Dear Scott
You need to read this article about how damaging the
institutionalization of children is and, perhaps, ask advice from J.K. Rowling's international NGO Lumos
about how to close down all the Cambodian Children’s Fund institutional care
facilities and return the 700 or so children to their families. I imagine that
to do so, without causing too much disruption to the lives of the children in
CCF’s care might take a year. Perhaps two.
Rather than pretend you don’t read this blog and don’t take any
notice of my emails, and rely on Neeson trolls to try and shoot the messenger,
why don’t you make a public statement either in defense of CCF’s warehousing of
children in large crowded dormitories or to announce that you intend to alter
CCF’s policy to one of helping these same children in a family and community
context.
This would be a much cheaper option, would make both the
children and families happier than your current policy of breaking up families.
A new initiative along these lines need not, if you handled it carefully, have
a deleterious impact on your raising of money. The tide of history is running
against you and I suspect that you will drown, that your kingdom will come
crashing around your ears, if you do not see the writing on the wall and act
accordingly.
PORT AU PRINCE, Haiti, June 26,
2015 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- PORT AU PRINCE, Haiti, June 26, 2015
/PRNewswire/ --
PORT AU PRINCE, HAITI today
plays host to a ground-breaking gathering of policy makers, major donors and
international NGOs working to transform the lives of tens of thousands of
Haiti's children living away from families in orphanages and institutions.
Today, J.K. Rowling's international NGO Lumos, the
Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour (MAST) of Haiti, l'Institut du Bien-Être
Social et de Recherches (IBESR) and the US Government Agency for International
Development are co-organising a conference focusing on ending the institutionalisation
of children in Haiti.
The event marks the official
launch of a partnership between Lumos, the Haitian Government and a
number of agencies to help an estimated 32,000 children - most of whom are not
orphans - who currently live in Haiti's orphanages. After a successful decade
working in Central and Eastern Europe to help governments shift funding away
from institutions, Lumos has widened its focus to include orphanages around the
world, launching a demonstration programme in Haiti with the aim that all
children can be living in families there by 2030.
There are approximately 760
orphanages in Haiti, and around 80% of the children in them have at least one
living parent - dispelling the myth that Haitian orphanages are full of orphans
of the 2010 earthquake. The Haitian Government says around 140 should be closed
immediately because of very poor conditions. However, Haiti does not have
adequate health, education and social services to support children in their
families and communities.
The event will highlight the
harm to children caused by institutionalisation - demonstrated in more than eighty years
of global research - and explore ways to shift funding in Haiti,
from international agencies and trusts and foundations, away from orphanages
towards community-based services. Lumos has already started training Haitian
professionals.
Georgette Mulheir, CEO of
Lumos, which
J.K Rowling also launched in the US in 2015, said: "The Haitian
Government has demonstrated strong political will to address
institutionalisation and a number of international donor agencies working in
Haiti, including the EU, the US Government and the World Bank, are prioritising
programmes that strengthen communities to ensure children can be raised in
their families. Developing a systematic national approach will require a
significant investment in the capacity and resources to manage a major process
of. The seminar marks a crucial step forwards in achieving this."
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/lumos-starts-joint-programme-to-end-orphanage-care-in-haiti-2015-06-26
What were you thinking, Mr Ricketson? Don't go putting ideas into Mr Neeson's head. Next thing we know, star-fucker as Neeson is, he'll be flying to the UK for a photo op with JK Rowling en route to Tuscany to write his memoirs. If he can see a quid in it, and JK's got a few, Neeson will get his nose in the trough.
ReplyDeleteThe psychological, emotional and developmental harm continues to deepen the longer these children are held in institutional care. SOME of the effects may be reversed as the children are returned to their families. The amount of harm done by Neeson to these 700 children is incalculable. Neeson can't claim that he didn't know about the harm to children by taking them from their families. Let the lawsuits begin against Neeson and those that have supported this misguided man. Let him be sentenced to a life of institutionalisation with 2 to a bed, high walls, barbed wire and paid staff!
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. Ricketson,
ReplyDeleteDespite being exhausted (you must be) you still got BITE !
Congratulations. With this latest entry on your blog (121) I bet the
press will take up the bait, too.
The Neesons of this World will have to face a tide turning against them but the fight is not over just yet. They're an inventive gang these people who make a good living out of exploiting poor people in third world countries !
Re.:Cambodia's latest closure of a Orphanage founded and funded by
beauty therapist Chloe Flanagan shows just how easy it is to open a
childcare institution in Cambodia (and many more places around the
world).
www.phnompenhpost.com/national/child-centres-chief-arrested
I am not certain that this Chloe Flanagan is identical with the one that
fell into Somaly Mam's trap when Mam visited the US School Club in
Beacon Falls in 2011. This Chloe Flanagan in 2011 said she wanted to
become a lawyer while the Chloe Flanagan of the closed orphanage is a
beauty therapist (whatever this is):
"I just want to meet her," said Chloe Flanagan, 18, a senior. "I feel
like this group has been such an impact on my life. I am touched by her
story."
So much so, she said, that she wants to be a lawyer. She will attend the
University of New Hampshire to study psychology with a possible minor in
political science.
http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2011/06/17/news/local/559033.txt
Nepal- gets it
ReplyDeleteHaiti- gets it
Friends International- gets it
Child Safe- gets it
Lumos- gets it
J.K. Rowlings- gets it
Scott Neeson- DOESN'T GET IT!
Scott is not stupid. He gets it. He and his board must know that what they are doing is wrong. Unfortunately, Neeson has developed a business model that requires, for fund raising purposes, that he have a never-ending supply of children to rescue and place in institutions. If he does not see just how deleterious a model this is and changes his ways fast history will overtake him and, instead of being nominated for a Noble Peace Prize he will wind up with a huge class-action suit against him from former 'orphans' - when democracy arrives in Cambodia.
DeleteContrary to what the person above says about Scott seeking out J.K. Rowling fort a photo op, I would be delighted to see the two of them together in a photo when Scott announces that it is his intention to close all of his institutional care facilities and, with advice and help from Lumos, re-integrate all 700 kids back into their families and communities.
If he got it James, and if he cared anything about the children, he would begin the process of returning the children to their families immediately. I just checked the FB website for CCF and see no mention of returning the children.
DeleteThis concept of the damage done to children by taking them from families is not new. It has been known for many years and seems to me that anyone would understand it. He has done just the opposite of helping the children and broken all the rules. I sincerely hope he has to pay his debt.
The Neeson trolls have gone very quiet! Have they seen the light! Are they waiting instructions from Saint Scott of Tuscany? Or are they huddled together trying to figure out the most effective way of destroying James' credibility?
ReplyDeleteIt's Sunday so the Neeson trolls may be off the CCF payroll. They are not working today.
DeleteAgree with you Anonymous 6:18, they've nothing to say.
ReplyDeleteMy suspicion is that Neeson won't do any reintegration of the children until someone else comes along and pays for it.
Wouldn't it be great if some enterprising lawyer took this class action lawsuit and could return some serious money to the families whose children were taken. 2014 tax info. hasn't been shared yet (by this 'very open' organization), but even with 2013 revenue of 10.6M, the payoff per family could be very significant. Perhaps since Neeson used the children to raise this revenue (for over 10 years now), several years of revenue might be able to be in the judgement.
Some maths
ReplyDeleteNeeson claims to have 700 or so kids in institutional care.
Neeson claims to the IRS that it costs him $4,000 per year to house, feed and educate these kids.
700 multiplied by $4,000 equals $2,800,000.
If, as claimed in CCF's 2013 IRS statement, $10.6 million was raised in that year, how does CCF account for the other $7 million? Overheads? Outreach? Trips to meet the Dalai Lama? To Tuscany? To Hollywood?
OK, let's just look at 'outreach'. James Ricketson has quoted a figure of $250 in rice support given to one family with kids in CCF care. Let's say $250 in rice support is given to the families of 700 kids. That's $175,000 per year - small change out of the remaining $7 million to be accounted for.
The maths does not add up. CCF looks like a huge scam to me.
Detail on 2013 can be found here: https://www.cambodianchildrensfund.org/images/stories/financial/CCF_990_Form_2013.pdf
DeleteThe short answer is that revenue minus expenses was $4.5M the bulk of that $4.5M was put into CD's. That means that donors who believe their support is essential are being fooled into giving.
"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."
Delete@ Anonymous 7.16, what is a CD, other than a plastic disc with music on it -:)
ReplyDeleteCertificate of Deposit. Generally, low interest bearing deposits, often set with a time that the certificate is good for. It could then be withdrawn or put into a new 'CD'.
DeleteAnonymous 6.54 - you are either amazingly stupid, amazingly ignorant or went to the same school of "investigative journalism" that James did. (or possibly a combination of all 3)
ReplyDeleteJust go to the CCF website and read about some of the education projects, rice subsidy, dental program, medical support etc, etc, etc, etc, etc before joining the James Ricketson Huff and Puff brigade. I am sure even James would have cringed that you have shown just how one eyed and uneducated his followers are.
Scott, or Scott troll, we can all read what is written on your website. It is just that the figures don't add up. Please provide us with a breakdown of the $4,000 per child it costs for accommodation and education? As for your rice subsidy program my experience of it, or should I say the experience of it of families with children you claim to be spending $4,000 a year on, is that they receive $250 a year in rice subsidy. This if $5 a week, whilst CCF is pulling in $80 a week (your own IRS figures) to take care on one of their children.
DeleteAs for the medical and dental programmes, none of the people I have spoken with -mums and dads with kids in CCF care - are aware of these programmes and hence do not access them.
Scott, or Scott troll, whichever you might be, address the central question here: "Why, in the face of all the research (and there is plenty) of to disastrous impact the institutionalisation of children has on their lives, and those of their families, are you still wedded to the idea that warehousing children in large institutions (2 and more to a bed) is a good idea.?"
Answer the qurtion. Stop shooting the messenger.
How about you answering if you think Anon 6.54 has his maths correct James. This is not a case of shooting the messenger as well you know it is pointing out some gross miscalculations where whoever posted this obviously is under the misguided impression that as all CCF do is look after 700 kids.
ReplyDeleteAre you going to tell us the Granny program does not exist either, that Star Bakery is just made up and kids are never sent home with nutrient enhanced bread ? etc, etc, etc, etc. You really are starting to become paranoid about everybody being Scott aren't you. FYI I am not Scott or a Scott troll as you put it, just somebody who knows and understands a little bit better than you what CCF does for the community. This is said as a child sponsor who has never had a problem getting answers from CCF to the questions I have asked in the past.
If you are not Scott Neeson, Anonymous 7.19, but just a child sponsor who sits at his computer all day waiting to answer questions directed at Scott, perhaps you could share with us some of the questions you have asked of CCF and the answers you received?
DeleteThanks for the invitation Anon, and if I ever consider the dialogue between CCF and myself to be any of your business I will be happy to share. Meanwhile it seems James has still not been able to locate his calculator in order to confirm the maths that I questioned above
DeleteAgain, I ask you, Anonymous 6.54, to please answer the questions asked, since you seem to know all the answers - whether you are Scott Neeson or merely a spokesperson for Scott who, as has been pointed out to me many times, has much better things to do with his take than waste it on the likes of me.
ReplyDeleteAll the research indicates that the institutionalisation of children is damaging to children. Why does Scott persist with his policy of removing children from families. An answer, please?
And how do you account for Scott's $4,000 figure (to the IRS) to take care of one child for one year in an institution in which children sleep two and more to a bed?
And is it true, or is it untrue, that Scott refuses to allow the parents of children in CCF care to retain copies of the 'contracts' he forces them to sign with CCF?
And is it true, or untrue, that staff working for CCF are forced to sign contracts that prevent them, at any time, from talking to anyone in the media about what goes on behind closed doors at CCF?
As for your various programmes, I am sure they exist. It is just that none 9NOT ONE) of the many people I have spoken with (and filmed) is aware of their existence or been invited to participate.
Answers, please, not more obfuscation and childish attempts to shoot the messenger.
Hey, if it walks like a duck...etc.
DeleteWho else but Scott Neeson would put so much effort into not answering questions and trying to paint Ricketson as a fuckwit for asking the questions he does? Neeson is a fucking coward. The journalists at the Phnom Penh Post and Cambodia are fucking cowards too for not asking any questions of this obvious con man. Or are they being paid by Neeson to not ask questions? I can't wait for the day when Neeson gets hit with a class action suit for stealing all these children from their families. I hoe they sue the cunt for every penny he has. And by the look of the books, he has heaps.
The Three Stooges are cleaning up, laughing all the way to the bank - Neeson, Mc Cabe and Lemmon. Lowlifes.
DeleteDon't forget Pigglet is on the payroll now too!
DeletePigglet?
DeleteDear Anonymous CCF child sponsor 7.19
DeleteLets take these questions one at a time. How and why does it cost $4,000 to take care of one child? A child who sleep in a dormitory - two and more to a bed? Please explain. Leave the granny program and nutrient rich bread out of it for the moment. Just answer this one question. Give us all a breakdown of how the $4,000 is spent.
WHO IS PIGGLET?
DeleteI see the old "tired record stuck in a groove" Ricketson is back. Welcome home James. How about another Fletcher rant to keep us all amused please
DeleteCheers
Pigglet is another one of James Ricketsons imaginary characters from is Huff and Puff story Anon 6.48. Did your parents never ready you fairy tales as a child ?
DeletePIGGLET is Neeson's friend that he hired with CCF funds (reportedly) to sue Ricketson for defamation or slander or to get this great site taken down.
DeleteHaven't you been keeping up?
And you have proof of course anon. 7.08am!
DeleteRICKETSON - You just dont get it. You are making the dispersions that CCF'S figures are wrong so it is you who should provide evidence and the calculations - not just continuing to say you think its wrong. CCF doesn't have to prove shit to you or your readers. Long term affects of marijuana smoking can cause severe delusional behaviour - I think its time you gave it up.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 6.51
DeleteI did not say that CCF's figure of $4,000 per child was wrong. It may well be right. If it is not right CCF has lied to the IRS - a serious offence.
What I am trying to find out, what I have been trying to find out for some time, is just how and why it costs $4,000 a year to keep one child in an institution when this same child's family (yes, pretty well all of them have families) live on less tan half of this in one year.
You will not answer this question, Neeson will not answer this question, not one of the Neeson troll who appear here will even attempt to answer this question. You have summed up Neeson's attitude to his sponsors and donors (and to the families of the kids he removes) very succinctly: "CCF doesn't have to prove shit to you or your readers." Or anyone else. So much for the precepts of transparency and accountability.
You give yourself away, reveal a great deal about who you are, when, instead of answering the $4,000 question to suggest that I am delusional in asking it because I smoke marijuana. I don't, as it happens, but even if I did, this is not an argument; this is just stupid schoolboy posturing. If Neeson must sic his trolls on me, rather than have the balls to speak for himself, he needs to recruit some cleverer trolls.
One thing is for sure - either the Ricketson followers can read through walls and see the inner workings of CCF with their X-ray visions or there is 1 or 2 low life dogs who either work at CCF or are close to Neeson who are leaking bullshit information.
ReplyDeleteThe inner workings of CCF are revealed through the words of employees, former employees, CCF child residents and former CCF child residents. Perhaps they are all lying!
DeleteThe time will come, sooner or later (I hope sooner) when one of these people, at present feeling intimidated by non-disclosure contracts, goes public. This will encourage others to do so. WIth so many children growing to be adults and no longer controllable by Neeson, the truth will come out.
By implication, the tone of your comment here reveals some interesting insights into the mind-set of CCF. Anyone who reveals anything about the workings of CCF (2- 4 kids to a bed, for instance) is a 'lowlife dog'.
Really!
Perhaps those 'close to Neeson", or who he thinks are 'close' to him, have reached breaking point and want the truth to come out.
That Scott needs CCTV cameras in work areas to keep an eye on his staff makes it clear he does not trust them. Perhaps they do not trust him either? Perhaps they are frustrated, sometimes angry, when they are reminded, time and time again, of the difference between what Neeson SAYS about CCF and how CCF is actually run.
Food for though, though I suspect thought (or the products of it) will not be forthcoming. In formulating your next rounds of abuses, Neeson trolls, consult thesaurus or google 'insults' and see if you can come up with something new and original.
Some abusive words Neeson trolls might like to consider using when next trying to shoot the messenger:
Deleteantwacky – ass – assful – ass up – bad-ass – beat – beater – beat-up – bite – bobo – bogus – bollocks – bomb – booey – boot-leg – booty – brutal – brutes – bullshit – bull shit – bull stuff – bum rap – bunk – buns – bush league – busted – butt – cake – chincy – chintzy – chump – cottage – crap – crappy – craptacular – craptastic – crummy – dodgy – drag – dump – fail – fake – false – freaking – from hunger – FUBAR – fucking – fuckward – fugazi – gay – ghetto – hack – hacked up – hackish – hellacious – hoopty – hype – jacked up – jank – jecka – jump the shark – kife – lame – lame-ass – like ass – like death warmed over – loc – loud – mank – naff – nas – nasty – pants – pid – piece of shit – pish – piss – piss-ant – pits, the – poopy – potato quality – rassclat – reechy – retarded – rinky-dink – rubbish – sad – salty – sausage fest – sausage party – scarred – screw the badger – sheisty – shit – shit out of luck – shits, the – shitty – skank – SOL – spork – stink – suck a bag of dicks – sucky – sugar honey ice tea – sword fight – tacky – ten pounds of shit in a five-pound bag – terribad – toilet – tore up – tow up – trif – turd – twisted – ugly – uncool – wank – weak – welfare – whack – worked – yuck
Interesting and revealing that neither Neeson or his trolls will touch the question of the institutionalisation of children with a barge pole. They seem to think that if they keep heaping abuse on Ricketson that the question will disappear. It won't. The question is here to stay and will continue to haunt Neeson for as long as his business model necessitates the warehousing of children in institutions and presenting himself as the father figure who has rescued them. Returning the kids to their families would necessitate acknowledging that most of these kids have fathers and don't need Neeson to step into that role for photo ops.
ReplyDeleteSome abusive words Neeson trolls might like to consider using when next trying to shoot the messenger:
Deleteantwacky – ass – assful – ass up – bad-ass – beat – beater – beat-up – bite – bobo – bogus – bollocks – bomb – booey – boot-leg – booty – brutal – brutes – bullshit – bull shit – bull stuff – bum rap – bunk – buns – bush league – busted – butt – cake – chincy – chintzy – chump – cottage – crap – crappy – craptacular – craptastic – crummy – dodgy – drag – dump – fail – fake – false – freaking – from hunger – FUBAR – fucking – fuckward – fugazi – gay – ghetto – hack – hacked up – hackish – hellacious – hoopty – hype – jacked up – jank – jecka – jump the shark – kife – lame – lame-ass – like ass – like death warmed over – loc – loud – mank – naff – nas – nasty – pants – pid – piece of shit – pish – piss – piss-ant – pits, the – poopy – potato quality – rassclat – reechy – retarded – rinky-dink – rubbish – sad – salty – sausage fest – sausage party – scarred – screw the badger – sheisty – shit – shit out of luck – shits, the – shitty – skank – SOL – spork – stink – suck a bag of dicks – sucky – sugar honey ice tea – sword fight – tacky – ten pounds of shit in a five-pound bag – terribad – toilet – tore up – tow up – trif – turd – twisted – ugly – uncool – wank – weak – welfare – whack – worked – yuck
How about this:
Delete"Ricketson, you are a slimy marijuana smoking delusional douche bag loser cunt who should crawl under a rock and die like the slug you are."
Whaddya reckon? Can anyone better that
Can you squeze 'fucktard' in there somehow? And a Nesson troll insult, when drunk, requires 'cut' too :-)
DeleteHey, its a boring day at work and this is fun.
And add 'child sex offender' in there as well. No other reason why he continually targets very poor families with young daughters on the pretence he wants to help them. Could it be that Ricketson is exactly the same as Fletcher?
DeleteDear Scott Neeson, James Mc Cabe and Alan Lemon
DeleteCalling me a 'child sex offender', beginning a smear campaign along these lines, will not distract me from continuing to ask you questions about the institutionalisation of children and how you account for the $4,000 a year you claim it costs to keep one child in residence at CCF for one year.
Anonymous 10.46 will, of course, squeal, "I am not Scott Neeson" but who else would spend the whole day at their computer thinking up new and different ways to throw up a smokescreen to avoid answering questions - the than the three of you. I will respond to all future comments by Neeson trolls by addressing the three of you.
That you should refer to me as, or imply that I am, a 'child sex offender' reveals just how desperate you are to avoid answering my questions. Just as you did with david Fletcher, Scott, you now hope that if you sling enough mud (innuendo, rumour, scuttlebutt) that there will be those reading this blog who will respond in the same way that those reading Khmer440 responded when you decided to go after David Fletcher. Perhaps there are some of those reading this blog who will believe you. Such is life.
As for my pretending to 'help' families in order to gain access to 'young daughters', the fact is that, unlike you, I wish to help entire families and not separate children from their families. These families have boys in them as well so, if you wish to engage in more innuendo, perhaps you should include the boys also. And, given that several of the people I try to assist are elderly women, perhaps you should include them also in my evil plans.
As for you statement, "Could it be that Ricketson is exactly the same as Fletcher?" the answer is, "For the most part, not, but in one respect, yes."
How 'yes'?
In having been targeted by Scott Neeson (or James Mc Cabeor Alan Lemmon writing on your behalf) as a 'child sex offender'.
Here, again, is what you said about David Fletcher back in 2010, Scott:
"
“There is little doubt Fletcher devotes his time to grooming young girls….The fact is these children can be bought. It’s difficult to stop it. The British Embassy have been told about Fletcher. Many organizations have files on him, but nothing has happened. If you can get this guy sent packing you are doing a service to the children here.”
This is yo, speaking to discredited journalist Andrew Drummond in June 2010. David Fletcher was ‘sent packing’ one month later and has been in jail ever since.
In any country in which there was rule of law, David Fletcher could have sued you for defamation. Mind you, in any country in which there was rule of law, you would be charged with the illegal detention of children.
One of Ricketsons latest blogs on his blogspot. I wonder if Friends International realise just who they are dealing with. After reading his mention towards the end of sex with a 14 year old I think maybe he spends way too much time with Fletcher. Maybe a little research into your life will become very illuminating James.
ReplyDeleteTRACY
Fun talking to ya.
TRACY pauses for a moment before turning to walk off.
MATT
For me too, Tracy.
TRACY turns, beams a smile at him for a moment, turns keeps walking. MATT turns on the ignition.
PASSENGER
Good night?
MATT seems not to have heard. He looks back out the window. TRACY has almost reached the other side of the road.
PASSENGER
Guess it would have been better if you'd scored that bit of teen pussy.
MATT ignores the PASSENGER; turns on the meter. The muffled sound of a rooster crowing. The PASSENGER ogles TRACY.
PASSENGER
What's better than fucking a 16 year old girl?
MATT takes his mobile from his pocket:
Juliet.
PASSENGER
Fucking a 14 year old girl.
The PASSENGER laughs. MATT ignores him, talks into his mobile.
MATT
I wish you'd stop doing that, sweetheart!
JULIET'S VOICE
Doing what?
MATT
Hanging up on me.
JULIET'S VOICE
You don't have a clue, do you?
MATT
About what?
JULIET'S VOICE
Anything.
MATT
I'm not psychic, Juliet.
JULIET'S VOICE
You can say that again.
PASSENGER
Can't live with 'em, can't shoot 'em, eh!
JULIET'S VOICE
Who's that? What did he say?
MATT
Nothing.
JULIET'S VOICE
I heard what he said. Arsehole! Bye dad.
Juliet hangs up.
PASSENGER
Hey, you know your hand's bleeding?
MATT ignores him, taps 'J' and 'U' on the keypad of his mobile when the sound of a rooster crowing announces the arrival of a text message from Juliet:
Fuck you!
MATT stares at the text message. Natural sound drains away as MATT raises his eyes.
And what, precisely, is the point you are making?
DeleteThis is a scene from a fictional film. A drama. For anyone who is interested, as this Neeson trill quite clearly is not, in reading this scene in context, the screenplay can be found at:
http://jamesricketson.blogspot.com/2015/06/1-ships-in-night.html
The passenger is a first class idiot and Matt, the taxi driver, kicks him out of the cab:
PASSENGER
Can we fucking…go…!?
He indicates the ticking meter. MATT nods, checks for traffic before leaving the curb, sees TRACY across the road - arm outstretched; hitching. The group of THREE YOUNG DRUNKEN MEN closeby have spotted her.
TRACY turns, looks at MATT looking at her. She waves to him as she did before - thumb outstretched and four fingers moving, flapping up and down exaggeratedly: 'ta ta'.
Without thinking, MATT moves his hand as if to replicate the gesture but stops himself. MATT looks calmly at the PASSENGER for a long moment.
MATT
Sorry, I can't take you to Cronulla.
The PASSENGER, incredulous, looks at TRACY, back at MATT.
PASSENGER
You're fucking kidding, right!?
MATT
Sorry, but…the driver behind me…
The PASSENGER stares at MATT - who reaches across him and opens the passenger door, undoes the PASSENGER'S seat belt.
23 EXT. CITY STREET. NIGHT
TRACY watches the PASSENGER get out Matt's cab on the other side of the road, slam the door.
The passenger was a character closely based on yourself by chance James ??
DeleteI see what you mean Anonymous 9.24. I just checked it out as well and James certainly appears not to be as squeaky clean as he makes out. Maybe some of the other readers should check his other blogs and publish on this page any posts he has made that could be considered offensive for general publication. Maybe you are heading in the right direction with your previous Fletch the Letch comment
ReplyDeletePlease feel free to publish whatever you like here. I believe in freedom of speech. If you take anything I write out of context, I will provide the context and let readers make up their minds for themselves.
DeleteIt will not escape the attention of readers with a modicum of intelligence that Neeson and his trolls are trying desperately to divert attention away from the question of the institutionalisation of children and to avoid accounting in any way for the $4,000 per child Neeson claims to the IRS he spends each year.
@ 9.24 Anony m arse
ReplyDeleteHave you ever read a book? A book of fiction?
If you have you will have noticed that it has characters in it. Different characters. There are men and women, boys and girls, good people and bad people.
The same applies with movies. Even if you have never read a book you have seen a few movies, right? With fictional characters? Some of them good, some not so good. Some of them nasty. Some of them maybe terrorists or murderers.
If a baddie says, "let's kill all the XXX cunts" this does not mean that the author is suggesting that allthe XXX cunts deserve to be killed. Can you wrap your head around this concept. XXX can refer to whatever group of people the baddie things should be killed. It could be an ethnic group, it could be a religious group, it could be a group of people bound together by their sexuality. And so on.
Scott Neeson should know from his Hollywood days that the lines of dialogue spoken by a character do not reflect the thoughts of the screenwriter. You need to teach your trolls Neeson the difference between fiction and real life.
So help me if I have this wrong. Well intentioned donors give Neeson money ($125/month). Neeson uses it to keep the children from their Mother and family. This (according to ALL research) HURTS the child developmentally, psychologically, and emotionally. Neeson sends the children who are housed in high walls with barbed wire to public school in the AM and to his school in the PM. The amount the donors pay is more money than most entire families have to live on in Cambodia. My what great humanitarians you are.
ReplyDeleteHere is an interesting video to see how Neeson treats the impoverished: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve280RWEV5w
ReplyDeleteIt does show where Ricketsons thoughts are though (sex with 14 and 16 year olds) I am sure there are other life situations he could have used for his blogspot.
ReplyDeleteMy line of thought is that the research on this subject is made very easy for him bearing in mind some of the company he keeps and I would even go so far as to suggest that as he has no proper job taxi driving might be something he could have had experience at as well. Regarding shooting the messenger James - personally I would not piss on you if you were on fire, let alone waste a bullet (or arrow) on you. I think many of your readers would feel the same way.
Dear Scott Neeson, James Mc Cabe and Alan Lemmon
DeleteThe segment of my screenplay represents maybe 30 seconds of the whole story. The character that makes the statements he does about young girls is onscreen for between 30 and 40 seconds. I did not 'choose' anything. You chose to quite one small part of a 97 page screenplay. I am sure you could go through the dozen or so feature film screenplays I have written and pluck from them lines, taken out of context, that you believe shine a light on my true character. Please, be my guest. Go ahead if you think that in doing so you will be able to throw up a sufficiently thick smokescreen such that readers of this blog will forget that the topic in hand is the institutionalisation of children. With 700 or so institutionalised children at CCF the deleterious effects of the removal of these kids from their families must be abundantly apparent by now. On the other hand, given that none of you have any training at all in child psychology, perhaps you are blind to the damage you are doing to the children and the heartbreak you cause the parents of those whose kids you refuse to return to their care.
That you would not piss on me if I was on fire is, as so often the case when one or all of the three of you post anonymous comments, the kind of juvenile insult that I used to hear in school locker rooms when I was a teenager.
Now, please answer the questions I have asked about the institutionalisation of kids and let me and the readers here know how you account for the fact that CCF supposedly spends $4,000 a year to keep one kid in a dormitory and attending a free government school.
If you feel that you must leaven your reply, your answer to these questions, with further personal abuse, please go ahead. You could dive your responses into two parts: (1) Personal abuse and (2) Answering the questions.
LOL ROFL, I am none of the above James !!!!
DeleteDetective or good investigative work certainly is not not for you is it. Why not just go back to your cheap screenplays and shit stirring.
Signed
Not Scott, Not Alan and Not James (Not the Dalai Lama, Tony Abbott, or The Queen of England either before you make them your next guesses)
Sear Scott Neeson, Alan Lemmon and James Mc Cabe
DeleteYou run an NGO that has, as its fund raising business model, the removal of children from their families. You know that all the research done into the institutionalisation of children is damaging to them and yet you persist with this model. Why?
Why, when you ask the parents of the children you remove to sign 'contracts' with CCF, do you not allow the parents to either consult with an independent party about the terms and conditions of the contract or to retain a copy of the contract? Why do you force staff working at CCF to sign non-disclosure contracts forbidding them from talking in public about what goes on behind closed doors at CCF? Why should such a contract be necessary?
How do you account for the $4,000 you claim to be spending to keep one child in a CCF dormitory for one year - sleeping between 2 and 4 to a bed?
The questions remain the same. Your responses remain the same.
I think The Dalai Lama, Tony Abbott, and The Queen of England are all feeling a bit left out James, why do you only favour Scott, James and Alan in your responses ?? Maybe I even work for NSW Health or Screen Australia or one of the many other organisations you make posts about. Its possible that I also work for Friends International - have you considered that ??
DeleteNeeson and his trolls refuse to deal in any way with the damage done to children removed from their families and institutionalised. I have had a good deal of first hand experience with the trauma this causes to both children and their parents. I saw the distress caused to two parents who asked me to help get their children back from CCF. Scott refused to return them. He told me, in writing (so he can't now pretend otherwise) that the parents had entered into a 'contract' with CCF and that he was entitled to keep the two daughters regardless of the parent's wishes. The parents insisted that they had singed no contract.Neeson insisted that they had. I asked Neeson to produce the contract. He refused. This was before I discovered that CCF gets ALL parents of kids in CCF institutional care to sign pro forma 'contracts' - copies of which he refuses to give to the parents.
ReplyDeleteBut let's just say for arguments sake, that these parents had in fact signed a contract with CCF to take care of their daughters till they were 18. What kind of person would, on the basis of such a contract, not return the girls to their parents when asked?
In fact, in Cambodian law, Neeson had no right to keep the girls if their parents asked for them to be returned. Indeed, if there were rule of law in Cambodia, Neeson's refusal to return the girls to their parents when asked would have resulted in his being charged under the:
Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation
Article 8:Definition of Unlawful Removal
The act of unlawful removal 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.
When the rule of law applies in Cambodia, when Cambodia becomes a genuine democracy, it is this law that will comeback to haunt Neeson when and if a class action suit is bought against CCF for the illegal detention of hundreds of boys and girls. This will be Cambodia's 'Stolen Generation' scandal and there will be lots of people who should have spoken up (but who did not) who will be deeply implicated, from a moral point of view, in what transpired. Human rights organisations such as LICADHO and ADHOC will be asked to explain why they did not speak out in defense of this 'stolen generation' of Cambodian children.
Stuck in the groove of a tired old record again James ??
ReplyDeleteDear Scott Neeson, James Mc Cabe and Alan Lemon
DeletePlease answer the questions.
I think The Dalai Lama, Tony Abbott, and The Queen of England are all feeling a bit left out James, why do you only favour Scott, James and Alan in your responses ?? Maybe I even work for NSW Health or Screen Australia or one of the many other organisations you make posts about. Its possible that I also work for Friends International - have you considered that ??
DeleteDear Scott Neeson, Alan Lemon and James Mc Cabe
DeleteYou clearly have no intention of answering any questions. I think this point has been made quite clear - not just in this blog entry but in many others.
Time to move on. My latest entry:
http://cambodia440.blogspot.com/2015/06/122-does-scott-neeson-need-to-learn.html
To say the CCF is "taking" children in any way is nothing more than a lie.
ReplyDeleteLess than 5% of families that apply to CCF have their child accepted into the education program. Probably more now that they have a bigger profile. Of the kids that do qualify and are accepted, 75% live at home with their families.
Yes Anonymous 1.42, you are correct it is a lie but you forget Mr Ricketson is not interested in the facts or the truth, he just wants to post sensationalist statements. That is why Scott ignores him as he should do. James never mentions those that live with their families as it spoils the illusion he is trying to build.
DeleteDear Scott Neeson, James Mc Cabe and Alan Lemmon
DeleteHere is at least a partial answer to a question, giving rise to further questions.
(1) Given the millions of dollars CCF has at its disposal, why are 95% of families turned away when they ask that their kids be educated by CCF?
(2) How many of the kids in CCF's education program are attending free public schools? ANd how many are attending CCF run schools?
(3) How much does CCF pay the teachers who work in the CCF schools?
(4) If 75% of the kids accepted into CCF's education programme live at home with their families, why do you tell the IRS that it is costing $4,000 a year to educate and accommodate them? Or do these children, the 75%, fall into a different category? If so, how much does CCF tell the IRS is spends educating these '75%'?
As for my wanting to only post sensationalist statements, please identify one such statement? My 'statements', as you call them, are almost invariably questions.
And if your reason for ignoring my questions, Scott (call them 'sensationalist statements' if you must) is that I phrase my questions in a way that is not to your liking, would you answer the same or similar questions if put to you journalists from the Cambodian Daily? The Phnom Penh Post? Would you allow journalists from either paper to visit CCF institututions? Talk with the kids? Talk with the staff? See for themselves how many kids stay in each dormitory? In the next day or two?
If most of the kids in your schools live with their parents, how much are you telling the IRS it costs to educate them?
Mr Ricketson, please just read from the website how many children CCF take care of. Most of the kids CCF support DO live with their parents, as an "investigative journalist you do a pretty poor job at investigating if I might say so. Why on earth would Scott Neeson want to answer any questions form somebody like you who has no idea what he is talking about.
DeleteOnce again James you have forgotten to address The Dalai Lama, Tony Abbott, and The Queen of England in your reply, once again I repeat I am none of the above.
ReplyDeleteYou still have not answered my questions from earlier posts including verification on your friends maths and the Granny program and of course the nutrient enriched bread that is so proudly baked at the Star Bakery and given away to the kids.
Interesting though that as per your 1.58 post and now that people are starting to ask you questions that you cannot answer you want to pick up your toys and go home and come back in a new post 122. Lets hear the "old record stuck in a groove" just once more today though please.
Dear Scott Neeson, James Mc Cabe and Alan Lemmon
ReplyDeleteAnswer my questions re the $4,000 CCF claims to be spending on one child in CCF institutional care and I'll be happy to address the 'granny' and 'nutrient enriched bread' issues which, it is worth pointing out here, account for buyt a fraction of your $10 million budget.
No, I am not picking up my toys and going home. You have made it clear to me, and to all others reading this who are interested, that you have no intention of answering legitimate questions. This is beyond dispute now. There is only so much that a dead horse can be flogged!
At some point in the future, being it sooner or later, an investigative journalist with clout will visit this blog and decide for him or herself whether it is you, Scott, who is open and transparent in your answers to questions,or whether I am, as you are so find of pointing out to me, someone whose credibility is so low that you need not lower yourself to answering my questions. This investigative journalist will arrive at whatever conclusions s/he chooses - based on evidence of your words and mine. This journalist will also have done his or her homework and spoken with CCF staff and with children, now adults, who either sing your praises or otherwise. As a marketing person you can only control the product you are selling, which is basically yourself, for so long. Eventually facts and truth will emerge, as they did with Somaly Mam.
it will not be me who brings you down. It will be your own arrogance; your own belief in the narrative you have written for yourself and which you will, in the near future, commit to print in your sojourn in Tuscany. You are your own worst enemy and will have no-one to blame for your downfall, when it happens, but yourself.
As previously stated many times James I AN NOT SCOTT and I am unable to do give qualified answers to your questions, I am a child sponsor who has visited CCF more than once over a period of years to spend time with my sponsored child (who has 2 living parents as was explained to me before I sponsored them)
DeleteNow perhaps you can finally answer firstly my question regarding your agreement/non agreement about your friends maths and secondly my questions regarding the Granny program/Star Bakery thanks
Dear Scott Neeson, James Mc Cabe and Alan Lemmon
DeleteOne of youm or all of you, have spent the entire day glued to your computers coming up with a variety of different stratagems NOT to anwser questions - most particularly questions relating to the $4,000 allegedly spent on one children in institutional care and those relating to the damaging effects of institutionalisation.
You have adopted the persona of a 'child sponsor' who is unable to answer questions but is able to defend CCF's track record. Rather than deal with the questions in hand, you have chosen to deflect attention towards the 'granny program' and the 'Star Bakery'.
Ok, let's play this little game. How much does CCF spend on the 'granny program' each year? ANd how much on the 'Star Bakery'? Without figures, you rupport of these cannot be viewed in context. What I do know, for a fact, is that in the one community I know very well (and a community that has families with kids in CCF care) there is not one granny who receives one cent of support from CCF and not one member of the community who benefits from your nutritious bread.
Your insistence on focusing on these two small programs is your way of throwing up a smoke screen. We do not need to account for the $4,000 per child we claim to be spending because we have a 'granny program' and hand out nutritious bread.
Clutching at straws. This is what Team Neeson is doing as it refuses, time and time again, to answer the legitimate questions Ricketson is asking. Your personal attacks, Scott, reveal the weakness of your position. If you had an argument to present, you would present it. You have no argument,no answers. All you can hope to do, and your efforts are pathetic, is to throw as much mud at Ricketson as you can and hope that some of it sticks. In doing so you make yourself look a fool with something to hide.
ReplyDeleteYes, personal abuse is not an argument ion support of a proposition. it is a sign of weakness.And Neeson is a weak man. If he had truthful answers to James' questions he could demolish Ricketson so easily with logic and would not need to resort to personal abuse. I kept my mind open as this battle of will between Ricketson and Neeson gained some heat. I have no doubt now who the 'fucktard' is now. Neeson, you should either cash in your chips and retire to Tuscan with your millions or reform CCF before the media does to you what it did to Somaly Man
DeleteRiddle me this, Batman.
ReplyDeleteTeam Scott Neeson puts heaps of effort into discrediting Ricketson. Not by answering questions but by shooting the messenger.
If Ricketson is so full of shit, if he has all his facts wrong, isn't the obvious thing to do to open the doors of the Cambodian Children's Fund to journalists who are not Mr Ricketson and let them see for themselves? And ask questions for themselves?
If Team Neeson doesn't want any journalists on the premises asking questions maybe he does have something to hide?
If Team Neeson has nothing to hide these journalists will write stories that blow Ricketson's credibility out of the water. Parents of kids in care will say, "We have copies of our contracts and are happy with how CCF treats us." Members of staff will say, "We are not under constant video surveillance and are not forced to sign non disclosure contracts." The staff will also say, "We don't know of anyone who has been kicked out of CCF for asking too many questions." And, "No, CCF doesn't lock families out of their homes if they are $12.50 behind in their rent."
And so on.
If Team Neeson does't open the doors of CCF up they cant complain if Ricketson keeps asking questions.
Yes, Ricketson sounds like a broken record but his asking the same questions over and over again is preferable to Team Neeson's refusal to answer questions over and over again.
If Team Neeson is going to open the doors of CCF up and answer questions I reckon Ricketson should open his doors up and tell journalist why he is carrying on this vendetta of defamation against Neeson? He is obsessed but says he has not met Neeson. What is his problem? Has he consulted a shrink?
DeleteGood point Anonymous 5.04. Ricketson keeps ranting on about transparency and accountability. Its about time be came clean with what his real motives are for defaming Scott Neeson. Is he just jealous because he is a loser and Scott has made something of his life and done good work? Or is he just fucked in the head?
DeleteFucked in the head. A slug that should be exterminated.
DeleteWow, Team Neeson sure has some nice guys playing on the team! NOT.
DeleteSo Ricketson should anser questions about his motives of stopping a man that has doomed over 700 children and the Poverty Pimp should continue hiding? You ladies are FU!!!!
DeleteSo help me if I have this wrong. Well intentioned donors give Neeson money ($125/month). Neeson uses it to keep the children from their Mother and family. This (according to ALL research) HURTS the child developmentally, psychologically, and emotionally. Neeson sends the children who are housed in high walls with barbed wire to public school in the AM and to his school in the PM. The amount the donors pay is more money than most entire families have to live on in Cambodia. My what great humanitarians you are.
ReplyDeleteDear Team Neeson
ReplyDeleteResponding to your Anonymous comment of 5.04.
At the risk of belabouring the point, I have never met Neeson and have nothing against him personally. His path in life and mine crossed when he refused to return two girls to their family when the parents asked him to do so. He claimed that he had a contract that give him the right to retain custody of the girls but refused to produce it. He claimed that he was keeping the girls, against their parents wishes, on the basis of a contract he had entered into with MOSAVY.
This is how our relationship,m all in email (and all on record) began.
Scott stumbled into my life again when I discovered that he had played a significant role in the fate of David Fletcher.
Then, I met a whole community of poor people working in the dump - many of whom had kids with CCF but who were getting no assistance for the rest of the family.
Then I met a family that had been locked out of their home because they were $12.50 behind in their rent.
Then I met former CCF kids (now adults) and CCF staff who told me certain things.
Then I discovered that CCF was claiming, to the IRS, that it was spending $4,000 a year to care for one child in residential (institutional) care.
Need I go on? How many reasons does one need to have to start asking questions/
I asked lots of questions. No answers were forthcoming. The only response from Team Neeson has been varying forms of abuse and attempts to shoot the messenger.
Dear Team Neeson
ReplyDeleteResponding to your 5.48 comment. I am trying to think of some polite way to respond to this comment. None occurs to me, alas.
Team Neeson
ReplyDeleteYet again, I have been assailed by a rumour. I take all rumours with a huge grain of salt but those emanating from within CCF have proven to be remarkably accurate so I can't discount this one completely.
CCF plans to sue me in the Supreme Court in NSW.
Mmmm...
OK, now this might be nothing but a rumour but, given that it has reached my ears a few times now, it occurs to me that maybe the rumour (whether it is based in fact or not) has some truth to it. The rumour from within the inner sanctum of CCF about your $50,000 trip to Australia for a photo opportunity with the Dalai Lama proved to be 100% accurate, though I imagine that you will dispute the $50,000 figure.
There is another element to this rumour (suing me in the Supreme Court of NSW) that is interesting. It seems, if my informant is correct, that the role of the rolls that appear on this blog with monotonous regularity, is to annoy so much, piss me off so much, that I write something truly defamatory here. If this be so, please do keep trying.
If this rumour is true, I would welcome the opportunity, Scott, to meet you in the Supreme Court. You will, no doubt, have a $5,000 a day Silk representing you. I will have no-one. Just myself.
Of course this may be one of those occasions when the inner sanctum of CCF, leaking like a sieve as it does, is leaking deliberately misleading information. We shall see!
Your s loser and a cunt Mr Rcketson and I hope Scott Neeson sues the pants off you
ReplyDeleteDear Team Neeson
DeleteI’m not sure if this clown ('Anonymous 3.19) is part of the team or if he is a freelancer. If he is part of the team, I suggest you get rid of him and find a replacement without a drinking problem. And I suggest that you stop shooting the messenger and simply answer the questions. I need not repeat them. If you have good answers you can demolish me with facts, with logical argument and will not need to fall back on personal abuse. If you want to make me look like a fool, doso with facts and figure. With answers.
I am sure that a case can be made for keeping 700 kids, almost all of them with families, in institutional care – regardless of all the research indicating how damaging this is to children. So, make you case. Argue your case. Convince me, convince others reading this that these 700 kids are better in an institution than with their families.
The same applies for the $4,000 per child CCF claims to the IRS to spend. For the life of me I cannot (a) understand how on earth it could cost CCF this amount each year and (b) cannot believe that this is the most effective use of sponsors and donors money. If I am wrong, if I am missing something, enlighten me. Enlighten us.
That you refuse to answer these and other questions is, in my view, a problem (a major problem) for a charity that should be accountable, to sponsors and donors, for the millions of dollars it spends each year.
At present the only information that sponsors and donors have about CCF is what you, as a marketing person, Scott, generate – endless photos of yourself with kids, for a long time (as if these kids had no dads!) and now endless photos of grannies and houses. What do these photos mean?
Out of your $10 million a year in donations and sponsorships, how much do you spend on your granny program? This is not a rhetorical question. As for the houses so often displayed, these are given to CCF for free so you can’t take credit for them. Indeed, not only does CCF get these homes for nothing, it then rents them out to poor families and so, is making money from these gifted homes. And in order for the families to move into one of these gifted homes they have to abide by Scott Neeson rules – thus further building your empire and entrenching your power.
I believe that there is a lot wrong with the model you have chosen, Scott. You clearly believe otherwise. Argue your case with facts, figures and logic; not with your persistent attempts to shoot the messenger.
I will continue to advocate on behalf of the families whose children you have removed. Sue me, if you must; if you think it is the answer to the public relations nightmare awaiting you when the warehousing of 700 children (or however many you have in care now) is seen to be unacceptable; when the removal of so many children from their families is seen, not a triumph for Scott Neeson, but as a serious error in social engineering that needs to be corrected. I think that time has come and that you are swimming against the tide of history.
The problem 3.19 is that I suspect being the loser Ricketson is that he has nothing of value that he can be sued for. My information (from a very reliable source who is a friend of his) is that he even had to borrow the $3,000 he talks so loudly about giving to a family recently and it just adds to the money he owes everywhere. No doubt he will now vomit his "money is not success" story over us all.
ReplyDeleteDear Tear Neeson, writing as Anonymous 5.44
DeleteYou are both right and wrong.
I own no house (I rent) and I drive car that cost me $50 but which gets me from A to B.
I didn't borrow the money to buy a home for the family. You are wrong about that. But if I had borrowed it because I did not have it, wouldn't that indicate a fairly high level of commitment on my part? As opposed to evidence that I am a loser?
No, no 'vomiting' of "money is no success" stories from me. You clearly see yourself as a winner but "methinks the lady doth protest too much."
Nothing at all wrong with borrowing money James, unless as I hear (from one of your friends) you are not real good at paying it back. A real success story in your $50 car and no house at your age with huge debt. What an example you set. !!!
DeleteDear Team Neeson (8.22)
DeleteGiven that the only person I have borrowed money from this past 20 years is one of my brothers, this stab in the dark has not (if you will excuse my mixing of metaphors) borne fruit.
Again, you reveal a fairly limited understanding of the many different kinds of success there are in life. It may have escaped you but your dividing the world into winners and losers has ramifications for the people CCF works with. Given that most don't even own a $50 car or a house I guess, by the time they get to be my age they are all losers. It is just as well that there are winners like you here in Cambodia to rescue their children - not from poverty, but from their 'loser' families.
Just repeating what I hear from one of your "inner circle" James. Just goes to prove I guess that things we hear from inner circles are not always worth publishing eh?
DeleteA comparison between yourself educated in Australia and people living in poverty in Cambodia is somewhat grasping at straws even for you don't you think.
Dear Team Neeson (9.10)
DeleteAs with your reference to my 'borrowing' money, your reference to my 'inner circle' is way off-beam also. There is no 'inner circle' - either in Cambodia or Australia. If you keep taking stabs in the dark, however, you'll probably get something right eventually.
What I have got from within CCF isa slightly different kettle of fish. I was told that families were being locked out of their houses for being less than $20 behind in their rent. I went to check for myself and found the information to be correct. I learnt from within CCF that you, Scott, were flying to Australia for a photo op with the Dalai Lama. this turned out to be correct. I learnt from within CCF about the dodgy maths applied to the sum spent per child per annum in CCF residential care ($4,000) and checked for myself. It turned out that the information was correct. And so on. Not a perfect record but not bad.
Those things that I have heard from within CCF that I cannot confirm, I do not publish.
As for the 'comparison' you think I am making between myself and poor Cambodians, this is nonsense.
You have a mind-set that cannot see any man of my age (in an Australian context) who does not own a home and who drives a cheap old car, as a 'loser'. There are lots of reasons why people do not own cars pr homes and why they are, relative to the rest of the Australian population, poor. You have no idea what my reasons are. Did I lose all I own gambling? As a result of some tragedy in my life that required I sell everything? Because I chose a different set of priorities? It doesn't matter. In the simple black and white world that you inhabit, I must be a loser. And you, having made a lot of money must be a winner.
What all these comments from Team Neeson have in common is their refusal to answer questions and the hope that if you just keep on making silly observations about my character that no-one reading this blog will notice that you refuse to ever answer questions. For anyone with a modicum of intelligence, this refusal is blindingly obvious.
Please keep up your good work James. You expose a lot of truths, even if they can't defend their position. Why are all the foul mouths on Neeson's side?
DeleteThe foul mouths ARE Neeson's side. TEAM NEESON!!!
DeleteYou are suffering from delusions of grandeur Mr Ricketson. Why should Scott Neeson answer any questions from you? Who the fuck are you? A nobody. Scott Neeson doesn't need to answer questions from nobodies like you. You are just a mosquito that is a little bit annoying as you buzz around making a lot of noise. He could swat you any time but he's got better things to do with his time than even pay you any attention at all.
ReplyDeleteDear Team Neeson
DeleteOh dear, you really have got your knickers in a twist, haven't you?
Cannot formulate any kind of response to this, sorry
cheers
James (Nobody) Ricketson
Its common knowledge Ricketson is a loser - no new messages there.
ReplyDeleteDear Team Neeson (11.35)
DeleteYou are so bereft of arguments to support the proposition that the institutionalisation of children is the way to go, you must resort to not-very-clever insults. If you are going to insult me, surely you can do better than 'loser'.
How about you publish your 2013/2014 tax return online Mr Ricketson in view of all the trips you take to Cambodia which you no doubt claim as a tax deduction for making a documentary.
ReplyDeleteMy guess would be that you pay bugger all tax in Australia and write all expenses off for the frequent jaunts you take to Cambodia. It is no wonder Screen Australia want nothing to do with you. It is people like you that give the industry a bad name. How about you put your own house in order before you try sorting out other peoples.
As it is unlikely you will ever get another film released because of your shit stirring within the industry it would be interesting to know how the ATO view your tax returns and the claims I have no doubt you make for your endless travel.
Dear Team Neeson (1.25)
DeleteWhat has my tax return got to do with the subject in hand?
I am a filmaker whose income fluctuates between modest and very low. You, on the other hand, are running a $10 million a year business with hundreds of shareholders - in the form of sponsors and donors.
If I were running a film company that turns over $10 million a year I would expect the investors in that company to hold me to account for how I spent the money. If I were to claim, in my tax return, that I spent $4,000 on a particular item of expenditure, my investors would be perfectly within their rights to ask, "Why did this cost $4,000? Why does this $4,000 item appear so frequently in your balance sheets when it is clear that the same item can be acquired for considerably less than half that amount?"
If the IRS were to do an audit and ask you to account for the $4,000 per child, what would your answer be? If a sponsor or donor were to ask this question, what would your answer be? Why don't you simply break it down for us and, in so doing, make it abundantly clear to anyone interested that my question re the $4,000 is a stupid one?
As for the release of my next film, Scott, be patient.
As for my tax returns please feel free, if you think that I am cheating the ATO (claiming bulk $4,000 items, for instance) to report this.
Once again you are confusing me for somebody I am not James, but again I wonder how an income from somebody that fluctuates between modest and very low can provide for so many trips to Cambodia - please explain. It would be interesting for your readers to understand where the private funding is coming from I am sure.
DeleteFrom what I understand CCF do explain to any of the "investors" what happens to the money, and you are correct that the investors have a right to ask, all questions I have previously asked as a sponsor have been answered to my satisfaction. Are you an investor by any chance ?
As you are now an investor in Friends International perhaps you would be so good as to let us know where we can access their tax returns for the last couple of years also thanks
Dear Team Neeson
DeleteI do not care, in particular, who you actually are., You are part of a team.
Your request for information about my 'funding' is yet another attempt, on your part, to deflect attention away from the questions being asked and make it seem that the person asking them should, indeed, be the subject of investigation.
You will, particularly you Scott, be familiar with the concept of 'pre-sales' - a mechanism whereby broadcasters out money up front as an investment in a film project - be it a documentary or a drama.
Team Neeson is now a 'character;' in the film I am making. That I am making a film, though I have been quite open about it, seems to have been forgotten by Team Neeson. Yes, it is taking a while to reach fruition but, like a good wine, it grows better with age and you guys are sure helping it along with your comments.Thanks.
No, I am not an investor in CCF. I am not a sponsor or a donor. I am tempted to become one just to see if, in so doing, Scott might answer any questions.
Given that you are (or purport to be) a 'sponsor' would you like to share with us some of the questions you asked and the answers you were given? Given that you are (and will forever remain) 'Anonymous', you need fear no repercussions in sharing your experience with us.
Your question re 'Friends' is a good one. I will ask.
Not an answer from Team Neeson in days, I suspect they are too busy taking children from their Mothers.
ReplyDelete