Dear Scott
My CCF spies tell me that you are
in Tuscany, working on your memoirs. Nice and warm there right now, I hear. Not
too hot.
Lucky you to have a patron paying
for your trip to Tuscany, your accommodation etc. I am not sure she is quite so
lucky to have you promising, in return, to build her a multi-million dollar
school in Steung Meanchey.
I get a good deal of
correspondence from people who, for one reason or another, do not want to make
comments on my blog. In some instances it is because they believe that it is
possible to trace the comments back to their computer and they are fearful of
the consequences, for themselves, of any criticisms they might make of CCF.
I am a Luddite when it comes to
such things and I have no idea if it is, indeed, possible to trace where
comments come from. I suspect not but would not be surprised if it were so.
One person who has written to me recently
prefers to remain anonymous. I will call him ‘Rick’. He has sent me some email
correspondence he has had with Alan Lemon. I will let readers of this blog make
what they will of the tone of Alan Lemon’s email.
Some context is necessary here:
Rick had written several times to CCF asking to be provided with a
copy of CCF’s 2014 US Tax Return. Rick was given the run-around for some months
by someone at CCF who had, it seems, been instructed to do so. Understandably
she got sick of receiving email after email from ‘Rick’ and the problem was
handed to Alan Lemon, whose email to ‘Rick’ describes him as “Manager, Legal & Compliance, Cambodian Children's Fund”
“If you persist
in sending your repetitive and - since I answered your questions- irrelevant
emails to XXXX, the obvious conclusion must be that you intend to harass or
intimidate her and I will deal with it accordingly. I trust that I make myself
clear.
Yours sincerely,
Alan Lemon”
If I were to receive such an
email I would consider it to be a crude form of intimidation.
‘Rick’ responded with:
“Fuck you, Alan
Lemon”.
The good news is that ‘Rick’s’
perseverance paid off. He was able,
eventually, to acquire the information he had been asking for for months – the
Cambodian Children’s Fund’s 2014 Tax Return.
For anyone interested, it is
to be found here:
On my first read through of
the document I cannot make head or tail of how much money has been spent on
what programs to help precisely whom?
How many kids does CCF have
in residential care now, Scott? This document provides no clues.
Why is there nothing in the
budget for the ‘Granny Program’ that now features so heavily on the CCF’s
Facebook pages? Is this a real program or mere window-dressing to make CCF look
good on Facebook?
For the benefit of readers
who cannot be bothered to look at the actual tax return, the description of CCF
is as follows:
“Cambodian
Children’s Fund transforms the country’s most impoverished kids into tomorrow’s leaders by delivering
education, family support and community development programs into the heart of
Cambodia’s most impoverished communities.”
This is the kind of
motherhood statement made by most NGOs – long on hopes and dreams but very
short on detail.
A few questions:
(1) How many “community
development programs” is CCF running?
(2) What kinds of programs
are they? What are their goals? Are they effective in achieving these goals?
(3) How much money is being
spent on each of these programs or on all of them put together? No clues to the
answers to any of these questions are to be found in the 2014 CCF Tax Return!
The amount of money CCF has
taken in from donors and sponsors has not changed all that much. It still
hovers around $10 million per annum.
$2.47 million of this $10
million is being spent on education. This is what you have written in the CCF 2014
Tax Return:
“CCF’s
award-winning education program provides access to both formal and non-formal
education to 2,295 students from pre-school to university. As well as operating
education facilities and satellite schools, CCF provides students with school uniforms, study
materials and university fees, as well as transportation. CCF works closely and
directly with public schools, teachers and directors to ensure high attendance
rates and academic results. With the construction of satellite schools located
in the heart of the community, CCF is providing a pathway to education for
thousands of children once deemed “unreachable.”
This all reads very well, but
$2.47 million is a not insignificant amount of money and should not be
accounted for with vague generalities of the kind to be found here.
A few more questions:
(4) What awards have CCF’s
educations programs won?
(5) How many of the 2,295
CCF students are attending free government schools and how many are attending
schools run by (and funded by) CCF?
Clearly, in trying to
determine how much CCF is spending in any one year to educate one child it is
necessary to subtract from 2,295 students those who are paying no school fees
at all.
For instance, if CCF were to
be fully funding the education of 100 students (ie, they are not going to free
public schools) your sponsors and donors would be spending $24,500 per child
per annum. If CCF is fully funding the education of 1000 students the figure
per child for education drops to $2,450 per annum – still a lot of money in a
country in which the per capita income of an entire family is round half of
this.
If CCF is fully funding the
education of all 2,295 students (ie, not one of them is going to a free public
school) the figure per child drops to around $1,000 per child.
How can sponsors or donors
make an educated guess as to whether or not $2.47 spent on education is money
well spent (or not!) if they do not know
how many students are being educated with this money?
Could you please, Scott,
interrupt the writing of your memoirs for long enough to let us know:
(A) How many of CCF’s 2,295 students are having their
education paid for 100% by CCF in CCF schools and
(B) How many of these
2,295 students are receiving their education for free?
cheers
James
I think these questions need to be addressed to all board members of CCF. If they decide to ask Neeson these questions, perhaps he will decide that he needs to answer them. If board members can't get it done, perhaps a list of large donors could help, or perhaps employees of CCF would like to know answers to these questions. Do lists exist?
ReplyDeleteDo we have a complete list of board members complete with email addresses?
We do now have a complete list. Still trying to find an email address or two:
ReplyDeleteBob Tufts, Director
Warren Share, Director
Kevin Schoeler, Director
Paul Saunders, Director
David Ryan, Director
Seane Corn, Director
Muffy Disabatino, Director
Lily Kanter, Director
Heather Graham, Director
Seane Corn email: Seane@seanecorn.com
ReplyDeleteAnd I found one for Bob Tufts:
Deletebobtufts@verizon.net
Kevin Schoeler strong suspicion it is Kevin@cambodianchildrensfund.org
DeleteLily Kanter this is the press inquiry email at her company Serena and Lilly: press@serenaandlily.com
DeletePaul Saunders through his FB account: http://facebook.com/PaulJSaundersII
DeleteDear Directors of the Board
ReplyDeleteCambodian Children’s Fund
Bob Tufts, Warren Share, Kevin Schoeler, Paul Saunders, David Ryan, Seane Corn, Muffy Disabantino, Lily Kanter, Heather Graham
Before the day is out, Team Neeson will have arisen from its slumbers, roared back into foul-mouthed life and be abusing Mr James Ricketson as a loser, a failure in life’s race who is jealous of Scott Neeson and the wonderful success he has achieved in Hollywood but which, saint that he is, he gave up to come to Cambodia to rescue children from their families. There will be plenty of vilification and name-calling from this undignified Team, hoping as they do that enough mud will stick to Mr Ricketson that Scott Neeson will feel justified in refusing not only to answer any questions, but to even acknowledge that they have been asked. As you know, this is Scott’s way.
As members of the Board of the Cambodian Children’s Fund you owe a duty of care to the 700 or so children in residential care with CCF.
CCF is now keeping the number of kids in residential care a secret, whilst at the same time trying to get rid of as many as possible, as quickly as possible, thus creating a sizeable team of potential whistle-blowers!
You board members also have a responsibility to donors and sponsors who support CCF.
Could the CCF Board please let us know (there are many of us in Cambodia very curious) just how many of CCF’s 2,000 + students are attending free Cambodian public schools and how many are attending ‘satellite schools’ that are fully funded by CCF? How many such ‘satellite schools’ are there? How much are the teachers in these schools paid? How many students is CCF currently supporting at university?
The lack of detail in CCF’s Tax Return is worrying, to say the least. Some clarification would be appreciated. Mr Ricketson’s questions seem to us (I speak for a small group of concerned NGO teachers) to be reasonable and should not be ignored.
I prefer to remain Anonymous for reasons that I would prefer not to articulate, though I think that the response ‘Rick’ received from Alan Lemon might provide you with a clue.
Yours sincerely
Hello Anonymous 5.40, you brave soul. Let's get real, you don't have any reason you don't want to articulate - you just don't want to be sued for defamation, because you're just repeating what you're puppet master says and you don't have a single shred of evidence about anything. It used to be trial by media, now it's trial by social medial, which has an even lower threshold of credibility.
DeleteIf you grow a couple and identify yourself, I'll do the same and we'll see how that pans out! If not, crawl back under your rock and hide behind your cowardly pseudonym.
Let's not pussy foot around - does "Rick" mean "Ricketson's stooge" or are we really talking about Gary VanHaneghan - no doubt an icon of ethical integrity in the NGO world.
Is this the best you can do James?
Cheers,
Not Scott,
Not Team Neeson,
Not a Neeson Troll.
Dear Alan Lemon
DeleteThank you for at last acknowledging that you are the person who is not Scott Neeson but merely a sponsor of a child whose every question is answered by CCF. It has taken some time!
Anonymous 5.40 may or may not be a ‘brave soul’ but I have to say, Alan, that I do think your email to Gary van Haneghan was, in my view, intended to intimidate. I may be wrong. Let readers of this blog judge for themselves.
You and I agree on at least one thing. We have a dislike of trial by media or, in this case, trial by social media. I have been tried and found guilty by plenty of people on this blog so I am well aware of this trial by social media phenomenon. We just have to live with it – both you and me.
Leaving aside ‘trial by social media’, insults of various kinds and attempts made to blacken reputations, there is one part of this new form of citizen journalism that I do appreciate and which I think has great power. It is the ability for ordinary people to ask questions of people who do not want to answer them and who, till quite recently, could ignore any and all questions. Scott, you, the entire entity that I refer to as Team Neeson could, in the past, ignore questions from people such as myself. Who would ever know? Now, our questions linger in cyberspace and perhaps, at some point in the future, some enterprising journalist will wonder why these questions were never answered. S/he will then write to you, using his or her own name, and ask you questions of the kind I have asked. S/he will have no hidden agenda other than a desire to get to the truth (or as close as possible) and you will not, anonymously, be able to use bluff and bluster to avoid answering questions.
Anyhow, Alan, now that it is out in the open that you are the “Not Neeson’ character who has been writing on Scott’s behalf, how about some answers to questions relating to education? CCF has gone out of its way, in its 2014 IRS Tax statement to muddy the waters. However, CCF has put a figure on money spent on education and CCF has put a number on those being educated. Where CCF has fudged, however, is in not revealing how many of the kids CCF claims to be spending around two and a half million on educating are, in fact, receiving free public education. The figures will be sitting there, Alan, on your computer. Just release them, Now. And please don’t insult all of our intelligences (and make yourself look like a fool) by coming back with, “Not Neeson; not Alan Lemon either.”
To use your won expression, grow a pair and defend CCF on the basis of facts, of evidence, of truth – not on the basis of whatever Scott’s latest press release says.
If we must do battle, lets do it in the open - with you writing as Alan Lemon and me writing as james Ricketson.
As usual James, you're not even close. You're seriously deluded if you think Scott or any of his team would even bother reading this tripe, let alone answer it. And, by the way, that was my first posting and I expect this will be my last.
DeleteSo you're aware of trial by social media and you're a victim of it are you? So why keep it going? Here's an idea - if you have serious questions, do what normal people do and write to the relevant person privately and see if that works. Given the lies, rumour and innuendo you've thrown about, it's doubtful, but it just might work if you made a genuine attempt. What have you got lose? Let's face it, posting everything on this grubby site hasn't achieved much has it?
And get your stooges to identify themselves and I'll happily follow suit. But we both know they that won't happen, don't we? Keyboard warriors with not a gram of courage between them.
Is Alan Lemon denying that he is Alan Lemon? Is this the same Alan Lemon that works for the Australian Federal police? Was he working there when James McCabe stole the drugs that he was later convicted of? Anyone know anything about this?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDear Alan Lemon (writing as Anonymous 12.56 above)
DeleteI must say that I find it extraordinary, now you know that I can prove it is you who have been writing anonymous posts such as this one (12.56), that you should persist with the fiction that you are not Alan Lemon!
No, you are simply an interested Anonymous bystander (at times a child sponsor) who just happens to have access to Alan Lemon’s email account, access to my correspondence with Scott Neeson over the years and intimate knowledge of the workings of the Cambodian Children’s Fund at an executive level.
Rather than go any further down this Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole (“You re deluded James if you think I am Alan Lemon,”) I will, when time permits, write to you personally with a series of questions. I will copy the email to Scott, to members of the Cambodian Children’s Fund board and members of the English language media in Cambodia.
In your capacity as ‘Manager, Legal & Compliance’ of the Cambodian Children’s Fund it will not be quite so easy to make statements such as: “You're seriously deluded if you think Scott or any of his team would even bother reading this tripe, let alone answer it.”
Both CCF’s own board and the media might find this to be an odd and inappropriate response from a qualified lawyer and senior executive of an NGO that trumpets its commitment to the precepts of transparency and accountability.
Oh well, at least everybody is no longer Scott Neeson, they are now Alan Lemon.
DeleteFYI James it is me that has put several posts up in the past as a child sponsor (which I still am) and I am certainly not Alan Lemon.
Apart from this post I have put nothing up for weeks having come to the conclusion it is pointless trying to discuss anything logically with someone such as you is mentally ill.
As I have suggested before James you should give serious thought to seeking professional medical advice ref your delusional and paranoid behavior.
No doubt you will reply to me as Allan until such time the little voices in your head tell you it is somebody else putting posts on your blog. If I could offer you a little bit of well meaning advise try staying out of the mid day sun in future
Many people understand that Alan Lemon left the Australian Federal police under dubious circumstances.
DeleteDear Alan Lemon (Anonymous 7.41)
DeleteIt is a childish game you are playing – flip flopping back and forth between different fictional personas as you try, desperately, to shoot the messenger.
I will not waste my time any longer dealing with Alan Lemon avatars but write directly to Alan Lemon in his capacity as ‘Manager, Legal and Compliance’ and see if this particular Alan, accountable to the Cambodian Children’s Fund board and to CCF’s sponsors and donors, can manage a written response that does not include the word ‘deluded’ and suggestions that I seek assistance for my ‘delusional and paranoid behaviour’.
I will try to find the time to write today to the 'real' Alan Lemon this afternoon.
Point proved James, you are paranoid
DeleteSigned
The Lone Ranger (and not Alan Lemon/Scott Neeson or Fletch the Letch for that matter)
Holy shit. You mean the CCF of Scott Neeson has 9 Directors not including himself because he probably calls himself PRESIDENT ?
ReplyDeleteThis sounds like there are more Chiefs than Indians at the CCF, all well paid of course. What a scam....., don't expect any answers. OMERTA rules the NGO's in Cambodia
--
Tom Selig
Tom, only Neeson and Kevin Schoeler are paid in any way that we can see from tax returns. There may be other 'perks' of course.
DeleteNeeson is currently on holiday again while hundreds of children remain locked up , but change is happening . older children are on the his list of get rid of them policy . Neeson's team of paid scammers cheat their sponsors with social media stories of success . Neeson why not show the inside walls and truths behind your crimes of institutional care filled with children stripped and removed from their poor families. using children to generate millions to line your pockets. your more evil than the devil himself . its only time until your crimes hit the courts and you spend the rest of your life behind prison walls. KBA & following broken lives with Scott Neeson
ReplyDeleteLemon was pulled in after the McCabe scandal of armed robberies. stealing drugs from dealers and on selling for some nice profits to pay for their . girly bars, Hookers, drugs, gambling, all the normal stuff for cops who think they are above the law . big news in the Australia back then . McCabe ratted out others to lessen the time inside. what l lovely bunch to have running a multi million dollar charity . cheeky Charlie remembers them well . plenty of chatter on Khmer 440
ReplyDeleteVery nice guys. Wish I could find a link.
DeleteI too have tried to find a link, to no avail.
DeleteThis is scuttlebutt. "Plenty of chatter" on Khmer440 signifies nothing
Can you offer any proof whatsoever anon 12.41 that any monies were used for "Girly Bars, Hookers, drugs, or gambling" or that Alan Lemon was in any way remotely associated with James McCabe during this period, or the fact James in any way "ratted" out others to lessen his time inside ? You are just gutless scum and for once I actually agree for once with Mr Ricketson that all this chatter signifies nothing. Crawl back under the rock with the rest of your lowlife friends. James, this type of comment from your supporters does your cause no good whatsoever.
DeleteAnonymous 4.43
DeleteI think that the majority of people who read the blog can easily distinguish between scuttlebutt and fact-based assertions. There are some who come here not to engage in civilised dialogue (even if we disagree passionately) but who are looking to start a fight or denigrate others for their own personal reasons.
As for anyone here being a 'supporter' of mine, I certainly don't think of those who may agree with me about this point or that as 'supporters'. Nor do I think of those who do not agree with me as 'adversaries'. It is only the name-callers that fit into a category in my mind.They are a pain-in-the-arse, a nuisance - though they do provide some comic relief from time to time when they attempt to be abusive-under-the influence!