Lily Kanter
Director
Cambodian Children’s Fund
Dear Lily
As a member of the Cambodian Children’s Fund
board, and as a financial contributor to CCF, I wonder if you are aware that the money you
are investing in the future of impoverished Cambodian children is funding the
institutionalization of these children and contributing to the break up of
their families?
How many children are in residential care with
CCF now? Do you know? How well informed are you about CCF’s modus operandi and
the impact it has on families?
700 + was the last figure that was made public by
CCF. Since then a cloud of secrecy has surrounded the number of kids sleeping
in dormitories – often between 2 and 4 to a bed. Indeed, the word that best
describes CCF, when you look beyond the glossy brochures, the glowing
hagiographic media releases (“Scott gave up his $1million Hollywood
career…etc”) and happy snaps posted on Facebook, is ‘secrecy’.
Scott does not believe in transparency and feels
under no obligation to be accountable to anyone – including, perhaps, the CCF
board?
As you may be aware by now, I am an Australian
journalist, blogger and filmmaker who has been travelling to Cambodia for 20
years now. Many of my interests and concerns are the same as yours – for the
poor and the powerless in 3rd world countries. Where we differ is in
what we believe to be the appropriate response to extreme poverty of the kind
found in many Cambodian families. In the case of the Cambodian Children’s Fund I
believe, with few exceptions, that impoverished and severely disadvantaged
children should be helped within a family and community context. You, on the
other hand (along with Scott and the CCF Board) believe that removing children
from their families and raising them in orphanages is an appropriate way of
dealing with endemic poverty.
That you should describe CCF as an ‘orphanage’
goes to the heart of the problem as I see it.
Your description of the Cambodian Children’s Fund
online reads as follows:
"It's an
orphanage that took the poorest of the poor off this rancid dump site. I'm
investing in the person running the operation," she (you, Lily Kanter) said. "There are 515
kids there, and he (Scott Neeson) is absolutely going to transform the lives of
these human beings. They were trash pickers - you've never seen anything like
it."
Your reference to CCF as an ‘orphanage’ is 5
years old now but even back in 2010, very few of the children in institutional
care at CCF were actually orphans. That they were orphans was the impression
that Scott wished to create. It was a great marketing ploy: “These poor kids
with no parents to take care of them! Scott Neeson steps up to the plate, gives
up his million Hollywood career, and
becomes a dad to the lot of them. What a wonderful man.”
Your description of CCF as an ‘orphanage’ also
dates back to a time when ‘orphanage’ was not a dirty word; when people who ran
‘orphanages’ were, by definition, in the public imagination at least, ‘good
people’. Then, as it became widely known and disseminated this past few years
how damaging orphanages are to the children institutionalized in them, CCF
began to counter any perception of it being an ‘orphanage’. Just because the
word does not appear in any CCF public relations material does not mean that
CCF is not, for the 700 + kids in residential care, for all intents and
purposes, an orphanage.
(This 700+ figure will, no doubt, lead one of
Alan Lemon’s online personas to write, “What evidence do you have to support
this 700+ figure, or is it just a figure plucked out of your…” To which I will
reply, “Why not simply tell us, Alan, how many children CCF has in residential
care?” And Alan will respond with words to the effect of, “I am not Alan Lemon.
You need psychiatric help, James.”)
As you will be aware, it is universally accepted
(even by the Cambodian government) that 75% of children in Cambodian
‘orphanages’ have at least one living parent; that close to 100% of ‘orphans’ have members
of their extended family who could care for them, within the community, if they
were provided with assistance. Extensive research also tells us that it costs
between 5 and 9 times as much money to support a child in an orphanage as it
does to support the same child within his or her family. So, quite apart from
the psychological and emotional damage done to institutionalized kids,
‘orphanages’ make no sense from an economic point of view.
Rather than help children within a family and
community context hundreds of fake orphanages have sprung up in Cambodia this
past decade. It is unsurprising that materially poor parents, unable to
adequately feed, clothe and educate their children, should welcome with open
arms NGOs like CCF that say to them, essentially.
“We
will take care of your kids. We will
feed them well, clothe them, see to it that get medical and dental attention
and proper schooling.”
What impoverished mum and dad, loving their
children and wishing the best for them, is going to knock back such as offer?
And when the NGO representative (in this case CCF) presents them with a
document to place their thumb print on, which mum and dad (most of whom can
neither read nor write) is going to ask precisely what it is they are signing?
And which mum and dad, having placed their thumb print on the ‘contract’ they
have entered into with the NGO (in this case CCF) is going to feel that they
can say, “Can I please have a copy of the contract?” And what happens when mums
and dads ask CCF (in this instance) for their children to be returned to their
family and are told:
“Sorry,
but you signed a contract with us and we re going to keep your kids until they
are 18.”
What do these poor illiterate mums and dads do
then? Engage the services of a lawyer and take CCF to court?
The reality, in Cambodia, is that once an
‘orphanage’ obtains custody of children, those who run the orphanage, (in this
case(CCF) acquire pretty much unlimited power and control over the lives of
those children and can use them as bargaining chips to exert control over the
parents also. Read:
http://cambodianchildrensfund.blogspot.com/2014/11/25-scott-nesson-locks-poor-family-out.html
And view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve280RWEV5w
Every now and then there is an orphanage scandal
here in Cambodia, of course, and much talk at a government, NGO and media level
about the need for reform, the need to close fake orphanages etc. This has been
going on for years now. Before long, however, the news cycle moves on and it is
back to business as usual – any and every foreigner who wishes to do so taking
advantage of the poverty of Cambodians and the lack of a rule of law to
essentially steal children and use them to either raise money or, in the case
of evangelical Christians, save souls.
CCF is not in the business of saving souls but it
is certainly in the business or making money. A lot of money. By its own
admission CCF was, in 2013, generating $4,000 per child per annum in
sponsorships and donations – at least according to CCF’s Tax Return, (“Organization Exempt from Income Tax”) to
be found at:
In Line 4a the figure of $1,603,309 appears
alongside a list of educational programs servicing 760 kids.
Simple mathematics reveals that CCF claimed, in
2013, to be spending roughly $2,000 per child per annum for education.
The following financial year, 2014, the
sum spent by CCF on education was $2.47 million to
educate 2,295 Cambodian children. So, the number of kids being educated by CCF
tripled in 12 months. This may well be a very good thing but we cannot know
whether it is or not without knowing how many of these 2,295 CCF children are,
in fact, receiving free education in a Cambodian public school. I have asked
this question of Alan Lemon but he, as with Scott Neeson, refuses to answer any
such questions.
Is this refusal to answer questions an official policy
sanctioned by the CCF board? Would you and your fellow board members be prepared
to answer the questions regarding CCF’s education programs I have put to Alan
Lemon in my most recent blog entry, #128? (Perhaps Alan Lemon will answer the questions Scott Neeson
refuses to answer?)
In the event that you are not familiar with the
many questions I have asked of CCF this past six or so month, the following
blog entries are a good place to start:
Lily, I have no reason to believe that you are
anything other than a generous and kind-hearted woman wishing to help
impoverished Cambodian children and their families. However, it does seem to me
that perhaps you (and other board members) are not being kept well-informed by
CCF management about what is actually going on behind closed doors at CCF.
As board members you have a duty to keep
well-informed.
Today my blog received it’s 40,000th
page view. The number of people taking an interest in what is written here, and
the comments that follow, rises by the day. It is only a matter of time, I
believe, before CCF’s major sponsors begin to ask of the board why none of the
questions being asked here are ever addressed.
best wishes
James Ricketson
Wondering is she was on board when Neeson decided to hire a convicted thief, James McCabe, to run his CPU? Or Lemon especially if it is true that his girlfriend owns or runs a bar where girls are sold for prostitution?
ReplyDeleteIn a quick look at the backgrounds of the board, I'm not seeing many that have a background in childcare or education or psychology or sociology. They have great success in churning money in the 'for profit' world, now maybe that makes sense that they would be on Neeson's board.
Year ending 2014, CCF had $4.2M in cash $2.5M in investments and over $11.8M in total assets.
Delete$4.2 million in cash!!!!!!!
DeleteAnd this money is spent on??????
Money that is in CASH is money that people have donated, that WASN'T spent. $4.2M of it PLUS $2.5M in investments.
DeleteAm I missing something here? CCF has $4.2 million that remains unspent at the same time as CCF is locking people out of their homes for being $12.50 behind in their rent? Given the sheer magnitude of poverty in Cambodia, for CCF to be sitting on $4.2 million donated to help poor families is scandalous. Why the fuck is this bunch of crooks not being exposed for the racket they are running?
DeleteIt is $4.2M in cash and the investments are 'fixed deposits' ($2.5M) in interest bearing accounts.I believe It is VERY close to having $6.7M in cash or almost the same thing.
DeleteI'm confused about your accusation of "making money" when they are a nonprofit organization that puts its money back into the community? I mean, you can see where the money is spent in their 990 form, and I can see the founders salary.
ReplyDeletePlus it seems you questions are answered on their website. A simple google search turned up what I have pasted below. It seems you aren't interested in answers - because if you are, they are here.
"Today more than 2,300 students are enrolled in CCF’s education program at one of our 9 facilities. More than 1,500 of these students return to their families at the end of every day, with hundreds more returning home each weekend. 75 students are studying at university, with hundreds more to join them over the next few years."
and
"Today, around a quarter of our 2,300 students (612 students) reside at least part time CCF - and nearly half of these children return to their homes at least once a week. The children that do reside at CCF facilities remain in close contact with their families.
We provide support to more than 180 students in Cambodian provinces, whose parent’s tried to enrol them in our programs in Phnom Penh. We don’t want families migrating to a hazardous environment to enrol their children in school, so we send them back to their homelands with financial support. This support is contingent on school attendance, which schools provide directly to our staff"
Why, if all the information is clearly laid out on the CCF website, do neither Neeson nor Lemon bother to answer the simple (and primary) question here:
Delete“How many of the 2,295 students are receiving a free Cambodian public school education and how many are receiving an education paid for by CCF?”
Clearly, this information is pertinent to figuring out how much CCF is spending per child per annum. The question here is cost effectiveness.
It seems, from what you write here, that CCF is fully funding 9 facilities and fully funding the education of 2,300 students. Is this correct? If so, then no CCF students are receiving a free public school education. Is this so? Or are some (or all) the students ‘enrolled’ in one of these 9 facilities but receiving a free public education?
Why can’t Neeson and/or Lemon provide simple answers to such questions but must rely on an anonymous person to obfuscate on their behalf?
If 1,500 of the CCF kids are returning to their families at the end of the school day, it is fair to presume that 800 are not and that these 800 are resident in a CCF facility? A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will suffice. I ask because you also write “612 students reside at least part time CCF.” There is quite a difference between 612 and 800! And how many of these 612 or 800 are residing “at least part time”? And what constitutes ‘part time’? A day a week? Two days a week? Six days a week? Seven days a week with a brief family visit every month or so? (The assertion that CCF kids get to visit their families once a week is not backed up by any of the children or their families I have spoken with.)
What support is provided to 180 students in the provinces? Is it possible to put a monetary figure on it? Are these students going to free public schools?
The answers to such questions are but a mouse click away. Why not answer them?
The information to be found on the CCF website is vague – hence my quite specific questions.
As I have already indicated, if CCF is fully funding the education of 2,259 children (regardless of where they live) the NGO is spending around $1,000 a year per child on education. This strikes me as being a little high but perhaps not if they are receiving a quality education. However, if anecdotal evidence is correct, a substantial number of these CCF children (most!?) are receiving a free public school education!
Why does CCF outsource the answering of questions (in this case pointing readers to vague figures on the CCF website) rather than simply answering the questions with either Neeson’s or Lemon’s name attached?
It would be so easy for Alan and/or Scott to write:
“James, CCF is fully funding the education of X students. Y students at out 9 facilities are receiving a free public school education and the fees for the 75 students CCF is supporting at university cost CCF $Z per annum…” and so on.
Mr Ricketson, the reason why you will receive no answers to your questions from Scott Neeson, from Alan Lemon and, I fear, Lily Kanter, is that the answers would then be on record. In allowing surrogates to seem to be answering your questions on CCF's behalf, Neeson et al can maintain the illusion of transparency (of a kind) whilst at the same time allowing themselves the option of saying, at some later date< "We never made any such assertions about x or y. These were made by an anonymous commentator and do not represent CCF's position at all."
DeleteThe expression ""You can't eat your cake, and have it too" springs to mind.
Mr Ricketson, I will refrain, somewhat reluctantly, from using abusive language here.
ReplyDeleteYour only intention, in this blog, is to destroy Scott Neeson and the Cambodian Children's Fund. You will not succeed but the fact that you are trying tells us all we need to know about you as a human being. You are despicable.
When you are paying for the education of 2,259 children, when you are helping hundreds of families in dire need, you may be in a position to criticise but until you can match what Neeson has done, please take my advice and cease and desist with your defamations of Scott Neeson, Alan Lemon and now, it looks like, Lily Kanter also. Step away from your righteous indignation, nakedly on display here, and be honest enough with yourself to admit that Scott Neeson is achieving in his life all that you have failed to achieve. You are a loser. A has-been. I would like to add to the list of things that you are but I am trying to avoid the use of four letter words. It is not easy...(censored)!
Where are Ricketson's defamations of Neeson, Lemon and now Lilly Kanter? Something is very wrong with your conclusions.
DeleteDear Team Neeson (aka Anonymous 6.49)
DeleteAre you suggesting that all journalists who wish to write about a topic must have first hand experience of it in order to do so? No journalist can write about CCF (or ask questions) unless they have run an orphanage themselves?
Think about this proposition. No journalist can, if we follow your logic here, write about anything they have not had first hand experience of.
Yes, Scott has been enormously successful in setting up a small empire - into the coffers of which flow around $10 million a year. $2.5 million of this is, according to CCF, being spent on education. Fair enough. However, the figures simply don't make a lot of sense to me and, in my capacity as a journalist, I am trying to make them make sense to me. Hence my questions. This is what journalist do - ask questions. There may be perfectly logical answers to my questions. If so, why does CCF not simply supply these answers rather than send out CCF trolls on a mission to shoot the messenger?
Anonymous 6:49, Is your advice to James of "cease and desist", code for 'hello my name is Alan Lemon'?
DeleteAnonymous 6:49, Is your girlfriend (or wife) aware that you might have very serious anger issues?
DeleteI read with great interest about CCF's education awards, but I can't find any. I have searched high and low and can't find which awards are being referred to. Perhaps one of you Google wizards can help, or Neeson, or Lemon or Lily Kanter?
ReplyDeleteYou need to work on your google-fu
ReplyDeleteTry typing "site:www.cambodianchildrensfund.org award" into Google
If CCF is running 'award-winning' programmes, why did Kevin Tutt leave CCF a few months after he arrived? Did he jump or was he pushed?
DeleteDear Alan Lemon (aka Anonymous 7.35)
DeleteHere is the description to be found online to the awards handed out by WISE
"Each year, the WISE Awards recognize and promote six successful innovative projects that are addressing global educational challenges. Since 2009, WISE has received more than 2,400 applications from over 140 countries. Today, 36 projects have been awarded, from a wide variety of sectors and locations for their innovative character, their positive contribution and their potential for scalability and adaptability. These projects represent a growing resource of expertize and sound educational practice. Year by year, WISE is building a community of educational innovators which offers a fertile environment for groundbreaking collaborations. Today the WISE Awards network comprises of pioneering projects that are helping bring real change to societies and communities."
The important thing to note here is that there are 2,400 applicants. WISE does not assess these applicants by observing, or even visiting, the educational institutions applying for an award. The awards (as with Charity Navigator) are handed out on the basis of self-reporting.
No doubt CCF wrote a terrific report for itself about its educational program. CCF is great at PR.
But let's just presume that I am wrong here and that CCF really does have a terrific after-school education program in place. If so, what is it? What makes it 'innovative'? How many hours a day do the 83% of kids receiving a free public education spend in this 'innovative' educational program?
Can you not see that it is your refusal, Scott's refusal, to answer such questions that arouses suspicions about the veracity of what CCF declares online about its educational programs?
As I have written several times now, CCF could make me look very foolish very easily and very publicly if it were to simply answer my questions.
These are not just my questions,. They are the questions asked by other journalists who, likewise, are stone-walled by CCF.
Of course, your response to this will be to say something along the lines of, "I am not Alan Lemon or Mary Poppins, you are in need of psychiatric help, James." OK, so be it.
Cambodian Children’s Fund’s education program has been awarded the 2012 WISE Award as “one of the world’s best initiatives in innovative education”.
DeleteCambodian Children’s Fund’s ‘Generational Change through Education’ project - which wraps community well-being around a comprehensive education program – was recognized for its “transformative impact on education and society”.
CCF is the first organisation in South-East Asia to be awarded the prestigious prize.
The WISE Awards are designed to identify, showcase and promote innovative educational projects from all sectors and regions of the world to inspire change in education, with six awards given each year. Since 2009, just 24 projects have been recognised with a WISE Award from over 1,600 applications.
Cambodian Children’s Fund started schools in 2004 in the Steung Meanchey area, then the municipal garbage dump of Phnom Penh, which was the home and workplace to several thousand children.
Over the past 4 years, the CCF education program has developed into a comprehensive learning resource, combining public school education with CCF’s own intensive education that includes English language classes, computer training and leadership training. CCF’s community support includes the provision of medical care, fresh water, maternal health, a nutritional program and care for infants and pre-schoolers.
In 2011, with 635 children in full-time education, CCF recorded a 100% pass rate in the public schools, 97% retention, with a daily absentee rate averaging less than 1%.
“We are honoured to have our education program recognized by such a prestigious body”, said Cambodian Children’s Fund founder Scott Neeson.
“The program’s success is tied to the community inclusiveness.” Neeson added, ”As the child advances, so does the family. With family and community engagement, children can truly find their own potential”.
“By remaining community-based, there is a natural progression towards independence and local ownership of the program. The future of education lies not in scaling up, but by replicating the community-based model”.
Each year, a Jury composed of leading experts from the education world selects six innovative projects for their concrete and positive impact on communities and societies. These winning projects gain global visibility and receive a prize of $20,000 (US).
“When determining the best projects, the Jury looks at what is being achieved as well as how it is done. The winning initiatives were selected because they are successful, but also because of their innovative approach. These are not ordinary education efforts.” said H.E. Sheikh Abdulla bin Ali Al-Thani, Ph.D., Chairman of WISE and Chairman of the WISE Awards Jury.
OK, Team Neeson, so CCF won an award from an organisation that did not visit CCF educational programs to make an independent assessment but relied on self-reproting. We get that.
DeleteI'd love to know a little more about what makes the program innovative but, more importantly, I'd love to find out how it is that CCF can spend $2.5 million on an educational program in which 83% of CCF's 2,259 students are receiving a free public education?
Why does CCF not simply answer this question but, instead, get whichever member of Team Neeson you happen to be to direct us to the CCF website. Even if this were to be a reliable source of accurate information (and it is not) why not simply answer the question with something along the linrs of:
"Yes, 83% of our children receive a free public education but after school,five days a week (or maybe on weekends also) they receive intensive training in xxx and yyy and zzz from qualified school teachers who earn $XXX a month."
Whichever member of Team Neeson you are, your obfuscations only serve to raise the question: "Why on earth does Scott Neeson not simply answer the questions being asked?"
It has been pointed out to me that the following can be found on the CCF website. “2,295 were enrolled in CCF education programs, with 83% of these students were also attending public high school.”
ReplyDeleteI read this recently but I have found the CCF website to be a very unreliable source of accurate information. It declares, for instance, that:
“Thousands of students from impoverished backgrounds are receiving our award winning education”.
What awards has CCF’s educational program won? None that I can find! What can be relied on, on the CCF website, to be based in fact and to what extend is it all a marketing exercise? Finding where facts end and PR begins is very difficult when Scott Neeson and Alan Lemon refuse, as a matter of principle, to answer any questions.
What about the 83% of CCF students attending public high school? These schools are free. There are a few ways of interpreting this figure:
83% of CCF’s 2,259 students are receiving a free public education and 17% are receiving an education funded by CCF. If this be the case, around 384 students are being educated by CCF at roughly $6,400 per student per annum. (These, of course, are just ballpark figures.)
Questions arise:
“What is the nature of CCF’s after school education programs for the 83% attending public schools?”
“Are these 83% going to public schools receiving intensive after school training from highly qualified teachers?”
I have no idea, and nor is any clue to be found on the CCF website. Today, that is.
Why is such information so difficult to find? Why is it impossible to get answers to such straight-forward questions from CCF?
Another question, a straightforward answer to which would provide a clue as to the after school activities undertaken by the 83% of CCF students receiving a free public education:
“How many qualified school teachers does CCF employ?” A number may well appear on the CCFR website in the next 24 hours. If so, I hope that it distinguishes between qualified teachers and unqualified students who are working as teachers.
And as for the quality of this after school training some clue to this might be found in learning how much these teachers are paid per month.
The problem Mr James fucking Ricketson is that you are nothing but an insignificant nobody blogger. Why the fuck should the likes of Scott Neeson and Alan Lemon answer your fucking questions?
ReplyDeleteSo, if a 'real' journalist were to ask the questions I ask, and not just an "insignificant nobody blogger" Neeson and Lemon would answer their questions?
DeleteRickets will never get it because he is retarded. He thinks that he has been given some legislative power to ask questions of everyone who lives on this earth and ridicule and defame them if they dont give him an answer he wants. Who the fuck do you think you are Rickets?
DeleteThe sad real;it s that Rickets is no different to McCabe - a fucking deceitful cunt who uses people to gain for himself. A great pair McCabe and Rickets - both the lowest forms of germ that can crawl the earth.
Welcome back Anonymous 11.30.
DeleteWe’ve missed you.
It's been a few weeks since last you graced this blog us with your profound insights, your sparkling wit and provided us all with some much appreciated comic relief.
As it happens, James McCabe and myself, realizing that we not only share first names but are also both cunts, have decided to go into business together. We toyed with "Two Jims" as a name for our new venture but decided that "Two Cunts" is more likely to help us drum up the kind of business we’re interested in.
Our motto is, "Two cunts are better than one."
say nothing policy . just keep jamming that charity money into those sacks before the bastards come banging on the doors . the media world is asking questions about Neeson and his clan. Rickets blog is an interesting read. but hardly scratches the paint when it comes to whats really going on behind closed doors . Old men and children stories never turn out good .
DeleteJames congratulations! You are hereby notified as the recipient of two new awards. 'World greatest blogger' and ."World's Best Writer to help children in SE Asia' . These are International awards. By the way, no visit or research was conducted to validate your claims submission. You are now an International Award winning blogger. Keep up your excellent work.
ReplyDeleteKim Jong Un Hailed as Global Statesman by Sukarno Center
DeleteKim Jong Un has somehow joined the likes of Aung San Suu Kyi and Mahatma Gandhi as a global statesman, at least in the bizarre logic employed by Indonesia's Sukarno Center in awarding awarding him its annual prize for world peace and development. (Reuters Photo/KCNA handout)
Jakarta. The Bali-based Sukarno Center will this year award its annual prize for global statesmanship to Kim Jong Un of North Korea, hailing him as a champion in the fight against neocolonialism and imperialism.
http://thejakartaglobe.beritasatu.com/news/kim-jong-un-hailed-global-statesman-sukarno-center/
Is this the same lot that awarded CCF its innovative education award?
:-) :-) :-) :-)
By Markus Junianto Sihaloho on 09:05 pm Jul 30, 2015
Category Asia-Pacific, Featured, Front Page, Human Rights, International, News, Odd News
LOL Anonymous 12.02
DeleteRumour has it that the award will be presented by the Dalai Lama
I would be very careful having any dealings McCabe - a lot of bad talk going around Phnom Penh about him - ripping people off and basically being a lying prick. There are quite a few people who do not rate this guy which isn't surprising.
ReplyDeleteOver the past few months I have received several emails that invited me to click on an icon in order to see a photo or read a message. Others have quite explicitly asked me to reveal my password. And then there have been some strange events (not being able to access my own emails) that I had never experienced before I started this blog.
ReplyDeleteI know very little about computers, about hacking, about phishing or any of the many ways others can access my computer. Nor has it bothered me much as there is nothing in my computer that is of commercial value or would be of much value to anyone other than myself.
This evening I received the following message from someone with whom I correspond regularly. it reads:
"An email i received from you had some stark phishing warnings which i copy here for you. Someone is trying to get (or has already got) access to my or your computer. I am not sure which one.
Anyway, I hope, whoever it is, that they are now getting the entertainment they are
looking for. ;-))
My sentiments enitrely.
I have posted this 3 times now. It keeps disappearing within seconds of my posting it!
DeleteCould be because you are a retard!
DeleteThree times now this comment has appeared in my INBOX but, when I check on the blog, it is not here. Trying again:
ReplyDeleteDear Mr Ricketson,
Usually virus scanners (for example Kapersky) do this job (not always successfull) if you are using a computer. The situation is different if you use your smart phone which is run by Google android operating system. The latter is a spy system in itself. This is not paranoia. It is a fact.
On your computer i suggest you use the TOR Browser (torproject.org) which you can download and is based on the firefox browser but anonymizes / encrypts your ip adress and thereby prevents hackers to directly attack your computers IP adress.
Other than that I suggest you don't open suspicious email where the subject line contains some subject matter unrelated to your usual email traffic. (The australian provider fastmail.com does a good job in preventing such spam mail). Don't open pictures or links in mail that is obvious spam.
That said there is really little else one can do to prevent these attacks so common sense must prevail in what you share in the way of personal info on the net. More important is what you keep on your computer/smart phone is the most important issue. Simply to be aware that everyone always can read/see and with spy software like mspy.com can even listen in and see you through your laptop/smart phone camera. The best protection is to put some black tape over the laptop/iphone camera and black out the stalkers. The laptop/iphone microphone is another subject and while it is easy to tape the laptop microphone this does not make much sense on your phone. Perhaps you want to switch back to the most simple non-smart phone for your tel. calls and keep the smart phone as a toy.
I don't know if you are on Facebook, twitter etc. but these sites are basically profiling sites often used by governments to reveal info about people. For example, if you travel to Israel the immigration police there often asks foreigners to hand over their facebook adress.
Being aware of all this can make this fun actually. Fooling the system with misleading info can make you an 18 or 59 year old man or woman. Rachel Matters could be such a case. Using tor browser makes you appear to be in Sweden while you sit in sydney. Just try utrace.de to find out where you are and what your ip adress is and try it again after you install the TOR Browser. Have fun .
Ricketson, Here are a few people that weren't listed in the 'key staff' list who might have answers to questions that you'd like to ask or at least should be on your list to update on research that has been done on children removed from their families and brought up in INSTITUTIONAL CARE.
ReplyDeleteChhoeung Sopheap HR Manager at Cambodian Children's Fund
Janet Tartaglia Leadership Program Manager.at Cambodian Children's Fund
Pichnita Ou Administrator at Cambodian Children's Fund
Sreypov Som Works at Child Protection Unit
Kon Chic Small Finance at Cambodian Children's Fund (CCF)
Sea Vaung Education Officer at Cambodian Children's Fund
Bateman Khan Sponsorship Officer at Cambodian Children's Fund
Nicky Cummins Office Manager at Cambodian Children's Fund
These are but a few, many more employee names are available.
All of these CCF employees have signed non-disclosure contracts. If they made contact with me they would lose their jobs. A few have made contact with me privately and I know that more than a few are reading this blog. Perhaps they all are. In time some will come forward and tell us what they know, but probably not until the CCF bubble has burst or that they can see it is about to burst.
DeleteJames, are you saying that anyone that works for what many refer to as the POVERTY PIMP, are prohibited (by contract) from freedom of speech? Really!!!
DeleteI think we should include this information on every page so that it does not get left behind and is easy for employees of CCF to find:
ReplyDeleteSurvey data in Russia (The Lumos Report, Lumos is headed by J. K. Rowlings) showed the following outcomes for children who grew up in institutions:
1 in 3 became homeless
1 in 5 had a criminal record
1 in 10 committed suicide
1 in 7 became involved in prostitution
Awards created by Neeson are nothing more than marketing sales spin to con his followers and empty their wallets . Neeson seeks fame and if it wont find him he just makes it. Eg . Neeson paid 100k to sit Next to the Dalai Lama and made via his own wording claims that would mislead people to believe his was invited to sit next to him . its utter bullshit . Neeson will do anything to create fame . sadly as we all no here he uses children for his own self gain . gold framed awards are an endless bit of rubbish that are handed out to students each month . along with pictures of Neeson which he gifts to families and has them hang it on their shitty shack walls . so visiting sponsors can see OMG they even have a picture of Scott on their wall . thats how much they love him . its all what hollywood call it . product placement . clever YES . evil BASTARD yes. anywhere else in the world and Neeson would be locked up . his career ended in hollywood as he become a vindictive nutcase who burnt too many bridges . Life is good to Neeson now days living in the fast lane surrounded by children that have built him an empire in the kingdom of wonder . AL
ReplyDeleteThe figure I have been quoted to sit alongside the Dalai Lama is $50,000 but who knows if either the $100,000 or the $50,000 figure is correct? Of one thing we can be pretty sure, however. The Dalai Lama did not, out of the blue, invite a guy who runs an orphanage in Cambodia to fly from Phnom Penh to Perth Australia to sit alongside him onstage and have 'Happy Birthday' sung to him by a choir of CCF kids.
Deletesay nothing policy . just keep jamming that charity money into those sacks before the bastards come banging on the doors . the media world is asking questions about Neeson and his clan. Rickets blog is an interesting read. but hardly scratches the paint when it comes to whats really going on behind closed doors . Old men and children stories never turn out good .
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous 4.10
DeleteThe 'bastards' (the media) are knocking on no doors, asking no questions of Neeson and CCF, and basically giving him a free ride. Why this should be so I can but speculate.
Yes, I suspect that I am just scratching the surface, but the scratches are getting deeper and, because they are in the public domain (on this blog) it is going to be impossible in the future for anyone who should be paying attention to the scratches to say, "Oh, if only we had known earlier!"
If you have any information that would enable me to scratch a little deeper, please do share it with me. Scuttlebutt is not enough. Is is facts, evidence, photos, the testimony of CCF 'graduates' that will eventually bring the Cambodian Children's Fund unstuck; not scuttlebutt.
If Neeson can afford to pay $100,000 or $50,000 for a photo opportunity with the Dalai Lama, he can afford to buy any journalist or newspaper that might get too close to learning the truth
DeleteAny response from Lily Kanter Mr Ricketson?
DeleteNot yet.
DeleteWhat little credibility the Cambodian Children's Fund had for me has disappeared now that I realise the board is in on the scam as well.
Deletedoes anyone have any info on the other board members and their history .
ReplyDelete