"Greg Mortenson won fame
as a humanitarian who built hundreds of schools in Afghanistan. Four-star U.S.
generals sought his advice on Afghan tribal dynamics. President Obama donated $100,000
of his Nobel Prize winnings to Mortenson’s charity. Former president Bill
Clinton praised him.
Four million people bought his book. Many of his former advocates now see him
as a fraud. A 2012
investigation into his charity, the Central Asia Institute, found
that he spent millions in donations on his expenses, including travel and
clothing. His book turned out to contain large-scale fabrications. Some of the
schools he boasted of had no students. Some appeared not to have been built at
all."
Does this article,
written by Kevin Sieff , of the Washington Post, about Greg Mortenson, Walter
Mitty fantasist, remind you of anyone?
Are there some lessons to
be learned from the Greg Mortenson story? It seems, as Scott heads off to
Tuscany to write his memoirs, that he is not going to learn any lessons at all
but will expose himself to ridicule when the truth about what goes on behind
closed walls at the Cambodian Chilren’s Fund comes out.
Perhaps, though, some
lessons may be learned by the media – so quick to jump on any feel-good story
and give men like Greg Mortenson and Scott Neeson precisely what they want –
free publicity. The world hungers for saints, saviors and genuinely decent
ethical men and women like Ghandi, Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi. When someone
appears in the landscape along who seems to have some of these qualities the
media fall over themselves giving them free air time and column inches in
newspapers, without bothering to check to see if the story these people tell
about themselves align with the facts. Then some years later, some other media
person who smells a rat comes along and exposes this latest secular saint as a
fraud.
Somaly Mam is a recent
example of a fraudster provided with a platform for her lies by a lazy media
and then publically humiliated years down the track by this same media. Shock!
Horror! How could Somaly Mam lie so blatantly, cries the media – despite having
built her up years beforehand without even bothering to ask a few questions
relating to her bona fides.
Somaly Mam’s lies
were known for years before the media suddenly decided that it was time
to take her down. Now she is trying to make a come-back! And some media give
her the time of day, despite her never having accounted for, explained away,
her lies. She is now a celebrity and once you are a celebrity you can be
forgiven anything. Bad behavior in public! Not a problem. A stint in rehab and
an appearance on Oprah all all is forgiven.
Scott Neeson is not quite
a celebrity yet, but he is working on it. His book, written in Tuscany, will be
his next strategic move into the world of celebrity. Then the Hollywood movie
made about him will seal the deal. Then he will be exposed as a serial liar.
Shock! Horror! Whoever would have guessed!? The media will use Neeson on his
way up the greasy pole to celebritydom (as it does now) and then use him again
as he slides back down it into ignominy.
I hope that Neeson does not have a
co-writer, as did Mortenson, who feels the need to kill him/herself when the
truth emerges.
Mortenson returns to Afghanistan,
trying to move past his ‘Three Cups of Tea’ disgrace.
MOHAMMAD
AGHA, Afghanistan — Greg Mortenson is hurtling down the dusty back roads of
eastern Afghanistan, hoping the Taliban won’t attack his Toyota 4Runner. There
are no police checkpoints, no American troops and no sign of any foreign
development projects — including his own.
A few years
ago, when the author of “Three Cups of
Tea” was one of the world’s most beloved activists, there would have
been a host of American officials waiting for him. But now, with his reputation
in a shambles, he has slipped back into Afghanistan quietly.
When he
arrives at an unmarked blue gate in a mud wall, his driver stops. Inside,
Mortenson says, lies “the other side of the story” — hundreds of Afghan girls
getting an education, thanks to him.
Except no one
is answering the door. The place looks abandoned.
“Maybe
everyone is at a wedding,” he says with a forced laugh. He squirms in his seat.
Mortenson won
fame as a humanitarian who built hundreds of schools in Afghanistan. Four-star
U.S. generals sought his advice on Afghan tribal dynamics. President Obama donated $100,000
of his Nobel Prize winnings to Mortenson’s charity. Former president Bill
Clinton praised him.
Four million people bought his book.
Many of his
former advocates now see him as a fraud.
A 2012
investigation into his charity, the Central Asia Institute, found
that he spent millions in donations on his expenses, including travel and
clothing. His book turned out to contain large-scale fabrications. Some of the
schools he boasted of had no students. Some appeared not to have been built at
all.
Now,
Mortenson is trying to start over, to emerge from years of pain and disgrace.
His donations have crashed. His co-author
committed suicide by kneeling in front of a train. His daughter
tried to take her life. He almost died of heart failure.
The full article can be found at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/mortenson-returns-to-afghanistan-trying-to-move-past-his-three-cups-of-tea-disgrace/2014/10/12/9774ae90-402f-11e4-b03f-de718edeb92f_story.html
I for one, can't wait to write an unbiased review of the story on the Poverty Pimps life. The harm that he has done to over 700 children, his use of funds from donors, his hiring of a convicted felon to head his CPU, the conditions the children are housed in with high walls and barbed wire. his 'contracts' to take the children. AMAZON.COM, here we come!!
ReplyDeleteDisclaimer:-
DeleteThose reading this blog should be aware that James Ricketson publicly raises funds for another NGO in Cambodia which institutionalises several hundred children and consideration should be given for his reasons in making posts regarding CCF. It might be a case, in his mind, that the way to have the biggest house in town is to knock all other buildings down.
James has a paranoia that anybody making a post he does not like is Scott Neeson
Despite his constant supposed concern for the welfare of children parental guidance is recommended in reading his blog due to the foul language he engages in.
Consideration should be taken if the controversial remarks made by Mr Ricketson are more to try and resurrect his failing career through attracting readers to this blog than to state true facts. Readers should be advised that any posts on this blog whether by Mr Ricketson or others are regrettably helping him achieve this goal.
James claims to be a personal spokesman for a convicted criminal. James believes there to be a conspiracy involving governments, NGO’s and individuals in several countries in this case against a convicted child sex offender (please check definition for Paranoia) James also references regularly his objections and defense of child sex predators in other cases where offenders have been punished by law.
In many of the cases where James will be caught out with his statements being incorrect an apology will not be published.
Anything James has read will be treated as gospel, however no matter how compelling the evidence anything that has been read contrary to his views will be instantly dismissed as scuttlebuck, innuendo or rumor.
Mr Ricketson has already been found guilty of defamation once in Cambodia, with a suspended sentence. Some of his other irrational blogs can be found as shown below
http://nswhealthissick.blogspot.sg/
http://globaldevelopmentgroup.blogspot.sg/
http://filmnewsaustralia.blogspot.sg/
http://citipointechurch.blogspot.sg/
http://screennewsaustralia.blogspot.sg/
http://jamesricketson.blogspot.sg/
Due to the restriction in length of anything published on this blog all other items of interest regarding the suggested reasons for Mr Ricketsons personal attacks on others have not been included in this disclaimer.
And you have proof of this so called harm he has created? You have proof that the children are worse off now than when they were scavenging in the dump site? I will answer the question for you - you dont have one single piece of evidence to prove your made up, fairy land bullshit.
ReplyDeleteFucking wanker!
Dear Team Neeson (11.37)
DeleteNo-one is suggesting, to the best of my knowledge, that kids are best left scavenging in the rubbish dump. What is being suggested, on the basis of massive amounts of research, is that the answer is not to take the kids from the dump and lock them up in institutions.The answer is to take these kids out of the dump and assist them within the context of their family and local community. The $4,000 year you claim to spend keeping one kid in residential care could lift the entire family out of poverty and leave plenty of money left over to help other families. In other words, leaving aside the damage done to kids forcibly removed from their families, it is a model that makes no sense from an economic point of view.
Are you capable of reading or only calling names. You just might start here: http://wearelumos.org/news/1549
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry that you've been so intellectually deprived. Did you grow up in institutional care?
Thats not proof of Neeson and CCF doing it you idiot. Where is the proof that CCF has harmed 700 children. Text book cases from other groups on what they think might be the case is an opinion on general practice only, it is not proof of harm by CCF.
ReplyDeleteSo before you try and use grown up words like intellectual, how about you pull your head out of your ass and start producing some real proof instead your dream world rubbish.
Fucking wanker!
Oh, 100 years of research proving that institutions are bad fro children is not enough proof for you? Neeson's way of running an institution, 700 kids behind barbed wire fences, is an exception to the rule?
DeleteYou are seriously a retard anonymous 12.37 - Where is the physical proof that CCF has harmed the children staying at CCF? Show us the proof. Produce a child and prove that they have been harmed. Show me a child pre CCF and show me the hair they have received now.
DeleteI know its frustrating for you - not being able to shut down Neeson and CCF but can you use what little brain capacity you have and produce on this blog, real proof. Not someone else's opinion or research - your proof!
Dear Team Neeson
DeleteI know that you do not have very high regard for facts and statistics but please just calm down and consider a similar proposition to the one you are expounding here.
50 years of research have made it clear that smoking is damaging the health of smokers. A new cigarette company appears on the scene selling an identical product to the one that has been proven to be damaging to the health of smokers. The CEO of the company hits back at critics:
"Show us the proof that our product has harmed anyone. Produce a smoker of our product and prove that they have been harmed."
Such a CEO would be fodder for late night comedians.
Let's look at this a slightly different way. OK, CCF is an exception to the rule when it comes to the deleterious effects of institutionalisation of children. Please explain what it is you are doing that is so different to what other similar institutions do? If you have found the magic bullet, the form of institutionalisation that is not harmful to kids, you should let the world know how you do it and receive the accolades you deserve.
Dear Team Neeson, I doubt that you read the article, but even if you did, there is a BIG difference between reading something and actually absorbing some of the information.
DeleteNeeson is so far from being on the right side of history, he should be strung up with the barbed wire that surrounds his compounds.
Is the global child protection community prioritising family care? Today, The Lancet examines the science of early adversity and impact of institutionalisation on children.
ReplyDeleteLUMOS, the international children’s charity founded by J.K. Rowling, has welcomed the publication of an authoritative international survey of scientific evidence proving that life in institutional care causes ‘often devastating’ harm to the development of children.
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.”
Babies 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.
Written by Harvard academics Anne Berens and Charles Nelson, the article - The science of early adversity: is there a role for large institutions in the care of vulnerable children? - gathers scientific evidence from more than 90 sources.
For well over 80 years “scientific studies have documented stunted cognitive, social, and physical development among children placed in institutions during key developmental years.”
“We have analysed,” the authors say, “robust evidence about the often devastating developmental consequences of institutionalisation in early childhood.
“We present evidence from a vast body of child development research suggesting that there is no appropriate place in contemporary child protection systems for the large, impersonal child-care institutions documented in many studies, at least for young children.”
The authors report that there are an estimated eight million children worldwide in institutions and so-called orphanages – so-called because the majority of children are NOT orphans – and the practice is growing in some parts of the world.
more to follow
...
DeleteThey find grounds for hope, though, in the scientific literature. Children can ‘catch up’ developmentally if they are taken out of institutional care - into a loving, attentive family environment – at an early age. Under the age of three, a crucial stage of development, their brains are most vulnerable to damage. The article explains that adult engagement strengthens regularly-used neurological connections in the child’s brain. There is also, however a process of ‘pruning’ of unused connections. The effect of the lack of engagement and stimulation in institutional care is that connections which would normally be strengthened are under-stimulated and at risk of pruning.
The article acknowledges that deinstitutionalisation is a complex challenge. Efforts to reform health, educational and social services for children can meet resistance, particularly from those employed in institution-based systems. However, it summarises evidence showing that running institutions not only harms children but is the most expensive form of care for vulnerable children. Early intervention and work to prevent children entering institutions in the first place are more cost-effective.
“Studies also offer hope, showing that children placed into family care, including forms of care deliverable in settings of poverty and economic transition, can experience developmental recovery.”
The authors urge a reform of services to target intervention and removal of children from institutions at the key developmental ages. “When it comes to removing children from harmful institutions, time is
of the essence.”
Georgette Mulheir, Lumos CEO, said: “Those of us working to achieve global deinstitutionalisation and a better future for eight million children will welcome this authoritative and compelling summary of the science around child brain development.
“If anyone has ever doubted that children are harmed – in their physical, cognitive, emotional, and social development - by the lack of love, care and consistent adult engagement in institutions, they should read this article.
“And any politicians or child care professionals asking whether they can or should replace their institutions for children with family-based care alternatives, the evidence summarised in The Lancet will make clear that it is possible and, for the most vulnerable children, it is vitally important.”
I'm not religious, but can I say AMEN?
DeleteRespond to this, Team Neeson? Are all these researchers wrong? And you are right? Please explain why your barbed wire enclosed institutions are any different from the barbed wire enclosed institutions of other charities that remove children from their families because 'orphans' press all the right buttons with sponsors and donors?
DeleteYou have painted yourself into a corner, Mr Neeson, and the only way out of it is to either present a cogent argument in favour of the removal of 700 children from their families or to adopt, as official CCF policy, the return of these children to their families.
Barbed wire is seen on every house, villa and business in Cambodia - the reason is because there are many thieves. What is your point about barbed wire?
ReplyDeleteGreat environment to rescue children TO!!! Of course, you are harming them by taking them from their families anyway, so I guess the children don't really matter.
DeleteAre the reports of 2 and 3 children to a bed also true?
DeleteIs it true also the children are 2 and 3 to a bed?
DeleteDear Anonymous 7.58
DeleteI agree with you. The barbed wire is a red herring. I think of the 'barbed wire' more as a metaphor. These kids are locked up in what amounts to a jail for children. They do not have much in the way of freedom of movement and any movement they make must be in strict adherence to rules laid down by Scott Neeson.
There are myriad problems with putting kids in institutions but I will mention one only here, for the time being: the separation of siblings.
As if being separated from their families were not enough, boys and girls from the same family are separated from each other in CCF institutions. And so are brothers and/or sisters who are sufficiently different in age.
I know of one instance where two sisters were separated and I happened to witness the effect this had on one of the sisters. I am not an expert in child psychology but this girl had, it seemed to me, been traumatised by the experience of not only being separated from her parents but from her sister also.
Team Neeson will no doubt fire back at me, "Where's the proof that this girl was traumatised?" I will fire back, "If you are so sure that none of CCF's 700+ kids have been, are being, traumatised by the experience of being separated from their families, their siblings, would you be prepared to allow completely independent child psychologists talk with the kids and make their own assessment?"
If, as Team Neeson will insist, it has the best interests at heart, it will say, "Yes, we would welcome the feedback from experts. If there is anything we are doing wrong we must correct it."
I will be very surprised (though pleasantly so) if this is Team Neeson's response.
Scott, as a sponsor, I have a couple of questions. Can you tell us where you 2014 tax info is. This is July now. Also can you tell me if donations that flow in from Australia, the UK and Hong Kong get included in your US tax info?
ReplyDeleteWould it also be possible for you to share how long the Granny Project has been going on and the costs are.
Thank you kindly for your transparency. Best.
Wanker anon 7.37. If you are a sponsor then put your name on the post to legitimise your request and possibly contact Scott directly. As if CCF is going to respond to an anonymous person saying they are a sponsor. Fucking idiot!
ReplyDeleteDear Team Neeson (Scott Neeson, James Mc Cabe & Alan Lemmon)
DeleteYou have been posting anonymous comments on this blog for months now so calling Anonymous 7.37 a 'wanker' and a 'fucking idiot' are two insults that could be directed at you also.
Why not simply answer the question: When are you going to publish your 2014 tax information, as you did your 2013 tax return? Have you decided that this is not information that your sponsors and donors need to bother themselves with?
And what is wrong with the question about whether or not the money CCF receives from Australia,the UK and Hong Kong is included in your IRS tax return? If these extra monies are not included, how is this extra money being spent?
And as for the 'granny project', this is a very recent initiative and I know of 3 grannies living in a community from which CCF extracts children who have never heard of it and receive no benefits at all from it.
If the 'granny project' is for real, it is a great idea.If it is just window dressing, it is a cynical exercise in making CCF look good. Knowing how much the program costs would be a good starting point for determining whether or not it is as good an initiative in practice as it seems in theory.
It is hard to imagine a good reason not to answer this question of cost. To call the person asking such a question a 'wanker' and a 'fucking idiot' is arrogance of the first order.
Because I am not Neeson, McCabe or Lemmon you fucking moron Ricketson. Get off the marijuana and stop thinking that its a CCF conspiracy. There are so many more people outside of CCF like me that think you are an oxygen thief.
DeleteTime to come to reality that its only the group of convicted child sex offenders who are locked up in Prey Sar and a few other low life school teachers in Cambodia that support you. Believe it or not, like that dead cunt Peter Hogan from Khmer 440, you are hated and if you dropped off a cliff tomorrow you wouldn't receive 5 minutes of press.
Your lack of vocabulary is astonishing. Are you a graduate of one of Neeson's schools. I think you should have paid more attention in class, or I mean you try to pretend that you have some class.
DeleteWhy do I need class on this blog? I certainly don't need to improve my vocabulary when replying to retarded idiots like yourself. Viewed any child porn today?
ReplyDeleteDear Team Neeson (12.29) and (12.48)
DeleteWhy on earth do you bother to read this blog,let alone comment on it? If you are capable of wiring a sentence without swearing, please enlighten us as to why you keep coming back for more! It seems to make you wery hot under the collar.
When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead. It is difficult only for the others.
DeleteIt is the same when you are stupid.
Judging by your fantastic use of the English language anon 1.31am, I would suggest that your IQ is definitely less than my age.
DeleteOK Anonymous 12.29 & 12.48
ReplyDeleteWe get it. You are not Scott Neeson. Calm down, take a deep breath and relax. Right. You OK?
Given that you are not Scott Neeson but obviously have opinions about James Ricketson (like wanting to see him dropped off a cliff), what is your opinion of Scott Neeson? What is your opinion about taking kids from their families and putting them in institutions when all the evidence shows this is bad for them.
Any thoughts that are not littered with words like 'retard' and 'cunt'? Any thoughts on the subject of institutionalisation at all?
I think you are asking for knowledge from the witless.
DeleteYes, I believe that most of the Ricketson supporters should be institutionalised!
DeleteNot Neeson
ReplyDeleteEver occurred to you to enrol in anger management classes?
Has it ever occurred to you to stop congregating around bars and get a real job?
DeleteThe recent report on Chloe Flanagan's NGO in Cambodia proves again and
ReplyDeleteagain that foreigners, particulary those without any qualification should never be allowed to open an NGO taking care of Khmer Kids in Cambodia, ever.
I invite you to take a look at this blogsite which will reveal a much bigger picture of just how bad the situation is in Cambodia when it comes to foreign funded or operated NGOs in Cambodia.
Meet Chloe Flanagan - the beauty therapist turned NGO
This is what happens if a totally unqualified Backpacker turns into an
NGO housing vulnerable Cambodian kids. It's time to get the NGO Law in
place so such things won't happen anymore.
http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/ngo-boss-out-lack-evidence
http://pjcoggan.com/2015/06/24/trouble-with-orphans/#comment-649
International funded NGOs are fighting the Cambodian Government to put an
NGO Law in place that will regulate this sector. Until now, NGOs have been running a "Wild East" sort of Business. Unfortunately the US is also interested, with a completely different agenda, to fight the NGO Law since many of the NGO's funded by the US are hoping to trigger the Regime Change the US Government wants badly in order to open its military bases in Cambodia in order to curb China from expanding.
Tom Selig
Here is the artticle about Chloe:
DeleteTrouble with orphans
Posted on June 24, 2015
On 6 June the Wagga Daily Advertiser (Wagga is a town in New South Wales) reported this human interest story concerning Chloe Flanagan, a 25 year old local beauty therapist:
Sweltering in the Cambodian heat, Chloe Flanagan is surrounded by people riding motorcycles. She’s in Phnom Penh, home to around 2.2 million people. The city, which still harbours pain from the relatively recent devastation caused by the Khmer Rogue, houses grand elaborate buildings – temples decorated with gold. Drive down the main boulevard and you could mistake it for Paris – but … Phnom Penh harbours some dark secrets. Millions of young children are exploited in Cambodia every year.
Ok, so the prose is a little overcooked, but it’s not every day you find a beauty therapist from Wagga in the grim suburbs of Phnom Penh. It goes on to tell how Chloe “purchased a one-way ticket to Asia and volunteered for three months at a Cambodian orphanage.” There she saw that orphanages are a business and have some very unsavoury things going on . “Often in these institutions the children are kept in deliberately poor conditions so the managers get more money from the generous, misled western tourists.”
Chloe moved on to Laos, where she received “an urgent and distressed call from 22-year-old Srey On,” who had been at the home Chloe had worked at. She was now on the street, on the run from her former orphanage “mother” who was attempting to track her down, hassle her and intimidate her. “She has polio and wears a full leg brace, she still has parents but she is from a small rural village one-and-half hours out of Phnom Penh and there are no opportunities for her there. Her parents sent her to live at the orphanage so she could study.”
(This, incidentally, is very common – many “orphans” are not orphans at all, and find themselves in institutions for all kinds of reasons).
You can read in the article about the ways Bethel helps the kids – it’s pretty heartwarming and more strength to Chloe. (Here’s a nice piece about how crowdfunding helped meet the needs of one handicapped little boy – his mother tried to abort him but did this instead; kids in this condition are mostly in a hopeless situation in Cambodia).
Anyway, I think I like Chloe. Which makes it all the more disturbing to read in the Phnom Penh Post that less than three weeks after that article in the Wagga paper the police raided the orphanage and arrested Srey On – the same Srey On who phoned Chloe – who is its manager.
Em Chanmakara, a secretary general of the Disability Action Council at the Ministry of Social Affairs, said three boys and one girl, between 5 and 10, were removed from the home in response to a complaint made by Chloe Flanagan … The document states that director Soy Srey On, 23 – who was arrested – and her boyfriend, Ung Sras, 24, neglected the children’s hygiene and hit children with sticks, including a child who is mentally and physically disabled. “Both [parties] are involved in beating the children, forcing them to clean toilets, and clean the centre, which is overwork for children,” Chanmakara said.“They even had sex with each other and let children watch.”
They WHAT?????
Chloe made a bad error of judgement in trusting Srey On. That said, I can’t guarantee that I wouldn’t have done exactly the same. But please, Chloe, closer supervision from now on, ok?
Tom Selig you are a fucking wanker. Always have been. Always will be. Scott Neeson doesnt run an orphanage so what's your point?
Deletehaha, it's not an 'orphanage' because the children all have parents! It is a scam that hurts children run by the Povetry Pimp, that is what it is!!
Delete@ Anonymous 6.42, Neeson doesn't call the 700 kids orphans but show me one photo on CCFs Facebook page with a kid and his or her dad in it. There are none. Not one. The only adult make you will ever see a kid with is Neeson p smiling and with the kid on his hip. and the kid has to be smilling too. Scortt Neeson - Superdad! The real dads can just fuck off. Scott is here to rescue them. ANd turn them into commodities to sell to donors and sponsors.
DeleteTom Selig is one of the biggest fuckwits in Cambodia. Hated down at Sihanoukville - just another blow fly oxygen thief.
ReplyDeleteEver met Tom Selig Anonymous 6.54?
DeleteAnonymous 6: 54, you have him beat hands down.
DeleteTom Selig - Yes I have met you and you are a fucking goose. About as sharp as a bowling ball!
DeleteTom S. Thank you so much for sharing that this is Rachel Matters. It explains so much.
DeleteNo chance of Team Neeson answering any questions I take it? Each morning I wake up thinking, "Today is the day Scott Neeson is going to make James Ricketson look like an idiot by answering all his questions. Each day I am disappointed/ Perhaps today, Scott? Put that child down, sit at your computer and do it.
ReplyDeleteI wake up every morning hoping to see an article in the Phnom Penh Post or the Cambodia Daily about Scott Neeson’s removal of 700 children from their families and the huge amounts of money the Cambodian Children’s Fund generates as a result. $4,000 per child? If that’s not a story in itself, what is? Come on guys, wake up and smell the grass. You went after Somaly Mam years after her scams were common knowledge. Why aren’t you going after Neeson?
DeleteI dont know why the Phnom Penh Post is giving Neeson a free pass but I do know that Bernie has instructed the Daily not to criticise Neeson in print.
DeleteIs it possible that CHAD WILLIAMS and SCOTT NEESON are sleeping together?
DeleteAnonymous 8.35
DeleteThis comment is just as stupid as the comments made by Team Neeson. It does not add anything to the conversation.
Do you have some explanation then about why these two papers will not do anything to investigate Neeson?
DeleteNo explanations that are supported by evidence in my possession - just rumour and scuttlebutt. Mind you, when the same rumour comes to me from varying sources who do not know each other I do wonder if there may be truth in it. However, there is no point in indulging in speculation. Just as actions speak louder than words, so to does a lack of action tell us a lot about those who fail to act. And I am not just referring to the newspapers here but to the many organisations that turn a blind eye; bury their heads in the sand and pretend there is no problem that needs to be addressed.
DeleteThe comment above about the news guys sleeping together is warped and plain stupid. Im not surprised though - it is a very good reflection of the type of moron that follows Ricketson and supports the dirty flirty child sex offenders like Fletcher and Harland who also comment here.
DeleteIQ's = well below 50 for all of them.
Rickets there is no problem that needs to be address except the fact that you need to be locked up in a Cambodian prison for 1) supporting child sex offenders and 2) being a defaming piece of shit.
DeleteIts only you who has this delusional fixation on CCF and Neeson - the majority of people think he is doing a marvellous job.
Anonymous 11:25, you must be a genius for being able to access IQ so quickly. Can you also convince us that taking children from their families is a good idea? OR that hiring a convicted felon to run a CPU is a great move? OR that spending more on one child for food and housing than a whole family makes, is good work? Let your genius shine!!
DeleteIf you look at the submission by Anonymous 8:35, it will be easy for you to see that it is not a statement at all. It is a question and punctuated as a question. Is it not reasonable for me to ask a question in hope of finding an answer to the baffling situation where the two major papers in PP will not print investigative stories about CCF and Neeson?
DeleteIt does seem a reasonable question to ask, considering the fact that Williams and Neeson appear to have a rather 'unusual relationship'.
DeleteYes anonymous 11.33, hiring a convicted Felon as you put it was indeed not a great move, it was a fantastic one. Try taking a look at the number of child rapists/murderers that are now behind bars because of the hard working team at CPU led by James McCabe.
ReplyDeleteHe made a mistake, paid dearly for it and is now doing a really good job at CPU. I am not sure why you think this is news worth publishing time and time again. It was widely reported in newspapers when he was appointed and is something he has never tried to hide. Maybe personally you think you could do the very difficult job that he performs better. (or maybe you have a personal reason that you prefer child sex offenders and murderers are not caught)
This person has shown an incredible lack of good judgement, as Neeson has by taking children from their families, knowing that it creates irreparable psychological, emotional and developmental harm.
DeleteIncidentally, McCabe didn't just steal money and drugs, he did it when his job was to enforce the law. Quite a significant violation of the public's and employers trust. Perhaps you have something similar on your resume?
You are just repeating yourself, what new information do you have apart from what was widely published 18 months ago about James McCabe.
DeleteNo, there is nothing similar on my resume but if there was I am not sure I would have what it takes to get out there and build my reputation again the way James has done. Out of interest what have you ever done that the world could be proud of you for. My guess would be most likely nothing (Unless you think you should be recognized for being part of team Ricketson/Fletcher)
Dear Team Neeson 1.43
DeleteAs I have mentioned before, I think that James Mc Cabe's criminal record is a red herring. He did the crime and did the time. The question is: How well equipped is Mc Cabe to be running an child protection unit?
The answer may well be, "Highly equipped" and it would seem from what you write here that your track record is a good one.
How many "child rapists/murderers are now behind bars because of the hard working team at CPU led by James McCabe?" How many out of the total number of people arrested on suspicion of having murdered or raped children?
From the way this is presented here it would seem that the CPU operate as an alternative police force within Cambodia. I suspect that this is not the case; that the CPU works in conjunction with the Cambodian police.
Your suggestion that the person who made this comment may have "a personal reason (for preferring that) child sex offenders and murderers are not caught," is just plain stupid and indicative of the kind of lacking-in-logic comments made often by Team Neeson.
I trust that you can see that just as Mc Cabe has paid for his crime and is getting on with his life, the same principle should be applied to David Fletcher. Yes, he had consensual sex with an underage girl in1998. This was both stupid and illegal. He went to jail. He paid his debt to society, as they say. However, there are many within Team Neeson who believe that Mr Fletcher's being guilty in 1998 (he never tried to pretend otherwise, incidentally) means that he must be guilty of rape in 2010 - even if the young woman says she was not raped; even if the forensic evidence says that she was not raped.
Please, in future, apply the same principles to Mr Fletcher as you are applying to James Mc Cabe.
Dear Team Neeson (2.25)
DeleteYou are obsessed with the notion that it is important that the world be proud of you for what you have done. Some people just get on with doing what they do and do not need the whole world to be 'proud' of them; to heap accolades upon them.
You ask this question and then answer it yourself, so totally convinced that you are a very special person of whom the world can feel proud where most to the rest of us are 'losers'.
The world is not made up of 'winners' and 'losers', though it is understandable from a psychological point of view why some people choose to see themselves as 'winners'. Being surrounded by 'losers' validates your status (in your own eyes at least)as a winner.
Thank you Anonymous 1:53 for sharing this important information about McCabe. In spite of Anonymous 2:25's claim indicating the everyone know about his actions. I had never heard about it until today. I suspect that there are many that do not know the story.
DeleteUnlike Ricketson, I think it is a very important point, particularly since his current position is related to law enforcement and he has certainly shown a lack of respect for the law.
Dear Team Ricketson/Fletcher
DeleteRef 2.51 James, Yes, some people get on with what they do - that's great in my book, as long as what they do is not put shit on others that are working their hardest to make a difference (who most likely also do not want accolades heaping on them)
I never have and likely never will consider myself any more special than others and can you please point out where I called Anon 11.33 a loser ?
Yes you are correct CPU is a joint venture (which is working very well I understand) between CCF and Cambodian Police. As far as your question regarding imprisonments and convictions I am surprised as an "investigative journalist" you have not done your research by reading any of the local papers. There have been numerous stories of the arrests convictions, if you are too lazy to investigate then perhaps you should change your title to "speculative journalist".
Dear Team Neeson (3.59)
ReplyDeleteIs this how you answer questions from CCF donors and sponsors? Tell them to read the local papers to find the answers they seek?
There are a few problems with this proposition:
(1) The local papers (the Cambodia Daily and the Phnom Penh Post) publish whatever the latest CCF press release contains. Neither newspaper checks to see if the figures match with reality.
(2) Why would expect any person asking such questions (including investigative journalists) to spend many hours going through back issues of newspapers looking for figures given the the papers by CCF when CCF could easily answer the question I asked with:
"The CPU's collaboration with the Cambodian Police has led to W arrests and X convictions. Y of these convictions were for murder and Z of these convicts were for child rape."
Easy. It would take less than a minute.
As for your "working (your) hardest to make a difference", I have no doubt that this is true. However, working hard to make a difference is not evidence that the work is productive. CCF has worked very hard to remove 700 kids from their families and it sure has made a difference to the lives of the kids and their parents.
As is so often the case with Team Neeson, you run off at the mouth without thinking through the implications of what you write.
Dear Anonymous 3.11
ReplyDeleteThree points:
(1) If you read any of the hagiographic articles written about Scott Neeson (based on his press releases) you will often find mention of James Mc Cabe and the Child Protection Unit. You will not, however, find (ever) any reference to his criminal record. So, you are right that this is not common knowledge.
(2) I have known several people in my life who have criminal records who are now law-abiding and productive members of society. I do not believe that the adage "Once a criminal, always a criminal" is true. Once a person has paid for their crime they should be given a chance to start their life over again.
(3) That said, I am not sure that James Mc Cabe has the qualifications to run a Child Protection Unit. I feel the same way about Alan Lemmon.
Perhaps they have qualifications in child psychology that I am unaware of. Anywhere else in the world men and women who work with children require quite high qualifications for their job.
Team Neeson = Crocodile mouth Chickadee brain.
ReplyDeleteAny testimony that McCabe could give involving honesty, integrity, truth, would be laughed out of court in most any first world country. How could he possibly testify in a trial? Of course now that we know Ratchel Matters is heading Team Neeson, what difference does it make? haha
ReplyDeleteMr Ricketson, sometimes the expression "Once a criminal, always a criminal" is inappropriate. Sometimes, unfortunately, it is true. I respect what you are doing here but I think you need to look a little more closely at who Mc Cabe associates with. If you lie down with dogs...
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Team Neeson is even aware of what gooses they make of themselves by refusing to answer any questions at all but falling back, always, on attacks on James Ricketson? I think members of the team have no clue. They think if they can discredit Ricketson that the questions will magically disappear. They won't. I started out thinking Ricketson was a wanker with a bone to pick with Neeson. Now I think Neeson will do anything, say anything, to avoid answering questions. I am not a sponsor or a donor to CCF but, knowing what I know now, I would not given the NGO a cent.
ReplyDelete@ Anonymous 7.01, CCF is a huge scam. Neeson is making millions out of it and using Hollywood film stars and the Dalai Lama to market himself as a fucking saint. And he's pulling it off with no-one to stop him, Wheres the fucking media? Where's the fucking human rights orgs? Does Neeson make big contributions to Licadho? Is he mates with Naly Pilorge and Dr Kem Galibru? Hoy the fuck can he remove 700 kids from their families and all these journalists and human rights orgs pretend it is not happening! Poor Cambodia to be inflicted by these corrupt self-serving individuals who can be bought by whoever has the bucks.
ReplyDeleteScam-fucking-bodia!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI have censored the second half of the Anonymous deleted comment above as it was defamatory. Please do not make defamatory comments.
The first half reads:
"All I can say is that if CCF hired a convicted criminal like McCabe and they have no issue with it then there is not much hope of getting them to worry about the ethical and moral high ground of removing children from their families."
James Fucking Ricketson you have just proven again that you are a wanker. Why delete one defamatory comment when your whol fucking blog is an endless stream of defamation putting shit on Scott Neeson just because he has made something of his life when you are just a loser with nothing to give to this country. Fuck off and die you useless cunt.
ReplyDeleteRatchel, All you have are insults and foul language. Why don't you try something like 'reading a book', maybe it would stimulate some positive thoughts AND improve your vocabulary. Maybe you be able to tell us how against all research Neeson's project is different and how it really contributes to the children's well-being by taking them from their mother and having them raised in institutional care.
DeleteMaybe you can tell us more on McCabe and how he is a great employee even though he stole drugs and money when his job was to enforce the law, not to violate the public trust.
Ratchel, Maybe you can tell how McCabe using his power as a law enforcement officer to steal money and drugs was actually a benefit to society and that he now ranks right up there as a Saint along with Saint Scott, the POVERTY PIMP.
DeleteDear Team Neeson (6.11)
DeleteCould you please point out to me which of my statements about Scott Neeson has been defamatory? One will do.
I am not fucking Scott Neeson you retard. Or James Mc Cabe. Or Alan Lemon. If you cant figure out wht is defamtory its becuase your a moron.
DeleteDear Anonymous 8.30
DeleteYou sex life is of no interest to me. I don't care who you are and who you are not fucking.
It's OK Anon 8.30, Team Ricketson/Fletcher are paranoid that everybody is Neeson/Lemon or McCabe. It is all just part of the illness I have long suspected Ricketson is suffering from. I used to argue back as well but now realise that you cannot argue with somebody who is in a very different space mentally to most of us.
DeleteFor them all this is just a game and they have no idea what reality really is (you watch James/David come back with the same tired old questions and statements when they read this) The reality is that whilst Ricketson is high noting himself on his Facebook page for buying a $30 tarp there are many others out there doing much more and not wanting recognition.
PLEASE NOTE JAMES/DAVID I said many others and I did not mention Neeson, McCabe or Lemon.
Dear Team Neeson (Anonymous 9.17)
DeleteLet’s start with the proposition that I am suffering from an ‘illness’ that makes it impossible for you to ‘argue’ with me because I occupy a “very different space mentally.”
So, this is your latest reason for not answering any if “the same tired old questions” put to you on this blog? Ask Team Neeson to account for the $4,000 spent per child in residential care and the response is: “We cant communicate/argue/discuss with you because you occupy a different mental space.”
Ask why it is, despite all the research over 100 years, that CCF’s 700+ kids in residential care, do not suffer at all as a result of being separated from their families. “We cant communicate/argue/discuss with you because you occupy a different mental space.”
And so on. Are you not aware of how lame this argument is? Coming as it does from a team that is administering a $10 million + budget!? I am more than a little surprised that your sponsors and donors do not ask these kinds of questions! If they did, I am sure they would take kindly to being insulted in the most childish manner.
If I AM suffering from an illness that makes it impossible for you to argue with me, you could beat me hands down in a debate. I suggest that such a debate be held – a representative of Team Neeson and myself in front of an audience. Or, better still, three representatives of three representatives of, for want of a better expression, ‘Team Ricketson’.
There is, of course no way any of you would accept such a challenge because the audience would be familiar with the concept of logic (which you all too often are not),and would be deeply unimpressed if, in response to a comment of mine, a member of your team were to respond with, “You are a fucking retard.” Or some similar observation.
You choose the venue, the time, the proposition to be debated and the format of the debate and I will be there. Given my ‘illness’ you should have no problem at all in making me appear a complete fool in front of the audience. How can you possibly resist such an invitation? You will of course. The Scott Neeson publicity machine, the Scott Neeson narrative (myth) being so carefully nurtured, leaves no room for the answering of questions – other than from tame journalist who have read the PR material and who fall for “I gave up my million dollar a year job in Hollywood…etc.”
It is a great pity that the media in Cambodia do not hold you accountable. It is a great pity that human rights organizations do not hold you accountable. Such is life in Cambodia. Your run of luck will not last forever, however. As more and more young women leave CCF and make their way into the world, no longer under your thumb, it is inevitable one of them will, one day come out and say, “This is what it was really like at CCF.” Then another, emboldened will say, “Yes, this happened to me also.” And it will be game on. Team Neeson will go to ground and claim that all these kids are lying – resulting in the kids themselves responding angrily at being accused of being liars.
In amongst these kids, now adults, there only needs to be one who is familiar with Cambodian law (and who is, perhaps, a lawyer) for a class action suit to be commenced – at which point Team Neeson will no longer be able to keep certain facts, figures (and particularly documents, like ‘contracts’) secret.
If I were Team Neeson’s media advisor I would say, “Get out of the orphanage business as fast as you can. It is going to come back to haunt you.”
What pointless, useless, ridiculous drivel Anonymous 9:17!!
DeleteA good place to start, Mr Ricketson, would be tracking down the young man who was kicked out of the Cambodian Children’s fund for asking too many questions about the little girl who died whilst in CCF care. The death was hushed up. The boy spoke up and was threatened by XXX that he would regret it if he spoke about the death of the girl with anyone. I am not mentioning the name because I do not want you to have to take this comment down because it is defamatory. I am sure Team Neeson will be reading this so heres a question for you TN:
DeleteWhy did CCF cover up the death of the little girl in your care? If you reckon there was no such death come out and call me a fucking retard.
Same old, same old James as expected. I guess there is no point in once again telling you to push your paranoia aside and accept I am not Scott, James, Allan etc etc. I am purely a child sponsor and have no intention of taking the bait that you so frequently offer. Like many before me I suggest you get some sound mental health advice before your condition gets worse
DeleteAs for Anonymous 11.26 if it is true how can it be defamatory (Defamation—also calumny, vilification, and traducement—is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation as well as other various kinds of defamation that retaliate against groundless criticism.) Try learning the meaning of big words before you use them
And so Anonymous 12:10, again without one EXAMPLE of where James had defamed Neeson. Perhaps it is YOU that defames James with your defamation accusations?
DeleteI've got better things to do with my time than to waste hours going back through the pile of shit blog looking for examples. If you can't see them you re fucking blind.
DeleteSorry Anon 12.30 but your understanding of English really is not good is it. Where have I ever said that James has defamed Neeson ?
Delete@ Anonymous 12.10, you obviously don't know much about the law if you really think defamation suits are determined on the basis of what is true. A statement can be demonstrably true (or its truth can be backed up by evidence) but still be defamatory. I can say X fucks 16 year old
Deletebar girls and now heads up Y dedicated to protecting 16 year old bar girls from men like X and it is not defamatory - regardless of the truth of the statement. If I put a name to X,the statement becomes defamatory - regardless of the truth.
There re some bar girls with stories to tell believe me.
Sorry Anon 1.34 but you are incorrect. If it is a true statement it is not defamatory. Defamation is communication of a FALSE statement. Once you name X if you cannot prove your statement to be true then it is defamation and I think it is highly unlikely you can prove your statement of 11.26 to be true. It is far more likely to be shit stirring from the Ricketson/Fletcher huff and puff brigade.
Delete.... and yup, I am sure there are some bar girls with stories to be told, in fact I seem to remember some have already been published about your friend Fletch the Letch so why does David not sue for defamation with you there to help him through the legal process.
Dear Team Neeson (2.00)
DeleteYou are wrong. The truth of a statement is not the only element of the statement that is taken into account. There is also the question of whether or not the statement, if true, is in the public interest to have broadcast. ANd there is also the question of times and dates. I know of one defamation suit that was won where a journalist quoted a judge who had referred to a criminal, 15 years earlier, as (amongst other things) a 'scoundrel' and the man, now the Lord Mayor of a district, sued (successfully) for defamation.
If david Fletcher had not been locked up in jail, with no means of communicating with the world and with no money, he most definitely would have sued Scott Neeson for telling Andrew Drummond that he (Fletcher) had been grooming young girls.
As for the article you are referring to, please send me the link because I must have missed it along the way. The only sources from which Andrew Drummond got his information were Khmer440 and Scott Neeson - both of them highly unreliable and with a vested interest in getting rid of him. In the case of Peter Hogan, he was quite upfront about it - boasting on Khmer440 of the role he had played in Mr Fletcher's downfall. In the case of Scott Neeson, he did all he could to fan the flames because he also, for his own reasons, wanted to get rid of Mr Fletcher.
As for the young man who was threatened by X I heave heard this story from numerous sources. If the young man in question ever came forward he would no doubt be branded a liar by Team Neeson. However, the question that would be asked (hopefully) by journalists would include:
(1) Did a young girl die whilst in CCF's care?
(2) Did CCF seek to cover up the girl's death?
(3) Did X threaten anyone who started to ask questions?
A death at CCF is a pretty difficult thing to hide so I am sure, when the time is ripe, that the truth about this death will emerge.
I should add here that with 700 kids in residential care the odds are that one of them will get sick, very sick, and may die. That is not the issue.
The question is: "Why did CCF feel the need to cover the death up?"
From: Tom Selig
ReplyDeleteTo: info@kh.boell.org
Subject: Your letter to the editor of Phnom Penh Post re. NGO Law
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 23:24:44 -0700
Ali Al-Nasani is the country director of the German Heinrich Boell
Foundation (the Green Party Germany), which has been working in Cambodia
for more than 20 years. He says there is no rush to get the NGO law
through parliament.
So my question to Ali Al-Nasani is this:
Are you at all aware that there has been 3 drafts for the NGO Law which
all have been consulted with the NGO Sector since 2008 ? Or have you
been spending your time at Cocktail Parties of the Opposition ?
If yes, why do you object to NGO need to register ? They need to do
exactly the same in Germany in order to prevent all sorts of abuse but
mainly the abuse of donor funds !! Unicef Germany a few years ago lost
the license to fundraise for the Org. because of questionable
fundraising methods ! An example of how foreign NGO are painting the
darkest possible picture of Cambodia in order to get more donor funds
can be followed at: cambodia440.blogspot.com and penhpal.com. Abuse of
Funds have been reported with the last Anti-Human Trafficking Org.
Somaly Mam caving in on her lies that everyone in the NGO world knew but
kept silent about ! Why are these facts of no concern to you ?
NGO in Cambodia (mostly foreign funded ones) are fighting the NGO draft
law which hopefully will become law before the end of this month in
order to end the ordeal that dates back to 2006 when it was first
derailed by the NGO - Civil Society Minority of which now about 10 are
left to bring it down with the help of the US Government and the UN.
When Ali Al-Nasani objects the Ministry of Interior denied a small
student initiative to organise a short bicycle tour in and around Phnom
Penh he forgets to say why it was denied. This would have not been the
first time intl. NGO and foreign funded opposition use completely
innocent students for their purpose to stir up unrest. Of course we
Barang and Khmer are equally concerned about the destruction of Nature
and it's resources in Cambodia. But why don't you look at Germany's
Development in the past 100 years. Rivers were polluted so no fish could
live in the toxicated water in many Rivers. Industrial Animal Farms of
Cattle,Pigs and Chicken poisoned the ground water.
Why ? Because first there was no awareness of the problem but most
importantly those that ran these businesses were obsessed with making
money. Why do you expect Cambodia do have a short-cut development when
Buyers in Europe, US and Australia/NZ and China, Vietnam just can't get
enough of Cambodia's Ressources. Is the political elite and business
world in cambodia better than let's say the Financial Sector in the US
and UK ? I believe that their damage is at an unprecedented scale. Allow
Cambodia to develop at the same pace you have witnessed in Germany .Give
Cambodia the same time Germany needed to clean up !
The final target is always to bring the current government down and
trigger a Regime Change as sponsored by the US Government which has it's
own agenda in Cambodia.
Tom Selig
Defamation from the legal dictionary: "Any intentional FALSE (my caps) communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person."
ReplyDeleteDear Team Neeson (2.27)
DeleteIf you had any experience of the law you would know that much time in court can be spent arguing the meanings of definitions. You may remember Bill Clinton's legalistic answer, "It depends on what you be think the meaning if 'is' is."
The second part of the definition holds the clue. It is separated from the first part by a semi-colon. It reads "or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person."
If I were a lawyer (and I have defended myself in the Supreme Court of NSW) I would be arguing that regardless of the truth, the intent of the statement in question was to "induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against..." my client.
In any event, defamation cases are incredibly hard to run and win.
Correct, so the comment of Anon 11.26 would not be defamatory if it were true and there would be no problem publishing it and Mr Ricketson would not remove it as it would not be defamation.
DeleteIf however your statement was FALSE and you named XXX it could be regarded as defamatory (which I believe it most likely is) Again I repeat my belief this is more shit stirring by the Ricketson/Fletcher huff and puff brigade. (James/David can you try and educate your supporters just a little please)
Dear Team Neeson
DeleteYour reference to any and all questions put to you as 'shit stirring' makes it abundantly clear to anyone reading this interchange that you will say anything that pops into your mind to avoid answering any questions at all. When it suits your purposes you make it clear that you have a lot of inside knowledge. When it suits your purposes you play at being just a sponsor. A sponsor who sits at his computer all day waiting for any comment at all that might burst the Neeson myth and then pouncing on it and finding, with an often strange lack of logic, some way of throwing the question back at me - or whoever else might ask a question.
As for me, this bright sunny and very hot afternoon, I have had enough of this. I do have a life to live. Nonetheless, I will return in a few hours to respond as appropriately as I can to your next round of abuse.
Sorry James but it suits my purpose to be a child sponsor, because that is what I am and I have never claimed to be anything other than that.
DeleteAs for "inside knowledge" - yes you are correct in so much as although I do not claim to be an investigative journalist I do at least do my homework before spending my hard earned money and this is all I have done with regard to CCF.
As for abuse, please show where I have ever abused you, I have accused your huff and puff brigade of "shit stirring" which is an opinion I am entitled to.
Please show me where I have ever personally abused you. In that regard we are actually quite similar and I also disagree with personal abuse even surprisingly if it is you that is being abused.
Enjoy your bright and sunny afternoon
Cheers
So Anonymous 3:09, you did your homework. You know Neeson takes children from their mothers and families to be raised in institutional care. You know that this does irreparable harm to the children: emotionally, psychologically and developmentally. You give him money anyway? I think you are one sick person!!
DeleteDear Team Neeson (Anonymous 3.09)
DeleteGood to know that you have done your homework.So,here are a few questions to see how well you have done it.
What is the per capita income in Cambodia?
How much does CCF claim to the IRS, to spend each year to keep one child in institutional care?
The answer to the first question, according to the World Bank, is $1,010.
Have you asked Scott Neeson how it can be that it costs 4 times the per capita Cambodian income to keep one child in care?
If you have asked him, what was his reply?
If you have not asked him, do you intend to do so?
Or do these figures cause you no concern at all? Next there is the question of the institutionalisation of children.
Have you don't your homework on this subject also? Are you convinced, despite the results of hundreds of studies, that Scott Neeson has, somehow, found a way to keep 700+ children in institutional care without causing them emotional and psychological damage?
Have you met the parents of the child you sponsor? Do you know anything about them? Are they still working in the rubbish dump? Does CCF provide any assistance to the parents of your sponsored child?
How often does your sponsored child get to visit his/her family? Does it matter to you?
Do you have children? If so, how would you feel if, simply because you were incredibly poor and you wanted your children to be fed, clothed and educated, a 'nice man' came and took your kids away from you and put them in an institution? Or do you think that Cambodian parents don't love their kids the way we non-Cambodians do?
Have you asked Scott whether or not it is true that CCF locks families out of their homes for being $12.50 behind in their rent? If the family of the boy/girl you sponsor were locked out of their home for being behind in their rent would you kick up a fuss and just trust Scott's judgment?
I could go on. There are so many questions that you must have asked, having done your homework. Please share the answers with us without dismissing such questions and 'huff and puff'.
You will answer none of these questions. You will think up some clever (at least in your own mind) way of making it seem that the person asking them is fucked in the head, a scumbag, a moron, a fucktard, a slug etc. I see no real difference between these forms of verbal abuse and being written off as a shit stirrer and part of some 'huff and puff' brigade.
Answer the questions, Anonymous 3.09. No excuses now that we know you've done your homework.
James, I am quite happy to answer the questions regarding my personally sponsored child.
DeleteYes - I have met the childs mother but the father is no longer on the scene (which is one of the reasons CCF stepped in to help)
Yes - I know a considerable amount about them.
No - they are not still working in the dump
Yes - CCF provides much assistance to the mother
The sponsored child gets to see their immediate family daily (as do the vast majority of CCF kids) and their extended family in the provinces at least twice yearly courtesy of CCF
The number of children I have personally is irrelevant however if I was exceedingly poor and CCF offered to accept the family for the type of assistance they give countless families in the area I would be very happy.
Yes - I am aware of the circumstances of the family you speak of and am aware of the facts surrounding this and not the nonsense you publish
No- I am not prepared to divulge the true details so that you can twist the facts and yes I believe CCF acted reasonably under the circumstances
... and like the time it is taking you to produce your documentary James I am sure your other questions will be answered to your satisfaction in the fullness of time.
So much for "You will answer none of these questions"
As I said yesterday I do not believe in personal abuse and whilst I might consider your self assessment of being fucked in the head etc as accurate I am not about to publish my confirmation of this. I do however stand by my "huff and puff brigade and shit stirrer" comments as that is exactly what the Ricketson/Fletcher team are in my opinion.
Cheers and please try to enjoy another sunny afternoon
Dear Team Neeson (Anonymous 6.09)
DeleteYou have failed to answer the two most significant questions:
(1) “Have you asked Scott Neeson how it can be that it costs 4 times the per capita Cambodian income to keep one child in care? If you have asked him, what was his reply? If you have not asked him, do you intend to do so? Or do these figures cause you no concern at all?”
(2) “Are you convinced, despite the results of hundreds of studies, that Scott Neeson has, somehow, found a way to keep 700+ children in institutional care without causing them emotional and psychological damage?”
As for the majority of the 700 kids in institutional care getting to see their parents every day, this is nonsense.
The majority of families with kids in CCF care get rice support only and a small amount of travel money to travel. In the case of one mother I know (father absent) she had five kids with CCF at one point and three at home –whilst working in the dump. CCF, according to its own IRS figures, spends $20,000 on kids such as these five in one year. Meanwhile, their mother supports the other three children on the $1,000 a year she earns working in the rubbish dump.
This mother is not alone in her experiences. It is a common complaint – parents and kids not getting to see each other for long period of time.
When you say that you are aware of the circumstances, I presume you are referring to the family locked out of their home for being $12.50 behind in their rent? Regardless of the circumstances, what kind of NGO, what kind of human being, locks a family out of the shack they are renting? The father had had an accident and was unable to work.
Again, this locking out of families is common practice. It is one of the ways in which all families are kept in line; intimidated into playing by Scott Neeson rules.
I’ll add a question, given that you are so close to the heart of CCF operations. At the very heart, actually!
“What do you make of the fact that Scott Neeson gets parents to sign a ‘contract’ with CCF but refuses to allow them to keep a copy of it?”
And another, “Do you think it appropriate, for an organization that is supposedly transparent and accountable, to force employees to sign non-disclosure contracts with CCF such that they never, ever, speak with anyone about what goes on behind closed doors at CCF?
The paranoia regarding everybody being Scott certainly seems to be catching (unless of course this is yet another of James Anon avatars)
DeleteAnon 8.34 please let us know as an ex employee how many kids CCF look after in total and then if your maths are up to it subtract the "supposed" number you are quoting that live in from the total number of kids and even you will hopefully understand that as previously quoted the majority of kids see their families every day because they LIVE with them.
As an ex employee who has supposedly along with all the other employees signed a document of non disclosure then how can we accept anything you say as you are already a self confessed liar, if you signed a document as you say all employees do then you are clearly in breach of contract and non trustworthy
Sorry James - I still do not see your apology for yet another totally incorrect statement from the Fletcher/Ricketson gossip page "You will answer none of these questions"
DeleteAs for the answers to the other questions James and as per your documentary - in the fullness of time, just be patient. On the subject of your "documentary" will I be getting a star role as a Scott Neeson impersonator or do you think by then you might have realised I genuinely am a sponsor of a child within CCF and have no more connection with CCF other than that.
Falsity -- Defamation law will only consider statements defamatory if they are, in fact, false. A true statement, no matter how harmful, is not considered defamation. In addition, because of their nature, statements of opinion are not considered false because they are subjective to the speaker. from: http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/defamation-law-the-basics.html
ReplyDeleteSo, in accordance with your understanding of the law, all I need to do is to say, "It is my opinion that X does Y" when the identify of X is known and the crime 'Y' is a heinous one that would result, if the allegation were proven, in total loss of reputation and a long jail sentence.
DeleteIn order to understand the complexities of defamation law you need to do more than simple 'google' the word 'defamation'
It is not my opinion. If it were as you say, you could never call anyone a murderer, even though they were convicted in a court of law to be guilty as it would "harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person". BOTH criteria need to be met. FALSE and harmful. My guess is that in the case you reference, it couldn't be proven that the person was a scoundrel, even though he was convicted. Saying that many would suspect he was a scoundrel, would have been wiser.
DeleteAND of course laws do vary state to state and country to country.
DeleteI am not sure which "Anonymous" I am dealign with in the last two comments. The 'Anonymous' who is a sponsor for a child but who refuses to answer questions or an 'Anonymous' who has some scant google-driven knowledge and understanding to the laws of 'defamation'.
ReplyDeleteEither way, no answers to questions are forthcoming - the hallmark of Team Neeson. Why answer questions when you can throw up a cloud of obfuscation and suggest that the person who is asking the questions is 'fucked in the head'.
The finer details of what constitutes 'defamation' are not really all that relevant here.
Answer the questions, o sponsor of a child who has done his homework!
You are not going to, are you?
Team Neeson has shot itself in the foot so often that it has lost any credibility it had -which was not much
ReplyDeleteFrom Neeson propaganda: "Nearly 500 births with zero maternal deaths through the maternal care program." To be found here: https://greatnonprofits.org/org/cambodian-childrens-fund-87
ReplyDeleteJames, Blind Freddy can tell that you are not communicating here with Team Neeson but with the man himself, Scott Neeson. He has created an avatar for himself as a child sponsor who gets 'honest' answers to all his questions. This fictional sponsor has access to inside information when it suits Neeson but can also pretend not to know answers because he is, after all, only a humble child sponsor. As someone who has worked for CCF I can tell you that Neeson's claim that the kids in care get to see their families every day is nonsense. But think about this proposition for a second. Let's just say they did get to see their families every day, why doesn't CCF help the whole family? Instead of keeping one kid in a dormitory (and yes it is true, between 2 and 4 to a bed) at a cost of $4,000, why not spend this $4,000 to lift the whole family out of poverty? The answer is that Scott is an empire builder and he wants a big empire. And he wants to be able to present himself to sponsors and donors as the saviour of these kids. That's why you will never see photos of these kids with their dads. Neeson wants the world to believe that they have no dads. Only him. Saint Scott Neeson.
ReplyDeleteThe paranoia regarding everybody being Scott certainly seems to be catching (unless of course this is yet another of James Anon avatars)
DeleteAnon 8.34 please let us know as an ex employee how many kids CCF look after in total and then if your maths are up to it subtract the "supposed" number you are quoting that live in from the total number of kids and even you will hopefully understand that as previously quoted the majority of kids see their families every day because they LIVE with them.
As an ex employee who has supposedly along with all the other employees signed a document of non disclosure then how can we accept anything you say as you are already a self confessed liar, if you signed a document as you say all employees do then you are clearly in breach of contract and non trustworthy
P.S Anon 8.34. If Scott is in Tuscany as claimed many times in this blog, do you really think he got up at 3.30 am to answer posts on the Fletcher/Ricketson gossip page.
DeleteI did mention earlier I do not like personal insults but in this case it would be very tempting to call you a first class goose
Dear Team Neeson (Anonymous 11.26 & 11-37)
DeleteThe expression "slippery as an eel" springs to mind. You will dodge and weave this way and that hoping that no-one reading this blog will notice that you don't answer questions.
Let's try a different tack:
(1) How many children does CCF have in residential care?
(2) If the majority of these children in residential care live with their families, why do you tell the IRS that it is costing CCF $4,000 a year to care for them?
(3) if it is the case that the majority if children in CCF care are living with their families, is it fair to assume that these kids are the ones CCF claims to be spending $4,000 a year to take care of. Please clarify this.
(4) If the majority of kids being cared for by CCF are living with their families, what kind of support is CCF providing to these families?
These figures should be out in the public domain, given that CCF spends around $10 million a year helping these kids and their families.
Instead if figures, you throw up a cloud of obfuscation - again, hoping that readers here (and those who follow you on Facebook) will not ask questions. For instance, the 'granny program', quite recently inaugurated, may well be a terrific program. It is certainly a step in the right direction. But how much money is spent on it? Is it just window-dressing or is it a serious programme designed to address the very serious problems faced by old women (and men.)
In the community I am familiar with, with three grannies in it, not one of them has ever heard of the 'granny program' and this is a community that has families with kids in CCF care.
It is good here that you have acknowledged that CCFD employees must sign non-disclosure contracts.
Anonymous 8.34 may well be in breach of contract but why do you feel the need to muzzle employees (and former employees) in this manner? Sure, if all is going well at CCF, these employees and former employees would be singing your praises!
As for your 'Tuscany' observation, you really are clutching at straws here. It was Scott himself who announced that he was going to Tuscany to write his memories. Whether is is there or not right now is a question of no significance - other than providing you with a rather pathetic excuse, yet again to attempt to shoot the messenger.
The two most significant questions, again:
(1) “Have you asked Scott Neeson how it can be that it costs 4 times the per capita Cambodian income to keep one child in care? If you have asked him, what was his reply? If you have not asked him, do you intend to do so? Or do these figures cause you no concern at all?”
(2) “Are you convinced, despite the results of hundreds of studies, that Scott Neeson has, somehow, found a way to keep 700+ children in institutional care without causing them emotional and psychological damage?”
I will be fascinated to discover how you will manage to avoid answering these questions again.
Come along James, you can do better than this. I have never acknowledged that CCF ask employees to sign non disclosure contracts, please get out of the mid day sun and read it again. You really are letting team Fletcher/Ricketson down with such silly errors
DeleteAs for your other questions James - in the fullness of time, in the fullness of time.
"As an ex employee who has SUPPOSEDLY along with all the other employees signed a document of non disclosure then how can we accept anything you say as you are already a self confessed liar, IF you signed a document as YOU say all employees do then you are clearly in breach of contract and non trustworthy"
Dear Scott, writing as Anonymous 1.09
DeleteWhy do you play this silly charade? “I’m not Scott and you’re just paranoid for thinking I am.”
For some time now you have been pretending to be but a humble child sponsor but, without even realizing it I suspect, your ‘child sponsor’ has had access to an increasing amount of insider information, the kind of information a sponsor would not be privy to – culminating, this afternoon in “As for your other questions James - in the fullness of time, in the fullness of time.”
Why would a sponsor write such a thing?
As for my questions, I have been asking them for more than 6 months now. How long is it going to take you to come up with answers?
You could totally demolish me, with ease, by providing honest answers to my questions.
“Mr Ricketson claims that CCF has 700+ children in residential care. This is not so. CCF has XXX in residential care.
Mr Ricketson deliberately twists the “$4,000 per child” question to suit his own ends. In brief, here is how the $4,000 per child figure breaks down. Yes, this is between 3 and 4 times the per capita income for Khmer families but you must take into account…
Mr Ricketson claims that parents of the children in CCF residential care are not allowed to keep a copy of the contract they enter into with CCF. This is not so. Here is a copy of the pro forma contract we ask parents to sign. As you can see, there are no hidden clauses.
Mr Ricketson claims that staff at CCF must sign non-disclosure contracts. This is not so.
Mr Ricketson claims that CCF separates siblings when they come into residential care at CCF. This is not so.
Mr Ricketson claims that children in dormitories sleep between 2 and 4 to the bed. This is not so. Each child has his or her own bed.
And so on, going back through the questions I have been asking for the past six months.
This excercise would take five minutes. Other than making readers wonder why you didnpt simply provide thesew answers months ago, readers will respond with: “Well, Scott has certainly put Mr Ricketson in his place.”
Why don’t you do it, Scott?
Now I imagine that the ‘child sponsor’ avatar will respond with something along the lines of, “Why should Scott Neeson answer your questions?” My response will be, “Scott is spending more than $10 million a year of sponsor and donor dollars and they have a right to know how their money is being spent and if it is being spent in an ethical manner that does not do damage to the children removed from their homes and to their families.
You could also argue your case vis a vis the institutionalization of children. Rather than get your avatar to write “I am satisfied with the answers Scot Neeson has given me,” you could start a statement with, “ Much has been written about the damaging effects of institutionalization of children but I would like, here, to defend CCF’s decision to provide residential care to XXX children….
As I have said many times James and as hopefully readers of this blog now accept you are suffering with paranoia.
DeleteI know one other reader whilst abusing you suggests you stop smoking the wacky backy but the personal experiences I have seen in life would more suggest it is ICE causing this state of mind for you.
FYI (not that it is likely to help) I was born in a different country to Scott, am a different age, am the same sex so at least you score one point there, am currently not in Tuscany (which is where the Fletcher/Ricketson huff and puff brigade keep telling us is where Scott is) The nearest I have been to being involved with the film industry is having interacted with you on several regrettable occasions and I certainly (sadly) have never met the Dalai Lama.
Get over it James, I AM NOT SCOTT
Just answer the questions, Scott, and stop making silly, and decidedly unoriginal observations about marijuana and ice.
DeleteAnswers , Scott, answers
Couldn't have described Ricketson better myself, thanks Wikipedia.
Delete"Paranoia is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion.[1] Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself (e.g. "Everyone is out to get me"). Paranoia is distinct from phobias, which also involve irrational fear, but usually no blame. Making false accusations and the general distrust of others also frequently accompany paranoia. For example, an incident most people would view as an accident or coincidence, a paranoid person might believe was intentional."
The silence from Team Neeson is deafening............and days with no answers as to why they are harming children by removing them their mothers!
ReplyDeleteLets just say for arguments sake that the child sponsor is for real and is not only close to Neeson but also has so much time on his or her hands as to be able to sit at a computer all days waiting to pounce on any statement Ricketson makes or questions he asks. I can buy this proposition, sortov! But why doesnt Neeson answer any questions but leave it up to his trust child sponsor to do so? Or to come up with novel ways of not answering questions? If Neeson has the facts on his side why doesnt he just lay then out for all to see?
ReplyDeleteThanks Anon 4.49 and sadly as my work routine changes dramatically tomorrow it will revert to irritating James/David on a more spasmodic basis, but never worry I will still be there.
ReplyDeleteFYI Scott Neeson leaves nothing to me and as far as I am aware he would have no idea who it is making these posts, I make the posts purely to correct some of the rubbish that the Fletcher/Ricketson huff and puff brigade keep making. Come on James, I know you are going to come back with "tell me one bit of rubbish I have posted". Don't let us down with your paranoia and not make a comment
Answer the wuestions
ReplyDeleteLooks like you typed your response after your second marijuana bong Ricketson - wuestions - dont you mean questions? Strange how you rip into everyone when they put typos inter comments and yet you seem to struggle with the english language yourself.
ReplyDeletefor Team Neeson
Delete“Hey, I’ve got an idea,” said one of the more intellectually challenged members of Team Neeson,”How about I keep making comments about him using drugs and stuff. That will really piss him off, yeah! Whaddya think?”
“Can’t hurt,” responded another member of the team with an IQ slightly higher, ,hovering around the 100 mark. “Hurl enough mud and it will stick. People reading this cunt’s blog will think he’s a druggie and no-one takes druggies seriously.”
“Good thinking,” said the Head Honcho. “You guys can be the Bad Cops and I’ll be…”
“The Good Cop?”
“No, I will maintain a dignified silence and pretend that I don’t read the blog at all and I expect you guys to make comments like I’m too busy making a difference and being a success and a saint and…you get the picture…to bother with this blog. “Why would he read it?” That sort of thing. But remember, if you’re going to call him a loser, the spelling is L-O-S-E-R not L-O-O-SER.
“And id the cunt even makes a small spelling mistake I’ll come down on his like a ton of….ton of…”
“Bricks”.
“Year, bricks.”
hahah you just emphasised the fact that you are a fool!
DeleteDear Mr.Ricketson,
ReplyDeleteyour blog is going up in search ranks. Congratulation. here is an
overview of the search engine duckduckgo.com where unlike using google
you get unbiased search results.
You are now on Position No. 10. Keep going.
Position number 10 of what, Tom? Blogs in Cambodia?
DeleteTeam Neeson’s predictable response to this comment above will be along the lines of “This is all a game for you, isn’t it?” My response: “No, far from it.” If a gme, is is one that has had dearly conserquences.
ReplyDeleteScott Neeson played a very significant role in Mr Fletcher’s being jailed for a crime he could not have committed. Mr Fletcher was a ‘competitor’ in the Phnom Penh rubbish dump, in Neeson’s eyes. Neeson wanted to be king of the dump. He had found his patch of turf and did not want to share it with anyone. This is just one instance in which Neeson reveals himself to be a man without moral scruples. Another is in his refusal to return two girls to their parents when they asked CCF to do so – on the basis of a ‘contract’ that the parents did not have a copy of and insist they did not sign.
Even if the parents had signed such a contract (Neeson won’t produce it), what kind of man would deny parents’ request to have their children returned to them?
If there were rule of law in Cambodia, if the media and human rights organizations took any interest at all in the illegal removal of children from their families, Neeson would have been exposed years ago and been 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.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7259345/Law-on-Suppression-of-Human-Trafficking-and-Sexual-Exploitation-15022008-English
For whats its worth I think the whole blog and its topic is one big combination of comedy hour.
ReplyDelete1. Ricketson - hater of anyone who is successful and defames anyone who isn't in his corner.
2. Neeson - extremely questionable morals. uses children as media puppets to generate funding. Hires 2 very unethical individual in Lemon and McCabe
3. McCabe - ex cop who was jailed for drug trafficking and robbery. Goes around telling people he pleaded guilty to some stupid charge that meant he was only guilt because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Extremely questionable ethics considering what is known about him.
4. Lemon - have been told that he is also an ex copper and McCabe and Lemon met each other while McCabe was up to no good. One would have to ask the question about the term 'thick as thieves'. I have done some digging and it appears Lemon was either kicked out of or left the Federal police of Australia under very dubious circumstances.
So - its comedy hour. You couldn't write a better script for a scumbag movie.
The lot of you are a disgrace!
Dear Anonymous 8.22
DeleteWhat do you see as the 'topic' of this blog? I mean this seriously. What, in your view, is the topic?
As for me being a 'hater of anyone who is successful', I think that facts and evidence are of little interest to many Anonymous commentators on this (indeed any) blog but kindly point to some evidence in support of your statement?
By 'succesful', do you mean, made a lot of money for CCF through the removal of children fro their families? If so, should I also be a 'hater' of others who have made themselves rich through questionable means? Drug running? Prostitution?
You are not alone amongst the many Anonymous individuals who post comments who believe that success is function of size of bank account.
Quite apart from learning from you what you think the 'topic' is,I would also love to know, from you, which of the questions being asked of Team Neeson srr a'disgrace'. Or, to put it another way, why the asking of the questions is disgraceful?
Oh, one more question: Why do you keep coming back to this blog if it is such a disgrace - unless, of course, you are planning to make a 'scumbag movie'
Ricketson - you are a fuckwit. You continually respond to anyone who disputes what you say with the question 'Why do you read my blogs if you dont like it" - well if you had half a brain you would know that the only reason your blog gets any ratings on Google is because the people who dont agree with you respond to your shit talk. Secondly, why would people who dispute what you say just let you write the utter crap that you do, defaming people in the name of investigative journalism. Truth to the matter is that you are greatly disliked in media & movie circles in Australia and even if you wanted to get a job in media or the movie industry today, you would be told to fuck off most politely. Oh yes, how do I know about this in Australia - well I did a lot of research as I too am an investigative journalist and your background and history has a stench to it.
DeleteNow I am sure you will respond with some kind of child like response but the facts speak for themselves.
Dear Team Neeson
DeleteThere is litte point in responding to those parts of this latest comment that constitute nothing but personal abuse; though it is odd language for an investigative journalist to be using.
As for people 'disagreeing' with me,t his is rarely the case. Team Neeson's sole objective here is to denigrate me and so make it seem as though the questions IU ask are of no consequence because the person asking them is...fill in your own preferred form of personal abuse.
I hace asked this question a dozen time or more but I'll ask it again. I would be quite happy to have an abuse free dialogue with anyone who can answer the question:
"How is it, in a country with a per capital income of just over $1,000, can justify spending $4,000 on one child in residential care at CCF?"
This is not a defamatory statement. it is merely a question. And it is a question that could be answered in a number of ways by Team Neeson. It my even be that an argument well-laid out for the $4,000 price tag would put the matter to rest.
Why hot, rather than come back at me with more abuse, simply present a cogent argument in favour of spending 3 or 4 time the per capita income on one child in residential care.
No one from Team Neeson has disputed the $4,000 per child per annum figure so I think it safe to assume that it is correct. If it were not, Team Neeson would have shot Ricketson down in flames a long time ago.
DeleteI am familiar with the cost of living in Cambodia, and with wages, and I too would like to know how this $4,000 per child breaks down.
I would also like to know, since it has been mentioned many times, if it is true or untrue that the children in CCF residential care sleep between 2 and 4 to a bed. If this is not so, why does Team Neeson not vociferously deny this vicious scuttlebutt?
Do we get to vote? I vote JAIL for Neeson. Hopeful that it is 2-5 years PER violation. Enforce the law.
ReplyDeleteSo you must be a fucking wanker American - 'jail' & 'violation' - go back to watching your Junior G man movies you germ. Neeson has about as much chance of going to jail as you do improving your IQ over 55
DeleteThanks for you intellectual comments. You must be an inspiration to those around you.
DeleteSounds like Rachal Matters Aonymous11:10. People could learn so much, if only they could stand to be around Rachal, now an important part of the Team Neeson brain trust!!
ReplyDeleteHow many articles such as the one below must be written before the Cambodian government steps in and closes these fake orphanages down?
ReplyDeleteHow many such articles need to be published before the local media and human rights organizations start to name and shame fake orphanages?
Cambodia faces uphill struggle to reform its orphanages
Source: Thomson Reuters Foundation - Mon, 6 Jul 2015 03:50 GMT
By Astrid Zweynert
PHNOM PENH, July 6 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - A visit to the temples of Angkor Wat, followed by a stop at an orphanage, are part of the travel experience for many of the more than four million tourists who come to Cambodia every year.
What they do not realise is that the impoverished Southeast Asian country is in the grip of a boom in orphanages, many of them unlicensed, with no safety checks, few real orphans, and subject to growing concern about neglect and abuse.
Most of Cambodia's orphanages are financed by private donations from abroad, but no one knows exactly how much money flows into the country or how many centres there are.
"It's hard to gauge because many orphanages are not transparent about their accounts, but it's a pretty safe guess that it's a multimillion dollar business," said James Sutherland, communications coordinator at Friends International, a social enterprise that works with disadvantaged children.
Orphanages are expanding because Cambodia lacks a social welfare network to support poor families, its institutions still struggling to recover from the devastation caused by dictator Pol Pot's genocidal regime in the late 1970s.
Between 2005 and 2010, the number of registered orphanages rose 75 percent to 269, housing almost 12,000 children, according to the United Nations children's agency UNICEF.
Since then, hundreds more have sprung up, usually run by private individuals or faith-based organisations, many of them from the United States or South Korea.
One of the largest is Foursquare Children of Promise (FCOP), a U.S.-based group dedicated to "building the kingdom of God", which runs over 100 residential care facilities in Cambodia.
FCOP was unavailable for comment.
...to be continued
...continuing on...
DeleteA UNICEF report found that in many orphanages the standard of care is extremely poor, although Cambodia introduced minimum standards in 2006.
UNICEF's Cambodia country representative, Rana Flowers, said a lack of registration and of enforcement of minimum standards put children at risk of neglect and abuse.
"I consider this to be a humanitarian emergency," Flowers told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
"This is a growing industry with little regulation, so anyone can open an orphanage to the detriment of thousands of children."
The chances that a well-meaning tourist's cash will help a real orphan are slim as around 77 percent of children in orphanages have at least one living parent, according to UNICEF.
Many parents in poor rural areas see little choice but to place their children in orphanages because they cannot afford to send them to school.
MUSHROOMING INDUSTRY
The true scale of the orphanage problem should become clearer when a survey carried out by the Ministry of Social Affairs and aid groups is published later this year.
"The number is likely to be closer to 600, which shows that this problem is out of control," an aid source, who requested anonymity, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
While the data is not directly comparable because the survey will include un-registered orphanages, it shows the government is struggling to contain the boom, despite its stated policy that residential care should only be a last resort for children.
The government wants to stop more orphanages from opening and has promised yearly inspections, but it has only 30 inspectors, making it hard to monitor the industry.
"We don't encourage more units to open," Oum Sophanara, director of the government's child welfare department, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
...to be continued...
...continuing on...
DeleteThe government inspected 228 residential care units last year housing a total of 11,014 children. Only 22 of those are run by the government.
"There are many more units that we have not been able to find," Oum said.
Since 2011, the government has shut down 11 orphanages that failed to meet its minimum care standards.
ORPHANAGE TOURISM
The growth in orphanages matches an explosion of tourism in Cambodia, where the number of foreign tourists has shot up to 4.5 million last year from less than 200,000 in 1994.
Most of them go to Siem Reap, a town close to Angkor Wat in one of the country's poorest provinces, and the centre of "orphanage tourism" in Cambodia.
Orphanage tourism is prevalent in other parts of Southeast Asia too, such as northern Thailand where some centres charge volunteers up to $400 a week to spend time there.
It is also increasing in Myanmar as tourist numbers rise, prompting the government to commit itself last year to a moratorium on opening new orphanages.
Friends International is working with other charities to raise awareness through the "Don't Create More Orphans" campaign, launched in February.
"It is getting a lot of traction but many tourists are still unaware how damaging orphanages are," said Sutherland.
There is a growing view in Cambodia that growing up in a residential care centre is damaging for a child's development and that children need to be loved and cared for by one or two familiar adults, rather than strangers.
M'Lop Tapang is one of a growing number of community-based organisations that provide shelters, education and vocational training with the aim of bringing children back to their families.
"Every child needs to have a family to belong to," M'Lop Tapang director Eve Sao Sarin told the Thomson Reuters Foundation. "When a child lives at home, they're in a community and have a much better chance to learn essential life skills."
M'Lop Tapang does not let tourists or volunteers come to its facilities in the seaside town of Sihanoukville, except for its Sandan restaurant where it trains street children to become chefs and waiters.
"We don't think it's a good way to fund-raise or promote our work," Sarin said.
Mr Ricketson, you are such a fucking idiot that it seems to have escaped your notice that CCF is not an orphanage. You are not going to let facts such s this get in the way of your good bullshit story, though, are you?
DeleteYes, James, don't forget Neeson takes children that have parents. That makes him 'special' in some way. Maximum damage to kids, but that helps him fill his quotas and run the money machine that the Poverty Pimp desires.
DeleteDear Tem Neeson (aka Anonymous 2.38)
DeleteWhat do you call an institution with 700 kids living in it that have parents, families?
Friends are a great organisation, but they have more children living in residential care than CCF does. Yes, they run reintegration programs (so does CCF), but they do have 700 children living with them. Read the Friends annual report.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 2.40
DeleteI have known ‘Friends’ since 1995 and have enough first hand experiences to be convinced of the NGO’s integrity, its honesty and its sincere desire to assist the poorest and most vulnerable of children within a family and community context.
One only has to look at ‘Friends’’ Annual report to see that it places great importance on actual results and on accountability.
http://friends-international.org/resources/reports/AnnualReport2013.pdf
For instance, want to know how many children have been integrated back into their families this past year. Here’s the answer:
• 402 children integrated into a family based environment (20% increase)
• Want to know how many families have been supported in income generation:
• 450 families supported for income generation (32% increase)
CCF, by comparison, makes mainly motherhood statements like this”
“Today we care for more than 2,000 students and 10,000 people annually after extending our services to provide to entire families and communities in crisis.”
How many of these 2,000 students live in a CCF institution? The figure CCF had on its website for a long time was 700. Is this still the case or has it gone up? Or down?
Taking care of 10,000 people annually sounds great but what does it mean in reality? 10,000 people get given loaves of nutritious bread? Of something much more substantial?
In the business of helping people you don’t (or shouldn’t) get brownie points for good intentions, but for results.
CCF’s results are hidden from view so all we have to go on is what Scott tells us in countless press releases and on Facebook – all of which focus more on what a wonderful guy he is to have given up so much.etc, than on the actual programmes themselves
Well said Anon 2.40. Suck that up Ricketson !!!!
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to the financial reports on friends you were going to produce.?? Like 2.40 I have no axe to grind with Friends and think overall they do a pretty good job, but I also think the same of CCF. Lets watch Ricketson weasel his way out of this one.
Most people are fully aware that Ricketsons hatred for Neeson started when James turned up at an all girl facility demanding to see a pre teen girl and was rightly refused, as is so often his way he got angry and was asked to leave. His pride has been hurt and left some pretty deep emotional scars, that is all this blog has ever been about and is why there have been so many personal attacks on Scott.
No James, I am not going to waste my time giving examples that you will once again lie about
"I have known ‘Friends’ since 1995 and have enough first hand experiences to be convinced of the NGO’s integrity, its honesty and its sincere desire to assist the poorest and most vulnerable of children within a family and community context."
ReplyDeleteExactly what I would say about CCF.
Dear Anonymous 4.30
DeleteFriends doesn't lock families out of their homes for being $12.50 behind in their rent. Friends doesn't pull in $4,000 a year per child in residential care and spend virtually none of the money assisting the family And so on...
Dear Scott
ReplyDeleteThis is so obviously you commenting, why not just come out and admit it. The reason is that by hiding behind 'Anonymous' comments, by pretending that you re a 'child donor' you can answer those questions you choose to answer and ignore those you do not wish to answer - like (1) Account for the $4,000 per child you claim to spend per annum, (2) Why do you not allow parents of children in CCF care to retain copies of contracts. And so on. I( need not go through the list again. You are familiar with the questions and will not answer them.
You say that you will not answer questions/give examples because I will lie about them. Mmmm.
Other than in 2 or 3 instances when a comment has been clearly defamatory, I have not censored any comment son this blog. If you were to write a response that included answers to my questions I would leave it there for readers of this blog to determine for themselves whether the answers held water or not.
And if your answers make me look stupid, so be it.
.to be continued
....continuing...
ReplyDeleteTurning now to your story about my turning up at at a CCF facility and demanding that I see a pre-teen girl, lets look at the facts.
Firstly, I think you will acknowledge that I have never met you. The only communication I have hd with you has been through emails. And I have published 99% of this communication between us on the following blog.
http://cambodianchildrensfund.blogspot.com/2014/05/is-scott-neeson-knight-in-shining.html
The only material that has been left out are some repeats - on both your and my parts.
So, unless you dispute that this email correspondence as being an accurate record, anyone who chooses to do so could go through it and find out for themselves who said what and when.
Whilst you prefer to refer to my wishing to see a pre-teen girl,in reality it was Sokayn's mother I wished to see. And I did see her. When I arrived at the CCF facility I could see her 10 or 15 feet away - just inside the door. I walked up to her and spoke with her for a moment before moving deeper into the building with her. It was at this point I was informed that I was not allowed to be in the building. I asked why but could get no answer. The mother, not wanting there to be a scene, asked me to leave. I did.
This scene did not occur out of the blue. It took place in a context. And the context was CCF's decision to take total control of the lives of the family. It is all laid out in forensic detail in my blog.
The fact is, you lied to me, in writing, about having helped the family settle in their homeland. At the time you wrote this the mother and father were asking me to help get their children returned to their care. You claimed to be under no obligation to d so as the family had signed a contract. The family claimed not to have signed any contract and you refused to produce one.
Again, all laid out in forensic detail in that particular blog.
Despite the extraordinary lenghts you went to to prevent me from contacting the family, I did, on a couple of occassions, track them down. On one of these occassions, when I asked what I could do to help the family, Ka and Chuan asked if I could buy them a block of land with a small house on it. The cost: $1500. I told them that I would, when I had some money. I hare had this money for a couple of years now but have increased it to $3,000.
One day I will track their family down and give them the money - despite the efforts you make (and have persistently made) to prevent me from contacting the family and from the family contacting me - if the family chooses to do so.
As for hating you, Scott, this is not so. I don't hate anyone. It is a useless emotion to experience most to the time. You clearly want to build an empire with you at the top - the saviour of all these poor children that do not have dads to care for them. I have never once seen a photo of a young child on the hip of his or her father. There are, however countless photos of you with one of these fathers' child on you hip. The message you want to create, the image you want to create for yourself is blindingly obvious. And you are succeeding, as countless hagiographic articles written about you round the world attest.
I did not set out to cross paths with you in live but now that I have I would like readers of this blog to at least start asking questions and considering the possibility that, as a marketing man, the product you are selling is Scott Neeson.
Do you see why people think he is paranoid folks, EVERYBODY is the big bad Scott in his eyes.
DeleteHow are the financial reports on Friends coming James, and how about the "700+ kids they have stolen from their mothers" as you care to describe it. I walked past Friends a while back and never realised why they needed so much security and high walls, maybe it is to stop the parents coming to get their kids back. Why are the 700 kids "stolen from their mothers by Friends International" as you choose to describe it in the first place is maybe a question on so many of your readers minds
Yes - I know, "just tell me one time I have ever said anybody steals children from their mothers". How about another few paragraphs of your verbal diarrhea James
Scott, or Not Scott
DeleteI am a reader capable of making up my own mind on a whole range of issues if I am presented with the facts. If I am provided answers to questions. The questions Mr Ricketson is asking are not ones that had occurred to me but now that he has articulated them I woud certain be most interested to hear your answers so that I can decide where I believe the truth lies.
Scott, you really do need to calm down. Write your responses to me then sit of them for 10 minutes or so and go back through them once you've cooled off a little and see if your choice of words is doing you any favours.
ReplyDeleteAs for the financial reports of Friends, what on earth are you talking about? What do the financial reports of Friends have to do with the questions I ask you and which. with monotonous regularity, you refuse to answer. Why not ask me about the financial reports of 300 other NGOs in Cambodia!? This is just you, in a very amateurish way, trying to throw up a smokescreen - in the hope that readers will think, "Yeah, why doesn't Mr Ricketson ask for the financial statements of 300 other NGOs.
I did, as you suggested, consult with Friends' Annual Report and was impressed by its thoroughness. CCF's last Annual Report (2013) is filled with vague generalities and motherhood feelgood statements.
I don't think you will find that I have ever referred to CCF as having 'stolen' children from their mothers but will e happy to stand corrected if you can point out where I did so.
You are a master,Scott, of obfuscation and have no qualms at all about putting words into my own or other people's mouths.
Not only are these angry responses to me written in your inimitable style and tone, the story of me me 'demanding' to see a pre-teen girl would not be known to your avatar - the child donor. Careless, Scott.
The story of you "demanding to see a pre-teen girl" is well published on the internet you goose. It has been read by many people. Once again as an "investigative journalist" I think it is you that is careless in thinking I like many others would not have seen it.
DeleteAnd likewise James, a very good question, how many of the other 300 NGO's in Cambodia have you publicly asked to produce their financials, how about asking your mate Fletcher for his, that would certainly make for interesting reading. After all he was running a charity and I believe raising funds on the internet. But I am sure as with Friends International he has been a long time friend of yours with impeccable credentials and is beyond reproach.
Cheers (Not Scott)
Dear Scott
DeleteSo, the story of me "demanding to see a pre-teen girl" is well publicised on the internet, is proof that it must be true? Given that the the story came from you, someone who plays fast and loose with the truth,, I suspect most people who came across this story would take it with a huge grain of salt. As they should.
This is a story that suits your agenda, Rather than answer questions you seek to demolish and demonise the person asking them. If you can convince readers here that I am the kind of person who turns up at a CCF centre an demands to see a pre-teen girl (a nutter) you can convince yourself that (and perhaps others) that answering questions from such a person is not necessary.
Such is life. Yes, some mud will stick for those who come to this blog hoping for blood. Those who would like some answers to questions are obtaining some interesting insights into the way your brain works.
Telling Andrew Drummond that David Fletcher was grooming young girls is the same kind of tactic employed by you to either silent critics or, in this case, destroy what you saw as 'competition' in the rubbish dump. You hd no evidence of Fletcher's guilt but he was just collateral damage in your quest to be king of the rubbish dump.
As for how many other NGOs I have asked to produce their financials, precious few. I am ng taking 300 NGOs to task for being run by a man who plays fast and loose with the truth, who denies parents copies of contracts they have entered unto with the NGO he runs, who refuses to account for how it is that he claims to spend $4,000 per child per annum, who refuses to return children to the families when asked by the parents...and so on.
You are bending over backwards to avoid answering any of these questions.
As for my being mates with David Fletcher for a long time the truth is that I met him 8 or 9 months ago - doing 10 years in jail for a crime he could not have committed - as you know quite well. He was not in Cambodia st the time of the alleged rapes IN CAMBODIA, Yang Dany remained a virgin after these alleged rapes and insists (along with her mother, Sekun) that no rapes took place. You have known this since Sept 2010.
Mr Fletcher is far from being a mate.He is someone on whose behalf I am advocating his right to a fair trial. There has been no such trial and there as powerful (and wealthy) people who are determined that he will receive no trial but die in jail. As one f those who put him there with your lies I trust that a day of recking come for you
Errrr - sorry Mr Paranoia, my response was merely refuting your statement that I must be Scott to know about you turning up at an establishment with presents for little girls.. Again just the simple statement "sorry I was wrong - again would have sufficed James. Same as you seem to have deflected the question regarding the financials of the child sex offender (FACT and not rumor scuttlebuck or innuendo) that you so staunchly support.
DeleteWhy oh why James do you continually insist on making yourself pubically look like an idiot
Dear Scott
DeleteYour pretence at not being Scott and yet knowing all that Scott knows and speaking on his behalf is quite bizarre and will be seen as such by the 200 - 300 people a day who visit this blog. I imagine that some are attracted to the 'blood sport' element of our dialogue/debate but there are also a large number of your sponsors and donors who will be thinking, :Why does Scott not answer any questions but insist on heaping insult after insult on Mr Ricketson. If Scott haas the answers that will completely demolish Mr Ricketson why doesn't he simply give them?"
Why indeed.
No, you will scrape the bottom of the barrel in search of reasons, justification, for not answering my questions. My demanding to see a pre-teen girl is the latest attempt at denigration on your part. I look forward to your next attempt to shoot the messenger. You really are running out of ammunition.
As or Mr Fletcher's 'financials' in what way are these pertinent to the question of whether or not he raped Yang Dany? Please explain.
As for your reference to Fletcher as a 'child sex offender' the truth is a little different from your cartoon representation. .Mr Fletcher was found guilty of having had consensual sex with a 15 year old girl. He was found guilty and served 7 months in prison. In accordance with the simplistic way in which your brain works, his prior conviction is sufficient evidence that he must have been guilty of grooming young girls. In fact, as you know, the combined efforts of SISHA, APLE,, CEOP and the anti-human trafficking unit, over a period of 2 years, found no evidence at all of 'grooming' and Mr Fletcher has never been charged with such an offence.
The only way I support Mr Fletcher staunchly is in my belief that he is entitled to a fair trial.
Now whist you are happy to believe Mr Fletcher guilty of rape in 2010 on the basis of an offence dating back to 1998, you have employed a former criminal by the name of James Mc Cabe to run CCF's child protectioin unit. You do not apply the same principles to Mc Cabe as you apply to Fletcher. The reason is that Mc Cabe is an asset and Fletcher was a liability; a 'competitor' in your eyes.
You played a very significant role, Scott, in seeing Mr Fletcher jailed for what will, in effect, be the rest of his life. I do not expect this to trouble your conscience but I do hope it gives you reason to think about all those you have screwed on your way up the greasy pole and reason to worry that they may, one day, emerge to challenge the Scott Neeson myth you put so much effort into promulgating.
Here is what you had to say about David Fletcher, one week before he was arrested on a rape charge he could not have committed. Readers can figure out for themselves what kind of a man would make such a statement based on no evidence:
“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.”
Seven days later, Scott, David Fletcher was 'sent packing'. Mission accomplished.
I personally could not care less if it is Scott Neeson making these comments or someone making the comments on his behalf. I want to hear Scott Neeson's answers to questions. Answers that he is prepared to stand by publicly.
ReplyDeleteScott will never answer any questions.Instead he will seek to denigrate anyone who should have the temerity to ask him questions. His approach to the running of an NGO is the antithesis of transparency and accountability.Every time he squirms his way out of answering questions he digs the hole he is in just that much deeper. His person attacks on me (demanding to dee a pre-teen girl) say a great deal about the man and it is only a matter of time before the bubble bursts. This will happen, I think, when former CCF staff and residents speak out. And they will, in time.
DeleteUntil then, we can expect more of the same - Scott shooting thre messenger.In thisd case it is me but there will be others who smell a rat and start asking questions.l They will be treated as I am being
Good God,
ReplyDeleteThis guy Ricketson really is a serial nuisance, has anybody seen all the other rubbish he puts on his blogs. Next time I get stuck on late shift it will give it a look if I want a good laugh,
I think we should start calling him etcetera because he just seems to go on and on and on and on. Interestingly when people ignore him he just seems to go off and irritate somebody else
http://nswhealthissick.blogspot.sg/
http://globaldevelopmentgroup.blogspot.sg/
http://filmnewsaustralia.blogspot.sg/
http://citipointechurch.blogspot.sg/
http://screennewsaustralia.blogspot.sg/
http://jamesricketson.blogspot.sg/