As was pointed out on this blog
several days ago, Scott Neeson flew to Perth, Australia, to meet with the Dalai
Lama for a photo opportunity that will see millions more dollars flow into the coffers of the Cambodian Children's Fund.
From the Cambodian
Children’s Fund Facebook page.
“CCF Founder Scott
Neeson was honoured to join one of the world’s greatest thinkers and most
admired spiritual leaders of our time, His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, on
stage to discuss the topic "Can you be rich and happy?".
You can read what the
Dalai Lama has to say here: http://bit.ly/1TCNKkI
“Meeting the Dalai Lama
was a humbling experience,” said Scott. “He is so humble himself and insists on
being treated like everyone else. I was fortunate to be seated next to him, and
during lunch we spoke about the need to bring together the disparate
communities of wealthy and impoverished nations. His Holiness believes that
most of the world’s problems can be solved through dialogue.”
I wonder if
there is any point in pointing out that Scott Neeson does not engage in
dialogue of any kind that he cannot control. He does not answer questions about
the Cambodian Children’s Fund – not questions put to him by myself or any other
journalist or person interested in just how transparent the Cambodian
Children’s Fund is.
The
Cambodian Children’s Fund claims to be spending $4,000 per year to take care of
one child in residential care. $4,000 is more than twice the annual income for
the average Cambodian family. How does Scott Neeson account for this $4,000
figure? He doesn’t. His sponsors and donors do not ask questions such as this?
The media, for the most part, do not ask such questions. Or, if journalists do,
and get no answers (and they don’t) they figure there is no story.
The only
story about Scott Neeson and the Cambodian Children’s Fund that makes it out
into the world is the one told by Scott Neeson. And it a cleverly crafted story
designed to make Scott appear a saint and get sponsors and donors to open both
their hearts and their wallets.
OMG . Neeson your bullshit is thick as the gravy served . while you fool the world. who paid your ticket next to Dala Lama ? the kids that remain locked in your homes that you feed from like a leach.
ReplyDeleteThis is the link to the Dalai Lama's Australian FB site: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dalai-Lama-in-Australia/132498760126310?nr
ReplyDeleteFeel free to comment as you wish.
Neeson is a master of self-promotion. He just happened to be sitting alongside the Dalai Lama! Bullshit. He paid a lot of money to0 sit there. A lot. Add this to the air fares from Cambodian to Perth + hotel expenses and you have a pretty hefty bill. All paid for no doubt by the poor suckers who believe Neeson gave up everything to rescue children from their incompetent parents. Now its off to Tuscany to write a book about what a terrific selfless guy he is and deserving of a Nobel prize and a Hollywood movie about what a terrific selfless guy he is. Purleeeeze, when is this scamster going to be exposed by the mainstream media. Or are they in Neeson's pocket?
ReplyDeleteThe Dalai Lama has turned himself into a commodity for those in the self-promotion business. I wonder which line of expense Mr Neeson's photo opportunity with the Dalai Lama will appear in CCF's next IRS tax return?
DeleteQuestions for Scott Neeson:
ReplyDelete"How much did it cost the Cambodian Children's Fund's sponsors and donors to fly you to Perth for your photo opportunity with the Dalai Lama?"
"How much does it cost to sit next to the Dalai Lama for lunch?"
"Did you also fly a photographer/filmmaker to Peter with you to record the event or did you hire a photographer/filmmaker in Perth?"
"How much was your hotel bill in Perth?"
"Will sponsors and donors also be footing the bill for your trip to Tuscany to write your memoirs?"
It did not cost them anything as scott was not going to give them anything in the first place; he only takes;
DeleteI went to see the Dalai Lama one time.The front rows were reserved for celebrities. There were lots of celebrities and after his talk they all had their photos taken with him. The DL needs to be seen with high profile celebrities to keep his circus on the road and the celebrities need to be seen with the Dalai Lama so they can bask in his glow. Neeson and the Dalai Lama, along with other celebrities, need each other to survive.
ReplyDeleteI really thought being Dalai Lama meant some sort of spiritual independence, but after seeing Neeson with His Holiness I sincerely have my doubts. Sadly, many things in this world are not what you expect them to be...
ReplyDeleteOrphanage: A place where they detain stolen children!
Volunteer: A tourist that pays a lot of money to be able to play with and hug 'Poor Orphans'
NGO: A successful business model
His Holiness Dalai Lama: A successful businessman
His Holiness Scott Neeson: *****************************
I think you got it right Anonymous 3:01
ReplyDeleteSaint Scott Neeson!
DeleteWill someone please just kill the cunt. Ricketson, I mean. Fuck him and his fucking slander. Fuck him
ReplyDeleteNo need to descend into ignorant vitriol. Facts speak with the loudest voice. No cursing required. There are innocent people suffering in Cambodian jails because of the money-grabbing tactics of Neeson. Shame upon shame should be heaped on him.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 11:24, you should try to understand that not all Neeson supporters or clones, are educated or civilized. Many are not, as witnessed time and time again on this blog.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 12.13. O.K!!! I'll try!
DeleteYes, there are some idiots like Anonymous 6.52 but I suspect that some of these are not so much Neeson supporters as men (I suspect men!) who are spoiling for a fight and it does not really matter what the fight is about. The genuine Neeson 'supporters' on the other hand, are to be distinguished by their refusal, like Neeson himself, to answer any questions, or to deal with indisputable facts. Their goal is to shoot the messenger and hope, if successful, that the message will be lost, ignored, forgotten. It has not dawned on them that even if successful there will be others in the media who will, in time, take an interest in the difference between what Neeson says about himself and what his actions reveal. This may not happen until he is in the process of publishing his book about his life and some enterprising young journalist looking for a scalp will put in the hard yards and do some fact checking. Or it may not be until the Hollywood movie is made about Neeson's life and journalists, all too often happy to tear down a tall poppy, start asking questions.
ReplyDeleteOf course, Neeson and CCF are far from being alone in having a funding model that requires the removal of children from their families. There are many NGOs is their 'child removal' business. Through their silence, through their turning of a blind eye, LICADHO and ADHOC are complicit in this removal of children. Their silence on the question of fake orphanages speaks volumes. As fort CHAB DAI, this NGO actively endorses the removal of children from their families by Christian NGOs - perhaps because CHAB DAI believes that Christians not only have a right but a duty to save the souls of young Cambodians for Jesus Christ. Regardless of these Christian's reasons for removing children (the pathway to Hell being paved with good intentions) they break Cambodian law when they trick materially impoverished parents into giving up their children, and break the hearts of the parents and children through such removal. They would not be able to remove children as they do in the countries they come from but in Cambodia, if you have money (and hence power) you can do as you please, regardless of the law of the land.
Some cold hard facts are in order.
ReplyDeleteScott Neeson is willing to do anything to fund a charity whose aim is to help the poor.
What older children who have left CCF have to say about the charity is quite different from what Neeson says.
What I write here is not rumour or scuttlebutt. I have spoken with many of these CCF ‘graduates’ and they will have their say when the time is right and when they no longer fear retribution for themselves and their families.
Neesons cunning marketing and self promotion is for one thing only – to elevate himself to the status of saint. His desire for holiness comes at the expense of children who remain locked in institutional jail across Phnom Penh .
The endless glossy stories of Neeson saving children are filled with lies and deception. He truth will come out when the CCF graduates feel comfortable to talk of their experiences.
I hope they can come forward soon to set the record straight, and before Neeson breaks up more families and sentences more children to institutional care to grow up without the love of their mothers!!
DeleteAnonymous 6.19am - another piece of defaming bullshit. How convenient that you have spoken to several ex-CCF children and they of course have something very bad to say about CCF. How convenient that you say these words whilst posting anonymously. How convenient that these so called children will remain anonymous due to fear of retribution. How convenient that you and can further defame the work Neeson does under he prettiness of you comments above. How long will that go on for? Years?
ReplyDeleteAnother load of toilet water from an idiot!
It is only defamatory if it is not true. There is an easy way to find out.
ReplyDeleteHere's another truth that will emerge soon. Neeson has is about to evict families so he can build houses where they live now. These houses have been donated to the Cambodian Children's Fund. They will not cost CCF one cent. Neeson will then rent them to families that are prepared to abide by his strict rules. If they do not they are cast out of his kingdom. The families will have no right at all to show the contract they sign with CCF to anyone to get advice.
You can say this is bullshit and I am sure you will but last week you said it was bullshit Neeson was flying to Australia for a photo opportunity with the Dalai Lama.
You are writing anonymous also so what's your point?
Anonymous 7.15, Scott faces criticism if he lets impoverished families live in poverty and he gets criticized if he moves them out whilst he is building new homes for them. How about the land these homes were built on, did that also come to CCF at no cost or do you think CCF pays rent on the land. Personally I see nothing wrong with families parting a very small amount to help cover overheads, it also gives the families a sense of worth to understand that although they are not covering costs they are at least contributing in a small way to the community they live in.
ReplyDeleteFinally I know it helps you portray Scott as a greedy demon but why do you report that Scott rents these homes out - what proof do you have of this accusation. My understanding would be that it is CCF that rents them out and not Scott, CCF also have a good number of well respected dedicated staff - are you also suggesting that they are party to the maltreatment of families you incorrectly talk about in your post.
Why don't you just try doing something constructive yourself to help the less well off instead of posting such negative remarks
Who criticises Scott if he lets impoverished families live in poverty? I've never read such criticism, or heard such criticism!!!
Delete‘There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know’. I could not have put it better John Heywood.
DeleteTry reading any of the 120 blogs of Mr Ricketson and see if you can find and reference to families being left to live in poverty whilst kids are in CCF. If you are unable to find such references then maybe a trip to Specsavers is a good idea for you
Here are some answers:
ReplyDelete"How much did it cost the Cambodian Children's Fund's sponsors and donors to fly you to Perth for your photo opportunity with the Dalai Lama?"
$0
"How much does it cost to sit next to the Dalai Lama for lunch?"
$0
"Did you also fly a photographer/filmmaker to Peter with you to record the event or did you hire a photographer/filmmaker in Perth?"
No.
"How much was your hotel bill in Perth?"
$0
"Will sponsors and donors also be footing the bill for your trip to Tuscany to write your memoirs?"
No.
Thank you, Scott. An answer to some questions.
DeleteNow, how about answering another one? How is it CCF spends $4,000 a year per kid (accommodation and education) when the families these kids come from live on half or a third of that amount of money each yet. The whole family. Either you are bullshitting the IRS or...well, you tell us? What is the four grand per kid being spent on?
Because the families are eating a bowl of white rice 2 times a day if they are lucky, are lucky if they have candles and live well below the poverty line you fuckwit. Neeson obviously gives them more than that and it costs money to run CCF or did you think it ran for free?
ReplyDeleteHow about letting the grown ups have this debate and you go back to your wiggles show.
Dear Anonymous 8.14
DeleteAre you seriously suggesting that it costs Neeson $4,000 a year, per child, not just to accommodate that child in institutional care (three kids to a bed) but to administer the institution?
If it is actually costing this amount CCF is an incredibly inefficiently run NGO. I have met entire families working in the rubbish dump that live on $1,000 a year. This is a family with kids. Neeson could support an entire family for half of what it costs CCF to support one child. Leaving aside the manifold advantages of a child growing up with his or her own family, it makes no sense on an economic level to be spending $4,000 per child.
Ricketson - seriously, for you to say with conviction that you have met families who live on $1000 a year in a rubbish dump is pathetic. Are you trying to tell us all here that this is acceptable? Are you saying that you want Cambodian families to stay well below the poverty line. Are you suggesting that these families are sitting around the table laughing and rejoicing at how good life is? Tell you what, how about you move to the dump site and live on the $83 a month you have stated and then come back to us and tell us all how grand your life is.
ReplyDeleteHow dare you make a statement like that. The families in the dump site like everyone else in the world want better for themselves and their children.
You are a disgrace.
Anonymous 7.18
DeleteYes, I have met families working in the Phnom Penh rubbish dump that live on $1000 a year. SOme of these families have one or more children in residential care at CCF. So, whilst CCF pulls in $4,000 per year per child (CCF's figures, as reported to the IRS) the rest of the family struggles to survive. CCF provides only $250 a year in rice support.
So, not is is not only unacceptable that these families live in such dire poverty. It is also unacceptable (or highly questionable, from a moral point of view) that CCF is making a profit out of removing these kids from their families.
Of course the families at the dump want a better life. That was the point of my statement. Neeson could give the WHOLE family a better life if the $4,000 was spent on the WHOLE family and not just on one member of it.
It quite simply does not cost $4,000 a year to take care of one kid in an institution - especially not when the kids do not even have beds of their own but must share them. Where are the profits going? How many overseas trips can Neeson take, at the expense of donors and sponsors, before the penny drops - Las Vegas, Africa, Australia (for a photo op with the Dalai Lama) and next to Tuscany.
Neeson has a jet-setting life-style - all paid for by donors and sponsors who really do believe, in their naievete, that he is spending $4,000 per child per year.
Sorry Ricketson - your argument just doesn't stack up. Its already well documented by NGO's, development banks etc that giving poor people direct money doesn't work - it doesn't assist their situation one bit. What is proven is that organisations who use funds to holistically support poor people is a much better system.
ReplyDeleteYour argument that it doesn't cost CCF $4000 a year to support a child - well please put on this blog your costings of what it should cost. Please show us the formula that you use to support your argument.
Im not a fan of NGO's - I think they have served great purpose in Cambodia but its time to move on. But its not up to me or you to sit in our armchairs and pass judgments on what they say they spend on children. That is the job for their doors and if the donors dont like it then they stop donating. I haven't seen any donors of CCF on this blog complaining about the costings, have you?
I certainly know what the alternative would look like - if Neeson and CCF said, stuff this, its all too hard we are closing down. There would be a lot of families and children who would be far worse off than what they are today. Would you be happy with this Ricketson?
Sorry, Anonymous 12.30, but there is a good deal of well-documented evidence that giving money directly to people DOES work. See the following:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/04/givedirectly-cash-transfers_n_7339040.html
It is also well established that it costs between 5 and 9 times as much money to help a materially poor child in an institution as it does to help that same child in a family and community setting.
Do your research!
Clearly, I cannot do CCF's costings as I do not have the details. However, I do know that the kids in his institutions (and that's what they are,institutions) sleep at least two to a bed; 20 to a dormitory. And that many are going to free government schools. So, where is the $4,000 being spent per child?
As for my 'formula', I don't have one. There is no one formula. What there is are families with a variety of different needs. And each family needs to have its needs met in a different way.
For instance, I recently bought a house and around one hectare of land for a family working in the rubbish dump. Cost $3,000. This was a gift from me. No strings attached. I will also lend the family $1,000, interest free, to help (a) clear some outstanding debts and (b) buy fruit trees and rice seed.
The family will remain poor but it is now, for the first time in 10 years, living in the village where the mother and father were born. The family is now surrounded by their extended family and by members of the community that has known them all their lives. Recently, when a well was being dug, the entire community turned up to help.
So, for around $4,000 a family can leave working in the rubbish dump and have a chance to make ends meet amongst family and friends. Life will still be tough but life is tough, and unhealthy, working in the rubbish dump also.
This is one alternative way that the $4,000 CCF spends on one child in institutional care could be spent to help the whole family.
…to be continued…
Another couple in the same community, working in the dump, needs only $1,000 to get out of the dump and start up a small shop in their home village.
ReplyDeleteAnd so on. Each family's needs are different.
There is one woman in this community who had, at one point, 5 kids in residential care with CCF whilst she supported the remaining 3 kids on her $1,000 a year income working in the dump. So whilst it was costing CCF (according the CCF IRS tax declaration) $20,000 to take care of five of her kids, she was taking care of the remaining 3 kids on $1,000. Oh, and CCF was providing her with $250 per year in rice support.
Do the maths. For the amount of money CCF claims (to the IRS) to be spending to take care of five kids for a year ($20,000) the whole family could have been relocated back in their village for half this amount. Less than half.
Don't get me wrong. I do not believe that moving back to the provinces is the answer for all the families who lost their homes and land through illness or debts that could not be repaid. It is not a viable option for many.
There is one 67 year old woman I would like to help who has no home or family in the provinces she could return to even if she wanted to. She has worked in the Phnom Penh rubbish dump (in different locations) for 25 years. She is still working in the dump, despite her arthritis. She has no option. She needs somewhere to stay and wants to continue living in the Steung Meanchy area as this is now her community. Buying a house for her is out of the question. Even renting a house for her is beyond my budget. A problem yet to be solved.
…to be continued…
One last thing about the way in which money could be better spent.
ReplyDeleteA few days ago, whilst visiting this community, I noticed that one of the shacks had some new plastic sheeting covering the roof and walls. The young mother told me that the sheeting had cost her $30. She did not have $30 so she borrowed it from a money lender on the condition that she pay back $36 in 12 days. Do the maths. That is 50 cents a day in interest. Or around $180 a year in interest on a $30 loan.
It is such loans, such debts (often caused by illness) that resulted in these families losing the only asset they had - their homes and land.
So, rather than being an ambulance chaser, waiting till these families fall through the cracks, CCF (and other NGOs) could offer close-to-interest-free loans to these families so that they do not lose their homes and land and wind up working in the dump.
I am in the process of setting up an informal bank in this community - starting with an investment of $100. It may not work but I would sure like to give the regular money-lenders who take advantage of the poverty of these people some competition.
One does not need much imagination to come up with a variety of different ways in which CCF's $4,000 per child could be spent. Removing children from their families is the least attractive option from both a financial point of view and a humanitarian point of view.
Sounds like you are an expert Ricketson. Congratulations - I look forward to you starting your own organisation, seeking donor funds and giving it directly to the poor families.
ReplyDeleteCorrect Anonymous 6.39. It is going to be interesting to see how far James goes before he realizes it is not the best of ideas. The story above written by "the self proclaimed New Messiah" James Ricketson shows once again that he is delusional. As an investigative journalist (not) I am surprised he does not at least check the CCF website regarding low interest loans before ignorantly taking a shot at them.
DeleteBut as always James will not let the truth get in the way of a good story. I respect what he has done if it is true that it is a $3,000 no strings attached gift but have a feeling there is more to the story than we have been told. Something hints at the fact we will find out later there is little difference between what he has done and what he continues to accuse APLE of doing regarding getting "evidence"
Dear Anonymous 6.39
DeleteNo, not an expert. Have never professed to be one. I do the best I can, make mistakes, hopefully learn from them, and move on. I have no desire to start my own organisation.
Dear Anonymous 11.37
DeleteNot sure which of my ideas is 'not the best'. There is no magic bullet here. What I do know, and what is confirmed by all studies and research, is that the removal of children from their families is (a) damaging to the children and (b) far less cost effective than helping these kids out within a family context. The warehousing of children, as carried out by CCF, is a very old hat, out of date concept and has been thoroughly discredited. it is a great money-spinner, however.
As for low interest loans, in the community I am referring to there are parents who have kids with CCF - in residential care. Not only do they receive no assistance from CCF other than a little rice support, nor have they been made aware by CCF that low-interet loans are available to them. And nor do they have any access to the forms of medical assistance CCF says it provides on its website. In fact, in pretty well every case where it has been possible to check what is written on the CCF website with verifiable facts, the website is found wanting - to say the least. Scott Neeson is a marketing man. He knows what sponsors and donors want to read and he provides it for them.
"As always James will not let the truth stand in the way of a good story." Please provide one instance in which I have not told the truth. Or, if you prefer, one instance in which I have lied her eon this blog. Just one. That shouldn't be hard for you given that you think I make a habit of it.
As for the APLE connection, I fail to get it! Please illuminate me.
James, I really cannot be bothered with you. There is no logic in your communication and for as long as you have an attitude of "if its on the CCF website or if Scott Neeson says it then its wrong" I will continue exposing you for what you are (a goose) and not bother responding to your rants. If you do not get the APLE connection then you are not as intelligent as I think you are - mind you that would not be difficult. For a man who gives one family $3,000 and a $1,000 interest free loan that they most likely will not be able to repay and having openly admitted you would give more if you had it, you are not doing to well in the "teach a man how to fish" stakes are you
DeleteDear Anonymous 1.06
DeleteIf you cannot be bothered with me,why do you keep coming back here? No one is twisting your arm. You could ignore this blog entirely. Your choice.
Where have I said, ""if its on the CCF website or if Scott Neeson says it then its wrong". What I have done, on several occasions, is suggest that Neeson has a very tenuous relationship with the truth. I learned this years ago when I communicated with him in relation to a family I know. He told me some outrageous lies and I realised that he plays fast and loose with the truth. This fact is well known to all who have worked with him - both from the time when he was a film executive to his modus operandi in running CCF. Check what Scott says about himself,about CCF and what his former staff and CCF 'graduates' say and you will find a huge chasm. Or, perhaps they are all lying.
Your reference to what I write here as 'rants' is your own father transparent way of avoiding dealing with the fact; of avoiding any form of discussion, dialogue. Take any part of one of my 'rants' as you refer to them and analyse it critically. Point out to me where and how I am wrong or misguided. To refer to someone else's ideas, point of view, questions as 'rants' only is a cop out. If they really are just 'rants' you should be able to demolish what I write with ease. Go for it.
You won't, of course, you will be back here again and again dismissing anything I write as a 'rant'. Such is life.
Nom still don't get the APLE connection, sorry. Please make it for me.
As for my giving the one family $3,000, let me expand on this just a little. The mother of this family suffers from very serious arthritis. She suffers from some other debilitating ailment but the doctors are not sure what it is. My relationship with the family began when I saw her sitting on the ground and clearly unable to walk. She was paralysed from the waist down, she said. To cut a long story short, I gave her $25 so that she could go and see a doctor. She did. A week later she was walking. The doctor had given her (sold her) anti-inflamatory medication for her arthritis. This costs around $40 a month. I have been picking up this bill. Not a hell of a lot for me, but a lot for her and her husband.
The family lost their land and home when the mother first became sick. They borrowed money to pay doctors bills, couldn't keep up with the interest (let alone pay off the principle) and wound up at the dump.
The family now has a small, very humble, home and a small plot of land.he family is still poor but being poor in a village is far preferable to them to being poor and working in a rubbish dump.
So what is wrong with this scenario? The father of this family does not need me or any NGO to each him how to fish. He knows how to fish. He knows how to grow rice. He knows how to grow fruit and vegetables, how to raise a pig, chickens etc. What he needed was a helping hand.
Yes, there are some poor people who may, to use your expression, need to learn how to fish. There are others that merely need some capital - having lost what little they had to money sharks.
To quote you James "you are like a tired old record stuck in a groove" As I said earlier I have said my bit so let your readers come to their own conclusion on your mental state of mind. Why do I keep coming back to this blog - just to make sure people see you for what you are (and it is not a self proclaimed savior and certainly more of a shit stirred than an investigative journalist)
DeleteCheers (still not Scott)
Organisations that focus on education as a way of breaking the poverty cycle operate on the "teach a man to fish" ethos. By giving kids an good education (my sponsor child is in her second year at university) they will be able to make a much better life for themselves and for their family. If instead her family is simply given money to make life a little less difficult, that is not going have much of an impact on her future.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 7:11 Simply not true. They can still get an education AND live with their families. Is your 'sponsor child' one that was taken from their family? You know of course that Neeson uses the public school system extensively for the children he has taken? How much support do you pay for one child? Is it more than an average family makes at the dump?
DeleteI can't connect how what a poor family is relevant to what is spent on a child's education. They are living in poverty - that's why I want to fund her education. It seems you think the education is too expensive. Well the girl I sponsor is now at university - and that's just amazing if you know her journey.
DeleteDear Anonymous 7.11
DeleteI am with you on education. When I first came to Cambodia, it was the word on everyone's lips - education, education, education. This was th way forward. Fast forward 20 years and the Cambodian education system still leaves lot to be desired. I am being as kind as I can be here. Yes, it is great that NGOs have stepped in to help here. And it is great that you have supported the young person you sponsor through to university. Both you and she are to be congratulated.
My own experience suggests that there are times when a cash injection is appropriate and others when it is not. There is one family I help (and have for years) in which experience has taught me that the parents are irresponsible with money. So, I give them none but pay for the education of their children and see to it that they are well fed. Another family, has a father and mother whom I trust implicitly. I would quite happily give them money (if I had it) knowing full well that they are totally responsible people.
When I spoke with the young mother who had borrowed $30 from a money lender, it did not take me long to figure out (and maths is not one of my strong points) that she would wind up paying around $180 in interest if she was unable to repay the $30. I did not have $30 on me but when I see her next I will give it to her.
With no exceptions that I have come across to date, all the people in this community are working in the dump because they lost their homes and land as a result of crippling debts. They had borrowed relatively small amounts of money from money-lenders at outrageous interest rates. They had no choice at the time. If you8r child is sick in hospital and you need $200 to pay the doctor bills, you borrow the money from whatever source you can. And at whatever interest rate is on offer.
I have encountered this scenario so many times.
Imagine if this young mother was unable to repay the $30. Each day she has to pay 50 cents interest. Her income for the day is between $2 and $3 so the interest on her loan leaves her with not enough money to feed her children. What is she to do? Borrow more money?
The Cambodian Children's Fund solution to this woman['s problems is to take her children off her hands; institutionalise them and raise $4,000 per year per child in the process. This is not my figure, plucked out of mid-air. it is the figure CCF has provided to the IRS.
The point isn't if you are for education, almost everyone is. The point is if you are giving Neeson funding (with amounts of money greater than a family lives on at the dump), you are supporting/endorsing/enabling him to take children from families. If this girl was one that Neeson took from her family, you have emotional and developmental issues that will never be resolved. As a result of one giving money to Neeson, they should be painted with the same criminal brush that Neeson is and since their support enables Neeson, should have liability, prosecution, and incarceration, the same as Neeson deserves.
DeleteWhat an interesting transformation James, you appear to have gone from somebody who is critical of NGO’s using the photos of cute kids, to be a newly proclaimed funding arm for Friends International on your Facebook page (where you openly use photos of cute kids to raise funds).
ReplyDeleteI wonder how much further bias this will give you against your continued slanging off regarding other NGO’s on your many blogs, maybe it once again discredits you as an “investigative journalist” and shows you as somebody who has a totally different agenda in the competitive world of fundraising and gives you more reason to try and discredit others.
Out of interest are Friends International aware of your continued blogs and public criticism of other organizations? Are they also aware of your friendship and continued support of a man who has twice been sentenced to a term of imprisonment on sex charges and also of having been imprisoned with having sex of a child (as you point out almost 16 when he was almost 50). Personally I have no issues with Friends International and from what I understand they are not doing a bad job overall but would be highly surprised if they are happy with you publicly supporting them.
….to be continued
Dear Anonymous 11.50
DeleteUnless you are visually impaired, you will notice that the photos I used were of the entire family - including the blind father. A photo of mum, dad and kids. I did not feel the need, as Scott Neeson does, to pick up the cutest of the kids and post a photo of myself with this kid in my arms. There is a difference between posting a photo of a family at their home to a cute kid on the hip of Scott Neeson.
As for my 'discrediting' of Scott Neeson and others,if you look carefully at what I have written it is mostly questions of Neeson (and others) that they refuse to answer. I have asked this countless times but will do so again: Please quote me one instance in which I have 'discredited' an NGO for no reason? Just one. You are not alone amongst anonymous commentators who make assertions that are NEVER backed up with facts or evidence. Your objective, plain as a pike staff, is to shoot the messenger rather than argue your case rationally.
I have no idea if Friends is aware of my blogs and fail to see what the relevance of this is, one way or another. I have had dealings with Friends on and off many times this past 20 years and have a great deal of respect for the way in which this NGO seeks to find solutions to the problems confronting individual families and does not break families up because it is a more cost effective way of marketing what they do. CCF's breaking up of families is wrong on every level.
As for your reference to David Fletcher, you are like a tired old record stuck in a groove. Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with advocating on behalf of a person's right to have a fair trial? David Fletcher, after five years in jail, has not only not had a trial of any kind at which he was present; he has not been interviewed by the police; has not been interviewed by an Investigating Judge. Pretty well every part of the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure has been breached in his case. He is not alone in this, of course. Even if all the evidence pointed to being guilty of rape (and there is none) he is still entitled to a fair trial. This principle has applied recently to men and women accused of genocidal crimes within Cambodia. The principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' applies in most advanced democracies - as it should.
James, you have said your bit and I have said mine so let the readers of this blog decide. However no - I am not visually impaired and I am sure at some stage we will be getting a happy ending photo from you once this family are looked after by Friends and you claim the credit.
DeleteJust read any of your blogs james and if you seriously think you have never tried to discredit an NGO then you need help for your mental condition
I would be confident that it will not take long for Friends to be aware (and shocked) at your blogs
It is laughable that you accuse me of being a tired old record stock in a groove (are you playing the part of Mr Pot or Mr Kettle today ?)
P.S I am still not Scott Neeson or anybody employed by him but in your state of paranoia I see where you are coming from. Again seriously suggest you seek professional medical help
I think Friends is so shocked at Neeson's taking 700 children from their families (and then claiming how he 'helps' them), that it would be impossible for anything Ricketson does to cause a blip on their heart monitor. They are very clear that taking children from families is the wrong approach to helping the impoverished.
DeleteDear anonymous 1.42
DeleteGroundhog Day!
Yes, you have said your bit and I have said mine. This is what democracy is all about. And, yes, let the readers decide.
No, there will be no happy ending photo. The family is in the very competent hands of Friends now and any credit for the family's success (if this is how it turns out) will and should go to Friends. All I did was see someone in need and try to find an NGO to help. Mission accomplished.
As for your refusal to provide me with one example of my 'discrediting' NGOs I can only reiterate what I have said many times. There is a difference between asking questions and discrediting. There is a difference between making criticisms of NGOs and discrediting. By conflating 'discrediting' with the asking of questions and the making of observations and criticisms you can (and do) very neatly dismiss all criticism and see all questions as an exercise in 'discrediting'.
I doubt very much that anyone at Friends would be 'shocked' by my blogs but if they are, well, they are entitled to be shocked.
As for the pot calling the kettle black, at least I respond to every comment to the best of my ability. Given that so many anonymous commentators write the same thing time and time again it is difficult, in responding to them, not to repeat what I have already written. The alternative is to ignore their observations, refuse to engage on the grounds that their observations are clearly meant to 'discredit' me.
If you do write again, please do back up your assertions with some examples and facts. I am quite happy to have a dialogue with you or anyone else here but it is hard when you present the outer shell of an argument only and none of the content.
I am signing off here. I do have another life, and it is calling me.
As for your Facebook story on Srey Ha and her family “I am hopeful of receiving lots of small ($10 and $20) donations - an amount of money that most of us can afford but which, combined, can make a huge difference to a family such as this one. Even if all we raised was $600 (and we're half way there) this would pay the family's rent for the next year.” Is this not somewhat deceptive?
ReplyDeleteYou ask your Facebook friends to make donations straight to the Friends Mith Samlanh account with no reference to this family. Your Friends donations will surely not therefore be going directly to your family but going into Friends general funds. In reality only a very small percentage of their donation will ever go to help this family. I am not suggesting that Friends International are in any way trying to mislead donors but I am more taking a look at your hypocritical actions in the way you run others down.
Again please do not get me wrong James, I have absolutely nothing against Friends International and the work they do, I believe that many good organizations in Cambodia and other countries make a huge difference to lives of many, I do however have a big gripe with people like you who want to spend your time in running them down for the good work they do when you do not have a clue about the facts and base many of your stories on bar room gossip and rumor.
…..to be continued
Dear Anonymous 11.51
DeleteWhat is deceptive about my statement here about the family's rent?
I have been in regular contact with Friends about this family - which I only met a week ago. All is proceeding very satisfactorily as regards helping this family.
Who have I run down? When did I run them down? I know that facts are not a strong point of yours, but why not take a statement I have made which you consider to be "running them down' and then explain to me, and others reading this, just why I am factually wrong or mislead.
I have no doubt that there are good NGOs doing good work and helping families and communities in a positive and productive way. There are also some scoundrels and scamsters who are getting rich exploiting the poverty of the Cambodian people. Unfortnately, there is no way,within Cambodia at present, in which the scoundrels and scamsters can be discouraged. They have free reign. There is no-one to stop them.
Which facts do I not have a clue about.Name one fact, point out to me why I am wrong in asserting that this fact is a fact, be prepared to have a rational discussion about it. You will not. You never do. At least you are consistent!
It will be interesting to see if the readers of your blog take the same view as me and wish Friends International well in the work they are doing or if they choose to stir shit in the same way you continually try to do for Scott Neeson. Personally I hope they show respect for the work Friends (and many other NGO’s in Cambodia) are doing and continue to try and help in their own way no matter how much criticism they get from you.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to hypocrisy you certainly take the biscuit.
Cheers
P.S Once again I am not Scott Neeson or anybody employed by him
Dear Anonymous 11.52
DeleteI am not sure what you are saying here. If you are not Scott Neeson you have certainly adopted his style and tone.
Thank you for your wonderful "When it comes to hypocrisy you certainly take the biscuit." A very poetic use of words. Pointless, I suppose, to ask for an example of my 'hypocrisy'.
Good post above. Of course Ricketson has a hidden agenda. He is a coward who has used a blog to defame and discredit anyone who threatens him. Im not sure Friends would be too impressed if we posters starting bombarding their social media with material of Ricketosn and who he associates with. perhaps I might start that right now to give him a taste of his own medicine.
ReplyDeleteAs I said earlier I think Friends International are maybe overall doing a fair job and I would not want to damage their reputation on social media, I would then be lowering myself to Ricketsons despicable standards, I do believe however they need to know what they are letting themselves in for. I genuinely think they would never have done a deal with Ricketson if they knew what he was about. I will be sending them an email later with links to some of his blogs and let them make their minds up. I have supported Friends in the past with donations and buying Christmas Gifts etc from their shop and will likely continue to do so. they just need to be aware of the mistake they have made
DeleteI will send them an email as well.
DeleteDear Anonymous 12.02
DeleteSo what is my 'hidden agenda'? I do not really expect an answer but,hey.its worth a try.
In what way is it cowardly to put my name to what I think, what I believe, the questions I ask? I would put all these to Scott Neeson in person in any public context. I have suggested it before. I suggest it again.Any time that suits you, Scott.
As for my discrediting anyone who threatens me, pray tell who has threatened me and when?
As for bombarding Friends with information about who I associate with, if that's what floats your boat, go for it. The person you are referring to, clearly, is David Fletcher - a man who is entitled to a fair trial. I do not 'associate' with Mr Fletcher. I advocate is right to a trial - a right that you clearly do not believe he has.
I imagine that if you, and others bombard Friends with emails to the effect of,"Do you know that James associates with rapists" that the staff at Friends, logical, level headed people in my experience, will give these emails the attetnion they deserve.
Dear Anonymous 12.52
DeleteYes, please do send an email to Friends warning them of the dreadful people I associate with.
isn't it strange how the 3 scumbag blog sites in Cambodia are all run by or have at least been started by spineless individuals who look to discredit good people when they themselves have aspired to nothing. Cambodia440 run by Ricketson, Khmer440 started by that dead idiot Peter Hogan and lets not forget that pathetic blog site Penhpal run by a guy called Robert Jamieson who has been banned from entering nearly every coffee shop in Phnom Penh because he never purchased anything and just used free internet.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that these losers use blog sites to defame people - is it because they are angry with the world and want to hate it back? Is it because they feel empowered knowing that they are protected behind their computer screen or is it some sick disease that these types of individual suffer from?
Im not sure of the answer but all I know is that Neeson is miles ahead in the good guy stakes when you compare them against fuckwits like Ricketson, Hogan and Jamieson.
Dear Anonymous 12.10
DeleteIt is becoming increasingly difficult to respond politely to your comments.I will try.
Which 'good people' have I 'discredited'? How did I 'discredit' them. Quote me one example that is not backed up with facts. Just one. Come on, you can do it.
it is good to see that you have managed to spell 'losers' correctly for a change! Perhaps you are sober this time around!?
OK, one example of where I have defamed anyone. Just one.
As for your reference to people (including myself) being angry with the world and wanting to hate it back, you need to go back to the self-help section of you local bookstore and get a copy of a book that is not full of thought-cliches such as this one.
I am not protected by my computer screen. I am very easy to find if you want to meet me in person. I am in Phnom Penh. Coffee one morning?
I do wish that someone would organise a debate one night about all this. It could be a ot of fun and very illuminating. Take a topic, have two teams of three people on either side and an audience that can pitch in at the end of the debate. 7 minutes per speaker, with a good strong moderator. The topic? How about: "NGOs are good for Cambodia." Simple. One team argues for the proposition; the other against it.
As I say, could be a lot of fun and very illuminating. If I was on one of the teams you would have an opportunity to call me a fuckwit and a lose to my face. Yes, it could be a fun evening.
Yep, you have summed the whole thing up well James, as all this is to you is "fun and illuminating" A game that you play to keep yourself amused and to try and convince people that you are a "somebody" Personally I have a lot more respect for the many good organizations that are working hard in Cambodia to improve the lives of kids than I do for scum like you
ReplyDeleteDo you really believe that taking children from their families, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, is improving the lives of kids? Raising children in institutional care is good for them. Having children raised by paid staff is good for them? Having children live in places with high walls and barbed wire is good for them. Do you also believe that Hitler's ethnic cleansing was a good thing?
DeleteDear Anonymous 3.06
DeleteI said that debate would be fun. And illuminating. Debating plays a healthy and vital role in all spheres of life. No one is the repository of all wisdom and all of us need to have our ideas challenged from time to time. I have been involved (as I am sure many a reader here has) in debates that have caused me to change my opinion about long-held beliefs. This is also fun. And it is OK to have fun when you are debating.
I have no desire to prove that I am 'somebody'. This is thought bubble pop psychology. It is so easy, isn't it, to dismiss another person with such a put down and, in the process, prove to yourself that you are 'somebody'.
You give yourself away when you call somebody 'scum' (in this case, me) as though this was a valid argument in support of whatever proposition you support.
Anonymous 2.36
ReplyDeleteYou are adept at the art of not answering questions but, instead, making inane observations to create the illusion that you are responding.
We agree on one thing. Readers will be able to make up their own minds, based on what we both write, about who we are. What you have written will provide little by the way of illumination into my character but a great deal into yours.
I know that answering questions is not your thing, but, hey, ever the optimist, I'll ask a few that require very brief answers.
(1) Do you believe that spending $4,000 to keep one child in a crowded dormitory for a year (20 kids in 10 beds) is the best way to help the children of materially poor families, and the families themselves?
Yes or no.
If you feel yup to more than a one word answer, please illuminate us with your thoughts?
(2) Do you believe it is appropriate for the Cambodian Children's Fund to refuse to allow the parents of children in CCF care to retain copies of the contracts they enter into with CCF.
Yes or no?
If you'd care to expand, please do.
(3) Do you believe it be be appropriate for CCF to force staff working for the NGO (under constant video surveillance!) to sign non-disclosure contracts that prevent them from every speaking to the media about what goes on behind closed doors at CCF?
Yes? No? Maybe? Depends?
Feel free to make any comment you like.
I am sure your response will be fun. And illuminating. I wonder how you will manage to both refuse to answer these questions and also manage a childish schoolboy insult about my state of mind.
James, you are asking me questions that I am not qualified to answer, however exactly what do you think is wrong with video surveillance in areas where kids are spending time with adults that are not related to them, do you mean to tell me that your mates at Friends International do not install such basic necessities to help protect the kids in their care (maybe you have forgotten about people such as Fletch the Letch being let loose in the community) As you have supposed friends in the "inner circle" of CCF and it leaks like a sieve as you claim then i really see no need for you to do anything other than publish the information that you have gained from them. It is blatantly obvious that you are a total liar and have no such connections and the only conclusion I can draw is again you are shit stirring. The problem is that you keep making wild claims such as 2 kids to a bed (compared to 3 or 4 a couple of months ago) Despite the supposed leaks you never come up with any proof, just scuttlebuck and rumor as you put it. I have personally visited CCF and the child I sponsor there several times and have always had the questions I asked answered in a way that confirms my intent to continue the relationship I have with CCF. I see no reason for myself or any other sponsors/donors to answer questions posed by a mentally unstable self proclaimed investigative journalist and open supporter of a child sex offender. (but of course I forgot, sorry, she was ALMOST 16, and under the influence of alcohol whilst he was almost 50 and taking photos so that makes it OK in the eyes of an investigative journalist) James, you are again sounding like a tired old record stuck in a groove as you like to put it
ReplyDeleteAs expected, no answers. Your answer to questions you do not wish to answer is to shoot the messenger.
ReplyDeleteThe surveillance cameras was an aside. The cameras are in the office work area where children are not allowed to go. The purpose of the surveillance cameras is to keep the staff in check and has nothing to do with preventing predators getting in. There are barbed wire fences for that.
On my visits to Friends offices I have not noticed surveillance cameras, though I suppose its possible that they have them discretely hidden. I doubt it. To the best of my knowledge Friends staff are not intimidated into silence by being forced to sign non-disclsure contracts.
Your 'Fletch the Letch' comment says much more about you than about David Fletcher. Again, a childish schoolboy put-down that will be seen as such by most discerning readers.
As for my publishing information about CCF, I am in the process of making a documentary and what I publish here is not all that has been revealed to me. Be patient. Or, if you cannot be patient, keep up with your foolish 'Fletch the Letch' comments and have egg on your face in the future.
If it is blatantly obvious that I am a total liar, it should be easy for you to point to at least one lie. Come on, you can do it. One lie. That's all i am asking for. Publish it here for all to see/eead.
The two kids to a bed claim, about which I prefer not to say too much just now, is not intended to discount my previous 3 and 4 kids to a bed. Both statements are true. In this instance, the two kids to a bed are grown teenagers and...well, wait for my doco.
Great that your experience with CCF has been a great one. Not so great that you feel justified in calling me a liar but are not prepared to answer questions that require only a yes or no answer.
Your reference to me as 'mentally unstable' says much more, again, about you than about me. Rather than engage with what I write, you attack me on a personal level. Shooting the messenger again! Whoever you may be (and I am pretty sure this is you, Scott), you have rather clumsily, and rather obviously clumsily, avoided answering questions that were directed at you.
I have never said that what David Fletcher did was OK but such facts are of no relevance to you when your dander is up and you must, at all costs, destroy the messenger.
One thing is clear now: you will not answer any questions. If you are not Scott, you are a Scott clone in this respect.
Your a cuntJames Ricjetson. That's all i have to say. A fucking cunt. Crawl under a rock and ie cunt.
DeleteHe's back!! and drunk again!!
DeleteAppears that they are much smarter in Haiti than they are in Cambodia or than Scott Neeson is as they are ending institutional care of children. Wake up donors, Cambodia and NGO's that take children from families. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/lumos-starts-joint-programme-to-end-orphanage-care-in-haiti-2015-06-26
ReplyDeleteFrom a recent study: A study in the latest edition of the medical journal, The Lancet, warns that the “prevalence of child institutionalisation worldwide is alarming in view of scientific evidence for the developmental risks of institutional care.”
ReplyDeleteBabies and young children raised in institutions and so-called orphanages suffer most harm, because they are deprived - at the most sensitive stages of development - of the one-to-one adult parental engagement which strengthens the connections in the growing brain.
Evidence from studies over nearly a century, and particularly in recent decades, “imparts urgency to achieve deinstitutionalisation in global child protection”, the authors say. Deinstitutionalisation (DI) is the process of closing institutions and so-called orphanages and replacing them with systems to support children in families, in their communities.
Are you listening POS Neeson?
The Cambodian Children's Fund business model requires children in institutions. Simple as that.The same applies for all the other NGOs that steal children and then sell them to sucker sponsors as being in need of rescuing.The fundamentalist Christians are the worst. And Cambodia is crawling with them. And with the big bucks they pull in they can pay Ministry officials to look the other way. Scam-fucking-bodia!!!!!!
DeleteAre you saying that the POVERTY PIMP is taking children from their families to raise money and he could care less about the welfare of the children? Yes, if he is locked away in prison, I will party.
ReplyDeleteMany of you won't want to admit that it was David Fletcher with the correct approach to helping children by giving them food and they lived with their families and Scott Neeson who created chaos in their lives, psychology and development by taking them from their families. Neeson should get to rot in institutional care with high walls, barbed wire and paid staff.
ReplyDeleteNeeson is currently on holiday again while hundreds of children remain locked up , but change is happening . older children are on the his list of get rid of them policy . Neeson's team of paid scammers cheat their sponsors with social media stories of success . Neeson why not show the inside walls and truths behind your crimes of institutional care filled with children stripped and removed from their poor families. using children to generate millions to line your pockets. your more evil than the devil himself . its only time until your crimes hit the courts and you spend the rest of your life behind prison walls. KBA & following broken lives with Scott Neeson
ReplyDeleteAlan Lemon another CCF creep former corrupt police officer . has been busy typing threats to any media who dares to ask questions . only in Scambodia can you steal children and feed from blood of the poor .
ReplyDeleteHello Everybody,
ReplyDeleteMy name is Mrs Sharon Sim. I live in Singapore and i am a happy woman today? and i told my self that any lender that rescue my family from our poor situation, i will refer any person that is looking for loan to him, he gave me happiness to me and my family, i was in need of a loan of S$250,000.00 to start my life all over as i am a single mother with 3 kids I met this honest and GOD fearing man loan lender that help me with a loan of S$250,000.00 SG. Dollar, he is a GOD fearing man, if you are in need of loan and you will pay back the loan please contact him tell him that is Mrs Sharon, that refer you to him. contact Dr Purva Pius,via email:(urgentloan22@gmail.com) Thank you.
Do you need a personal loan?
ReplyDeleteDo you need a loan to pay bills/finance your business?
Do you need a mortgage loan?
Do you need a loan to finance an existing business or start up one?
You can contact Mr Steven Ryan today via this information . email: stevenryanfinance@gmail. com or whatsapp : +971529615981