out of his way not to place himself in situations in which a journalist might ambush him qith a question like :"Who owns the land the World Housing homes have been erected on?" Or, "How much did CCF spend renovating Black Bamboo?" Or, "Why does CCF not allow the parents of children in CCF residential care to retain copies of the contracts they enter into with CCF?"
There are plenty more questions, of course.
It is a great pity that the CCF board did not, a year ago, tell Scott that he had to change his ways. If the board had Scott could have relatively easily re-invented CCF to bring it in line with contemporary best-practice and used his marketing skills (which are great) to really help families stay together; to really help communities strengthen their capacity to help the most vulnerable members of it.
When the house of cards collapses the CCF board will have to shoulder its share of responsibility.
So will employees who are complicit in his scams!
DeleteDear Anonymous 3.22
DeleteYes, all who are complicit in Neeson's scams will have to bear their fair share of responsibility. And in time they will.
Right now it seems that Hun Sen has a coup in mind so, quite rightly, Neeson's scams must be put on the back burner.
James I don't think this is Alan Lemon. I know Alan. He's not that stupid. This is a little cocksucker by the name of James Wright obeying orders from The Neese. And doing it in such a pathetic way I hope The Neese bitch slaps him and tells him to troll better than this crap hes producing
DeleteJames, excuse my stupidity but what sort of coup does Hun Sen have in mind. I thought he was already in control so how can he plan a coup.
DeleteHe's going to overthrow himself.
ReplyDeleteJames McCabe in the real press:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.smh.com.au/national/james-mccabe-is-on-a-mission-to-protect-abused-cambodian-kids-20131130-2yiyq.html
James McCabe is on a mission to protect abused Cambodian kids: A disgraced former Victorian policeman is leading the fight against child sex crimes in Cambodia.
by Stephanie Wood
The photographs that James McCabe is flicking through on his computer screen make uncomfortable viewing: a tiny woman sobbing in the arms of another, a sombre McCabe interviewing a witness, the damaged body of a murdered two-month-old baby girl and, even more chilling, a dirty brick wall on which hangs a rusty scythe.
The wall and scythe are also featured in a sketch McCabe pulls from a folder on his desk - a crime scene sketch. The scythe is a grisly piece of evidence. Only hours earlier, McCabe was at the scene of a crime in provincial Cambodia that has shaken him.
A man comes home intoxicated. He has a confrontation with his wife, who is lying on a bed with their two-month-old baby. The man grabs the baby girl by her feet and throws her across the room at the wall. She is impaled on a scythe. The man flees. Somehow, the mother finds her way to a small local hospital. She is told there is nothing they can do to help her. ''The child died in the mother's arms on the way home in a tuk-tuk,'' McCabe says.
The files on the desk in the investigator's dim Phnom Penh office identify the two-month-old Sihanoukville girl's awful story as Case No.39. In less than four months heading a ground-breaking new unit investigating more than 40 cases of child rape and/or murder in five Cambodian provinces, McCabe has seen the worst depravities of human behaviour.
A CPU investigator at work.
A CPU investigator at work.
But the work of the highly decorated former Victorian police officer and his Child Protection Unit (CPU) team has brought profound benefits - and not just for the deeply traumatised victims and their families. For McCabe himself, it has offered a new path forward after his own traumas.
McCabe's illustrious career ran from heading a taskforce targeting underworld crime on the hard streets of Melbourne's west, to a secondment with the National Crime Authority (the NCA, now the Australian Crime Commission), during which he spent time in Sydney and south-east Asia investigating Asian organised crime and drug trafficking.
He received a string of commendations from Victoria Police, the Victorian Department of Justice and the NCA for bravery and courage, performance and leadership. But McCabe's downfall was as dramatic as some of the dangerous undercover work he had undertaken. In 2004, a NSW Police Integrity Commission investigation accused McCabe of corruption, claiming that, in 2002, he had been involved in a sting operation to steal drugs and money from drug dealers.
McCabe returned to Australia from Cambodia where he had settled and, in 2008, after a long legal process, he pleaded guilty in the Sydney District Court to robbery in company. He was sentenced to nearly four years' jail, serving just over a year. ''As far as I'm concerned, it's in the past. You'd never let a mistake define the person who you are,'' McCabe says...
The story according to Neeson. They print whatever you provide to them!
Delete...His boss, Scott Neeson, agrees. Adelaide-raised, Phnom Penh-based Neeson, the founder of the acclaimed Cambodian Children's Fund (CCF), believes McCabe, 45, was the only person qualified to head the investigation unit, a CCF initiative.
ReplyDeleteThe men first met in 2004 over a beer at the Pickled Parrot Hotel, an expat bar in Phnom Penh's riverside district. Early in their friendship they started to discuss how they could help Cambodian authorities forge a new, holistic path in the investigation of shocking crimes against children.
Through his work with CCF, based in Phnom Penh's most destitute area, Steung Meanchey, Neeson had seen the multiplicity of problems with the country's existing system.
''Locals make up 98 per cent of cases of sexual abuses against children, but most organisations are going after foreign paedophiles,'' Neeson says.
I hear it over and over that it's better to have a bad husband than no husband.
A United Nations study released in September reported that more than 20 per cent of men in Cambodia had admitted to committing rape, while experts believe up to two-thirds of victims are minors, yet, according to Neeson, there is an ''absurdly low'' rate of reporting of such crimes and only 1 per cent of those who rape or murder a child are arrested. Even fewer than that are convicted.
In a country where police have to provide their own vehicles and pay for basics such as petrol and phone cards themselves - and police stations might be huts without computers or scanners - parents of child victims wanting an investigation must pay for it. Most choose an informal settlement instead in which the perpetrator pays a fine that is then split between police and parents.
For impoverished families, settlements can have negative repercussions. ''If they're sending someone's primary income earner to jail they can make themselves some serious enemies,'' Neeson says.
In cases where fathers and stepfathers are the offenders, a mother's priority is often maintaining the relationship and an income. ''I hear it over and over again that it's better to have a bad husband than no husband; a husband is of more value than a child in terms of survival.''
In Cambodia, most rapes are of girls - Neeson believes the stigma of homosexuality is the reason attacks on boys are rare - and in a culture that prizes virginity, the crime can bring great shame on a family.
A settlement can be made quietly so few people in a community learn about the crime. Neeson recalls one case in which a medical examination had found that a young rape victim's hymen was still intact. ''I found this out because the mother was going around the village showing everyone that her daughter was still intact and she was still a virgin … it was a sign of real pride.''
By early 2006 McCabe had given Neeson a substantial document outlining how the CPU should work, but it wasn't until six years later that the funding part of the equation was resolved with the emergence of a third high-achieving Australian.
In April 2012, within hours of seeing Neeson profiled on ABC's Australian Story, Perth-based property developer Paul Blackburne had emailed Neeson to say he wanted to give him $1 million.
Blackburne, now 37, had first visited Cambodia during a 48-nation, five-year trip around the world in his 20s and decided it was the country that most needed assistance. ''I said to myself when I was a broke backpacker that if I ever make money one day, this is where I'm going to come and start spending it.'
...Early on, Neeson told the developer that he wanted McCabe to run the unit that his money would allow to come into being.
ReplyDelete''It comes back to everybody deserves a second chance,'' Blackburne says. ''Jim made one serious error of judgment 10 years ago and he's paid his price. Scott said, 'Jim is one of the most trustworthy, hard-working, honest, caring guys you could have.' And his qualifications were just so unique, they were perfect for what we were trying to achieve.
''He's got a huge amount of respect here amongst the Cambodian government; his contact and networks are fantastic. He speaks Khmer, the Khmer people love him.''
The CPU's relationship with Cambodian police is central to its operations. There are 15 CPU staff - McCabe and former Australian Federal Police officer Alan Lemon, plus 13 Cambodians - but each investigation is conducted alongside local police who get vital training in the process.
''It's not that Cambodia's a terrible, terrible place - this is a global problem - it's just that they need some assistance with the resources and the methodologies,'' McCabe says.
''I'm in a country where you can't ring 000 for an ambulance to come and you have to deal with whatever life throws you as best as you can.
''That might mean picking someone up and putting them on the back of a motorbike and riding to the nearest assistance, which could be a little room where a doctor has no real training and they look at the victim and go, 'There's nothing we can do, you'd better go home and start calling the monks.'''
McCabe has travelled 12,000 kilometres over some of the country's worst roads to reach the scenes of such awful crimes. ''If anyone wants to donate a helicopter … ''
He's ever conscious that his work is funded by donor money and expenses are kept to a minimum and documented meticulously - he'll pay about $15 a night for a bed when he's on the road. ''That's all we need. As long as there's not too many roaches in it!''
The CPU is now the first port of call for local authorities dealing with the most difficult and egregious crimes against children. The unit's holistic approach ranges from rigorous crime scene investigation and evidence documentation, to surveillance of suspects and the videotaping of a child's evidence so she is not required to come face to face with her molester, which typically is the case under Cambodia's inquisitorial system of justice.
Seriously injured children are taken to the capital to receive the best medical treatment possible. Victims' families are given emergency food packages and cash, legal representation, and ongoing assistance. ''The most important part is to let the mothers and daughters know that, if it's reported, CCF will ensure that they're not worse off,'' Neeson says. ''If a stepfather goes to jail we'll make sure that the family doesn't go hungry. We will help them restart their lives.'' In some cases that means the victim and her family are relocated to the CCF community at Steung Meanchey.
There is no relocation though for some victims, like the two-month-old baby in Sihanoukville or a nine-year-old, Case No.17, in the province of Kampot.
There is no relocation though for some victims, like the two-month-old baby in Sihanoukville or a nine-year-old, Case No.17, in the province of Kampot. In the early hours one recent morning, a man snatched the little girl from the thatched hut where she was sleeping and carried her to a rice field. He violently raped and beat her. After strangling her, he carried her naked body a kilometre, redressed her in men's clothing he had taken from a line, removed her gold earrings, then laid her out in front of a house.
ReplyDelete''That's signature stuff, that's serial, we were very concerned with that type of behaviour. You wouldn't normally go and do this as your first offence,'' says McCabe, turning to his computer and pulling up a photograph of the mild-faced offender, now in custody. The man gave investigators little information other than that he'd been drinking on the night of the crime. A shot of the dead child's battered, purple face fills the screen. ''You don't need to see the rest of it,'' says McCabe quickly, switching to an image of CPU investigators handing over an emergency food package.
His new role is tougher than anything he has confronted previously. ''I think having had children gives you more motivation and does affect you more. I try to treat each child victim as though it was my child, God forbid,'' says McCabe, who, with his Cambodian wife, has three young children.
Earlier this morning, after returning from Sihanoukville, the first thing he did was go home and cuddle them.
Neeson, Blackburne and McCabe are thrilled with what the CPU has achieved in four months of operation: 38 men - 93 per cent of cases so far - are now in jail awaiting trial (the father of the two-month-old baby is one of the few who has not yet been caught). From January 1 the CPU program will expand into another 10 provinces and the team believes it offers a model that could be replicated in other developing countries.
McCabe thinks about his old career sometimes, but not for long. ''I wouldn't change what I'm doing now. It's probably some of the most rewarding work I've done.''
He talks of a little girl he calls ''The Angry Bird Girl'', Case No.34. He took a photograph of her lying on the dirty floor of a provincial hospital a few hours after she had been raped. Another photograph, taken in a Phnom Penh hospital a few days later, shows her in a clean bed, smiling, and cuddling an Angry Bird soft toy.
''She told me she wanted to go home and when I asked her why, she said, 'To catch the man and make him eat cow shit.' Seeing that little girl's spirit return is reward enough.''
Of what relevance is the Cambodian Children’s Fund Child Protection Unit to CCF’s World Housing initiative?
DeleteAs far as I can recall I have never really commented on the CPU, other than to say that its declared success rates are extraordinarily high; much higher than any other such unit in the world. Neeson loves figures, statistics and plucks them out of thin air to bolster his and CCF’s reputation.
Given that CPU’s statics seem dodgy to me it may be that it does good work and is providing the Cambodian police with a valuable backup service. If so, great, but the success or otherwise of the CPU has on bearing on whether World Housing is a scam.
James McCabe, does your work now, pay as much as stealing drugs at gunpoint?
DeleteBut aren’t these families better off living in houses they rent from CCF than living in hovels. Give credit where credit is due.
ReplyDeleteWell said Anon 1.22. Rickets would rather see these families living in hovels than in decent houses. Hes a cunt.
DeleteOne thing is for sure. The landowner IS better off! WHO is the landowner, James Wright?
DeleteDear Anonymous 1.56
ReplyDeleteThere are two quite separate issues here.
(1) Scott Neeson lied to sponsors and donors when he said he was ‘gifting’ homes to poor families. In fact, he was gifting them to the owner of the land upon which they have been built.
(2) Are these families better off living in the new homes that they rent from CCF?
I happen to think that what Neeson and World Housing have done is to build shiny new slums – houses crammed together like sardines; that CCF and World Housing passed up on the opportunity to build a functioning community in which the people living in the houses (rented or ‘gifted’) have some say in how the community is set up and run. This is not the case. The community runs in accordance with rules laid down by Neeson and his tenants can either abide by his rules or leave their houses. For desperately poor families this is no choice at all.
Yes, in the short term it may be best to live in a shiny new slum than in the kinds of slums these families were living in previously; to give up all volition and to abide by Neeson’s rules. In the medium and long term such crowded together houses are not a solution to a housing problem. They are tomorrow’s housing problem. World Housing is Scott Neeson’s idea of what poor Cambodian people need. It is not what they want or what they would have planned had they been allowed to play any role at all in planning. This kind of arrogant colonial attitude is, of course, rife amongst NGOs.
It is FRAUDULENT to tell the donors you are gifting homes to the needy, then gift them to the wealthy land owner and rent them to the impoverished!!
DeleteFORMER Victorian police officer who worked with the National Crime Authority has pleaded guilty to stealing 1kg of drugs.
ReplyDeleteJames Anthony McCabe, 39, was due to face trial in the Sydney District Court on drug and armed robbery charges relating to a fake drug bust in 2002.
McCabe, who was then a Victorian policeman seconded to the National Crime Authority, allegedly faked the arrest of a drug dealer in Sydney's west, stole 1kg of methamphetamines from him and arranged to sell the drug.
The former police officer pleaded guilty today to one count of robbery, with his lawyer Louise McManus indicating the other matters would be considered as aggravating factors when he was sentenced.
McCabe was one of two officers accused over the phony arrest, in which McCabe was alleged to have held a pistol to the drug dealer's head.
He was committed to stand trial in his absence after refusing to return home to Australia from Cambodia, where he fled after a Police Integrity Commission (PIC) investigation of the matter in 2004.
He was informally extradited to Australia last year and yesterday his attempt to have the trial permanently delayed was refused.
In applying for a permanent stay, Ms McManus asked Judge Michael Finnane to rule that due process had not been followed by Australian and Cambodian authorities and that McCabe should subsequently not face trial.
She also claimed a large number of witnesses had been contaminated by widespread media coverage of the PIC hearing and other legal hearings about McCabe and his co-accused, Samuel Foster.
Foster is serving a jail sentence after also pleading guilty over the drug bust.
He was a NSW police officer who was working as McCabe's partner in the National Crime Authority, now known as the Australian Crime Commission.
Foster had been expected to give evidence against his former colleague.
Judge Finnane adjourned the hearing until later today, to allow preparation of agreed facts.
And while James Mc Cabe was on the run from the Australian Federal Police who was helping him out? You guess it – Alan Lemon and Scott Neeson. And now Mc Cabe runs a child protection agency! You’ve got to be fucking kidding me, right!
DeleteYes Anonymous 4:44. It is quite the trio and great role models for "at risk children"!
Delete@ anon 4.44
DeleteSome info that might be of interest.
Neeson and Mc Cabe were friends before he got busted for being a corrupt drug-dealing cop.
Alan Lemon, working for the AFP at the time, used AFP letterhead to request an express visa for Mc Cabe’s girlfriend when he was on the run. He told the AFP investigators that he had no idea that Mc Cabe was on the run. Think about that. An AFP cop based in Phnom Penh (Lemon) didn’t know that his friend (Mc Cabe) was on the run from the AFP when he attempted to use AFP letterhead to get Mc Cabe’s girlfriend a fast visa.
And of course Lemon had no idea that his mate, Mc Cabe, was a corrupt drug dealer!!!
Purleeeze!!!
Thanks Anonymous 10:19. And no one knows about the "mysterious 200,000 dollars" in McCabe's account.
DeleteYes, they are all crooked as hell.
Since Scott Neeson, James McCabe and Alan Lemon were all friends during the time period when McCabe was doing armed robbery and dealing drugs, were Neeson and Lemon both oblivious to his actions, or were they customers?
DeleteIf any real journalist ever takes a look at all this (just joking, James) they should ask around a bit about the old Walkabout in PP. A notorious sleaze bar. Not with us anymore the old Walkabout but a certain individual whose name appears pretty often on this blog used to hire out rooms there, fill them with whores and…you can guess the rest. This is not scuttlebutt. Just ask around. Whores are not known for their discretion.
ReplyDeleteHey fool, aka Anonymous 12:12, if James deleted a post, it leaves a track, a trail that says he deleated it. Are you the little weinie by the name of James Wright?
ReplyDelete"By your own admission you were charged ‘profiting from prostitution’ in Cambodia. You wrote extensively of it in one (or more) of your blogs and it is a matter of public record. Because of conflicting information online, it is not clear whether you were convicted of it or you managed to beat the charge (this being Cambodia,) but you did face that charge (and a porn charge) in Cambodia.
ReplyDeleteWhat is certain also is that you were not only charged but convicted of “blackmail” in Cambodia for your harassment of another child protection organisation, doing essentially the same thing you are now doing to CCF and the people who work for it. This is documented in both the Phnom Penh Post as well as the Cambodia Daily. How does this speak to your fair-mindedness and credibility these matters?"
James was brought up on trafficking charges here in Cambodia? Wow. And he was trying to get access to kids from Citipointe, and is now trying to bring down CCF. Something is very wrong here.
How did you beat the trafficking charges James? We all know how corrupt the courts are in Cambodia. Did you pay them off?
Dear james Wright (aka Anonymous 12.21)
DeleteYou certainly get 10 out of 10 for persistence.
By the way, I suspect that the reason why your posts don't wind up on this blog is because, after you have tried to post the same words 100 times (yes,100 in the past 24 hours) it decides, quite rightly, that your comments are spam and rejects them.
As is your tendency, as is the tendency of other members of Team Neeson, you are not going to let anything as awkward as the facts get in the way of the story you want to tell.
I was not charged with or convicted of 'blackmail' but of "threatening to dishonour" Citipointe church. There is no such law in Cambodia to breach.
If you want to read a more fulsome response to your comments go to the bottom of #197 - where I responded to the same comment that you continue to insist I have deleted.
"Perhaps before you choose to distort facts, lie and engage in character assassination against good men in order to further your private little war with yet another child protection organisation, you should consider whether sticking to the issues and being an honest reporter of the facts might be a better course of action."
ReplyDeleteSo much for Ricketson's claim that he doesn't delete posts and promotes honest open discussion. When Ricketson's failing start to come to light he is suddenly all about censorship.
Whose character have I assassinated? Quote me the words of my assassination and I will respond accordingly.
DeleteHa! You've been busted Ricketson.
ReplyDelete"Whereas (James Ricketson) really have been charged with ‘profiting from prostitution’ in Cambodia, and have been convicted of charges stemming from harassing a child protection organisation, are currently involved in a campaign to defend a convicted pedophile and damage the reputation of a child protection organisation."
ReplyDeleteWow. Shocking...not. Cat's out of the bag James. How do you explain this?
Oh dear, you again James Wright. I can see what those who have warned me about you mean. "Like a dog with a bone!"
DeleteClearly facts don't matter to you but I have neither been charged in court with 'profiting from prostitution' or with 'harassing a child protection organisation'.
You are letting Team Neeson down. If you really want to shoot the messenger you need to do better than this. I don't want to be rude (at least not too rude) but when it comes to shooting the messenger you are an amateur.
If you ask the guy to repost his post James, why do you delete it?
ReplyDeleteOh, the post is back.
Deleteno he deleted it agaim
DeleteWhat did it say? I missed it.
Delete?
what happened? Did James delete your reply?
DeleteWTF? Here and gone. What does it say that scares Ricketson so much that he has to delete it?
DeleteWhat happen my post?
DeleteBecause of duplicate post I think
DeleteMy poor computer is having a difficult time figuring out how to deal with 100 identical posts sent over a short period of time - sometimes once every 30 seconds. The spam filter probably looks at each one and thinks "Shit, the same comment again.Must be spam," and decides against posting it.
DeleteMy advice to you, if you want to get past the spam filter but still wish to post 100 of the same comment in the next 24 hours is to change the wording slightly each time and trick the filter. Also, if the filter is also wary of receiving anything from the 'spam computer' you might like to consider sending your comments from another computer. Rest assured that I will not delete them. Indeed, you are doing a much better job of discrediting Team Neeson with your incessant and repetitive comments than I could ever hope to achieve. Keep it up.
You are a liar James. That is not how a spam filter works. You might have been able to lie to the luddites 20 years ago about how internet works, but not these days. We all know how internet works now.
DeleteSpam filters do not delete posts. Spam filters block posts from being made. Once the post is made, only a person can delete it. You deleted the posts, not some mythical after-the-fact spam filter.
Your comments have been posted three times now. And you are free to try to post the the same comments another 100 times if you have nothing better to do with your life. And if my spam filter, or whatever it is, chooses not to publish them you can moan and bitch and call me a liar but really, James Wright, you would be much better off reading a book, watching a movie or spending your time in a more construive manner.
DeleteYou asked me, James, to repost this for you but you mentioned in the other thread that your blog has a glitch that “sometimes posts just disappear when there are more than 100.” And it seems there is a problem over there. It disappears when I post it there, as if you were deleting it, which you say you never do. So, since this post has general applicability, and I am sure you would not want to lose is against to this fluke glitch in your blog platform, I have posted here too where there are well less than 100 posts.
ReplyDeletePer your request, here it is again:
“Am dying to know more about my 'profiting from prostitution'. Do tell. Sounds exciting! Sensational even. I wait with bated breath :-)”
By your own admission you were charged ‘profiting from prostitution’ in Cambodia. You wrote extensively of it in one (or more) of your blogs and it is a matter of public record. Because of conflicting information online, it is not clear whether you were convicted of it or you managed to beat the charge (this being Cambodia,) but you did face that charge (and a porn charge) in Cambodia.
What is certain also is that you were not only charged but convicted of “blackmail” in Cambodia for your harassment of another child protection organisation, doing essentially the same thing you are now doing to CCF and the people who work for it. This is documented in both the Phnom Penh Post as well as the Cambodia Daily. How does this speak to your fair-mindedness and credibility these matters?
And all of this occurred much more recently than that old photo you posted and said was taken “recently.” That photo is at least 6 to 10 years old. Your court case for profiting from prostitution and conviction for blackmailing a child protection organization was just 2 years ago. And here you are again, doing much the same thing to another child protection organisation.
How does this speak to your credibility these matters?
Speaking of which…
“Even if the story were an accurate record of the facts (well known to the Phnom Penh Post at the time), of what relevance is it to the question of whether or not Scott Neeson…”
It is relevant in that you and your cohorts here have repeatedly accused a man of being a “pimp.” This man is a former policeman with a no criminal record, who is now dedicating his time helping protect children for one of the most reputable child protection organisations in Cambodia. Whereas you really have been charged with ‘profiting from prostitution’ in Cambodia, and have been convicted of charges stemming from harassing a child protection organisation, are currently involved in a campaign to defend a convicted pedophile and damage the reputation of a child protection organisation. Do you not see the hypocrisy if not the irony in this, let alone how it speaks to your credibility when you accuse NGO workers of “pimping”?
Perhaps before you choose to distort facts, lie and engage in character assassination against good men in order to further your private little war with yet another child protection organisation, you should consider whether sticking to the issues and being an honest reporter of the facts might be a better course of action
Oh dear, here you are again. This one got through the spam filter. My responses to your questions, your observations, as as I have already commented. No need to repeat myself. I think this is a dead horse and that you need to find another horse to flog. Good luck.
DeleteSuggestion: Do try to exercise your imagination a little in your next foray into shooting the messenger. Right now you deserve little more than a 'C'.
So James Wright, you defend a liar who steals children and homes, an armed drug dealer and pimp. What an incredible low life you are! You even call them honorable men! Ha!!
ReplyDeleteWho is this James Wright?
ReplyDeleteWanker!!
DeleteHere is a link,
DeleteTo the dink:
https://www.facebook.com/jamesofsurrey?fref=ts&__nodl
James Wright looks like a twit!!
DeleteJames Wright
ReplyDeleteIf there were an ‘idiot filter’ on blogger I would activate it to keep you at bay. Even after your comments had been posted twice I continued to receive, sometimes at the rate of once a minute (around 100 in all) comments from you to the effect that I was censoring your comments!
If you have anything new to add, please do make a comment. It would be best, from the point of view of credibility, if your comment had at least some basis in fact – something that cannot be said for your comments to date.
If Neeson is paying you to make these comments he is wasting his money because all they do is show you, and him, up to be idiots. I suggest that you find some other more productive way of passing your time than being a Neeson Troll. Up to you, of course. If you wish to keep entertaining readers with your nonsense, go ahead.
Wasn't me. I haven't tried to make a post since you deleted my post above in which I called you a liar for trying to claim that Google or a spam filter was deleting posts here, when it was really you. I only made that post one time, and you deleted it.
DeleteMaybe it is somebody else who you pissed off by deleting their posts and then lying about it.
I think Scott Neeson has found another compulsive liar to partner with him. Look at his (James Wright) FB picture, a complete dork.
Delete"I think Scott Neeson has found another compulsive liar to partner with him."
DeleteI don't think Scott would want to work with Ricketson.
Well this is interesting. I hadn't seen this before. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Seems James is using the same style and pattern of threats and defamation against CCF as he did against Citipointe when he was convicted of blackmail and threatening an NGO. The Cambodia Daily managed to bring down Somaly Mum simply by telling the truth in a sane, lucid, non-defamatory way. James uses defamation, slander, threats and harassment, and while he managed to earn himself a criminal conviction, he hasn't made any headway in his defence of the convicted paedophile Fletcher or in his crusade against CCF. What is wrong with this picture?
ReplyDelete"Phnom Penh Post, 3 April 2014
Filmmaker guilty in conflict with church
http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/filmmaker-%E2%80%98guilty%E2%80%99-conflict-church
A Phnom Penh Municipal Court judge yesterday gave an Australian filmmaker a wholly suspended two-year prison term after finding him guilty of threatening a Brisbane-based church doing work in Cambodia.
Judge Keo Mony also levied a six-million riel ($1,500) fine against 64-year-old James Ricketson after he was convicted of threatening to dishonour the Citipointe Church by broadcasting accusations that the church sold children, Mony said.
“Ricketson has tried to get two girls who are vulnerable to human trafficking, whose mother was a victim . . . out of our shelter in order to continue making a film . . . for his personal benefit,” part of Citipointe’s complaint reads.
When the church did not return the children, judge Mony said, Ricketson threatened to broadcast allegations that Citipointe sold children abroad."
"Cambodia Daily, April 3, 2014
Australian Filmmaker Convicted Of Blackmail, Jail Term Suspended
https://www.cambodiadaily.com/archives/australian-filmmaker-convicted-of-blackmail-jail-term-suspended-55662/
An Australian filmmaker helping a Cambodian couple retrieve two daughters from a church-run girls’ shelter in Phnom Penh was convicted of blackmail Wednesday for threatening to disparage the shelter online. He was given a suspended two-year prison sentence."
“Seems James is using the same style and pattern of threats and defamation against CCF as he did against Citipointe when he was convicted of blackmail and threatening an NGO. The Cambodia Daily managed to bring down Somaly Mum simply by telling the truth in a sane, lucid, non-defamatory way. James uses defamation, slander, threats and harassment…”
DeleteIt is a pattern in his behavior. This is how he became the first person in the history of Screen Australia to banned from applying for funding. He harassed them so much they felt there staff was at risk and cut him off. Its strange how he behaves like this over and over, and it only gives him negative result, and then he goes and does it again, like he is doing to Scott Neeson and Cambodian Child Fund. Why doesn’t he learn? Why doesn’t he try to do something positive. Its like he act like he has a good cause, but its really all about him acting crazy and stomping his feet like a child and trying to hurt people to get his way. This is a crazy Australian.
This is what I found. https://mumbrella.com.au/australian-film-maker-banned-from-talking-to-screen-australia-91190
>>He has published on the blog a letter from Screen Australia CEO Ruth Harley telling him that the organisation will no longer deal with him because of “harassment and intimidation” of staff. The letter said:
“After giving the matter serious and careful consideration, Screen Australia has taken the decision that it will not accept further funding applications from you, or engage in correspondence with you about funding applications. I appreciate that this is an unusual step and one which we do not take lightly. However, we believe that your conduct towards Screen Australia is unreasonable, and that your correspondence places our staff at risk.
“We are under a legal obligation to protect our staff from harassment and intimidation. Staff who have dealt with your correspondence have found it stressful and their well-being has been affected. Your public statements in relation to our staff have also caused distress, and appear to be calculated to damage the reputation of individuals and this organization. We reserve our rights in relation to those statements, and we sincerely ask you to reflect on, and refrain from, such conduct going forward.”
The agency said that in the future it may review the decision to ban Ricketson for applying for funding if staff felt at risk.”<<
So let me get this right, Ricketson has been convicted and received a suspended prison sentence, has profited from prostitution and defends child sex offenders. On top of that he is a liar apparently and has harassed and intimidated staff at Screen Australia. Do we know his mental health history, the only information I have on this is that NSW Health will not speak to him as a journalist and will not comment on his history with them as a patient for privacy reasons
ReplyDeleteApparently he also tried to commit fraud after Screen Australia banned him. He applied for funds from them under a false name and ABN number, and got caught.
ReplyDeleteBut, you know, we all have a past. We do crazy things. We make mistakes. None of us is perfect. Some of us learn and move on. Some of us even move on to try to give back, to help people, to better ourselves and the world. People like James McCabe come to mind.
.... and he tried to commit fraud.So let me get this right, Ricketson has been convicted and received a suspended prison sentence, has profited from prostitution and defends child sex offenders. On top of that he is a liar apparently and has harassed and intimidated staff at Screen Australia. Do we know his mental health history, the only information I have on this is that NSW Health will not speak to him as a journalist and will not comment on his history with them as a patient for privacy reasons.
ReplyDeleteJames Wright, have you forgotten that Scott Neeson is a cocaine addict that takes children from their families and homes from the impoverished? That James McCabe is an armed robber and drug dealer and that Alan Lemon is a pimp? Of course you have forgotten anything that is truthful!
ReplyDelete"So let me get this right, Ricketson has been convicted and received a suspended prison sentence, has profited from prostitution and defends child sex offenders. On top of that he is a liar apparently and has harassed and intimidated staff at Screen Australia. Do we know his mental health history, the only information I have on this is that NSW Health will not speak to him as a journalist and will not comment on his history with them as a patient for privacy reasons"
ReplyDeleteRicketson was only charged with "profitting from prostitution" and pornography, but, if his blog is to be believed, he beat the charges in a Cambodian court. He has only been convicted of blackmail and threatening. And, of course, clearly has a history of harassment.
Anonymous 11:14, you are an ignorant fool!
DeleteYou are nuts James Wright!
DeleteDear Team Neeson
ReplyDeleteThese incessant factually untrue attacks upon myself do not constitute a very wise long term strategy. Shooting Messenger # 1 might work in the short term but what do you do about Messenger # 2 and Messenger # 3? When other journalists come along asking the same questions I am asking about Scott Neeson’s scams, is it your intention to shoot them all? It simply won’t work. Your attempt to destroy the credibility of the journalist will, in all likelihood, have the reverse effect to the one you intend. He or she will be mildly pissed off at first and then, if such a refusal to answer questions is combined with character assassination of the journalist s/he will, if she is a decent journalist, smell a rat (in this instance, more than one) and dig even deeper in her research into Neeson/CCF scams. It is just a matter of time. In the meantime, enjoy this interregnum in which the Cambodian media is allowing you to behave with impunity similar to that which it criticizes in the Cambodian government on a regular basis. Yes. The Cambodian government is corrupt, venal, but so too are many NGOs such as CCF that are in Cambodia to take advantage of the lack of a rule of law in the country. The true history of NGO engagement with Cambodia this past 20 years, when it is written (and it will be) will be a sad and sorry tale. And right at the top of the list of scamsters will be the trio that ran CCF – Scott Neeson, pathological liar, con man, fraudster; a corrupt cop who did time in jail as a drug dealer and armed robber; and another cop who shielded his mate whilst on the run from the Australian Federal Police. Readers will shake their heads and wonder, “How did these guys get away with it? Why did it take so long for them to be exposed?” A partial answer to that question will be that the media gave Neeson a free ride; entered into some kind of pact with the devil whereby it was guaranteed that Neeson and CCF would never be investigated or its multiple scams reported.
So, Team Neeson, here we are several days after I published this blog entry – devoted entirely to World Housing. It was, amongst other things, an open invitation to you to shoot me down on the basis of facts. You are forever telling mw that I have my facts wrong; that I distort facts. So, which of the facts that I have presented in support of the proposition that CCF’s World Housing initiative was a well-thought out scam, a scam that has yielded a huge profit to the owner of the land upon which the houses have been built, are incorrect?
You are a very predictable lot. You will not address this question but will, instead, bombard this blog with your regular ‘shoot-the-messenger’ comments. These will only serve to raise in the minds of readers, “Why does Team Neeson put so much effort into trying to discredit Ricketson in matters unrelated to World Housing when it could so easily, if Ricketson has his facts wrong, discredit him in relation to World Housing?”
If you want to keep making fools of yourselves this is, of course, your prerogative.
Heaven forbid that anybody here would engage in "character assassination." If would not speak well of them.
DeleteDear Team Neeson (aka Anonymous 2.16)
DeleteTo call a former AFP policeman involved in armed robbery and drug stings corrupt is not character assassination; it is a statement of fact. To call Scott Neeson a liar when, as is clear in the case of World Housing (and many other matters) that he has lied, is not character assassination; it is a statement of fact. To say that I have been found guilty of ‘blackmail’ and the other offences you claim I have been found guilty of is not a statement of fact; it is character assassination. Nonetheless, you are free to continue to assassinate my character if you so choose but in doing so all that you really achieve is making it abundantly clear that Scott Neeson and CCF have no answers to my questions and so must, of necessity, destroy the credibility of the person asking them. If I were to be found guilty tomorrow of being a psychopathic axe-murderer this would in no way diminish the validity of my questions. You can keep this up as long as you like but one day another journalist will ask the same questions and there are only so many journalists whose character you can assassinate before you encounter one who, with the backing of a Newsweek, Time or other mainstream media outlet, cannot be bought or intimidated into silence.
Keep up the good work you are doing of destroying your own credibility.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI am now deleting comments that are just plain stupid, that bear no relationship whatsoever to the topic in hand, that are just crude attempts to shoot the messenger. Call you censorship if you like, Team Neeson, but you remain free to answer any questions relating to World Housing; to answer any of the other many questions I have asked. You have lost, however, the freedom to be just a nuisance.
DeleteTeam Neeson
DeleteIf you can find new some new and imaginative ways of shooting the messenger please do send me your comments and I will publish them. If, however, you wish to bombard me with the same old insults, don't bother. I am not going to publish them. That I am a lunatic, that I am mentally unstable, that I am only interested in character assassination and, of course, that I am a cunt, has already been well established by you all. No need to go over old ground. Preferably you would address the questions this blog entry raises but I know that you are not going to do that. By all means destroy the credibility of the message, if you can find factual errors in what I have written, but forget about shooting the messenger now - unless, that is, you can find some new,clever and entertaining way of doing so.
Looks like Ricketson has been shown the error of his ways. It was just a couple of days ago he was proudly proclaiming how we were boosting his viewership, and now he has been reduced to deleting and blocking posts so that there are no dissenting voices. That ought to boost his credibility and readership, not. You lose Rick. Did you learn anything?
ReplyDeleteLife is short, Anonymous 2.13
DeleteI have only so many hours in the day and this blog is not my day job. There is only so much time that I can (and want) to devote to it. If you or any other members of Team Neeson wish to send me 100 or the same (or very similar) comments in a 24 hour period, I am not going to post them. These are spam and best dealt with as spam. You can call it censorship if you like but one thing all of Team Neeson's comments of the past 24 hours have in common s a refusal to answer questions and crude attempts to shoot the messenger. All but one, that is. I will respond to this separately.
They can't James. They are brain dead. They take children, houses and their only resource is to shoot the messenger!
ReplyDeleteI received a post that begins,
ReplyDelete“I have never accused you of being a lunatic or said that you are mentally unstable, though there do seem to be indications in your behaviour to suggest instability – your long running pattern of harassing people and organizations…”
I am editing this comment only because none of it is relevant to the topic in hand (World Housing) and much of it not relevant to either CCF or to Scott Neeson. However the accusation that I harass people is worthy of comment.
Yes, I harass Scott Neeson and CCF, in the same way that journalists in Cambodia harass the Camodian government; in the same way that journalists are, right now, harassing Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton; in the same way that all journalists have, as an integral part of their role, harassing people in positions of power; of holding them accountable for their actions.
In this blog entry I am holding Scott Neeson for his lies about World Housing; for the fraud he committed in telling sponsors and donors that CCF and World Housing were ‘gifting’ houses to poor families.
Rather than accuse me of harassing Scott Neeson what you could do, what you should do, is point out to me and the readers of this blog just which of my facts I have got wrong and why. If you could do this and you were correct in what you write a few things would happen in rapid succession:
I would have to publish whatever you had uncovered that reveals I was in error. Basic journalistic ethics.
I would have no choice but to apologize for having made an error and admit that I have not looked as closely as I should have at the facts.
My credibility would be seriously damaged. And so it should be.
What you and so many others who comment here do is not engage with my arguments, with my facts, but dismiss what I write in whatever way you can that does not refer to the facts. In this false, you are dismissing what I write about Neeson and CCF, the questions I ask time and time again, as harassment.
One of the more famous examples of journalistic harassment in the past half century was the work done by Woodward and Bernstein in exposing President Richard Nixon as a liar but the reality is that all good journalists are harassing people and institutions all the time. It is their job. And if they get their facts wrong, the people and institutions can come back at them either (a) demanding a retraction or (b) to sue them for defamation.
So, I will keep ‘harassing’ Neeson and CCF about World Housing until, on the basis of being proven to be factually incorrect, either (a) or (b) occurs.
One more point. You seem to be a sensible, intelligent and clear-headed person but, because you are just one of many people who refer to themselves as ‘Anonymous’ I have no idea which ‘Anonymous’ I am dealing with. You may not have called me a cunt, may not have aid that I am mentally unstable but it would make communication much easier and less confusing if you at least gave yourself a nom de plume – a name (fake) by which I can differentiate you from other Anonymous commentators.
And if you want to engage in sensible dialogue (and I am more than happy to do so) please deal with the facts and not make broad brushstroke comments that reduce journalism to ‘harassment’ or which throw a dispute I am having with some other organization into the mix to deflect attention away from the subject in hand – namely Scott Neeson’s World Housing scam.
This assertion in itself will make your hackles rise. Fair enough. Shoot me down in flames. Explain to me why World Housing is not a scam. Explain to me why it is that Neeson saying he is ‘gifting’ homes to poor families and then not doing so is not fraud. I can promise you that I will not censor your attack on me. If, however, you wish to justify your refusal to deal with World Housing with a reference to my ‘harassing’ some other organization I will not publish it because it is not relevant.
Scott Neeson's involvement in World Housing is a SCAM. HE GIVES the housing to the wealthy landowner and rents them to the impoverished! Where is his 2015 tax return, it is Sept already! Hiding the facts Scott??
ReplyDeleteGoodbye James Wright!
ReplyDeleteGet real Rickets you’re a lose and you know it. Scott Neeson has done things to help other people and what have you done? Fuck all. You’re a cunt. You know you’re a cunt. And if you dont know your a cunt its because your mentally unstable,and cant see the trees for the forest.
ReplyDeleteTHE WORD YOU WERE STRUGGLING TO FIND IN YOUR DRUNKEN STUPOR IS 'LOSER'. AND I THINK YOU MITH HAVE GOT YOUR 'TREES' THING WRONG
Delete@ Anonymous 3.27 Its can’t see the forest for the trees fucknuckle.
DeleteFFS! Theres a moron born every minute.
DeleteCan we agree that Rickets is a cunt?
DeleteHey I like cunt but I agree that Rickets is a fuckwit.
DeleteYes taking children from their families is such an admiral thing to do!
DeleteThanks, Anonymous 3.51
ReplyDeleteI am pleased to hear that I am not a cunt but merely a fuckwit. This is a huge relief!
When I began this blog two years ago it was not intended to exist for very long. By chance I had met a man – David Fletcher – who was serving a 10 year jail sentence for the crime of rape. He had not received a trial of any kind in which he was present and able to give evidence. The miscarriage of justice was clear. At the time I had no idea whether he was guilty or innocent; only that he had been denied due process. I hoped, somewhat naively, that my blog would help him acquire the fair trial he deserved; the fair trial that anyone accused of a crime deserves.
ReplyDeleteWhat made me particularly interested on Mr Fletcher’s incarceration was the significant role that Scott Neeson had played in it; having told journalist Andrew Drummond (along with the British Embassy in Phnom Penh) that Mr Fletcher was ‘grooming’ young girls. Scott had no evidence of this but he did have a strong desire to get rid of someone whom he felt to be a ‘competitor’ in the Phnom Penh rubbish dump.
I had never met Scott but had had some communication with him regarding two young girls (and I am cutting a long story short) in CCF residential care. Their parents asked me to help them get their daughters returned to their care. Scott refused. He insisted that he had signed a contract with the parents giving him custody of the girls regardless of the parent’s wishes. They denied every having signed such a contract. Scott refused to prpoduce the contract. Regardless, such a contract would have been illegal in accordance with Cambodian law if, in fact, it existed. All this is well documented in a different blog:
Scott Neeson was illegally detaining two girls whose parents wanted them returned to their care. In the developed world, in countries in which there is a rule of law, the illegal detention of someone else’s children is called ‘kidnapping’ and is would result in a jail sentence. In Cambodia, however, such kidnapping is OK and practiced on a regular basis because certain government officials allow it to happen. Why they will allow it to happen I will leave to you to conjecture. (Please excuse me for harassing corrupt Cambodian officials who turn a blind eye to the blindingly obvious legal and human rights abuses practiced by so many NGOs in Cambodia whose business model (charity money-raising modus operandi) requites the removal of children from their families as ‘orphans’ of ‘children at risk’.
Unfortunately there was nothing I could do to help the parents of these two young girls or their parents. Then, a few years later, I discover that Neeson, along with various others (including the British Embassy) had, through their combined efforts, seen to it that Mr Fletcher was arrested in Thailand and held in prison, in the absence of any charges brought against him, for a few weeks. At this point, after Yang Dany and her mother had been told that they could sue Mr Fletcher for $30,000 if they accused him of rape, the rape charges were laid in Cambodia. And so it is that the wheels of justice spin in Cambodia. (Oh dear, there I go again, harassing Cambodian government officials!)
Yang Dany and her mother’s acceptance of what they thought was an offer too good to be passed up is well documented. That I should advocate Mr Fletcher’s right to a fair trial, based on facts, on evidence, has been presented by many a Team Neeson troll as evidence that I am supporting a paedophile, that I must be a paedophile myself etc. Each and every time such observations are made, I repeat what I have already written many times: Mr Fletcher is entitled to a trial based on facts, on evidence. The fact that I keep doing this can, if you choose, be characterized as ‘harassment’. Or it can be characterised as perseverance. Time (history) will tell which of these two words (‘harassment’, ‘perseverance’) is most applicable.
"I am editing this comment only because none of it is relevant to the topic in hand..."
ReplyDeleteIt is all quite relevant to the topic at hand, and calls into question your claims about CCF, Fletcher and all, which is why you are afraid to allow it to be posted. You would prefer people call you a "cunt" as such idiocy can be dismissed out of hand. You don't want real, substantive criticism - the sort of thing that might actually call into question you and your claims about CCF and Fletcher. You only want your side heard, which is why you now censor reasonable critics, and then post only your response, your side of it, as if that is fooling anybody. You now really are only talking to yourself.
Overnight I have received another 45 or so spam posts that have nothing to do with Scott Neeson, nothing to do with CCF. They are the work of one or more trolls whose sole aim is to draw me into a battle about things that have nothing to do with the topic in hand.
Delete"Calls into question my claims about CCF"
Your post did not call into question my claims about CCF but dismissed my journalistic efforts as 'harassment'.
Here is an opportunity for you to write clearly, succinctly, which claims of mine you are calling into question.
Am I mistaken in my assertion that Scott Neeson told sponsors and donors that houses were being 'gifted' to poor families?
Am I wrong in my assertion that contrary to Neeson's public declarations these houses are being rented to poor families?
Am I wrong in my assertion that these 360 homes have, in fact, been 'gifted' to the owner of the land upon which they were erected?
Given that you seem to know the answers to these questions why not simply answer them? The invitation to shoot me down in flames is open. It has been from day one. You have no interest in actually dealing with facts, though. You, along with all Team Neeson members, go out of your way to avoid dealing with facts and, instead, try to find ways to discredit the person asking questions of the kind I have just asked. No doubt you will respond to this comment of mine as you have done all along.
If I am wrong in this, provide me with the 'substantive criticism' that you claim I am censoring. If you are a 'reasonable critic', criticize me on the basis of the arguments I have presented in support of the proposition that World Housing is a scam. Tell me, us, your side of the story.
Shoot me down in flames by all means but stop trying to shoot the messenger. It is tiresome and not at all productive.
So in other words James allows anybody that wishes to criticize Alan Lemon, Scott Neeson or James McCabe free access to his page even though their posts may be defamatory, I am not sure what Alan Lemon sitting outside a bar in Street 136 has to do with World Housing and that is what James claims this blog is about. On the other hand he deletes anything he wants, especially when it questions his credentials. As always he will come back flogging his dead horse again and then not post my response. Out of interest James what are your credentials as a self styled investigative journalist, where did you study.
ReplyDeleteDear xxx
DeleteThis particular blog entry is about World Housing. There are no photos of Alan Lemon in the Oasis Bar.
I agree that a few of the comments about certain people within CCF are a bit over the top. However, I am also very aware of the incredible damage done to David’ Fletcher’s life as a result of Scott Neeson’s defamatory comments to Andrew Drummond and through his reporting Mr Fletcher to the British Embassy. Both of these occurred whilst Alan Lemon and James Mc Cabe were working in partnership with Scott. Both have had plenty of opportunity to either distance themselves from Scott’s actions or to suggest to him that he should either retract his comments about Mr Fletcher or provide evidence in support of them.
As for deleting comments that relate to my credentials, a couple of points. Firstly, I have been working in the media since 1971, have been writing articles since 1973 and have made dozens of hours of TV documentary throughout my career.
Secondly, even if I did not have this experience, so what? How many of the journalists working at the Cambodia Daily or the Phnom Penh Post have ‘credentials’? How many of them have studied journalism? Very few, but so what? If they are good at their job, training and credentials are irrelevant. Conversely, journalist with fantastic ‘credentials’ can be hopeless as a journalist.
This comment, like pretty well all from Team Neeson is just a smokescreen. You will not answer the questions and so think you can negative them by rubbishing me: “What right does Ricketson have to ask questions?” The more you do this the more blindingly obvious it is to readers that you have no answers.
Hey TN (Team Neeson) why not just answer the questions and stop bitching about being censored
DeleteAm I mistaken in my assertion that Scott Neeson told sponsors and donors that houses were being 'gifted' to poor families?
Am I wrong in my assertion that contrary to Neeson's public declarations these houses are being rented to poor families?
Am I wrong in my assertion that these 360 homes have, in fact, been 'gifted' to the owner of the land upon which they were erected?
So in other words James, you are not qualified in any way to publish as an investigative journalist, this is just a title you have bestowed upon yourself in your ignorance.
ReplyDeleteYou agree that a few of the comments about certain people within CCF are a bit over the top but still allow them to be continued to published. As so many have said before you are a hypocrite and should either allow everything to be published or state this blog is not an open forum but your and your trolls twisted view of how the world works. I believe entries commenting on your state of mind and mental instability are just as valid as peoples over the top comments on Lemon, Neeson and McCabe.
If this blog is about World Housing then why the need of a photo shopped picture of Scott Neeson and a young girl at the top of the page. What does this have to do with World Housing ? You are simply a nasty evil jealous troll James who has done fuck all worthy in life of anything other than handing out a few boiled lollies to impoverished kids at the dump just like your friend Fletcher did. He got caught and so will you my friend.
Anonymous 9.02
DeleteIf 46 years working in the media does not qualify me to be a journalist, I am not sure what will!
As I said before, anyone who wishes to can be an investigative journalist if they do their homework well. In the case of World Housing I have done my homework. Not that it was difficult to do. All the information contained in everything I have written (apart from what I gleaned from a few visits to the World Housing sites) I gleaned from what Scott Neeson said in press releases, on Facebook and in articles written about his World Housing initiative. No great skill was required other than being open 'google' and type in some search words. You can do it yourself and I suggest that you do so that you can, when you find the errors of fact I have made, point them out to me and others reading this blog.
Yes, I will allow some comments that are a bit over the top to be published for as long as Scott Neeson, James Mc Cabe's and Alan Lemon's position vis a vis Mr Fletcher is that he was grooming young girls. As should have been the case back in 2010, Neeson should either produce whatever evidence he has of this allegation or admit that it was incorrect. This admission might help Mr Fletcher secure the fair hearing in the Supreme Court that he has requested. On the other hand, if Scott has cogent evidence of Mr Fletcher's guilt this should be presented to the relevant authorities. it has not been.
As you or some other anonymous troll has said recently, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." If Scott can defame Mr Fletcher in a way that plays a major role in his receiving a 10 year jail sentence I am not too much worried by the fact that Team Neeson (Neeson himself, Mc Cabe and Lemon) cop a bit of flak every now and then. Mind you, much of it is factually correct.
As for comments on my state of mind,you have made it clear what you think about my state of mind. You have had more than enough opportunities to let me know of your low opinion of pretty well every aspect of my character. It is now tiresome. ANd it is all just your way of avoiding answering the questions which I will put to you again:
Am I mistaken in my assertion that Scott Neeson told sponsors and donors that houses were being 'gifted' to poor families?
Am I wrong in my assertion that contrary to Neeson's public declarations these houses are being rented to poor families?
Am I wrong in my assertion that these 360 homes have, in fact, been 'gifted' to the owner of the land upon which they were erected?
As for the photo at the top of the page it is a photo of a man who accused Mr Fletcher of grooming young girls. You will notice that he has, in his arms, a young women who is, I guess, about 16 years old - a third of Neeson's age. I have asked Neeson repeatedly who this girl is and whether he believes the photo (its contents) to be appropriate. Neeson remains silent. As is his right.
However, it is Neeson's silence on all matters, his refusal to answer any questions at all and not just from me) that reveal his assertions about CCF being a transparent and accountable NGO to be nonsense.
As for your final comment about me being caught this kind of intimidation will not work with me. If you have any evidence at all of inappropriate behaviour on my part in relation to children working in the dump, report me to the police. Put up or shut up, Team Neeson. Answer questions and stop with your tendious efforts to shoot the messenger.
"You are simply a nasty evil jealous troll James who has done fuck all worthy in life of anything other than handing out a few boiled lollies to impoverished kids at the dump just like your friend Fletcher did. He got caught and so will you my friend."
DeleteBe careful, James. You are dealing with some unscrupulous characters here with connections in high places. Watch your back.
Team Neeson shows its true colours. Watch out you dont get done the way Fletcher did.
Delete"However, it is Neeson's silence on all matters, his refusal to answer any questions at all and not just from me) that reveal his assertions about CCF being a transparent and accountable NGO to be nonsense."
ReplyDeleteExcept that is a lie to, isn't it James? Scott has tried to answer your questions. That is why nobody takes your questions seriously anymore. You lie and distort and ask loaded questions based on those distortions. And then you lie more even when Scott answers you.
http://www.khmer440.com/chat_forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=38333
As Scott said the last time he made the mistake of engaging you, answering your questions and treating you as a reasonable person:
"But back to the original point - Mr Ricketson, after 2 1/2 years of false telling donors, board members, media and the public that I am a liar, fraud etc you are shown to be unquestionably and verifiably wrong. Taking this as his victory and adding to a blog that continues to state these defamatory facts...? How about a dose of self-awareness and ethics - apologize and remove the blog."
I don't read Khmer440 so if Scott has answered any of my questions there this past 2 years I have not read them. It would make more sense for him to answer them on my blog or, if he wishes, to send me an email and copy his answers to other journalists whose questions he does not answer.
DeleteIf you would like to post whatever Scott's comments were, his answers to my questions, i can assure you I will not censor them.
And, if you are reading this Scott, (and I am sure you are) why not answer the questions above regarding World Housing:
Am I mistaken in my assertion that Scott Neeson told sponsors and donors that houses were being 'gifted' to poor families?
Am I wrong in my assertion that contrary to Neeson's public declarations these houses are being rented to poor families?
Am I wrong in my assertion that these 360 homes have, in fact, been 'gifted' to the owner of the land upon which they were erected?
"I don't read Khmer440 so if Scott has answered any of my questions there this past 2 years I have not read them."
DeleteYou posted on that thread several times James. You and Scott interacted directly. Don't you remember?
"I don't read Khmer440 so if Scott has answered any of my questions there this past 2 years I have not read them."
DeleteYou are lying again James. I looked at the link and there is Scott answering your questions, and you making a repetitive pain in the arse of yourself.
Are you on drugs? How could you forget this already? Is this why you repeat yourself so much?
Dear Team Neeson (aka Anonymous 1.10)
DeleteThe very first entry in this blog, on 15th Oct 2014, was about Scott Neeson's defaming of Mr Fletcher:
http://cambodia440.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/1-scott-neeson-accuses-david-fletcher.html
That is just a month shy of two years ago. Scott Neeson replied on Khmer 440 - almost 2 years ago.
You have quoted Scott as writing, "Mr Ricketson, after 2 1/2 years of false telling donors, board members, media and the public that I am a liar, fraud etc."
This obviously can't be referring to our brief dialogue of 2014. It must be a recent statement of Scott's. I have never seen it and am curious to know where it was published? Please do send me a link and I will look at Scott's answers. And publish them.
@ Anon 12.50
ReplyDelete"you are shown to be unquestionably and verifiably wrong."
Excuse me, I do read Khmer440 and have never seen any of Mr Neeson's answers to questions there! Where can I find them?
Verify, Team Neeson, verify. answer the questions about world housing
DeleteIf you are not a liar, Scott, please explain why it is that you travelled the world telling everyone who would listen that you were giving ('gifting') houses to poor families when you were, by your own subsequent admission, not giving the houses to families at all.
DeleteIf you can explain to me how this is not a lie, I will happily apologise. Whilst you are at it, perhaps you could share with us who the owner of the land is upon which the 360 houses have been built? Who is the owner now of these 360 houses - valued at between $500,000 and $1 million?
You were already answered, and, because you then persisted in your abuse, harassment and disingenuous "questions," you got cut off. And now you lie about and lament that nobody takes you seriously, that nobody will answer your loaded questions. You are your own worst enemy James.
Delete"@ Anon 12.50
Delete"you are shown to be unquestionably and verifiable wrong."
Excuse me, I do read Khmer440 and have never seen any of Mr Neeson's answers to questions there! Where can I find them?"
It is all right here in a thread entitled:
"Response from Scott Neeson to James Ricketson"
http://www.khmer440.com/chat_forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=38333
Where do I find these answers? Where does anyone find these answers?
DeleteMy disingenuous questions again regarding World Housing:
Am I mistaken in my assertion that Scott Neeson told sponsors and donors that houses were being 'gifted' to poor families?
Am I wrong in my assertion that contrary to Neeson's public declarations these houses are being rented to poor families?
Am I wrong in my assertion that these 360 homes have, in fact, been 'gifted' to the owner of the land upon which they were erected?
I am not repeating the questions because I am on drugs (a rather silly observation) but because you keep refusing to answer them and now refuse to direct me to where you say answers are to be found.
And I will continue to keep asking these questions. ANd you will continue to think up different ways of justifying your not answering them.
And so it goes.
Isn't Scott Neeson, the man that Team Neeson defends, the same person that took 700 children from their families? Does this Team Neeson think that is a wonderful thing? What is wrong with these people? More likely it is one person who talks to himself.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous 1.20
ReplyDeleteAre you seriously suggesting to me that Scott's factually incorrect response in June 2014 covers all the questions I have asked in the past 2 years?
You can start here, Scott, if you are serious about answering questions:
Am I mistaken in my assertion that Scott Neeson told sponsors and donors that houses were being 'gifted' to poor families?
Am I wrong in my assertion that contrary to Neeson's public declarations these houses are being rented to poor families?
Am I wrong in my assertion that these 360 homes have, in fact, been 'gifted' to the owner of the land upon which they were erected?
someone has made a lot of money out of these homes 'gifted' to poor families. Who is the lucky person?
"Are you seriously suggesting to me that Scott's factually incorrect response in June 2014 covers all the questions I have asked in the past 2 years?"
ReplyDeleteYou are not entitled to have every little one of your brain fart's massaged on demand.
You were answered, you continued to be a nuisance, and you were rightly dismissed.
One thing that is absolutely clear now is that you were lying again when you said:
"However, it is Neeson's silence on all matters, his refusal to answer any questions at all and not just from me) that reveal his assertions about CCF being a transparent and accountable NGO to be nonsense."
These sorts of lies and distortions which infect your whole blog are why people don't take you seriously or bother to answer your questions anymore. And, of course, that you choose to harass people with your lies and distortions to the point that they even "feel at risk" engaging you.
Dear Team Neeson Troll (aka Anonymous 2.17)
DeleteAs I have said on a few occasions Neeson has not answered any questions for 2 years. this is correct.
No, Scott is under no real obligation to answer questions - other than the fact that he boasts about how transparent he and CCF are. This is nonsense.
Again, answer the questions:
Am I mistaken in my assertion that Scott Neeson told sponsors and donors that houses were being 'gifted' to poor families?
Am I wrong in my assertion that contrary to Neeson's public declarations these houses are being rented to poor families?
Am I wrong in my assertion that these 360 homes have, in fact, been 'gifted' to the owner of the land upon which they were erected?
Nobody is going to answer your questions. Scott is not here, and neither is anybody from CCF.
DeleteAs for the rest of us, nobody will answer because:
1) You have proven yourself an unreliable reporter. You distort and lie and twist and deal in rhetoric. Thus, before even thinking about answering the questions, first we'd have to determine whether they are legitimate questions. We'd have to investigate whether you have lied or distorted their content, or omitted important information, or loaded their wording, or whatever. And then it's really all about you and your rhetorical style and not about CCF. If I am going to go to all that work investigating the truth of the matter just so I can determine whether your questions are legit, there is really no reason to include you or your questions in the figuring at all. They would just be a distraction from the real issues, if there are any.
2) It is not my job as the reader to answer the reporter's questions for him. If I wanted to go to the trouble of investigating this so that I could answer the questions, then I'd be the reporter, not you. And so again, what do we need you for, or your questions? If I need to be the reporter, you become extraneous.
Besides, this is a very weak debate technique. When questions are posed like this they are almost always rhetorical, leading or loaded. There is really no other reason to phrase it as a question. If somebody knows their case and has one, they present it in a positive, declarative form, supported by evidence. And, since we can't all be investigating everything said, the acceptability and weight of the evidence derives in large part from the credibility and reliability of the reporter. And your credibility and reliability has not been served well by this blog.
It is your job as a journalist to answer the questions in an objective, complete and accessible manner.
Dear Team Neeson (aka Anonymous 9.23)
DeleteYour observation that “Nobody is going to answer your questions” is very perceptive of you.
That “Scott is not here, and neither is anybody from CCF” is laughable.
Who else but Team Neeson would put so much effort into thinking up different ways NOT to answer questions? Different ways (although not different enough) to deny that the person asking the questions was even allowed to ask them?
Really, Scott, James, Alan, do you really think that readers of this blog are that dumb?
And who else but you three (one of you, at least) would bother to make the scarcely veiled threat you made above regarding me, children and lollies?
“You distort and lie”. You keep saying this. You have been saying this, anonymously for 2 years, but never ever point out to me where I distort; where I lie. If you give some examples such statements might carry some weight. Indeed, you would probably only need to give me a couple of examples to do what you try to do with your shoot-the-messenger comments – namely destroy my credibility.
You write, “before even thinking about answering the questions, first we'd have to determine whether they are legitimate questions.”
Who is the ‘we’ you are referring to here, if not Team Neeson?
OK, moving right along, I will ask my the questions again about World Housing. Are these legitimate questions?
Am I mistaken in my assertion that Scott Neeson told sponsors and donors that houses were being 'gifted' to poor families?
Am I wrong in my assertion that contrary to Neeson's public declarations these houses are being rented to poor families?
Am I wrong in my assertion that these 360 homes have, in fact, been 'gifted' to the owner of the land upon which they were erected?
If these questions are not legitimate, please explain why they are not? If a CCF sponsor or donor were to ask these questions, would you get back to them and say, “These are not legitimate questions?” If a human rights organization were to ask these questions, if a journalist from the Cambodia Daily or the Phnom Penh Post were to ask you these questions, would you respond with “These are not legitimate questions?”
If the assumptions made by me that lie behind these questions are incorrect, shoot me down. You won’t. You never do.
Of course they are legitimate questions. They go to the very heart of the question of whether or not CCF has been involved in a charity fraud that has involved deceiving donors and sponsors; that has involved exploiting the poverty of slum dwellers to reap financial rewards for the owner of the land upon which the houses have been built. That no other journalist bothers to ask you these questions, Scott, is a reflection on them; not on me. They will come, however. In time.
...to be continued...
...continuing...
Delete“It is not my job as the reader to answer the reporter's questions for him.”
Firstly, you are not just a ‘reader’. You are a member of Team Neeson. You make the reference to ‘we’ – which is not the way a regular reader describes him or herself. You also state that not one from CCF is commenting here – a comment that could only be made by someone who had inside knowledge of what goes on within CCF. And you continue to accuse me of lying and distorting – which means that you must have, in your mind, what the truth is before I distort it? And yet you present yourself as just some average reader. Please, do yourself a favour and do not insult the intelligence of readers. You only dig yourself deeper into the hope you are already in.
Given the pedantic and legalistic tone of this comment my guess is that it was made by Alan Lemon – who has studied law, has a degree but has never practiced. You argue, Alan, like a lawyer who has no case but who is trying to build one out of nothing.
You write, “It is your job as a journalist to answer the questions in an objective, complete and accessible manner.”
In the case of World Housing this is precisely what I have done. I have posed the questions I have quoted above and, through thorough research, arrived at conclusions that I have published. This is standard journalistic practice. It is also standard journalistic practice to ask the kinds of questions I ask and give the person(s) being investigated an opportunity to respond to the questions. And it is standard journalistic practice for a journalist who has got his or her facts wrong (either by accident or design) to apologize for doing so in public.
So, if there is anything I have written about World Housing that is factually incorrect, point it out to me; point it out to readers. If I have made an error of fact that I should not have made I deserve to be held accountable for having done so.
“Who else but Team Neeson would put so much effort into thinking up different ways NOT to answer questions?”
DeleteDo you know how delusional that sounds James? Nobody needs to come here to figure out how not to answer your questions, least of all “Team Neeson.” They need only not come here or say anything at all to not answer your questions. “We” are just the peanut gallery. Internet losers like you who waste our time commenting on Facebook and forums. If you could sway enough people like us maybe you could get some real press interested in your story, but you haven’t, for the reasons outlined. If half of what you say about CCF here is true, there is a real story here. Yet in two years of posting you’ve not attracted a single real journalist. You might ask yourself why that is. Is it because there is no real story here, or because you have done something to drive them away?
Dear Team Neeson Trolls (aka Anonymous 8.07)
DeleteYou get full marks for finally admitting what has been obvious for some time - namely that you are trolls. To quote your own words:
"“We” are just the peanut gallery. Internet losers like you who waste our time commenting on Facebook and forums."
And there I was giving you more time of the day than you deserve. I will now have no qualms about not publishing your troll comments.
You and your fellow "internet losers" need to find some other blog to waste your time on,but thanks for the entertainment you have provided over the past couple of years.
Does CCF allow truthful comments on their Facebook page?
ReplyDeleteNo, of course not.
DeleteTo the NGO Mob: If Ricketson is such a bastard why has he not been
ReplyDeletechallenged by Neeson, Mc Cabe, Lemon, Thierry Darnaudet, Samleang
Seila, Naly Pilorge and the entire engl. language media in Cambodia ?
Fear that the Damage will be bigger than the reward ?
Where are the CCF tax returns for 2015. They had to be completed long ago. It is now Sept 2016. What are you hiding Scott??
ReplyDeleteDear Scott Neeson
ReplyDeleteFor the past two years you have been posting comments on this blog anonymously, in a ham-fisted attempt to ‘shoot the messenger’. I have asked many quite legitimate questions this past two years. You have refused to answer them, commenting that you re too busy to take any notice of the rubbish I write. You have sought to undermine the credibility of the person asking the questions rather than answer them. This tactic may have served you well to date but I suspect that your ‘fact sheet’ will result in some journalists not employed by you to ask some of the questions I have been asking.
Your latest attempt to ‘shoot the messenger’, published on the CCF website, has clearly taken you a lot of time and effort to produce. I will respond to it in due course; answering all of the implied questions it contains and correcting the factual errors.
In the meantime:
You write: “CCF is as open to accountability and transparency as it was when it initially responded to Mr Ricketson’s false allegations in 2014.”
If you and CCF are, indeed, committed to the precepts of accountability and transparency, now would be a good time to answer the following questions in relation to CCF’s World Housing initiative:
Am I mistaken in my assertion that Scott Neeson told sponsors and donors that houses were being 'gifted' to poor families?
Have any families that have left CCF’s World Housing community been allowed to take their houses with them back to their village in the provinces?
I will again, in the not too distance future, ask you more questions now that you have admitted to being a reader of this blog. In the meantime, readers may be interested in the allegations you make against myself:
...to be continued...
...continuing...
DeleteSCOTT NEESON’S FACT SHEET:
For 5 years Cambodian Children’s Fund (“CCF”), its founder Scott Neeson, and many staff have been the target of an online campaign of false allegations orchestrated by James Ricketson. Mr Ricketson has a long history of harassing charities and other organisations and has already been convicted and given a two year suspended sentence for blackmailing a charity in Cambodia, as well as being arrested in Australia for harassing another organisation. CCF is setting the record straight now in order to protect its hard-earned reputation.
His attacks on CCF began after an incident in 2011 when he arrived, without prior notice, at a CCF facility, asking to see a particular ten year old girl and requesting contact with the girl’s family. In accordance with CCF’s Child Protection Policy, he was denied access. He has since written over 120 blogs repeating several false allegations and insinuations against CCF, Scott Neeson and others he believes to be involved in a “conspiracy” spanning Thailand, Cambodia and the UK.
Mr Ricketson’s role as “advocate for a convicted rapist”
Many of Mr Ricketson’s blogs attacking Scott Neeson and CCF are linked to his adopted role as “advocate for a convicted rapist named David Fletcher”. Mr Fletcher, “a notorious British paedophile” was convicted of child sex offences in the UK before moving to Cambodia to establish an unregistered children’s NGO in Phnom Penh. He was convicted by Cambodian authorities for the rape of a 16 year old girl in 2013.
Mr Fletcher was arrested in Phnom Penh after “Cambodian police built up a file of evidence showing that Fletcher had used his charity to groom young girls – and also their families – with the intention of having sex with them“. Due to the fact Scott Neeson had registered concerns after a 17 year old CCF student became “engaged” to Mr Fletcher (in his 60s at the time), Mr Ricketson falsely alleged that Mr Neeson had become involved in a conspiracy against Mr Fletcher. Mr Ricketson has agitated over many years for Mr Fletcher to be released from jail, consistently and falsely blaming Scott Neeson for his imprisonment. An officer of the UK’s Child Exploitation & Online Protection Centre (CEOP) has publicly denounced Mr Ricketson’s “ongoing deranged views on those who would protect the world from child abusers.”
Past victims of Ricketson’s campaigns
Mr Ricketson has led many other campaigns involving threats and false accusations against organisations, including Citipointe Church, Screen Australia, the British Embassy, NSW Health and the UK Foreign Secretary. See more information about these campaigns.
CCF is as open to accountability and transparency as it was when it initially responded to Mr Ricketson’s false allegations in 2014. Please see a fuller account of Mr Ricketson’s 5 year campaign against Cambodian Children’s Fund, a detailed history of his various online campaigns, and a list of false allegations he has made against CCF, alongside the actual facts.
To date, CCF has chosen not to litigate against Mr Ricketson. Mr Ricketson’s blogs attract such a low readership and are so obviously lacking in credibility that CCF does not believe they merit spending large sums on lawyers, funds which its donors expect to be spent on programs supporting impoverished Cambodian children.
CCF’s fact sheet can be found in its entirety at:
https://www.cambodianchildrensfund.org/fact-sheet-1/
I think your work is having good impact James. Funny that he doesn't provide a link to this blog!
ReplyDeleteThanks for proving your ignorance Anon 5.53. If you choose to remove your foot from your mouth and actually read the full fact sheet you will find links to all of Ricketsons blogs. Another one eyed Ricketson devotee and troll I suspect
ReplyDeleteLinks to "all of his blogs" makes you sound like a "fully paid up" serial liar. There are however; camouflaged links to a small number of Ricketson's postings. Were you and Neeson doing cocaine when you wrote this?
DeleteSo Scott Neeson is still trying to persecute David Fletcher (and you James for advocating for a fair trial), even though he knows full well that a rape never took place. He knows the medical report said "hymen intact", he knows full well that Yang Dany recanted her testimony, and he knows full well that her original testimony was induced by the offer of $30,000 if Fletcher was convicted. He knows full well that there is no case and there was no rape! He is a desperate, drug induced, serial scumbag, who should be prosecuted for illegally taking children from their families!
ReplyDeleteBusted Rickets. The truth comes out
ReplyDeleteIt is certainly a step forward - Scott Neeson admitting that he reads this blog but, more importantly, that he is prepared to answer questions. It remains to be seen if he is prepared to respond to the observations I make about the 'facts' that he has published.
DeleteDear bloggers
ReplyDeleteI have stopped monitoring comments and would appreciate it if everyone stopped using terms of abuse when addressing those with whom they disagree.
It did not take long for Team Neeson to start sending spam so I will be moderating comments in the foreseeable future.
DeleteIf you make a comment that does not contain terms of abuse and it does not appear within 12 hours it does not mean it is being censored. There are times when I cannot deal with this blog as I have other things to do.
As a former long term volunteer I can tell you there is what we call the ex CCF club,
ReplyDeletea growing crew of good people who devoted their time in what they believed was a good cause. Sadly this is not the case. Cambodian Children's Fund and deranged Scott Neeson are full of lies and deception. This is the reason you never read any glowing review from any former staff or volunteers. We all know from experience what a nightmare Scott Neeson is. Don't believe a word written by sponsors. They are fed and shown a carefully grafted illusion to pull their heart strings and get them to open their wallets. You donpt need to be in the CCF / Neeson act for long before the alarms start ringing and boy when they do it's shock and horror. Follow the money ! Scott is not who he represents himself to be. Right now he’s trying to reinvent himself as Mother Theresa. Scott Neeson social media posts are nothing more than a mother Theresa scam to deceive and suck the money out of kind hearted people.
Please tell us more Anonymous 12:18. Is there a communication vehicle for ex-CCF club?
DeleteDear Scott,
ReplyDeleteI will deal with your ‘Fact Sheet’ fact by fact. This may take a little time as I am busy with many things and this blog occupies only a very small part of my life.
Allegation 1
“700+ children illegally detained by Scott Neeson’s Cambodian Children’s Fund.”
When and where did I make this statement? To the best of my recollection I have never made this statement.
“Truth
This extremely serious accusation is false on several levels. Most importantly, CCF does not “detain” any children – of the 507 (not 700+) children who stay with CCF, all do so willingly and with CCF’s full collaboration with their families (for those who have families) and relevant Government bodies, including MoSAVY (Ministry of Social Affairs, Veteran and Youth Rehabilitation) who have stated their “endless support to the organization for carrying out its duty so far on the development of the whole society.”
At the time that a blogger made the 700+ children observation, there were 700 children. In recent months you have been getting rid of as many children as you can. Around 200, it seems. Many of these are now in their 20s. And they are not happy to have been told to leave – especially as they are ill equipped to deal with the realities of independent life in Cambodia. Mind you, by the time a young man or woman hits 21 (unless they are at university or in some form of training) it is time to leave and engage with the wider world.
QUESTION: How many of the CCF children in residential care (around 500) have no mother, father, auntie or uncle or other family member to take care of them?
OBSERVATION: My experience of MoSAVY is that this government department is, by and large, incompetent. This has not only been my personal experience but is borne out by the sheer number of years MoSAVY has been promising to close down fake orphanages and failed to do so.
...to be continued...
...continuing...
Delete“CCF’s residential facilities are not only entirely legal but are used as a last resort, when children face abuse or violence at home have no families capable of taking care of them or live in environments which make studying impossible.”
This statement is demonstrably false. I have spoken with many families, spent time with many families, whose children have been placed in CCF residential care for no other reason than extreme poverty. As I have mentioned before, in one instance five children from one family were in CCF residential care whilst the mother and her remaining children survived on $2 a day working in the rubbish dump. As recently as this year a 15 year old girl from this family was in residential care at CCF but left when she was told that her remaining there was contingent on providing free daycare child minding services. Her mother, poor as she is, did not want her 15 year old daughter to be working without any wage at all for CCF. She is now, along with her siblings most of whom were in CCF residential care, working in the rubbish dump.
For any journalist who might be reading this and who might be interested in doing some fact checking, I can introduce you to this family and you can find out for yourselves.
“Of the 2,211 students currently with CCF, 75% live at home full time and a further 10% stay at home twice a week or more. For more information see Fact Sheet 6: Cambodian Children’s Fund’s work to keep families together.”
There are two questions a journalist might like to ask in relation to this.
What percentage of the roughly 1,650 students studying with CCF are attending free government schools? Given that CCF claims, in tax returns, that it costs $2,000 a year to educate one CCF student, we’re looking at around U#$ 3.3 million to educate these 1,650 students each year. These are CCF’s own figures; not figures I have plucked out of mid-air.
If all of these students are receiving a free government education, how do you account for this $3.3 million expenditure?
If none of these students are attending free government schools, (ie, their education is fully funded by CCF) $2,000 per year still seems a very high figure to educate one child in a country where the per capita income is not much more than half this amount.
If I have made any factual errors here, Scott, please do point them out to me. You no longer have the option of pretending that you do not read this blog and sending in Team Neeson trolls to shoot the messenger.
Some clarification of the questions surrounding how many CCF students are receiving a free government education would be appreciated.
I’ve been following this blog for a while now. Call it a guilty pleasure. But James has just written something that has honestly shocked me so I'm finally going to post something.
DeleteIn the above comment on the last post, James denied that he ever made the statement "700+ children illegally detained by Scott Neeson's Cambodian Children's Fund". His exact words were “When and where did I make this statement? To the best of my recollection I have never made this statement.”
I’m pretty sure anyone who has followed this blog for a while KNOWS that James has been making this accusation for ages. Until quite recently it was the main subheading of this blog, in big bold type!
Looks like James has erased the subheading since then, which means it has disappeared from the rest of his blog, but nothing ever disappears from the internet. So I decided to do a bit of research and it really didn’t take long. I found a bunch of stuff within about 5 seconds of Googling. James made that EXACT statement - “700+ children illegally detained by Scott Neeson’s Cambodian Children’s Fund” – on other people’s Facebook pages (https://www.facebook.com/FansOfPeace/posts/740141309421969) and it’s also captured on Khmer 440 (http://www.khmer440.com/chat_forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=55096&start=12).
Google shows that the statement was being made as recently as MAY 2016, although I think I've seen it way more recently. So as far as I can work out there are two possibilities here:
1) James’ “the best of my recollection” is extremely poor and he has actually forgotten this big sensational accusation he made really recently and posted repeatedly all over the Internet before deleting it from his blog. I have to say, if my memory was that terrible I would have Googled the allegation and checked to be sure I wasn’t wrong, but that’s just me.
2) The second option is that the very first thing that James’ does when he’s confronted with facts is to lie - in this case trying to conceal something indefensible he has said. So he asks for the trust of the readers of the blog, but then tells us something which is a huge, blatant lie.
I know which one I believe.
Dear Anonymous 10.47
DeleteYou are right. I did write that. Now let's put it in context. Here's the note I wrote that accompanied this quote:
Dear generous Facebook donor
Before you ‘share’ anything posted here by Scott Neeson, do a little homework. He is not what he appears to be. His speciality is marketing. He is very good at it. The most important product he is selling is himself – hence the interminable photos of himself with other people’s children in his arms. Almost invariably cute girls. Ask questions and, if you are satisfied with the answers, give to your heart’s content, but don’t say you were not warned:
More to come...
I don’t recall changing the header but accept that I must have. (I will return to this subject shortly)
DeleteNow, for anyone interested, read the post that I was recommending to the reader I sent it to:
192 US$37 million spent by CCF since 2010. On what? Time to show and tell Scott Neeson.
US$37 million.
This is the amount that CCF has spent since 2010:
“… transforming the country’s most impoverished kids into tomorrow’s leaders, by delivering education, family support and community development programs into the heart of Cambodia’s most impoverished communities…
The goal, as expressed on the CCF website is that:
“We believe that with the right education and support, one child can lift their family out of poverty. Today there are more than 2,400 students working towards a better future in our award winning education program.”
The intentions are noble, but what about the results?
US$37 million down the track how many CCF families have been lifted out of poverty?
One would hope that quite a few would have been for this amount of money!
Lets apply some maths to CCF’s figures:
CCF has, by its own admission, spent $37 million since 2010 educating around 2400 children.
(Let’s leave aside, for the moment, that these kids are, for the most part, attending free government run schools.)
$37 million divided by 2,400 = $15,400 per child.
What has CCF got to show for this extraordinary expenditure? You must be able to point to a few success stories, surely, Scott! I don’t mean the kind of stories told by you on Facebook (heart-warming photos of kids and grannies) but solid stories that sponsors, donors and journalists can look at independently and say ”Wow, look at how these families are powering ahead under their own steam now. Congratulations to Scott and his team. That’s $37 million well spent!”
For $37 million there must be at least one story you can point to, Scott! One family that you have ‘lifted out of poverty’ and that is now totally self-sufficient – kids in school/university, food on the table, mum and dad working in fulfilling jobs! One family that has escaped the poverty cycle thnks to CCF?
Mind you, for $37 million one would hope that there are dozens such families; if not hundreds!
As for ‘future leaders’ it is understandable that none has emerged yet but there must be a few university graduates you can point to as examples of how effective CCF programs have been in moving towards your stated goal of creating ‘future leaders’.
How many CCF university graduates are there?
How many CCF students are enrolled in university right now?
Why are questions such as these so difficult for you to answer? Shouldn’t you be accountable to sponsors and donors for how $37 million has been spent.
....to be continued...
....continuing...
DeleteLet’s apply the maths in a different way. These are just ballpark figures. They have to be since you keep the figures you post in your tax returns as vague as you can in order to avoid independent scrutiny:
You have 700 + children living in residential care. These children come from families that are, to all intents and purposes, homeless – if we exclude a hovel made of cloth, plastic and scavenged materials as qualifying as a ‘home’. These families have been rendered homeless as a result of debts accrued (often through family illness) that they could not repay, forcing them to sell the only assets they once had – their land and home and work in the Phnom Penh dump.
$37 million divided by 700 = $52,800
That’s $52,800 expended per child in residential care this past 6 years.
You will complain that this is a misuse of statistics. Fair enough.
So let’s approach these figures in a different way.
Let’s say that CCF had decided, in 2010, to help 700 families get back on their feet; become financially independent and that a well thought out and monitored program had been set in place to achieve this goal.
If CCF had invested $5000 per child towards making the child’s family self-sufficient and no longer reliant on charity, the maths looks something like this.
700 x $5,000 = $3.5 million
For roughly, 10% of $37 million, CCF could have kick-started the lives of the families of 700 kids. Or, if CCF wished to invest $10,000 in the future of 700 children and their families it could have done so expending only 20% of $37 million.
Carefully spent, wisely spent, I can’t help but feel that $10,000 would have helped these 700 families break the poverty cycle. I am not talking about hand-outs, but money well spent.
...to be continued...
...continuing...
DeleteSome more maths:
Let’s say CCF had decided to invest $10,000 in the future of each of 2,400 families back in 2010. That would have cost CCF $24,000,000 – leaving $13 million, spread over 6 years to run CCF. $2 million a year! Enough, surely!
If $10,000 per child had been invested in this way there would have been no need for children living in Steung Meanchey to live in residential care. They could have been living with their families. And, if necessary, out of CCF’s $2 million a year operating costs, busses could have been acquired to pick up the kids to take them to school and drop them off at their homes at the end of the school day. Instead of sharing a bed with 2 or 3 other kids in a crowded dormitory they could have slept at home with the rest of their family.
Following a scenario such as this would result in 700+ children not suffering from the well-documented adverse affects of institutional living.
The problem with this scenario is that you would not have been able to be the hero on the white charger galloping in to recue cute children. You would have had to sell the idea to sponsors and donors that helping children within their families and communities was infinitely superior, on every level, to institutional care.
...to be continued...
...continuing...
DeleteRegarding my maths above you might protest: “But what about our Grannies program? What about our Rice Support?”
I have no idea how much CCF spends on its ‘Granny’ program (would you care to enlighten us?) but I do know that Rice Support amounts to $250 a year per family.
Let’s presume that all families with kids in residential care and/or engaged in educational programs get $250 of rice a year. We now need to multiply that figure by $250. This is not an easy exercise because many families have more than one child in CCF residential care. But, for the sake of argument, let’s use the figure of 2,000.
2000 x $250 = $500,000
Of course, had CCF invested $10,000 in the future of 2,400 families back in 2010 there would be no need for rice support.
What about CCF’s medical program? I know nothing about the costs of this and so cannot factor it into these rough ballpark calculations. It would certainly be helpful to know how much this costs per year?
...to be continue
...continuing...
DeleteWhichever way an independent observer looks at CCF’s $37 million spent over 6 years, the figures simply don’t add up. The very kindest thing that can be said about CCFs expenditure of $37 million is that it has been grossly inefficient.
You could, of course, counter this by pointing to examples that demonstrate, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this $37 million has been well spent. Please do. This is what transparency and accountability is all about. And transparency and accountability are two things that the generous donors and sponsors who have entrusted $37 into your care have a right to expect.
You won’t, Scott, because you don’t have the evidence. In the place of evidence you have Facebook – a place where you can post heartwarming stories and photos and create the illusion that CCF is achieving its stated goals. You are not. CCF is failing to achieve its stated goals.
Fortunately for you, at present anyway, Cambodia’s sycophantic media will not ask you to provide any evidence at all that CCF is achieving the goals it claims to be achieving. Your press releases are all they need. Fortunately also, for the time being at least, no human rights groups are prepared to challenge your use of illegal contracts with the parents of children in CCF care. The same applies to the non-disclosure contracts you force CCF employees to sign. You may be lucky. The media and human rights groups may well turn a blind eye for some years to come. They certainly did with Somaly Mam. However, Somaly Mam’s run of good luck came to an end eventually. And so will yours – unless you re-invent yourself and CCF, abandon your illegal contracts and stop acting as if CCF is all about you.
Despite the huge amount of money at your disposal (or which used to be at your disposal) CCF is in deep financial trouble. You are ‘encouraging’ kids to leave CCF institutions and return to their families. The less mouths to feed the better.
Do you have reintegration programs in place for these children? Will you sell Black Bamboo to help pay CCF’s mounting bills? And when CCF is no longer a money spinner for you, will you sell the World Housing land and homes or will you, as a final act of generosity, give the families living in these 360 homes legal tenure?
So many questions, so few answers. Correction: NO ANSWERS. Accountability and transparency are foreign to you. They are merely words to be trotted out to impress donors and sponsors.
Scott, your house of cards is collapsing. If you want it to keep standing you need to move fast to do so. You need to radically re-invent yourself and CCF; turn it into a model of how NGOs can help children within their families and communities to grow into self-sufficient adults who neither want nor need paternalistic hand-outs that provide too many NGOs with both their funding model and the sense of satisfaction that comes from being ‘needed’ by impoverished brown people who are incapable of making decisions for themselves; incapable of taking care of themselves. You need these families to be helpless and hopeless so that you can ride in on your white chargers, rescue them, and post interminable photos of you in rescue mode on Facebook – with cute smiling kids for the most part but with the occasional smiling granny thrown in. No dads, though. Never a dad. Part of your PR schtick is that these kids have no dad to care for them and if it were not for you…
Finally, whilst I do not recollect making this statement and do not recollect altering it, I do stand by the statement. The contract that CCF forces the parents of children in residential care to sign is illegal and, even worse, is an abuse of their human rights as parents.
Delete700+ was the figure used in CCF's 2013 tax return. Of course we could suspect it might be a lie. All prior tax returns have been removed from the CCF site. The fact that they NOW have fewer than 700 is in no way indicative of how many children Scott Neeson has TAKEN from families to be raised in his institutional care!
DeleteEven though it is now mid-september, his 2015 tax returns are not published. His "transparency" continues.
DeleteChildren's lives are ruined by institutional care. You, Scott Neeson are a leach on the people that want to help!
ReplyDeleteIt appears Mr I can't spell is back.
ReplyDeleteleach
verb
3rd person present: leaches
(with reference to a soluble chemical or mineral) drain away from soil, ash, or similar material by the action of percolating liquid, especially rainwater.
"the nutrient is quickly leached away"
synonyms: drain, filter, percolate, filtrate, discharge, strain, leak, separate; More
subject (soil, ash, etc.) to a leaching process.
"ash is readily leached"
Well done anon 2.39/1.55, you are learning. Just use words others have used before and your spelling won't look too bad, but just keep off the big words you can't understand until you grow up to be a big boy.
DeleteAnon 2.48 are quite pedantic when it suits you . Everyone understood the meaning , "Scott Neeson is a leech ,a type of worm that sucks blood from others"
DeleteScot Neeson you say you are prepared to answer questions honestly.
ReplyDeleteWho is the young girl you are clutching while under the influence of drugs , as you seem intimately acquainted with her How old was she at the time ? Was she under your care at CCF ? If not what was your relationship with her ?
Do you believe this type of behaviour would be accepted in your home country Australia by someone in in charge of running an institution supposedly protecting children .
Please answer these valid questions
You will not of course
Which will just once again highlight the bogus and shameful hypocritical facade you hide behind
ReplyDeleteIf you’ve been through a breakup recently--
Or if your man seems to be drifting further away each day...
Then it’s time to pull out all the stops.
Because 99% of the time, there is only 1 thing your man can hear that will change his mind and heart.
Here’s how: ==> Your Ex Won’t Be Able To Resist ]
And once you say this to him, or even send this simple phrase in a text message...
It will flip his world upside down and you will suddenly find him chasing you...
And even begging to be with you.
Here’s what I’m talking about:
Here’s how: ==> Why He Won’t Be Able To Live Without You ]
[SIGN OFF]