One of the men seen above is considered to
be a dangerous pedophile worthy of a ten year jail sentence.
The other runs a multi-million dollar Non
Government Organization dedicated, amongst other things, to protecting children
from pedophiles like the other man.
One of these photos is regularly presented
as evidence that the man in it must be a pedophile. The other photo is
presented as evidence, on his website and Facebook page, that this man is a
saint-like figure dedicated to rescuing children from extreme poverty.
The NGO run by one of these men receives
$2,000 per annum to provide housing and transportation for each child in its
institutional care. And it receives a further $2,000 per annum for educating
that child.
That’s $4,000 to institutionalize one child
in a country in which the average income for a family is less than $1,500!
These photos will provide no clue as to
which man is which.
There is no evidence that either man is a
pedophile.
Scott Nesson, holding the young girl, runs
the multi-million dollar NGO that receives roughly $4,000 a year for each child
that it removes from its family and raises in an institution.
David Fletcher, surrounded by young girls,
his pockets stuffed with flowers given to him by the girls, is serving 10 years
in jail for rape.
The young woman David Fletcher allegedly
raped denies that she was raped. Her testimony is backed up by a medical report
commissioned by the Phnom Penh Municipal Court that declared her to be a
virgin.
A week before David Fletcher was arrested
and charged with rape Scott Neeson told journalist Andrew Drummond:
“There is little doubt Fletcher
devotes his time to grooming young girls….The fact is these children can be
bought. It’s difficult to stop it. The British Embassy have been told about
Fletcher. Many organizations have files on him, but nothing has happened. If
you can get this guy sent packing you are doing a service to the children
here.”
Scott Neeson has been asked several times
to produce evidence that David Fletcher was grooming young girls. He refuses to
do so.
I wrote the following email to Scott Neeson
two days ago. He has not responded. He never responds to questions put to him
by journalists – unless they are friendly to his cause and print articles
praise-worthy of his good works.
Dear Scott
The Cambodian Children’s Fund
2013 “Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax” for has been drawn to my
attention.
The registered address of the
Cambodian Children’s Fund is 2461 Santa Monica Boulevarde #833, Santa Monica,
CA 90404
CCF’s ‘mission’ in the document
is described as follows: “ To break cycles of poverty and abuse and to create
positive change in Cambodia through intervention and education for the most
impoverished children and their families.”
In Line 4a the figure of
$1,603,309 appears alongside a list of educational programs servicing 760 kids.
This works out at roughly $2,000 per child per annum. Is this correct?
In Line 4b the figure of
$1,423,298 appears alongside: “Childcare – CCF provides housing and transportation
to over 700 impoverished Cambodian children.”
This works out at roughly $2,000
per child for housing and transportation per annum. Is this correct?
The document from which these
figures have been gleaned is to be found at:
best wishes
To
put this ballpark figure of $4,000 per child into perspective, consider the
story of Pheng Heng, aged 60,and his wife Pok Poq- originally posted at:
http://cambodianchildrensfund.blogspot.com/2014/11/25-scott-nesson-locks-poor-family-out.html
 |
| Pheng Heng and Pok Poq |
Scott, here is another family you know. The parents of the family that is – Pheng Heng, aged 60,and his wife Pok Poq, aged 52. You locked them out of their home last month because they were $12.50 behind in rent owed to the Cambodian Children’s Fund.
$12.50!
The Cambodian Children’s Fund has three of Pheng Heng and Pok Poq’s children in care. Given that virtually all CCF kids have at least one sponsor, this means that CCF is generating between $300 and $450 a month in income from this family without providing any financial assistance to the rest of the family.
$300 a month is 3 times Pheng Heng’s monthly wage when he has a job. He doesn’t have a job at the moment because he was badly injured in a traffic accident and has been unable to work. So what do you do, Scott, when an impoverished family is $12.50 behind in their rent? A family whose children CCF is caring for? Lock them out of their house during the rainy season.
What kind of man are you? Such insensitive, mercenary (and dare I say, inhumane) behavior is certainly not of the variety you boast about on Facebook or talk about when interviewed in your jet-set travels around the world to remind everyone what a wonderful man you are to have given up your $1 million a year job in Hollywood to help poor rubbish dump families.
How many other families have you locked out of their homes over sums as petty as $12.50?
You will not answer this question, of course, and I can only hope that in due course the media will start to ask such questions and, when you refuse to answer them, report this – along with testimonies from families you have locked locked out or families that have suffered other human rights abuses at the hands of the Cambodian Children’s Fund.
Locking families out of their homes is not the only way that your mercenary callousness reveals itself. In my last blog entry I wrote of Tath Raksa – the 15 months old baby that CCF is determined to ‘rescue’ from his loving but very poor dump-working family.
Just three days ago CCF staff went to the home of Tath Pheng and Kim Tath (the grandparents) to apply yet more pressure on them to hand over baby Raksa. Has there been any offer from the Cambodian Children’s Fund to help Raksa’s intellectually handicapped mother, his grandparents; the entire family? No, it is baby Raksa CCF is offering to help; not the family. You want Raksa for your CCF nursery. Is there a spare bed that needs to be filled?
No doubt, in due course, if you had your way, a photo of you and baby Raksa (a photogenic boy with big brown eyes) would appear on your Facebook page and hundreds of people would ‘like’ the photo, refer to you as an ‘angel’ and in various other ways heap praise on you for being such a kind and generous man. A saint!
Until such time as some arrangement can be made to help the entire family, I will be supporting it so that the grandparents can afford to resist your high pressure tactics to take baby Raksa from them.
Please tell your staff to stop pressuring Tath Pheng and Kim Tath to give Raksa up. Tell them to back off. You should not be harvesting babies in this way, anyway, Scott. You should be helping entire families.
I can only hope that it will not take as long as it did with Somaly Mam for the fraudulent aspects of the Cambodian Children’s Fund to be exposed to public view. I hope that you are exposed before TIME or some other magazine puts a photo of you on its cover, hailing you as the savior of Cambodia’s poor and powerless – a selfless man who gave up his $1 million a year job etc.; before yet another hagiographic documentary is made by filmmakers who have not bothered to do basic research into how CCF is actually run, as opposed to how your marketing machine presents is as being run.
If you desperately need a baby, Scott, find a woman you can have one with. Stop stealing other people's babies.
I wrote to Scott regarding this family as follows:
Dear Scott
Rather than deal with abstract figures I’d like to look at CCF’s 2013 tax return as it relates to the family CCF locked out of its house for being $12.50 behind in their rent.
Pheng Heng, aged 60, and his wife Pok Poq, aged 52 have 3 of their children in CCF residential care. These three children are also being educated by CCF.
It costs CCF approximately $2,000 per year to provide housing and transport for each of Pheng Heng and Pok Poq’s three children.
That’s $6,000 per year.
It also costs CCF roughly $2,000 a year to educate each of Pheng Heng and Pok Poq’s three children.
That’s another $6,000 per year.
If the figures the Cambodian Children’s Fund has provided to the US Tax Office are correct CCF spends $12,000 per year caring for three children.
This is roughly 10 times as much money as Pheng Heng earns when he can work.
The Cambodian Children’s Fund locked Pheng Heng, Pok Poq and their other children out of their house because they were $12.50 behind in their rent.
If I am mistaken in any of the figures I have quoted here or in the presumptions I have made, please correct me. If I am not wrong in either my figures or presumptions CCF, through its tax-deductible status, is generating a massive profit through housing and educating Pheng Heng and Pok Poq’s three children.
If this be the case you are engaged in the most reprehensible form of exploitation of the poverty of this family.
best wishes
James Ricketson
Scott has not responded to this email.
