An open letter to Scott Neeson, executive director of the Cambodian Children’s Fund - the NGO providing Gina Rinehart with her 9 'Cambodian daughters'
 |
| Gina Rinehart and 2 of her 9 'Cambodian daugthers' |
Dear Scott
Are the two girls who appear in the
photo below with Gina Rinehart genuine orphans? Or do they have at least one living
parent?
The same question applies to the
other 7 orphans ‘adopted’ by Gina Rinehart.
As you know, it is generally accepted
that 75% of children residing in Cambodian ‘orphanages’ have at least one
living parent.
If these two girls (and Ms Rinehart’s
other 7 ‘Cambodian daughters’) have families,
were their parents (or single parent) provided with a financial incentive to
give these girls up to Gina Rinehart so that she could become their ‘mum’?
It may well be that all nine girls
have benefited enormously, from an educational point of view, from their
association with Gina Rinehart. It may
well be that their futures will be much more secure as a result of their having
been ‘adopted’ by Ms Rinehart. And if all nine girls are, indeed, genuine
orphans, Ms Rinehart taking them under her wing has been an act of kindness,
generosity and benevolence to be applauded.
However, it may also be, if Ms
Rinehart’s 9 Cambodian daughters do in fact have families, that you have
mislead her regarding their status as ‘orphans’.
Are all these nine girls, or any of
them, orphans, Scott?
A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer will
suffice.
If these girls have families a
Pandora’s Box of questions arise – the kinds of questions you have consistently
refused to answer this past few years when I have put them to you. These are
questions you refuse to answer when put to you by any member of the media who
is interested in more than simply publishing Cambodian Children’s Fund press
releases as ‘news’.
Given that you have 700+ children in
residential care at the Cambodian Children’s Fund, and given that most of the
these 700+ children have families, the questions I am asking here are relevant
not only to Gina Rinehart’s 9 ‘Cambodian daughters’ but to all the other CCF girls
(and boys) in your care who could or might be ‘rescued’ by wealthy
non-Cambodian individuals.
How much money does a sponsor or
donor need to be able to become a ‘mum’ or ‘dad’ to a child living in
institutional residential care at the Cambodian Children’s Fund?
There is a fine line between an
individual such as Ms Rinehart offering, out of the goodness of their hearts,
to help materially disadvantaged children, and the trafficking of children. The
Cambodian “Law
on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation” is relevant in
this context:
Article
8:Definition of Unlawful Removal
The act
of unlawful removal in this act shall mean to:
1)
Remove a person from
his/her current place of residence to a place under the actor’s or a third
persons control by means of force, threat, deception, abuse of power, or
enticement, or
2)
Without legal
authority or any other legal justification to do so to take a minor person
under general custody or curatoship or legal custody away from the legal
custody of the parents, care taker or guardian.
Article
9: Unlawful removal, inter alia, of Minor
A person
who unlawfully removes a minor or a person under general custody or curatorship
or legal custody shall be punished with imprisonment for 2 to 5 years.
Were
any or all of Ms Rinehart’s 9 ‘Cambodian daughters’ removed from their homes by
the Cambodian Children’s Fund as a result of ‘deception’ (passing the girls off
as ‘orphans’) or ‘enticement’ - money paid to the parents?
If
you and CCF have any commitment to the precepts of transparency and
accountability, Scott, it should be very easy for you to answer the questions asked
here – all of which could be boiled down to one question:
Do the 9
girls ‘adopted’ by Gina Rinehart have living parents?
AUSTRALIA’S richest person,
Gina Rinehart, is famously estranged from at least two of her own children —
but she has news for them: there are some new kids on the block.
The normally intensely private iron ore
magnate has broken her silence today to tell the Herald Sun of the “special
bond” she shares with nine Cambodian “daughters”, all orphans she rescued in
2007 from the sordid backstreets of Phnom Penh.
The girls, who are now mostly in their
late teens, are central to Ms Rinehart’s daily life.
“The girls are known as my Cambodian
daughters,” she says proudly in a rare interview.
Asked if she feels protective and proud of
them, as if they were her own daughters, the Hancock Prospecting chair says:
“Yes. They are growing into impressive, lovely, polite, considerate, young
ladies.”
A third of Cambodia’s 15 million people
live on less than a dollar a day.
But life for these young women, who had
only ever known extreme poverty and misery as orphans struggling to survive, is
now very different.
They are at the very heart of Gina
Rinehart’s rarefied world.
Ms Rinehart is paying for them to be
educated at top Asian universities, and they are welcome guests at her new
luxury beachside pad at an exclusive cove on Sentosa Island, Singapore.
They are also flown overseas for
birthdays, black tie events and special treats.
“I’ve visited them many times and we keep
in regular contact, including bringing them overseas for special occasions,
birthdays, awards,” Ms Rinehart said.
According to friends, Ms Rinehart
excitedly shares frequent updates about the girls and their achievements with
those within her close circle.
The mining magnate has long been at
loggerheads with two of her four children — John Hancock, 38, and Bianca
Rinehart, 36 — over the profits of a family trust set up by her late father,
Lang Hancock.
Youngest daughter Ginia, 27, has sided
with her mother.
Another daughter, New York-based Hope
Welker, 29, has pulled out of the dispute after originally siding with her
older siblings.
Last week, as her two elder children won
access to emails and documents that could assist their legal fight, Ms Rinehart
decided the time was right to finally talk about the Cambodian girls.
“It’s a very warm and special bond,” Ms
Rinehart said.
“We keep in regular contact. Some have
already finished uni, and others are in various stages of their uni degrees,”
she said.
“Education and opportunity make an
enormous difference and change people’s lives, as we have seen with my girls.”
In 2007, Ms Rinehart read an article on
the hideous Cambodian child sex trade.
It detailed how thousands of children,
some as young as five, faced daily violence and unimaginable abuse, and the
risk of death.
“I first heard about their situation when
I read an article about the terrible and frightening treatment of too many
young Cambodian women and I thought that I’d like to be able to help,” the
61-year-old said.
“We made some investigations and tracked
down people who could connect us, and got involved,” she said.
Ms Rinheart founded The Hope Scholarship
Program.
The nine girls were chosen from local
orphanages.
Ms Rinehart is said to have personally
ensured that the girls were cared for in a special safe house, cooked for by a
chef and educated in a local school.
She then helped them all attend
university.
She even gave them motorbikes on which to
travel around the busy streets.
Ms Rinehart predicts that the girls will
be future “leaders” of Cambodia.
“It has been fantastic to see them grow
into beautiful ladies and become young leaders for their country,” she said.
“A country they are devoted to, and want
to see benefit from greater education and higher economic growth.”
Ms Rinehart, who lobbies Australia’s
government to cut red tape to help investment, encourages the girls to study
two of her own role models: Lee Kuan Yew, the late prime minister of Singapore,
and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, “who helped their countries create
economic growth and reduce poverty”.
“Others who wish to donate … would also
bring much happiness to their own lives for helping these lovely children,” Ms
Rinehart said.
Scott Neeson, executive director of the
Cambodian Children’s Fund, which runs the scholarship program, says the girls
love Ms Rinehart.
“These girls were taken under the wing of
Gina many years ago, quietly, selflessly and securely … these young women are
reflections of the woman they love and call mum,” he writes in Ms Rinehart’s
newly published book, From Red Tape to Red Carpet … And Then Some.
Mr Neeson says that the girls know a “very
different Gina” to the one they read about in the media, saying; “There’s
nothing written about her love and heart.”
At Ms Rinehart’s request the Herald Sun
has not named the Cambodian girls, in order to protect their “privacy and
security”.
why are you posting this inane crap instead of the details of the documents that were recently released by the British Embassy?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous 9.02
DeleteAs for 'this inane crap' I have no comment.
As for the documents recently released by the British Embassy, around 300 pages were given to Mr Fletcher - double sided photocopies. As was the case with the first tranche of documents these were not given to Mr Fletcher in sequence. So, my first task has been to photocopy all of the documents single-sided. My second task, which I am about half way through, is to sort the jumbled documents into chronological sequence. I have spent around 2 hours doing so so far. There is at least another two hours of work to get the rest of the documents in order. ANd then there will be a few more hours involved in reading through them all - in sequence - to see which pages are missing, which questions have not been answered and so on.
So, be patient Anonymous 9.02!
Its being reported because it adds weight to the fact that Neeson is a liar. It adds weight to the fact that Neeson will do anything to make money.
DeleteJames, I think it is a very important issue. If these girls do have parents, or at least one, but are being represented by Neeson and Rinehart as 'orphans, wouldn't it be fraud? I hope you can get to the bottom of it and let us know. Perhaps even the press would be interested (at least in Australia, not the Chad Williams press of course)????
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I think it appropriate to wait to see if Neeson answers my questions and makes any comment. If he does not I hope that the media (Cambodian and Australian) ask the same (or similar) questions to my own and do their own research. It is one thing for Neeson to ignore a blogger, to refuse to answer questions, but quite another to ignore the ABC, SBS, The Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian and other mainstream media outlets if they ask questions.
ReplyDeleteAny of you who might wish to see that Neeson gets his 'just deserts' for the harm that he has done with his slander and lies about David, might wish to visit this site: http://greatnonprofits.org/org/cambodian-childrens-fund and write a review of what you think of Neeson's operation. This site is so important to him that, I believe, he has 3 of his Board Members assigned to monitoring the site. He brags about his 5-star status, perhaps you can help him with that. He also posts the link on many of his web pages to brag about their high acclaim. You can be quite sure that he will see your comments. All that is required is a simple registration: email, screen name and create a password. Then you must confirm your password.
ReplyDeletePlease feel free to comment as you like, I'm sure many people will be interested in what you have to say. Some possible topics might include:
How you feel about him taking 700 children from their homes
If you think his acts are so atrocious that he sould be jailed for them
How you feel about his taking in almost $30,000 a day while doing almost nothing to support the families of those children.
How you feel about him having his own 'police force' (CPU) run by a convicted felon
Where does the money go that is not reported on his US tax return that he receives from the UK, 2 organizations in Australia and another in Hong Kong
Why he feels it appropriate to be holding/photographed with young topless Cambodian girls
Why doesn't he return these 700+ children to their families and help the families on a permanent basis?
Too many topics to list, but it is important that you go to the site and express your opinion: http://greatnonprofits.org/org/cambodian-childrens-fund
Ricketson, why dont you ask Steve Morrish. If he did in fact start the HOPE Program and selected these girls for a scholarship then he is the only person who can 1000000% confirm what the real facts are!! Personally, I smell a rat in this whole story - how is Neeson involved if Morrish started the program? Sounds like someone is telling porky pies!
ReplyDeleteI have written to Steve Morrish and await his reply.
DeleteMy note to Steve Morrish which, 24 hours later, has yielded no response.
DeleteSteve
The following comment appeared on my blog in relation to the 9 Cambodian girls who have become Gina Rinehart’s ‘Cambodian daughters’.
“ Anonymous April 25, 2015 at 10:58 PM
Ricketson, why dont you ask Steve Morrish. If he did in fact start the HOPE Program and selected these girls for a scholarship then he is the only person who can 1000000% confirm what the real facts are!! Personally, I smell a rat in this whole story - how is Neeson involved if Morrish started the program? Sounds like someone is telling porky pies!”
Given that you were involved in the establishment of the Hope Scholarships can you shed any light on whether the girls who were awarded them were orphans or not? And if they were not orphans, but nonetheless generously assisted by Ms Rinehart in obtaining a good education, did this generosity extend to the rest of the girls’ families?
I imagine how these cute Cambodian Girls became "Gina Rinhard's Daughters". It's Christmas Eve somewhere in Australia and Festivities and moods are running high on love and good spirits.
ReplyDeleteHere comes the Knight: "I am the Superman of saving children in 3.World Countries like Cambodia - I have 700+ Kids for you... Gina Rinehard, you can choose from them any girls that will make you feel good. You chould pamper and elevate them to celebrity status in the same way Somaly Mam did. You will be in the Heart not only of the Parents of these Girls but also of those working in the international press rooms around the world on the lookout for 'feelgood' stories.
You will be able to hang out with NGOs running Charity Fundraising Events in 5 Star Hotels. You will be among others just the same as you.
The Girls and their innocent looks will make you and me look like saints for many years if we send them to places like Singapore, a place that is plastered with equally wealthy people like yourself. Perhaps we can even get the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, sponsored by americas superrich (Hattaway corp), to drop a few billion pennies and convince their Government Representative on the foot to do the same.
We'll pack these little girls in golden gowns and march them around at these events so everyone can feel the same pity as you and open their heart (and most importantly their wallet)."
I really feel sorry for these girls being abused in such a way and removed from their own families, culture and values. What will their life be once they are of no more value to people like Gina Rinehard.
I have no sympathy for her.I think she looks disgusting, too. This is what unlimited wealth can do to you !
Scott Neeson's job in this case deserves the name I once read on khmer440: POVERTY PIMP. He's not going to be happy that people are beginning to see through his scam and are now pissing in his champagne !
My guess is that Rinehart knew the girls weren’t orphans but didn’t find out till it was too late, by which time she had formed an attachment to the girls and did not want to ditch them. For some background to this go to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald from February last year:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.smh.com.au/national/dodge-city-20140214-32amy.html
When SISHA, the Gina Rinehart-backed non-government organisation (NGO) that Steve Morrish founded in 2007, helped shut down Ruth Golder's operation last year, it set in train a process that would end with Morrish's own comeuppance. It also fed the clamour of headlines about the country's under-regulated and corruption-tainted not-for-profit sector.
"It's a f...ing strange world to work in, the NGO world," says one who works in the sector. What he might have added is that this strange world makes for riveting drama. The backdrop is Phnom Penh, a wild-west town that's home to about 3000 NGOs; a steamy, rumour-mongering municipality of girlie bars, orange-robed monks, begging rings, aid workers, expat do-gooders, rogues, outcasts, bums and people on the make, where tuk-tuks and motos fight for an edge with the Range Rovers favoured by Khmer generals and the city's new rich. The cast includes two expat website proprietors and their ribald commenters, a couple of idealistic NGO workers, and a swarm of Cambodian children.
What the fuck has that story got to do with the fact that they aren't orphans. You just exposed yourself as a Morrish hater - Thats about all. For your information, all of the allegations made against Steve by some of his dog employees and one rat cunt named Ron Dunne were all proven to be bullshit.
DeleteIm sick of you spineless cunts having a crack at good people from behind your computer screens. I hope Steve or Scott reads this and finds out which one of the many cowards you are.
Steve and Scott - would be happy to bitch slap some of these cunts for you!
Interesting James that often those who are against what is posted, have such limited vocabulary and brains, that they resort to foul language, and in this case, proposed violence.
DeleteI'm sure that the likes of Neeson and Morrish, are very happy to have you (Anonymous 1:11) working by their side in an effort to engrandize their reputations with your eloquence.
By the sounds of it anonymous 1.30am - you are one of the kiddie fiddler types who is trying their best to rid the world of anyone who might catch you out. Fucking moron!
DeleteYes, Anonymous 7:57, You, like Neeson make ridiculous statements without facts. I hope you enjoy your fantasy world.
DeleteMr Ricketson
ReplyDeleteWy do you persistently attack people who are trying to do something to help poor Cambodians? Gina Rinehart and Scott Neeson are heroes for trying to help young women escape from grinding poverty. And you criticise them for it. Fuck you. You sit at your computer and criticise other but do fuck all to help people who are trying to make a difference. Does it matter if these girls are orphans or not? No, what matters is that they are being given opportunities to bette their lives by people who are not, like you, all talk and no action.
Well said Anonymous 7.07 am. You have hit the nail right on the head. Mr Ricketson has no idea at all when it comes to helping others. He is just one of many failures in the film industry (although he likes to live on his memories of 40 years ago when he might have won some minor awards) who does not have a clue what is really happening in Cambodia as when there he chooses to spend his time with a convicted child sex offender who everybody else rightfully wants to have nothing to do with. As you say does it matter if these girls are orphans or not as long as their lives are being improved.
DeleteDear Anonymous 11.16
DeleteYou know nothing at all about who I help, how I help them or for how long but, that said, of what relevance are my own experiences in this regard to the question of whether or not Gina Rinehart's 'Camhodian daughters' are orphans or not?
The same applies to whether or not I am a failure as a filmmaker. Of what relevance is this to the question of whether or not Scott Neeson may be passing off girls with families as 'orphans'?
I get to spend very little time with David Fletcher but, again, of what relevance is this to the question in hand?
As for all those (including yourself) who want to have nothing to do with Mr Fletcher, of what relevance is this? However, since you raise the question, on what basis do you wish to have nothing to do with him? Evidence? Facts? Or does your distaste for Fletcher emanate from what Peter Hogan and Scott Neeson said about him back in 2009 and 2010 when both had their own reasons for wishing to defame him?
If it really does not matter if these girls are orphans or not I guess you are OK with the concept that anyone with a lot of money can insert themselves into a materially poor family, extract one member of it, treat him/her like a prince/princess, give their 'Cambodian children' a first class education and fly them around the world whilst leaving the rest of the family in dire poverty?
I am not saying that this is what Gina Rinehart has done. She may well have been taking care of the families of these girls over the years. If so, however, why are they referred to as 'orphans'?
Regardless of whether or not I am a failed filmmaker, questions such as the ones I am asking are of the kind that any journalist should ask of the rich and powerful when they come into contact with the poor and powerless.
You're asking the right questions, James. Don't be put off by those who wish to shoot the messenger.
DeleteMr Ricketson, I am not even going to bother wasting my time replying to your many questions/statements above, however your "if it does not really matter" paragraph certainly shows your total lack of understanding for the Khmer family unit. Do you in your wildest hallucinations believe that a member of a materially poor family as you would put it allows themselves to be treated like a prince/princess whilst allowing the rest of their family to live in dire poverty ? You lose any remaining credibility you might have had Mr Ricketson when you expect anybody who knows anything about life in Cambodia to believe this. From your next paragraph we both know that you have no understanding of the situation so why ask me if I am OK with the concept etc. As always you are sticking your nose in with the intent of winding people up. Once again you are proving Anonymous 7.07 correct in his statement you are all talk and no action.
DeleteAnonymous 1:47, Do you think that Neeson's work of taking over 700 children from their families shows an understanding for the Khmer family unit? AND if you want to see how Neeson treats the impoverished families of these children, you might want to spare 7 minutes to watch this short documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve280RWEV5w
DeleteRicketson - why dont you write to the journalist who wrote the story and ask them why they have lied in their story?
ReplyDeleteWell said anonymous 7:07, reminds me of this quotation:
ReplyDelete"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt
Dear Anonymous 10.58
ReplyDeleteI fear that Theodore Roosevelt would be turning in his grave if he were to know that you were using his words in this way! You are suggesting that any deed at all that involves 'dust and sweat' in the name of a 'noble cause' is worthwhile, I take it?
What about the missionaries who, for centuries, believing that they had a noble cause, were complicit in the destruction of indigenous populations around the world. They were not timid (indeed they were sure they were right) and I am sure were 'marred dust and sweat' but were they right? Were their actions morally correct?
The same applies for Australia's 'Stolen Generation'. No shortage of dust and sweat and people who believed that they had a right, a duty, a moral obligation, to remove children from Aboriginal families.
And what of the invasion of Iraq by the United States? Plenty of dust and sweat and a cause that GW Bush and others believed in passionately. Indeed GW believed that it was God who called him to invade Iraq! But was this invasion moral? Was it correct?
I could go on. There are countless examples of people doing things for the noblest of reasons, even being prepared to die for the cause they believe so passionately in (suicide bombers, for instance) whose actions are wrong, immoral and counter-productive.
Theodore Roosevelt was not suggesting that any action performed with 'dust and sweat' in the name of a 'worthy cause' is to be applauded.
It may well be that Neeson and Rinehart are indeed to be applauded but we can't know that if their actions are not placed in a context. Were/are all 9 girls orphans, or do they have families? If they have families, why are they being referred to as orphans? If they have families, have the families been assisted in any way or has Mr Rinehart's largesse been limited to the girls themselves? Is Gina Rinehart even aware that they girls have families - if this turns out to be the case?
These are all valid questions and the value of Neeson and Rinehart's actions cannot be determined merely but whatever dust and sweat has gone into their pursuit of a 'worthy cause'.
The pathway to hell is, indeed, paved with good intentions
Couldn't have been put better Anonymous 10.58. But when you look at Mr Ricketsons history of starting controversial blogs you get a better idea of what he is about. I suspect he is unable to produce anything other that criticism and time wasting letters to those who are trying their hardest to help others and that he gets enjoyment out of tearing others down. Just take a look at two of his other blogs as shown below, I think he enjoys upsetting others, it is as simple as that. Hopefully one day he will find something worthy of mention to write about.
ReplyDeletehttp://jamesricketson.blogspot.sg/search?updated-min=2014-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2015-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=50
http://nswhealthissick.blogspot.sg/
Ricketson criticises others who are doing good work because its his way of justifying that he is a loser. Throw up a smokescreen, criticise everyone but himself and in some way that justifies in his own little world that he is righteous.
DeleteRicketson will be remembered for nothing but being a fucking little sook who achieved nothing but create toilet reading.
Controversial blogs! Mmmmm...
DeleteNo, blogs that seek to evaluate issues on the basis of facts, evidence, truth - old fashioned ideas to those (like yourself) whose only interest lies in shooting the messenger.
It is interesting, but hardly surprising, that people such as yourself never ever answer questions or address the issues at hand but try to find some way to denigrate a person (be he a filmmaker, blogger or journalist) who is merely asking questions and pointing out lies when lies have been told.
Answer me this: Do you really believe that it is of no relevance whether or not Gina Rinehart's 9 'Cambodian daughters' are orphans? Do you believe that any act performed in the dust(metaphorically) and producing sweat is OK if the person performing the act believes their cause to be noble?
Pol Pot believed his cause to be a worthy one and there was certainly no shortage of dust (and mud) and tears.
At the risk of belabouring the point, it may well be that Neeson and Rinehart have done something truly noble in recusing 9 genuine orphans. If so, let them come out and say so. "Yes, these 9 girls were/are orphans."
If they were not all orphans, if none of them was/is an orphan, let Neeson and Rinehart explain in what way (if at all) they have helped the girls within a family context.
Simple questions, really, regardless of who asks them.
Dear Anonymous 11.51
DeleteI know that an adherence to the facts is not a strong point with you but just as an exercise, if you can manage it, point out to me (and others reading this) where I have criticised others doing good work?
Please quote my words back to me.
No, I have asked questions. Neeson and Morrish do not want to answer them - leaving those of us reading these words where the truth lies. How many, if any, of Rinehart's 9 'Cambodian daughters' were/ore orphans?
I don't know the answer - hence my question. Do you know the answer? If so, please share your knowledge with us.
Interestingly Mr Ricketson, that despite the continued use of the words orphan and orphanages in your blogs I have just done a search of the CCF website under the terms orphan and orphanages and can only find 6 items, none of which in any way suggest that Scott claims to be running orphanages or looking after large numbers of orphans. These words seem to have been used mainly used by journalists like yourself. I know when anything is published against Scott that it must be true in your opinion but I am not sure why when journalists publish anything against your convicted child abuser friend David Fletcher you always want them to prove it.
DeleteOut of interest where do you get your information that either Gina Reinheart or Scott Neeson thinks none of the 9 girls have a living parent. On the subject of substantiating facts on your blogs, it has been mentioned many times that children in CCF care sleep several to a bed, what proof do you have of this allegation, I assume you must have photos to prove it - can we have access to these please as I think it is far more likely this is more of the dramatic rumor you choose to allow to be published as you feel you have a personal axe to grind.
@Anonymous April 28, 2015 at 1:25 AM
DeleteIf as you suggest none of the 700+ Khmer Children living at CCF Shelters is NOT an ORPHAN than perhaps you can explain why on earth they don't live with their parents or relatives.
Perhaps as James Ricketson pointed out they are borrowed, rented or lured into the CCF in order to run the Fundraising Machine of the CCF ?
From my perspective neither Neeson,Morrison or Rinehart are "doing good" in any way a normal person would do. They do it for profit, celebrity status and adorment but most of all for Money.
Please Anonymous 1.25 am, read the article. In relation to Gina Rinehart’s 9 ‘Cambodian daughters’ you will find the following:
Delete“The normally intensely private iron ore magnate has broken her silence today to tell the Herald Sun of the “special bond” she shares with nine Cambodian “daughters”, all orphans she rescued in 2007 from the sordid backstreets of Phnom Penh.”
Did you spot the word ‘orphans’?
Now this:
“Scott Neeson, executive director of the Cambodian Children’s Fund, which runs the scholarship program, says the girls love Ms Rinehart.”
Gina Rinehart acquired her “nine Cambodian ‘daughters’, all orphans” from Scott Neeson so it is not unreasonable to ask Scott if the girls were/are, in fact, orphans.
You write, “why when journalists publish anything against your convicted child abuser friend David Fletcher you always want them to prove it.”
No, what I do is ask journalists such as Andrew Drummond and Richard Shears why they write articles that are not based on fact but on rumour, innuendo and scuttlebutt. Scott Neeson’s allegation that David Fletcher was ‘grooming young girls’, for instance. Scott had his own reasons for making this statement but no evidence at all that it is true. Indeed, four different investigating bodies tried to find evidence to back up Neeson and Hogan’s allegations over a period of two years and came up with nothing.
As for the information regarding children at CCF sleeping 3 and 4 to a bed, and sometimes on the floor, this comes from present and former CCF kids and from present and former members of staff – who, incidentally, are forced to sign contracts with CCF preventing them from talking with journalists.
In the event that all these people are mistaken it would be very easy for Scott Neeson to say, “:This is nonsense, come and see for yourself and feel free to talk to any members of staff or to the kids themselves.”
I don’t have a personal axe to grind with Scott. I have never met the man. I know him only from his actions and from the reports I have received from many parents who have had (or still have) kids in CCF residential care; from people who have been locked out of their homes for being $17 behind in their rent; from parents who asked for their daughters to be returned to their care – only to be told by Scott that he could not as they had signed a contract with him. When asked for the contract, Scott refuses to show one or to supply copies of such contracts to anyone – especially the parents who have signed them. Then there is his claiming in a tax return that he spends $4,000 per your educating and housing one kid…etc. etc.
You go to some lengths to make it seem that I have no right to ask the questions I do but what would happen if the same questions I ask were asked by journalists from The Cambodia Daily or the Phnom Penh Post? Would you then say that these newspapers have an axe to grind; that they had no right to ask such questions because they had not acted in accordance with Theodore Roosevelt’s good advice!?
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"
Delete"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.
Scott, you are a fuctard. Yes, this comment is so obviously made by you, why don’t you have the balls to put your name to your comments? And why dont you answer questions instead of throwing up a smokescreen all the time? I have seen the kids sleeping 3 and 4 in a bed and everyone at CCF knows its true.
DeleteHahaha TL. I can assure you I am not Scott, if you were not so thick you might have noticed that he has better things to do with his time than respond to Mr Ricketsons blogs. We both know kids are not put 3 or 4 to a bed in CCF and certainly those staff I have personally asked have told me there is no truth in it and have invited me to go look if I do not believe them so "everyone" is a gross untruth as most of the other crap you post
DeleteThis is how you always reply, Scott, when you are outed here. You have so many better things to do with your time than follow this blog. Any idiot who looks at your Facebook page and this blog can see that you follow it closely. Of course your staff have told you that your kids (your fake orphans) dont sleep 3 and 4 to a bed and of course thats what they would tell journalists if you or CCF staff were around to intimidate them. You will never tell them, in front of journalists 'Say what you want about CCF' and then leave the room. No way. You are a control freak but it will all come unstuck when some of the kids grow up and spill the beans about what its really like in your fake orphanage.
DeleteIsn't it interesting that as soon as the questions get too difficult (or uncomfortable) for Mr Ricketson to answer TL steps in and takes over. Hmmmm wonder why ??? I wonder if they are good friends - or maybe even the same person. (Just asking as all good journalists are trained to do James)
DeleteI too think that this is you, Scott, writing anonymously.
DeleteThese last few ‘anonymous’ comments bear the hallmarks of the tone, style and content of your correspondence with me all those years ago when I first communicated with you.
Your questions are not too difficult to answer but I do have a life quite separate from keeping this blog. I do not need a fake name or be pretend to be ‘anonymous’ to answer them. I will respond in due course and in detail when I have the time.
You, on the other hand, never answer any questions, ever!
Ha - the other side of the Heckle and Jeckle sideshow is back, but both equally wrong on their pathetic guesses that I am Scott, the only thing I have in common with Scott is that I genuinely try and help kids in need instead of you two that have nothing better to do with your time than run others down. Yes James, go back to the NSW Health and Screen Australia Blogs which you no doubt refer to as your separate life. FYI the two Bali drug carriers have been executed, pity you spent no time on their cause (depending on which way you look at it as they would most likely faced the firing squad a lot earlier with your help)
DeleteAnonymous 12:10, Do you 'genuinly try to help' by taking children from their families and raking in millions of dollars off from the poverty that these children represent. Do you leave the families impoverished? I think we can use less you 'do gooders' that break up families and are creating the new lost generation of Cambodian children.
DeleteYou clearly have absolutely no idea what goes on within Cambodia do you Anonymous 12.20. Please at least do some serious research and then come back and apologise for your ignorance
DeleteAll the above attacks of Mr Ricketson have been made by Mr Neeson or his avatars. They think that if they can discredit Mr Ricketson then no-one will listen to his questions. I thank Mr Ricketson for asking questions that the mainstream media in Cambodia are afraid to ask - both the Khmer media and the English language media. Of course it is important to know whether or not these girls are orphans. The fact that Neeson, Morrish and Rinehart refuse to answer questions is not surprising. What is surprising, and disturbing, is that the media doesn't even ask such questions. Shame on you all.
ReplyDeleteI have just re-read a blog entry from Mr Ricketson in Feb this year that raises more or less the same questions being asked in this blog entry - except to Gina Rinehart herself. Dd\id you ever hear back from Rinehart, Ricketson?
ReplyDelete# 93 A letter to Gina Rinehart
Gina Rinehart
Hancock Prospecting Group
HPPL House
28-42 Ventnor Avenue
West Perth 6005
Dear Ms Rinehart
re your rumoured new partnership with Scott Neeson and the Cambodian Children’s Fund
As a matter of principle Scott Neeson does not answer questions from journalists. He will neither confirm nor deny anything – including the rumour from within CCF that you will be investing heavily in the Cambodian Children’s Fund. If the rumour is untrue you need read no further.
If you are still reading, you should take all I write here with a grain of salt. Indeed, it would probably help if you started from the presumption that I am a nutter with a grudge against Scott Neeson. This is the kindest of the epithets that Scott’s supporters refer to me as in their public comments! I have no problem with being described as a nutter but please consider the possibility that there are some questions you need to ask Scott in you intend to donate to the Cambodian Children’s Fund.
I write here in my capacity as a documentary filmmaker, a journalist and a blogger. (And certified ‘nutter’ of course!)
You have had some experience with Cambodia and so know that nothing here is ever quite as it seems to be; that the epithet ‘Scambodia’ is an apt one for a country that attracts scammers of all kinds here to make a quick buck exploiting materially poor Cambodians.
Opening an ‘orphanage’ in Cambodia, for instance, is a license to print money. All those poor terminally cute children, with their wide innocent doe-like eyes, smiling from Facebook pages and NGO websites! What donor, what sponsor can resist the urge to reach for their wallets!
The fact that 75% of the children in so called ‘orphanages’ have at least one parent is no impediment to NGOs labeling them ‘orphans’. Kept in the dark about this detail, sponsors can obtain a warm inner glow that comes with giving an NGO $150 a month to ‘save’ the cute smiling ‘orphan’.
That this child shares a bed with three others or sleeps on the floor is a detail sponsors and donors are kept in the dark about. The rest of the rescued ‘orphan’ child’s family lives on considerably less than $150 a month but this detail also is kept from sponsors and donors.
The fact that many of the parents have been tricked into giving up their children to institutional living (thumb prints on ‘contracts’ they cannot read) is no impediment either. Who is going to stop such NGOs filling their ‘orphanage’ beds with kids whose mums and dads then lose meaningful access to their children? The Cambodian Ministry of Social Affairs? No.
http://cambodia440.blogspot.com/2015/02/93-letter-to-gina-rinehart.html
Scott, look this # 93.
ReplyDelete"So where does Scott Neeson’s Cambodian Children’s Fund fit into the spectrum of NGOs in the ‘rescue business’. It’s hard to know because (a) We only have Scott’s finely tuned and very clever public relations to instruct us what goes on behind CCF walls and (b) CCF staff, the families of children in CCF residential care, and young adults still within the CCF educational fold, are forbidden to talk with the media. It is a closed shop and anyone who speaks out is immediately banished.
I have never met Scott, despite many invitations from myself to do so. My impression of him must, of necessity, be based on those of his actions that are available to public view and on the reports of those who have either been resident in one of his facilities or who have worked for him.
It seems to me that Scott is not in the business of rescuing kids for the money. And nor does he have a religious agenda. Without children of his own, it seems to me, and with a clear desire for adulation (especially within the world of Hollywood celebrity) Scott has set up his own huge family with himself as the old style patriarch whose every wish, whose every whim, must be obeyed by staff and residents alike. CCF is Scott’s own experiment in social engineering and all runs smoothly as long as no-one acts in a way that is contrary to Scott’s wishes; as long as nothing emerges into the public domain that threatens to burst the bubble of the self-image Scott wishes to project: Scott Neeson as Saviour! The 21st century’s answer to Mother Theresa.
more to come
The nagging question persists, however:
Delete“Why are there 700 kids living in institutional care when most of them have parents?”
Despite Scott’s grandiose and endlessly repeated statements about his giving up his $1 million career to help poor families living and working in the Phnom Penh dump, he was, when all is said and done, just a very successful marketing person working in the film business. And his success was deserved. Scott is very good at marketing. However, marketing a product is not the same as having a good product to market."
And blog # 93 has the same old questions in it that Neeson never answers -
- How many of the 700+ kids in institutional care at CCF are from remote communities?
- How many of the CCF kids in residential care are going to local schools that are just a few kilometers from where their families live?
- Why are the CCF kids in residential care going to schools close to where their families live not being supported within their families.
- What is the quality of the education these kids are receiving?
- How many CCF kids finish school?
- How many go on to higher education?
- How many ‘graduates’ of CCF’s educational programs are gainfully employed two years after they leave CCF?
A program is only as good as its results. All too often NGOs are not results-oriented but wish to be judged by sponsors and donors for their intentions. Good intentions are not enough. The pathway to hell etc. It is results that count and without any independent assessment of results sponsors and donors have only the word of those that run the NGO to go by.
- When CCF takes 2 or 3 children from the one family into care, does it split these children up – sending them to different CCF institutions? If so, why?
- Is it true that teenage boys and girls in CCF residential care are not allowed to form relationships of the boyfriend/girlfriend kind?
- To what extent does CCF direct the young people in its care into the career CCF feels is best suited to them? As opposed to the career that the young people themselves wish to pursue?
- Is CCF‘s approach to the children in residential care, when they grow up, one of wishing to control the direction in which they live their lives? Are they free to study whatever subjects they like? To pursue careers of their own choosing?
Broadly speaking, to what extent it CCF seeking to control all aspects of the lives of both the children it is educating and of the families of these children? Whose needs are being met here? Those of the Cambodian children and their families (and hence of the future of Cambodia itself) or of Scott Neeson?
Answer these questions you fucktard. I know your response already - "What makes you think Scott Neeson would stoop so low to respond to the drivel that Ricketson publishes on his blog? He has better things to do with his time and so on"
Answer the fucking questions Neeson your credibility is zero
If you know the answer why bother posting the question then you goose
DeleteAnonymous 12.39
DeleteIf I knew the answer to these questions I wouldn't be asking them.Who is the goose here?
Why does Morrish and Neeson have to answer your questions? Am I missing something? Did Ricketson and this blog become the world regulatory body that is authored to ask questions?
ReplyDeleteAsk your questions but dont think that Morrish, Neeson or anyone else for that matter needs to waste their time and answer them.
Mr Neeson, Mr Morrish, Ms Rinehart
DeleteI am not a journalist. I am not a filmmaker. I am not a blogger. I am a member of the public and I would like to know if the young women referred to as 'orphans' are in fact orphans? Apart from my own personal interest, I work in human rights and would like to feel assured that these young women's human rights have been protected. I can think of no logical reason why you will not answer this question?
Forget Ricketson. Like the guy above me, I'm curious to know if the girls are orphans or not. Yes? No? Some of them? Not a lot of time for you to waste to answer them Scott!
DeleteAnonymous 12:57, I'm with you 100%, except that I CAN think of a reason that they will not answer that question.
DeleteYes, 1.17, we all know the answer to the question. Or at least part of the answer. Most of the girls are not orphans. Maybe none of them. In which case some combination of Neeson, Morrish and Rinehart is, at the very least, involved in fraud and, at the very worst, involved in the illegal removal of one or more of Rinehart's Cambodian daughters from their families.
DeleteWhy are you including Steve in this. I know him very well and he is not involved in this project anymore and had nothing to do with the news article so I am not sure why he has to answer any questions.
DeleteI know he won't be happy with me but I am tired of people having a crack at him so I will answer on his behalf. The girls aren't orphans. All of them have parents and yes, Steve started the program back in 2008 - it was called the Youth Leadership program. The girls were given a scholarship. They finished number 1 in their high school academically but came from very poor backgrounds and could not afford to go to university - hence the scholarship assistance.
The fact that a news article has stated that the girls are orphans means either the journalist was totally misinformed and wrote an article that is completely wrong or Neeson and Rinehart have told the journalist that they are orphans so that they can generate a better story. Only they can answer that question.
And how do I know this - I had a beer with Steve and asked him.
Steve - if you are reading this blog Im sorry for posting this. Im sure you will be pissed with me for writing this but someone has to set the record straight and put a stop to this ridiculous gossip based on guess and innuendo.
Many thanks for this. I am pretty sure I know who you are and pretty sure also that you are telling the truth. I am not sure why Steve can't answer on his own behalf but thanks anyway. And, now that this question is out of the way, perhaps you can also answer another part of my question: "Were the families also helped out?"
DeleteJust you thought James, girls taken from their families. Well done.
DeleteSteve won't answer on his behalf because he doesn't want to get involved. In his words 'Im not wasting my time bickering with people on a blog site. Im too busy and its a pointless exercise."
DeleteI dont know if the families were helped out. All I know is what I posted above. Wish i could add more to the comment as I want people to have the real facts and stop writing falsities about Steve.
And Ricketson, I know you have met Steve several times and you also know that he is a no-nonsense guy who doesn't bullshit about things. So give the guy a break!
Dear Anonymous 11.14
DeleteYes, I have met Steve a couple of times and yes he strikes me as a no-bullshit kind of guy. However, he does not have to get involved in bickering with people on a website. All he has to do is say "At the time I was involved with the program the girls were..." One sentence.
One of the reasons why people 'write fantasies' is because the people they write about simply refuse to answer any questions at all. Yes, there are those who say, "What right do you have to ask questions?" The answer is, and please excuse me for belabouring the point, it is a journalists job to do so.
The answer may be as follows: "
“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?”
If so, there is no issue and no-one needs to conjecture. All that is required is that the journalist correct her error of fact.
Dear Scott, I have some questions also and we know that you know what gets written here. It has changed how and what you post on FB and now even affecting your rating on GreatNonProfits as shown here: http://greatnonprofits.org/reviews/cambodian-childrens-fund/
ReplyDeleteI however, have a couple of other questions.
1. Knowing that your US Tax returns only reflects the $10.6M (almost $30,000 a day, seven days a week), how much and how do you account for the money brought in from the UK, Hong Kong and your 2 Australian organizations.
2. We know you draw $93,000 annually plus benefits including travel from the US donations, how much additional do you draw in salary and benefits from the UK, HK and Austalian operations?
Thank you for your openess and your timely response.
Best regards,
An interested observer
You mention 2 Australian organisations, can you please let me know the names of them both
DeleteSure; Cambodian Children’s Fund Australia (CCFA) and CCFA Trust.
DeleteAnother pertinent quote from an earlier blog entry - a letter to Heather Graham
DeleteCCF is a registered charity in the United States. Each year the NGO must file a tax return.
The Cambodian Children’s Fund 2013 “Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax” is to be found at:
https://www.cambodianchildrensfund.org/images/stories/financial/CCF_990_Form_2013.pdf
In Line 4a the figure of $1,603,309 appears alongside a list of educational programs servicing 760 kids.
Simple mathematics reveals that CCF claims to be spending roughly $2,000 per child per annum for education.
Does this figure seem realistic, Heather, in a country in which the per capita income of most Cambodian families is below $1,500?
In Line 4b the figure of $1,423,298 appears alongside:
“Childcare – CCF provides housing and transportation to over 700 impoverished Cambodian children.”
CCF claims to be spending roughly $2,000 per child for housing and transportation per annum and yet these children sleep in dormitories, often 3 and 4 to a bed!
Given that the cost of transportation within Steung Meanchey would cost very little, it is fair to assume that the bulk of the $2,000 CCF claims to spend per child in institutional care is for ‘housing’.
How and why does it cost more to house and educate one Cambodian child in a CCF institution for one year than it costs for an entire Cambodian family to live for one year?
Given that all the 700 children in institutional care at CCF are going to school, the figures for education and housing can be added together.
So it is that Scott is claiming, to the US Tax Office, that CCF is spending roughly $4,000 to house and educate one Cambodian child.
"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck"
Another highlight for this fantastic blog. Re-posting old posts! It's brilliant, we can now keep it going forever! Re-posting all of Ricketson's daily emails where he stamps his feet and demands to be taken seriously by the big boys is one thing, but re-posting posts that are already just regurgitated bullshit is new territory. Maybe a re-post of the comment where you re-posted the earlier post, based on even earlier unsubstantiated bullshit post is next.
ReplyDeleteMust be getting close to 150 posts on here, and 50 or so on the other "I hate Scott Neeson because he won't respond to me" blog. You've got to respect that level of hatred. It's not easy to keep that fire burning, it takes a special kind of mental imbalance to wake up every morning, to feel so personally wronged by the world and to devote so much effort to writing really boring blog posts.
Ricketson "has a life" and doesn't have time to answer questions! hahahahaahahahahahahahahaah.
I can't tell what the aim is here, to bring down Neeson and CCF or to get a convicted child sex offender out of jail so that he can be free to groom young women, ply them with alcohol, and film what he does next.
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.
A bunch of pedophile apologists aren't going to win much support, even with your brilliant "But if I say the same thing again and again for two years, it must be true!" strategy.
Scott, calm down, you are going to burst a blood vessel.
ReplyDeleteI have just finished my day's work and will answer your questions.
Whilst it is not really relevant to my role as a journalist and filmmaker, my day has been taken up with enrolling two girls in school who have never been to school before - a 10 and a 14 year old. Paid for by myself. This was after I delivered two large tarpaulins and 50 meters of clear plastic to a small community with structures ('house' would be an exaggeration) that have leaked in the past few downpours.
I have been doing this for roughly 20 years now - my help to various very poor families dependent on the level of my income.
However, as I say, my own 'good deeds' are of no relevance to my role as a journalist or filmmaker.
A little more patience Scott, and you will have your answers!
Sounds like you are grooming more poor children Ricketson. Up to your old ways I see. Did Fletcher give you some advice on how to best manipulate young children under the guise of charity.
DeleteGreat work! pat yourself on the back!
We've got a humanitarian on our hands! Cool, so when your "bring Scotty down" campaign works (it has to right, I mean there is no way this blog is only read by 6 people), you'll be happy to provide a kindergarten through university education for another 2,500 or so?
DeleteDear Scott
DeleteI half expected someone to make to 'grooming' comment you have at 2.38. It is this kind of careless, off the top of your head, comment that you made to Andrew Drummond. You work on the presumption that anyone who works with children (other than yourself, of course) must be 'grooming' them.
As it happens a good deal of my time just now (and money) is going to buying medicine for women in their late 50s and 60s who are suffering from arthritis. Am I grooming them also?
As for your boast about providing kindergarten through to university education to 2,500 children, not, I am not an NGO and have never pretended to be one. If your education program runs as you say it does, this is an admirable initiative. But does it? How many CCF kids are at university now? What is the total number that have attended university? How many CCF kids are receiving a free education in a government school and how many fit into the category of school that you claim,in your tax returns, cost you $2,000 per year per child? Without answers to these and other such questions it is impossible to know how successful your educational program is. This applies to all NGOs. They should be judged on the basis of results, of meeting their stated goals, and not on the basis of their good intentions.
In all seriousness James, if a 14 year old hasn't been to school before, she needs special help, beyond what the Cambodian education system can provide. The 8 8 year old too, if she has no formal education. Some education focussed NGO's (CCF included, but I'm sure there are others) run accelerator programs, designed to assist kids like that with special classes and tutors. These programs help them catch up to where the should be in school - which can at least be done for the 8 year old.
ReplyDeleteThe two girls in question were tested by the school in order to determine what level was most appropriate for them to enter in at. Their school fees are paid for the second half of this current semester (3 months) with a view to reviewing their progress in 3 months. One of the girls has a younger sister who is doing very well at school (sponsored by someone else, not by me) and will be helping her out. If you have any recommendations re 'accelerator programs' they would be much appreciated.
Delete100% correct Anonymous 3.08. Despite all the flack some of the NGOs get on this blog CCF and others are doing a great job with their accelerator programs.
DeleteIt is great if there are accelerator programs available to very poor people and I would love to know the names of them and make contact with them. Any information re such programs would be greatly appreciated.
DeleteYour a cunt Mr Ricketson writing dribble about Gina Rineheart and Scott Neeson because they do something with their lives and you do ntohing but tear down your superiors because you are a looser. Fuck you. ANds fuck all your bum buddies who do ntohing but attacj good people like Scott Neeson
ReplyDeleteHaha Scott Neeson the Wolf of Charity now in bed with Gina perfect for each other sharing poor children stolen from their families for cash payments
ReplyDeleteonly in Cambodia can you buy and trade children.