Dear Scott
Over the past six months you have made
several comments anonymously on my blog. At first, your petulant, slightly
irrational writing style and self-righteous tone gave you away. Then you began
to change your style, to hide your identify, but it was still pretty clearly
you making lots of anonymous comments in defense of Scott Neeson and doing all
you could to discredit me – all the while refusing to answer any questions at
all.
You are a master at the art of not
answering questions.
Yesterday you made a series of comments
but forgot, in your aggrieved pique, to hide your writing style. Here is the
last one of any substance. I will respond to it with another ‘inane rant’ from
me:
“Yes
James, there is no question that the journalist referred to the girls as
orphans, perhaps you should be writing to Lucie to question why she described
them as orphans and not posting another if your inane rants. Please also see
the definition of Orphanage as described by Wikipedia, possibly you are unaware
in Asia that most institutions that take care of children are referred to using
the general term of "orphanage"
"It is frequently used to
describe institutions abroad, where it is a more accurate term, since the word
orphan has a different definition in international adoption.[1] Although many
people presume that most children who live in orphanages are orphans, this is
often not the case with four out of five children in orphanages having at least
one living parent and most having some extended family."
How do you know
that after 2 years of investigating Fletcher four different investigating
bodies came up with nothing, do you have that in writing from them ? Maybe if
Fletcher is stupid enough to keep pushing for a trial then everything they
found will be brought up and his sentence will actually be extended, then I am
sure he will not thank you for your interference. Surely he must realize by now
that he is only a pawn in the game of your vendetta against the many people in
Cambodia you despise, you openly admit you are no friend of his.
The question
could also be asked why it is not his family in the UK that are fighting for
him. Why do you not post an open letter to his children asking them about his
past, I am sure if they see him as a warm caring father instead of the
convicted child sex offender he is they will willingly come forward and it will
surely help the supposed support you are giving him.
As I thought - you have
no proof of children sleeping 3 and 4 in a bed but are just relying on rumour,
innuendo and scuttlebutt as you put it. No proof whatsoever Mr Ricketson.
You
have no axe to grind with Scott - That is sheer nonsense, please also show me
where I have ever said you have no right to ask questions of Scott Neeson (or
anybody else in Cambodia for that matter) As far as I am concerned you have the
right to ask anybody anywhere any question you wish to ask, but they also have
the right to ignore your question if they wish (as most people appear to - not
only in Cambodia but within the NSW health, Screen Australia etc etc etc) As
somebody commented on one of your recent posts you appear to be nothing but a
serial pest with nothing else to do to pass your time and more interest in
criticizing others than doing anything to help them.”
Regardless of how the word ‘orphanage’
might be used in Asia, the article in question was written for an English
language newspaper by a journalist who knows full well what the word ‘orphan’
means to an Australian reader – a boy or girl without parents.
If there is any confusion here about
whether the girls are orphans or not, why don’t you clarify the matter with an
answer? With words to the effect of:
“Yes,
all 9 of these girls are orphans with no families”
Or
“X
number of these girls are orphans and Y come from very poor families.”
Or
“None
of these girls is an orphan in the sense that we use the word in the West but
all are from very poor families – whom we have also been assisting financially
as their daughters receive a first class education that will make it possible
for them to help lift the entire family out of poverty?”
Or there may be another equally simple
answer that does not occur to me.
You ask how I “know that after 2 years of investigating
Fletcher four different investigating bodies came up with nothing?”
Read Andrew Drummond’s article:
http://www.andrew-drummond.com/2010/06/preying-on-garbage-dump-children.html
If the four NGOs had evidence that Mr
Fletcher was ‘grooming young girls’, and if that evidence was passed on to the
relevant Cambodian authorities, why had Mr Fletcher not been arrested at the
time Andrew Drummond wrote his article?
You ask “do you have that in writing from
them?” By which you mean, do I have in
writing from you, Steve Morrish, Thierry Darnaudet, Samleang Seila and CEOP
that they do not have evidence? I have asked you and the others if they have
evidence that Mr Fletcher was ‘grooming young girls’. Many times. None of you
have responded in any way at all.
(Whilst writing this I have learned, from
what I consider to be a reliable source, that none of Gina Rinehart’s 9
‘Cambodian daughters’ is an orphan.)
You write: “Maybe if Fletcher is stupid
enough to keep pushing for a trial then everything they found will be brought
up and his sentence will actually be extended.”
I know that you have no interest at all in
facts, Scott, but there are others reading this for whom facts are relevant. In
this case, the fact is that Mr Fletcher received a 10 year jail sentence (in
absentia) for allegedly raping Yang Dany. He was not accused of or found guilty
of ‘grooming young girls’.
Not only does Yang Dany deny being raped
but the medical report prepared for the Phnom Penh Municipal Court states that
she was a virgin after the alleged rapes.
If you have evidence relating to the
alleged rapes you should present it to the Court. David Fletcher has asked them
more than once to do so. You do not respond.
You claim that I have a vendetta “against
the many people in Cambodia (1) despise.”
Can you provide me with the name of one
person I despise and the evidence you have (on my blog, presumably) for this?
As for admitting that I am not a friend of
David Fletcher’s, of what relevance is this? I am a journalist and filmmaker. I
don’t need to be friends with anyone I might write about or make films about.
If you were falsely accused of rape and I was in possession of evidence that
you were innocent I would defend your right to a fair trial regardless of my
personal feelings for you – which, incidentally, have no component of hatred in
them. The same would apply, of course, for a lawyer. A lawyer does not need to
be friends with, or even like, his client to advocate on behalf of his client’s
right to a fair trial.
You write: “The question could also be
asked why it is not his family in the UK that are fighting for him.”
Mr Fletcher is alienated from his
children. They have believed what was written by Andrew Drummond, Richard
Shears and other journalists who jumped on the bandwagon. The same applies for
Liam Miller – alienated from members of his own family as a result of an
article published by the Phnom Penh Post.
As for the “children sleeping 3 and 4 to a bed” and some sleeping on the
floor, despite your insistence that you staff never talk to anyone in the
media, some do – regardless of confidentiality
agreements and being intimidated into silence. In the case of the family locked out of their
home for being $17 behind in their rent, they were visited by CCF after I
published a story about this and told never to speak with the media again.
As for the question: “Who has the right to
ask Scott Neeson questions, if I do not” you will be aware that a significant
part of the role of the 4th Estate is to hold people in positions of
power accountable for their actions. You are a person with a considerable
amount of power that accrues from the huge amounts of money you raise for CCF.
Almost exactly a year ago, another
journalist, Simon Marks, asking questions, making enquiries, refusing to be
deterred by spin, making a nuisance of himself, uncovered facts relating to
Somaly Mam’s fraudulent account of her life. He was doing what a good journalist does and,
in the process, I am sure, earning him the enmity of those who did not want
Somaly Mam’s scam exposed.
Mind you, Somaly Mam’s lies had been known
to the entire NGO community for many years before Simon Marks finally exposed
her. And it is this prior knowledge on the part of “, the Cambodian government
and MoSAVY, the American government, human rights groups, etc.” that is the
answer to the question implicit in this statement of yours:
“If
the international development community, the Cambodian government and MoSAVY,
the American government, human rights groups, etc. all think CCF is doing a
fantastic job, why would people be swayed to think otherwise by this bunch of
nut-cases?”
Well, , the Cambodian government and
MoSAVY, the American government, human rights groups, etc. will be swayed one day but probably not until
Time or Newsweek or some mainstream news outlet asks you questions similar to
those I have been asking for years now; some media outlet that you cannot
ignore quite as easily as you do me; some media outlet that will read your
refusal to answer questions, your refusal to allow CCF kids and staff to talk
with journalists, as evidence that you have something to hide; media outlets
that will find it very hard to believe that it costs CCF $4,000 per year to
house and educate one child. And so on.
It comes as no surprise that you (or those
acting on your behalf) put so much effort into shooting the messenger. However,
there will be other messengers – other journalists who will eventually smell a
rat and start asking the same questions I ask. You are just lucky that there
are none doing so just now. Your luck will run out, however, just as Somaly
Mam’s did. You can only control your life-narrative for so long before the
cracks appear and will be publick knowledge as were Somaly Mam’s lies years
before she was finally exposed in a way that could not be ignored.
cheers
James
