Tim
Leissner
Chairman,
South
East Asia Division
Goldman
Sachs
Dear
Mr Leisner
re Scott Neeson and the Cambodian Children’s Fund
Are
Scott Neeson and the Cambodian Children’s Fund all that they appear to be, as
presented in the glossy brochures, on the CCF website and Facebook pages and
the newspaper and magazine reports that
regularly appear?
Is
Scott Neeson a secular saint who selflessly gave up his $1 million Hollywood
career to help the poor in Cambodia or has he very cleverly created a brilliant
narrative for himself that is generating tens of millions of dollars to create
his own small empire within Cambodia?
For
some months I have run a blog which, amongst other things, raises questions
about how the Cambodian Children’s Fund presents itself to the world. How
accurate is its self- presentation?
In
the writing of this blog I have been accused of being motivated by a hatred of
Scott Neeson, of being jealous of him because he has made a success of his life
and I have not, and of having a hidden agenda. I have also been personally
abused in a number of colourful ways and many attempts have made to ‘shoot the
messenger’.
This
is all par for the course for any journalist who investigates either an
individual or an organization that does not wish to be investigated.
I
would not expect you to take anything I write at face value so have complied a list of questions that you
could ask of Scott Neeson if you are interested to know if the money you very
generously donate to the Cambodian Children’s Fund is being used wisely and
effectively.
It
is worth bearing in mind at the outset is that the Cambodian Children’s Fund is
not independently monitored in any way. It is a fortress, whose walls cannot be
breached by journalists or any other organization that might wish to make an
independent assessment of the efficacy of CCF’s programmes. The only
information about CCF available to sponsors, donors, journalists and other
interested parties is that which is generated by Scott Neeson. Almost without
exception, journalists do cut and paste jobs on CCF press releases – all of
which tell the story, again and again, of how Mr Neeson gave up his
multi-million dollar Hollywood lifestyle to help the poor in Cambodia.
Especially
given Scott Neeson’s background in marketing films in Hollywood I believe that
his having total control over the Scott Neeson/CCF narrative is significant
QUESTIONS
1.
Mr Neeson, how much does it cost the Cambodian Children’s Fund to provide
residential care and education for one child for one year?
Mr
Neeson’s response will $4,000. If, for some reason it is not, you may wish to
consult the Cambodian Children’s Fund 2013 IRS tax return in which you will
find the following:
More detailed questions regarding funding
can be found at:
http://cambodia440.blogspot.com/2015/02/96-message-for-heather-graham-re.html
2.
Mr Neeson, what is the per capita income for a family on Cambodia?
If
Mr Neeson uses the World Bank as a reference he will reply, $1,040.
You
may be aware, Mr Leisner, that the wages paid to factory workers in Cambodia hover
around $100 per month. The wages for men and women in the service industry
hover between $70 and $90 a month. A school teacher is doing well if s/he earns
$140 a month.
Take
a hypothetical family struggling to survive on two average incomes - a monthly
income of $200 a month. Or $2,400 per annum. Bearing this figure in mind,
another question for Mr Neeson:
3.
Mr Neeson, how do you explain, or justify, spending $4,000 to keep one child in
institutional care when this is close to twice the amount of money a family
with two full-time wage earners makes in a year? Would it not make more sense,
from an economic point of view, to be helping these materially poor children
within their families (and in so doing help the entire family) rather than
extracting one member of the family and helping him or her at a cost of $4,000
per year?
4.
Mr Neeson, do each of the children CCF spends $4,000 a year accommodating and
educating get to sleep at night in their own bed? Or must they share their bed
with another child? Perhaps more than one other child. Is there any truth to
the rumour that children in CCF residential care sleep in dormitories between 2
and 4 children per bed? Is it true that even boys in their late teens must
share beds with each other.
5.
Mr Neeson, when siblings are taken into care by CCF are they separated from
each other according to their sex and age? In other words, are brothers and
sisters separated? Are bothers and brother, sisters and sister, separated if
there is a substantial difference in their ages?
6.
Mr Neeson, what kind of contractual arrangement does CCF enter into with the
parents of children who are accepted into CCF’s residential care programme?
Could you please provide me with a copy of the pro forma contract? Once parents
have applied their thumb prints to these contracts are they then allowed to
keep a copy of it? If not, why not?
7.
If the parents decide, having signed the CCF pro forma contract, that they want
their children returned to their care, does CCF abide by their wishes? Have
there been instances in which CCF has refused to return children and cited to
the parents that CCF is under no obligation to do so as a result of the
contract they have signed?
8.
Mr Neeson, in the case of those children in residential care, at a cost of
$4,000 per year, what financial and other assistance does CCF provide to the
remainder of the family? Is it possible that a family with five children in
residential care with CCF could generate $20,000 a year in income for CCF (the
IRS figure) whilst the mother of these children must support the remainder of
her children on the $1,000 she earns in a year working in the rubbish dump?
9.
Mr Neeson, it has come to my attention that CCF owns a number of slums that it
rents out to the families of children in CCF residential care. Have there been
instances in which such materially impoverished families have been locked out
of their homes for being $12.50 behind in their rent, whilst CCF is, according
to your IRS figures, generating $4,000 a year to take care of each of the
children from these families that are in residential care?
10.
Mr Neeson, is it true that employees of CCF, under constant CCTV surveillance,
must sign non-disclosure contracts that forbid them from talking with anyone
(especially the media) about what does on behind closed doors at CCF?
11.
Would you be agreeable to allowing a small delegation from your major sponsors
the freedom to visit all CCF facilities and to talk with whomsoever we choose –
children, and members of staff. If you agree to this, it would be preferable
that there be no senior members of staff present, including yourself, as their
presence, your presence, may inhibit children and staff from feeling free to
speak their minds.
12.
Mr Neeson, my final question has to do with he damaging effects of institutionalization
on children. Hundreds of reports written over many decades leave no doubt as to
the damage done to children who are institutionalized. Can you please explain
to me why you believe that the 700+ children CCF has in institutional care, the
overwhelming majority of which have families, are not being emotionally and
psychologically damaged by the experience?
Whilst
I wish to support any efforts made to lift families out of dire poverty I do
not want the money I donate to be used in such a way as to break up families,
see children institutionalized or to see one child member of a family well
provided with food, clothing education and medical assistance whilst the rest
of the child’s family receives only the most token of assistance.
***
If
you are satisfied with the answers you receive, Tim, you will no doubt continue
to support the Cambodian Children’s Fund as generously as you have to date.
best
wishes
James
Ricketson
Really - what point is all this? Neeson is s lim ball who should have his NGO shutdown but is never going to happen. Most of his supporters are in the clouds and believe the bullshit that Neeson spins.
ReplyDeleteVery sickening really - there are some disturbing images of Neeson that look very creepy.
Lets get a reality check. Is that dirty kiddie fiddler Fletcher dead yet? I was just checking through some of the blogs and I think he has promised to suicide at least 4 times.
ReplyDeleteDisclaimer:-
ReplyDeleteThose 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.
Dear Scott Neeson
ReplyDeleteYou have already posted this comment twice before. Why a third time? Because you re desperate not to answer questions and hope, that by denigrating the person asking the questions, readers here will forget about the questions themselves. A vain hope, I suspect.
It is as a result of your refusal to answer questions that I have started writing to your major sponsors suggesting, before they write their next cheque, that they ask you these same questions. Whether they will or not remains to be seen but id they do, I suspect that they will want proper answers.
James has a paranoia that anybody making a post he does not like is Scott Neeson
DeleteHaving already answered these questions (go back one blog) why should I bother to answer them again.
DeleteThe posts that are so obviously yours, Scott, are those in which you write in your distinctive style and tone and in which yu use ever truck in the book to not answer questions. I will not bother trying to get answers from you any longer but suggest that those of your donors and sponsors who contribute large sums of money to CCF might like to ask you some questions. If they choose not to, that is their prerogative. If they choose to ask them I suspect that they will want answers and not to be snowed.
A light-hearted take on an important subject.
ReplyDeleteThis is about Bill C,linton, but it could also be about Bono, Bob Geldorf or Hollywood’s own Scott Neeson
BILL CLINTON'S DECADE OF AUTOFELLATIO
Saturday night I watched Bill Clinton give himself a blowjob for four hours, and it wasn’t pretty.
From roughly 10:13PM to 2:05AM Eastern Standard Time, I passively and resentfully endured a shamelessly self-congratulatory spectacle dubbed “A Decade of Difference: A Concert Celebrating 10 Years of the William J. Clinton Foundation” livestreamed on my computer. By the end, I knew that if Bill Clinton truly understood anything about being charitable, this concert would not have lasted more than ten minutes.
On this special evening at the Hollywood Bowl, Bill Clinton opened his heart to the world to show them how big it is. For four hours, the famously horny ex-president invited the world to thank him for helping the world and to beseech their help so he can continue helping them. He was clearly glad—nay, eager—to let the world know how aggressively charitable he’s been in the decade or so since he relinquished the presidency. He hasn’t exactly frittered away the last ten years—au contraire, he’s been running around the globe and empowering the SHIT out of people! Mr. Clinton, flanked by Hillary and Chelsea, sat beaming in the audience, celebrating this celebration of himself and marinating in his own goodness to the point where it appeared to give him a mild case of rosacea. For the duration of a live musical event that lasted a full forty minutes longer than the film Gandhi, we learned what a charitable, loving, wonderful man Bill Clinton is—not merely a good man, but a great, great, great, great, GREAT man—and don’t you dare forget it!
The $1,000-a-seat concert was a star-spackled event. The cool night air sparkled with human beings being humanitarian, gathering together to celebrate the founding of Clinton’s foundation, or to put it more succinctly, Clinton’s foundation’s founding. Ashton Kutcher was there, as inarticulate as ever. Professional full-time lesbian Ellen DeGeneres mumbled something about how Bill and Hillary have made the world a better place.
“On this special evening at the Hollywood Bowl, Bill Clinton opened his heart to the world to show them how big it is.”
Surprise opening guest Stevie Wonder sang his blind ass off and did that thing where he shakes his head back and forth, causing his balding dreadlocks to sway along with the beat. Neo-C&W singer Kenny Chesney, through his body language alone, spent his entire set trying to deny that he’s gay. For one song, he trotted out a girl singer in a failed attempt to prove he’s a heterosexual. I may have heard a lyric about a crawdad at one point. A Muslim Somalian singer/rapper who looks like Michael Jackson after a crack binge named K’naan performed, and if there’s anything America needs, it’s more of those. Abdominally gifted singer Usher accidentally ripped his pants and joked to the audience about how he works “hard.” Lady Gaga and her dozens of gay dancers sang that song about how she was born that way, when she plainly wasn’t born that way and is obviously lying. Righteous Irish rodent Bono from U2 and his guitarist The Edge inflicted an unforgivably pious acoustic set upon the world. I’d estimate I slept through at least 10 minutes of it, and I’m a better man for it.
...to be continued
...continuing...
DeleteThrough all four hours, Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea seemed stubbornly determined to prove that no one in their family has any rhythm.
Toni Morrison dubbed Bill Clinton the “first black president,” so I guess it follows that he is also the first black ex-president. This may partially explain the gross ostentatiousness of Saturday night’s event, reeking as it did with a level of cheesy self-importance one might expect from Diddy or LeBron James.
So…why a concert? Exactly what “difference” has Bill Clinton’s tax-exempt foundation made in the past decade, and why do we need to be singing about it? On a red-carpet event before the concert, Colombian actress Sofia Vergara tried explaining:
I think, you know, when somebody is as popular as him, and he, you know, has the power to bring so many people together, to bring these names, to bring people that can, you know, really, you know, make a difference [laughs]. It’s amazing, it’s amazing that he’s doing all this work.
Amazing indeed. Actress Felicity Huffman gushed that Bill Clinton had introduced the world to “a whole new level of philanthropy on a systemic level,” and the universe will forever remain uncertain that she had any idea what she meant. Actress Maria Bello—and who knows more about politics than actors and actresses?—claimed that Bill Clinton had “empowered” sixteen million women around the world, and if the rumors I’ve heard about the notorious womanizer are true, she may be lowballing that figure. Actor Jason Segel summarized the William J. Clinton Foundation thusly: “Quite simply, it’s an organization that’s committed to doing what’s right.”
In other words, not one of you thespians, lesbians, and lesbian thespians has any idea what to say unless someone’s writing your lines for you.
Toward the concert’s end, Mr. Clinton—seeming a little drunk—and his daughter Chelsea walked onstage. If he wasn’t drunk, I can’t comprehend why a grown man in full possession of his senses would utter the following line:
Nobody ever climbs any ladder alone.
Mr. Clinton, sir? I’ve climbed at least two dozen ladders in my life, and every time, I did it alone. In fact, the more people you add to the ladder, I’d imagine the more difficult climbing it would be.
...to be continued...
....continuing...
DeleteThere is one thing I admire about Bill Clinton, and that is the fact that he has been consistently unfaithful to Hillary. Who in their right mind could put up with her? Bill’s blatant infidelities are the most humanizing thing about him. If he wants to exhibit his sharply curved, average-sized penis to women in Arkansas hotel rooms and plop a cigar or two inside an intern’s vagina, it’s none of my damned business so long as he’s causing suffering and distress to Hillary Clinton. And receiving oral pleasure while on the phone with Congress? Coolest thing I’ve ever heard a politician do.
But that doesn’t outweigh the fact that he’s one of the biggest socket wrenches in the globalists’ toolbox. He utters the word “global” as much as Eazy-E used to say “nigga.” Saturday night’s concert was littered with jargon about how “we’re all citizens of this world” and we need to “put a human face on the global economy” and how we need “peace without borders” and how globalism is coming whether we like it or not, so we better bend over and get used to it. Beneath all the gloss about humanism and empowerment and uplift and economic equality was a rigid subtext about us all being together and living together and sharing together and macro-managed together and squashed into a situation where we can never not be together ever again. First it’s our “common identity,” then it’s our common ID cards.
William Jefferson Clinton signed NAFTA—perhaps the biggest single blow to the American middle and working classes in the past generation—into law. He bears partial blame for the subprime mortgage scandal.
When he left office, he left every American man, woman, and child nearly $5,500 deeper in debt than they were the day he took office. Then there’s Whitewater and Vince Foster and Chinagate and impeachment and perjury and disbarment and dead witnesses and multiple suicides.
So along comes Bill Clinton to remind the world that he hangs out with HIV-positive kids at Cambodian orphanages and wants to prevent tobacco-related deaths in sub-Saharan Africa and how he helped small businesses in Harlem and really hates malaria and spends sleepless nights crying about Haiti’s plight.
Pardon me, but I don’t think I have a dog in this here fight.
How does the average American benefit from his excessive bursts of philanthropy? During the other night’s concert, I don’t remember anyone making a peep about the average American, nor so much as acknowledging that such a species exists.
For the 2007 tax year, the William J. Clinton Foundation took in around $130 million, over a third of which came from government grants. So not only does the average non-cosmopolitan American taxpayer likely not benefit from his organization, they’re actually being forced to pay part of the bill for him to indulge his narcissistic messiah fantasies on his dusky, exotic, starving AIDS pets halfway around the globe.
Bubba, I realize you insist on stroking yourself, but I’m going to have to demand you do it on your own dime.
I love the reference to Bill Clinton "indulging his narcissistic messiah fantasies." A perfect description of Neeson. Other NGO's, good and effective NGOs, just get on with their jobs. Neeson, on the other hand has to put himself in the centre of the frame, declaring, "Look at all the terrific things I am doing for these poor people whose lives would be destitute if it were not for me. Oh, and did I mention that I gave up a $million a year job in Hollywood to do this. Am I not the most wonderful person? So selfless, so humble!"
DeleteI gave up a relatively well paid job to work for an NGO in Cambodia. I did so because I found my precious job unsatisfying and often meaningless. I enjoy my work here even if it is often hard and dispiriting. I do not exect or want an accolades for what I have done; for what I am doing. I don't need to see my photo on a glossy brochure of on Facebook. In factI would be a bit embarrassed if I did. For the Bonos, Geldorf's, Clinton's and Neeson's of the world screaming at the world that they are compassionate is just their own form of personal branding. I am not impressed by anyone who needs to shout from a pulpit, "Look how compassionate I am."
DeleteI hope Tim Leisnner asks Neeson how much the Dalai Lama jaunt cost? And why it was necessary to spend to much money ($50,000) is the rumoured figure) to meet with and sing Happy Birthday to the Dalai Lama. What does such a PR exercise have to do with helping poor families? How much, if not $50,000, did Neeson's photo opportunity with the Dalai Lama cost donors and sponsors?
ReplyDeleteWhen a person is invited to speak at an event, their expenses are covered. The cost to donors was $0.
DeleteCCF's fundraising expenses are incredibly low you fucking moron. Find a better argument.
DeleteAnonymous 2:59, I don't believe you. You are a liar, if you think all of Neeson's expenses were 'covered' without using CCF funds.
DeleteAnonymous 2:59 2, it has nothing to do 'fundraising' funds, you fucking moron.
While we are on the subject of credibility of Neeson and his associates, I met a guy last night in Phnom Penh who had a fair bit to say about Neeson and McCabe. To say he wasn't a supporter of both of them would be an understatement. Anyway, this guy told me some information that i am hoping James or other followers can confirm or disprove. The guy told me that Neeson and McCabe are also close friends with a guy named Peter Gray who works with children in Cambodia, in particular sets up adoptions.
ReplyDeletehttp://acctnow.com.au/meet-the-team/
No problems with that but he also said that Gray's girlfriend or fiancee (he wasn't sure) is the owner of a girl bar in 104 Street - the bar is called Zanzibar. Not only that but the girlfriends sister owns another girl bar called Zapata bar in street 108.
Now before I go off on a rant, I am hoping that someone can disprove this information because if it is true, then I have to only say 'how disgusting'!
Am I incorrect in stating that if you are working with children in Cambodia, setting up adoptions and telling the world how much you care about the children's welfare, that you should not advocate any activity that may be considered immoral? How on earth could you allow your girlfriend to own a bar that advocates the selling of girls for sex and prostitution?
Maybe I am just too conservative or perhaps naive but that seems entirely wrong to me. If it is true then it is worse because Neeson and McCabe are supposed to be anti children & young girls getting lured into prostitution and yet they are closely associated with this guy Peter Gray.
If it is true then the whole Neeson and associates operating in NGO's and amongst children really starts to throw up some smoke.
Please can someone tell me that this information is not true. Im happy to reply with an apology on this blog if it isn't true but if it is, apart from being sick, I think its time that we all try to expose what is really going on here.
@ Anonymous 7.22
ReplyDeleteYou obviously havent been in Cambodia long enough mate to know that its OK hewre to work in child protection and run orphanages at the same time as you profit from having underage girls working in the bar run by your sweetheart - as long as you pay your 'taxes'. Welcome to Scambodia, mate, Kingdom of Wonder
Yes perhaps you are correct. Ive only been in Cambodia 15 months. But it would be great to have someone confirm if that information is true or not. Since my post I have been doing some googling. This Peter Gray is also the President of Rotary. Surely this can't be true. Rotary would never allow a person to be their president if he as associated with a venue that sells sex. This is really sick.
Delete@ Anonymous 8.43
DeleteYes its sick. Very sick. If you have money you can do what you like in this country. I wouldnt look too much deeper or ask too many questions if I were you because there are so many skeletons in so many closets and so many rich and powerful people who will do whatever it takes to prevent the truth from coming out about so many things. We are not talking small time criminals here.Be careful. Keep your head down. Be very careful who you talk with about any of what you have heard.
James - perhaps another blog topic for you.
ReplyDeleteNo, not another blow topic for me.
Delete(1) Peter Gray's involvement with bars that possibly provide young women to male clients falls into the category of rumour and scuttlebutt.
(2) These rumours are years old now and, if there were anything to them would have been investigated by the Australian Federal Police.
And your suggestions about Neeson are not scuttlebutt and rumour? - you are a fucking idiot Ricketson.
DeleteDearTesmNeeson
DeleteWhich of my suggestions about Neeson are rumour and scuttlebutt? Read this blog. It is full of questions.I have been asking Neeson questions for months now but you, in your wisdom, think that there is no difference between questions and scuttlebutt.
You may or may not be Scott Neeson (you are certainly a Neeson troll) but please answer a couple of the questions contained here. For anyone with a modicum of intelligence it is blindingly obvious that Team Neeson does not believe CCF to be under any obligation to be either transparent or accountable to anyone.
CCF are accountable - accountable to the Governments of countries they are registered and operate in, accountable to their donors and accountable to the people they care for. Not sure where you get the audacity to believe that you are entitled to answers from CCF.
DeleteWhy dont you post your tax return on here Ricketson. You ask for people to donate to you so please put your personal tax returns on this blog.
Dear Team Neeson (Anonymous 9.22)
DeleteI am not running a $10 million a year business with shareholders, as is the Cambodian Children's Fund. If I were perhaps my own tax situation would be relevant. And I have not asked anyone to donate to me but to Friends.
If, as you suggest, CCF is accountable to the United States IRS, for instance, could you please give us a breakdown on how the $4,000 per child is spent for kids in residential care. This $4,000 figure is the one you quoted to the IRS but anyone who knows Cambodia well knows that the figure is a nonsense.It does not cost $4,000 a year to keep one child in institutional care - especially when s/he sleeps 2 - 4 to a bed.
If you are, as you suggest, accountable to donors and sponsors, please explain to these sponsors and donors why it is that you refuse to allow parents to retain copies of 'contracts' they enter into with CCF.Please explain why it s that CCF refuses to return children to their families if the parents ask that their children be retuned? Please explain to your sponsors and donors why it is that you lock families out of their houses for being $12.50 behind in their rent?
Your statement, Scott, "Not sure where you get the audacity to believe that you are entitled to answers from CCF." says all that needs to be said about your extraordinary arrogance. You do not believe in transparency and accountability at all. You are running your own little kingdom according to your own rules and you have marketed yourself and CCF so well that you are awash with the money you need to perpetuate the myth of Scott Neeson - the selfless man who gave up his highly successful job in Hollywood....etc.
Such egomania can only sustain itself for so long before enough people ask enough questions and the bubble bursts.
You still dont get it - where the fuck do you think you get the right for anyone to disclose any information to you. Oh I forgot, you are an investigative journalist. You really are a loser Ricketson.
DeleteDear Team Neeson (Anonymous 9.50)
DeleteSlowly but surely you are revealing so much much about your attitude towards those who donate to CCF, who are your sponsors. You do not believe that that they are entitled to ask any questions about what happens to the money they donate certainly not that you are under any obligation to answer them. This arrogance will catch up with you. It is not an endearing quality.
Months ago, Neeson had been spotted many times at Zapata bar and very fond of certain staff there. Perhaps he plans to "rescue" them as well? There's nothing inherently wrong with going to bars and being entertained there but it does seem strange for any person who tries so hard to present an image of moral righteousness to the donor world to be also scampering about late in the night so desperately seeking affection and company from the staff at these hostess bars. Then again as many here have pointed out, Cambodia is full of ironies and double standards that it really comes as no surprise.
ReplyDeleteAnyone wanting more info, like investigative journalists, can probably get some interesting stories from the staff there if they can convince them to talk about Neeson's err, more human side, rather than the glossified image of the saint that he paints himself to be.
In any case, the questions that really matter have been raised by Ricketson and I really would like to hear from Neeson himself, detailed responses to them without resorting to vindictive rants against the person asking them.
CCF, regardless of the man or people behind their image, does have issues with their philanthropic model if the Institutionalized care they provide keeps children separated from there family, and to me this and their intransigence at answering any of the questions raised is a red flag that something is amiss. I do hope that there is a good ending to all this but I've been in Cambodia long enough to know not to hold my breath.
Neeson is a law unto himself. He boasts of how well connected he is to powerful people within the government. With the millions of dollars at his disposal I have no reason to believe that he is anything other than very well connected. But then so was Somaly Mam. It is to be hoped that CCF's major sponsors start to ask Neeson some of the questions I have been asking here and, if they are not satisfied with the answers, take their donor dollars elsewhere.
DeleteIsnt it funny how neeson does not put mccabes picture or profile on the ccf key staff website. Neeson is so proud of mccabe and his history as a convicted thief that he hides him from potential donors who may look at the website.
ReplyDeleteI have met mccabe. He is a creep. His persona just oozes shifty, slimbag. Neeson a disgrace!
And poor old kiddie rooter Fletcher has been long forgotten by Ricketson. Ricketson bluffed Fletcher into thinking that Ricketson was looking after his welfare, however the truth is, Ricketson was only looking for a ratings booster and now that Fletchers case is over and he has zero chance of leaving prison, which isn't a bad thing, Ricketson has dropped him like a bag of shit.
ReplyDeleteLet that be a lesson t anyone who trusts Ricketson - he is nothing less than a low life journalist who will sell their grandma to get a story.
A despicable individual at best. How could you even then you have more credibility than Neeson or McCabe.
Dear Scott
DeleteSorry to disappointed but 'poor old kiddie rooter Fletcher' has not been forgotten by me - as you will learn in due course.
You do not, of course, have the balls to make such a statement with your name attached. Coward that you are, you use scuttlebutt and innuendo to blacken Mr Fletcher's name.
At l4ast, back in 2010, you had the balls to put your name to your defamation:
" “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.”
Scott Neeson, speaking to journalist Andrew Drummond in June 2010. Fletcher was ‘sent packing’ one month later and has been in jail ever since."
In my life to date I have yet to encounter a man as unpleasant as you, Scott. You were so determined to be king of the castle at the Phnom Penh rubbish dump and the only way you could think of to get rid of David Fletcher was to accuse him of a crime for which you had no evidence at all of his guilt. And you have been quite happy for Mr Fletcher to sit in jail this past 5 years in part on the basis of the baseless allegations you made against him. You are a man without a conscience, shallow venal man whose fragile ego requires constant accolades - for the most part organised by yourself.
Team Neeson has certainly shown its colours today! "Who the fuck do you think you are asking us questions about how we pend the millions of dollars we raise." One can only hope that some of CCF's major sponsors are reading this and taking note. I used to think that maybe Neeson was just a well-meankng but misgujided man who thought that the best place for children from poor families was in an institution. Now I think he is onto a scam of Bernie Madoff proportions working with two disgraced former Australian Federal Police officers to exploit poor Cambodians, with a view to squeezing as many dollars as he can out of the poor fool sponsors and donors who fall for his marketing ploy and don't ask any questions.
ReplyDeleteWhen Scott Neeson's Cambodian Children's Fund is revealed to be be a fraud of infinitely greater proportions than the Somaly Mam Foundation, the many major financial contributors to this exploitation of the poverty of the Cambodian people in order to elevate Scott Neeson to sainthood will not be able to say "We had no idea! If only we had known." They will not be able to plead ignorance but will, at the very least, be morally culpable. They are:
DeleteThe Blackburne Property Group
David & Caroline Ryan
Goldman Sachs
Gives John and Cammie Rice
Roland Emmerich
Steven Tisch Family Foundation
Sumner M. Redstone Charitable Foundation
The Cripps Foundation
And the thousands of small contributors who believe that Scott Neeson's proclamations about himself on Facebook align with reality.
Keep dreaming fuckwit. You have no chance of taking down neeson and ccf
ReplyDeleteProof of Peter Gray's association with Zanzibar and Zapata. Invitation sent February 2013, CCing Alan Lemon, a member of the Board of Trustees of the Cambodian Children Trust Fund:
ReplyDeletehttps://ibb.co/Zzc5511