Dear Scott
Does Cambodia need a ‘state of the art’ high school in Steung Meanchey?
Does Cambodia need a ‘state of the art’ high school in Steung Meanchey?
A stupid question, right? Who could
possibly be against any school that helps educate young Cambodians?
I am not ‘against’ the school but I
do have a few doubts about whether the Neeson Cripps Academy is the appropriate solution for the problem it seeks to address.
When I first came to Cambodia, in
1995, there were more orphanages than there were orphans to fill them.
Impoverished parents from the provinces were sending children to Phnom Penh to
hang around Psar Thmei waiting to be rescued as ‘street kids’. The laws of demand and supply applied and the
‘orphanages’ gradually filled.
Fast forward 20 years. I buy a home
and land in Prey Veng for a poor family working in the Phnom Penh rubbish dump.
As with so many of these families they lost everything as a result of family
illness, doctors bills that could not be paid and debts accrued to
money-lenders. To be able to move back to their village, after 10 years working
in the dump, was a dream come true. There was one problem, however. There is no
school in their village. Where were their two children of school age going to
get an education if they left the dump?
Both children are going to a school
close to the dump. Both children are doing well at school and their parents
recognize the need for them to get a good education. A dilemma for mum and dad:
stay in the dump or move back to Prey Veng and deny their children am
education?
I visited the family’s village in
Prey Veng and found that there were 100 children of school age who were not
going to school because there was no school to go to. I toyed with the idea of
trying to build a basic bamboo school and employ a couple of teachers but this
is not, at least at present, a viable option for me.
The 100 children in this village
need a school. How many villages like it are there in Cambodia? How many
schools are needed? I am not talking about the buildings. They are easy. I am
talking about schools with properly trained and paid teachers who do not need a
daily bribe from parents of students and who do not need to have a second job
to make ends meet; where the kids can learn a range of subjects and not merely
Khmer and English; where the kids can acquire skills that will equip them to
get a job, earn a living, when they finish school?
The new Neeson Cripps Academy may
well provide just the education I am referring to here. This is good, right?
Yes, maybe, but what are the parents of the 100 kids in the village in Prey Veng
to do to educate their kids? Move to the Phnom Penh rubbish dump and wait for
their kids to be rescued by the Cambodian Children’s Fund and other such NGOs
and for their children to have an opportunity to learn at the Neeson Cripps
Academy?
If I were a parent of school age
children living in this Prey Veng village and I wanted my kids to get an
education, I would move to Steung Meanchey,go to work in the dump with my kids,
and await rescue.
Multiply this one village by all
the others like it in Cambodia that have no school and you have, potentially,
thousands of families moving to Steung Meanchey who would not do so if there
were a school in their village.
So, my concern is that your new
school will act as a pull factor, just as the proliferation of orphanages in
the mid 90s pulled the children of impoverished rural families into Phnom Penh
to become street kids to be ‘rescued’.
When I spoke with the Village Chief
in this village in Prey Veng about the possibility of building a school he was
so excited that he said the community would donate the land required for it to
be built on. To build a basic bamboo structure with a solid roof, chairs and
desks would, he told me, cost around $1,000. Paying trained teachers teachers
$200 a month would cost around $5,000 a year. Of course there are lots of other
costs involved but I figured that it would be possible to run a very basic
school for 100 kids for around $10,000 a year.
Let’s double that and say $20,000 a
year. For the amount of money that you will spend on a school that bears your
name you could run 200 very basic schools a year in rural Cambodia and give the
parents of the children receiving an education one good reason NOT to gravitate
to Steung Meanchey to be ‘rescued’ by the Cambodian Children’s Fund.
I offer these thoughts for
discussion because it seems to me, with 20 years of experience, that there is
all too often no discussion in public about issues as important as education;
that there is a presumption that the building of a $4 million school must, by
definition, be a good thing.
Back in 1995 the proliferation of ‘orphanages’
was seen as a good thing and a whole industry has been created around the ‘rescuing’
of these children of impoverished families.
Some discussion, debate, is
required before CCF or any other NGO builds ‘state-of-the’ art schools in Phnom
Penh whilst leaving 100s of villages in Cambodia without any properly functioning
school at all.
No doubt Team Neeson will be quick
to attack me in their usual fashion. This time around I am going to delete
comments that are merely personal attacks – not because I believe in censorship
but because I do not want what could be a productive debate about education to be derailed by
angry men and women with nothing to contribute to such a debate.
cheers
James
A photo of a young white man welcoming young Khmer girls to the new Neeson Cripps school! Mmmmmmmmmmmm!
ReplyDeleteCambodian Children’s Fund country director Sok Channoeurn says, of teachers being recruited for the Neeson Cripps Academy: “We won’t pay much higher than other schools…People who work [for CCF] are working for the purpose of charity, so they don’t expect big pay.”
ReplyDeleteHow much are you going to pay teachers, Mr Neeson?
How much does Neeson pay his current teachers?
Delete@ Anonymous 5.32
DeleteThe answer is:
ZERO
Most 'CCF teachers' are employed by the Ministry of Education in the public school system. CCF sends most of its kids to these free schools and at the same time boasts of how much money it spends on educating these kids.
Ricketson, you might be under the misguided impression that Neeson's real objective is to help Cambodian children. It is not. He came to a country where he could do whatever he wants as long as he has money. What he has done would get him locked up in almost any country in the world.
ReplyDeleteHis real goal is to build a shrine to himself. If he wanted to help children, he never would have taken them from their families. He would have helped the family including gifting houses to families, not rake profits ($1800/home) from World Housing and renting the homes to the families.
One needs to look no further than the makeup of the CCF Board of Directors, made up of a Sales Manager, Investment Banker, Entrepreneur, Wives of Board members and Yoga instructors. Where are the Psychologists, Sociologists, child developmental experts and Educators?
Don't be misled!!
Neeson has found some suckers will big bucks to build this shrine to himself but hasn't given any thought as yet to how he is going to fund it? And, if he pays teachers peanuts he is going to wind up with monkeys who need to supplement their meagre wages (not enough to live on) by collecting bribes from children. If you want quality education for children, Mr Neeson, you need to be prepared to pay for it.
Deleteback in Oklahoma we have a saying=its like cutting butter with a chain saw. applies here for sure........this man does not have a decent bone in his body........the sad part is he is very good at raising money to help the poor...............he just does not; such a shame; so much good could have been done all these years......he could have and should have worked with anyone and every one who wanted to help the kids..........after all isn't this supposed to be about the kids?
ReplyDeleteI had to laugh at his recent media stunt - shows him in a hospital sitting next to a very old Khmer lady who appears to be on deaths bed. The captions and media teams have made it out like Neeson has visited this poor old lady and his somehow an angel in disguise by comforting her. Some of the comments on the fcaebook page have mad me sick - "neeson is an angel from heaven", "look at how Scoot touches her and is dedicated to caring for her" - what a fucking disgrace this guy is. Is there anything or anyone that he isn't using to spin the media/money making machine.
ReplyDeleteI met Neeson the other day - I dont like to pass judgement because I may be way off here - but there is something that doesn't fit right and my gut feeling tells me that there is something that isn't quite right. Neeson's mannerisms, speech and general presentation are very creepy. I will restrain on making any other comments but something is a miss with a guy who wants to surround himself with all of those children. I hope I am wrong!
ReplyDeleteThe Name of the school says it all: The Neeson Cripps Academy is nothing other than a monument built in his lifetime with Neeson's name engraved in Cambodia's History forever.
ReplyDeleteI have another question that has been puzzeling me for quite some time now.
Schools to educate the children of Cambodia are the responsability of the Cambodian Government. The fact that there are not enough schools can always be explained with the line "Not enough Money". This is used in so many other areas in the country.
The reason why we have Foreigners/foreign funded NGOs with a total lack of social degree's or professional knowledge of child care is that yes, there are some places in Cambodia that simply don't have any school at all.
This problem does not seem to be high on the Agenda of neither the Gov. nor the Opposition which prefers to campaign against anything Vietnamese. So there the Khmer people in rural areas left alone with foreigners (with their own agenda and culture) appearing as the saviour; opening a school.
I have met a number of these people and they give me the creeps every time. The "Monkey Preschool/School" near Kampot run by a mid fifty year old overweight woman is just one of these examples.
It's not unlikely that we will see a parallel-universe student evolving from the Neeson Cripps Academy who will most likely look down on their fellow neighbours, who cannot afford to join them. The students will most probably also emerge from Neeson Cripps alienated from their Khmer Culture and stuffed with western values.
May God help them.
A typical James Ricketson blog. Scott Neeson makes a significant contribution to Cambodia and Mr Ricketson goes looking for something wrong with it. His hatred of Scott Neeson is so obvious I can't believe that anyone takes anything he says seriously.
ReplyDeleteHere! Here!
DeleteDear Anonymous 3.34
ReplyDeleteConsider for a moment the following paragraph from the Cambodia Daily, beginning with a quote from the Education Minister about this ‘state of the art’ school:
“I believe this school will be free to attend and it will provide education to those disadvantaged children in that area,” Mr. Chuon Naron said. “We have not discussed the curriculum yet but it …will focus on the STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths.”
Do any questions arise for you?
“The new facility will be under the authority of the Education Ministry” and yet the Education Minister only ‘believes’ that the school will be free to attend!? Construction has started and the Minister doesn’t know for sure if the school will be ‘free to attend’ or not? Really! Such inattention to such an important component of Neeson Cripps does not bode well.
And what does the word ‘free to attend’ mean to the Minister? As is well known, Cambodian public schools are supposedly ‘free’ but students have to pay bribes to teachers to be taught. So, ‘free’ in that sense? Certainly, if teachers at Neeson Cripps are poorly paid, there will be an incentive for them to extract money from students and their parents?
And what does the word ‘free to attend’ actually mean in the slippery world of Scott Neeson self-promotional Orwellian Double Speak? ‘Free’ as in ‘no cost to students’ or ‘free’ as in ‘any student who wants to can attend’?
It is necessary to ask such a question because when Scott Neeson refers to ‘gifting’ homes to poor families he does not actually mean he is ‘giving’ homes to the families. What he actually means is that the homes are being ‘gifted’ to CCF and he is renting them to families.
Might the expression ‘free to attend’ actually mean, ‘free to attend for students whose families are already renting homes that have ben gifted to them and are part of Neeson’s experiment in social engineering?
.....to be continued...
....continuing...
ReplyDeleteScott Neeson is a marketing man and, in true Alice in Wonderland fashion, words can mean precisely what Scott decides they should mean. Will anyone ask Scott, today, what the expression ‘free to attend’ actually means? No.
When it transpires, in a year or so, that students have to pay school fees, Scott will be able to say, “We never meant ‘free’ as in no cost; we meant ‘free for all who can afford to pay the school fees.’ And what if the schooling is only ‘free’ to students who are members of one of this gated communities and subject to his rules and reguialtions?
The school will be under the authority or the Education Minister and yet, it seems, CCF will get to decide the curriculum. The question arises:
Who, within the Cambodian Children’s Fund is qualified to develop a curriculum? When will s/he do so? If this curriculum is different from the standard Cambodian secondary school Education curriculum, will this cause any problems at exam times?
On the basis of the press releases, dutifully republished without comment or excamination by the Cambodian media, it seems as though Neeson Cripps has been born without sufficient forethought. “Let’s sort out details like the curriculum and purpose designed classrooms further down the track.”
If some (or all) of the assumptions I am making here are wrong, let Scott Neeson release more details so that the public can be well-informed about Neeson Cripps. In the absence of information and answers from Neeson (his standard modus operandi) doubts must be entertained.
It would help if the Cambodian media (both Khmer and English language) were to apply some critical analysis to this new education initiative, perhaps even consulting with experts in education (both in Cambodia a elsewhere) to get a variety of opinions as to whether or not Neeson Cripps will be a welcome addition to Cambodian education or money spent that could more appropriately be spent on another initiative – like providing basic education to the tens of thousands of Cambodian children in the provinces who have no real access to schools.
Mr Ricketson
ReplyDeleteWe all understand how and why it is that any multi-million dollar Scott Neeson project will get Ministerial and government approval and support regardless of its efficacy.
We all understand how and why the Cambodian media asks no questions of Mr Neeson and does little else other than publish CCF media releases.
We all understand how and why, if you become a nuisance to Mr Neeson's empire building plans, you could be arrested and banned from further visits to Cambodia. Those whom you refer to as Team Neeson are forever reminding you of Mr Neeson's ability to pick up the phone, deliver an edict to the relevant people in government, and have you 'dealt' with.
I admire you for continuing to ask the questions that no-one else is prepared to ask in a country in which silence and acquiesce can be purchased for a price.
Do watch your back, though. You are dealing with some very unpleasant people who do not take kindly to your public criticism in their money making activities.
You could add here Anonymous 4.41 "We all understand how and why David Fletcher, accused by Scott Neeson of 'grooming' young girls, will never get a fair trial while Neeson has friends in high places.
DeleteMoney speaks and obviously drives perverted agendas... This is Cambodia!
DeleteSo Neeson is just another westerner opening a school in Cambodia . So nothing new here other than his usual kiddy charity porn pics to flush even more money into his overflowing khmer bank accounts .
ReplyDelete4 million for a building that will cost around 400k to construct with hundreds of schools across Cambodia falling apart Leaking roofs . Dirt floors . Teachers that go unpaid for months at a time . Children with no school books . Surely the money would be much better spent helping them all .
But no, Neeson adds another chip to his Neverland fantasy world locking in his donor tourists $$ while he is chauffeured driven in a luxury SUV's around Phnom Penh.
Seriously he is feeding like a leach on the blood of Khmer children. He has millions invested in properties throughout Cambodia, living in a fully serviced mansion filled with slaves . He travels the world first class . Promotes himself as having given it all up to help the poor . Please please spare us all .
Hey, who chose the photo of the white guy greeting the brown girls curious about what was inside the Neeson Creeps Academy? Faaaaaark!
ReplyDeleteTake a look at it.The white guy is greeting the girls. One of them is looking in through the doors with body language that says, "Is it OK to go inside?"
The other girls are holding back,not sure if it is safe to do so!
Anyone thinking of walking into the Neeson Creeps fantasy world should be very wary. What you see is not what you get. Neeson is an egotistical megalomaniac with dreams of creating his own empire inside the empire created by another egotistical megalomaniac.
I might be a bit slow on the uptake Anonymous 2.28 but whose empire is Scott in other than his own. Is there a bigger boss in CCF than him
DeleteI dare not mention the name of the the other egotistical megalomaniac. Mr Ricketson could be sued. You'll figure it out.
DeleteJames, you are a fucking idiot!
ReplyDeleteNo-one gives a shit.
You are pissing in the wind.
Neeson has enough money to buy government minsters, to buy the media, and to pay his PR people whatever sums are necessary to make him appear in the public eye as Cambodia's Mother Teresa.
Youve made an admirable effort to expose Neesons scams but its time for you to realise that youve failed and get on with your life.
Neeson has won. The Neesons of the world always win in the long run.
People MUCH bigger than Neeson have been taken down. If no one cares why are you, Neeson and Lemon reading and commenting? If Neeson has as much power as you think, he would have taken this site and Ricketson down months ago!
DeleteAttempts have been made to take this site down. They have failed. Even if a future attempt were to succeed, I have everything backed up and will simply start again.
DeleteIt is good to see that Team Neeson has not bothered to comment.
And it is not a surprise to learn that Neeson still has no intention of answering any questions.
And it is disquieting, but not surprising, that the Cambodian media is not even interested in asking Neeson questions. C'est la vie
Keep up your good work James!
DeleteRicketson - the Cambodian media aren't interested because your whole blog is mad up of bullshit. Stop dreaming of conspiracies and start looking at reality. Its very obvious that you are driven by jealousy and nothing else! I really do pity you!
DeleteDear Anonymous 9.54
DeleteThank you so much for your pity.it is much appreciated.
An exercise in futility, know, but please point out to me one instance in which my blog is "made up of bullshit." This should not be too hard for you, surely! Just one instance.
Again, an exercise in futility, I know, because facts are of no interest to you, please share with us your explanation as to how houses that have been 'gifted' to poor families in Cambodia, wind up in the hands of CCF - to be rented to poor families.
There are lots of other questions, of course, but see if you can answer this one.
cheers
How about answering the question as to why Screen Australia has wiped you like a dirty ass and most credible media entities in Australia want touch you?
ReplyDeleteDear Scott Neeson
DeleteThis comment has your finger prints all over it.
Tell you what, I’ll answer your question if you answer one for me. Deal?
Screen Australia is a government film funding body run by bureaucrats. I was, and remain, a very vocal critic of Screen Australia. I tend to ask questions that such bureaucrats do not like to have asked of them and which they certainly have no intention of answering. Very like you, actually!
The powers that be within the organization did not take kindly to my criticisms and banned me from making applications for funding. This was, and remains, a petty vindictive fatwa.
Okay, now my question for you:
“Why do you continue to persist with the fiction that houses are being ‘gifted’ to poor Cambodian families by World Housing when the houses are in fact being ‘gifted’ to you and RENTED to poor families?”
Now your response to this, in your recognizably petulant style, will be, “I’m not fucking Scott Neeson, you goose.”
Okay, on the off chance that you and Scott share the same writing style and that you are not, in fact, he, you might still like to answer the question, expressed slightly differently:
“Why do you think Scott Neeson and World Housing persist with the fiction that houses are being ‘gifted’ to poor Cambodian families when they are in fact being ‘gifted’ to the Cambodian Children’s Fund?”
You will not answer this question, of course. You will hope, through name-calling, to shoot the messenger.
If, however, you do feel inclined to answer this question you might like to answer another:
“What word would you use to describe a man (Neeson) who charges his partners (World Housing) $2,800 for a product (pre-fab houses) that only cost $1,000 to manufacture?
Face it Ricketson - you are a fucking loser!
ReplyDeleteWhat is the difference, Scott (or Scott clone) between a 'loser' and a 'fucking loser'?
ReplyDeleteLoser!!!!!!
DeleteI personally think Scott Neeson has some serious decision making issues with the hiring of a convicted criminal in McCabe as the face of his CPU unit and from a blind mans perspective you would have to suggest that there is more than meets the eye with that arrangement because there are far more qualified and ethical candidates around the region however thats not my point at this time - my point is that Neeson is helping poor people in Cambodia - whether some of you feel that his way is not best practices is irrelevant - what is relevant is that he stacks up a lot better than all of us when it comes to making a sacrifice to helping poor people.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 2.10
DeleteWhat sacrifice is Scott Neeson making to help poor people? It is certainly not economic. He has become a millionaire as a result of his philanthropy.
But lets just pretend that he is not now a very large land owner in Cambodia, thanks to CCF; lets just presume that he has made a 'sacrifice'. Is the making of a 'sacrifice' any guarantee that the work he is doing is good? That it is beneficial?
I have had a lot of dealings with NGOs over the past 20 years. Most of them mean well. Most of them have made some kind of 'sacrifice' to be helping the poor. But are good intentions enough?
I have met many Christian Evangelicals who believe that removing children from their families and bringing them up as Christians is the right thing to do. They are sincere in their beliefs/ Does this make their actions admirable?
Good intentions are not enough. The pathway to hell, as we all know, is paved with good intentions. In my own country, Australia, we spent over 100 years removing Aboriginal children from their families with th very best of intentions. Did our good intentions make out actions right? Correct?
Scott Neeson's 'intentions' in building the Neeson Cripps Academy may be good but does that automatically mean that he should be lauded for his initiative?
For my own part, having been in many Cambodian villages with no schools, I have my doubts about whether or not the Neeson Cripps route is the right route to go down at this point in time. I suspect that it will act as a magnet - drawing the children of poor families from the provinces to work in the dump in order to be 'rescued' by CCF and others whilst the need for schools in their own villages goes unmet.
It is not just the clear lack of thinking that has gone into Neeson Cripps that concerns me but the total lack of debate about whether it is the right way to go or not. where is the critical analysis of what Neeson Cripps means for Cambodian education? Is the solution to Cambodia obvious education problems to build half a dozen Neeson Cripps Academys in Phnom Penh and other regional centres or to make, as a top priority, building basic schools in ALL the villages in Cambodia that have, at present, no school at all?
It is very relevant! You think that taking over 700 children from their families and the subsequent harm caused, is good thing?? Neeson should be in prison!!
DeleteI think that it is something of an oversimplification to keep referring to the 700 children that Neeson has removed from their families. I would agree, however, that most (if not all) these children from materially poor families should be assisted within a family context; within a community context; not within an institution.
DeleteThe institutional option allows Scott Neeson and CCF to tell the IRS that they are spending $4,000 a year per child to accommodate and educate them. This is nonsense, of course, but this sum probably seems low to the IRS - if, that is, anyone at the IRS ever bothered to look closely at the figures provided by CCF.
Anyone familiar with the levels of poverty in Cambodia, anyone familiar with the meagre income earned by most Cambodians, knows that this $4,000 a year per child figure is a scam. This may well be the amount that flows into CCF coffers per year but less than 5% od this money finds its way into the coffers of the families supposedly being assisted by CCF.
This is, in my book, a major scandal. That the media and human rights NGOs in Cambodia turn a blind eye to this scam (and others of Neeson's like the WOrld Housing con) is a source of continual amazement to me.
Scott Neeson is just one of many lying scoundrels in Cambodia to exploit the country's lawlessness, to exploit the poor and to con suckers like the Cripps family into giving him money for he vanity projects.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of Neeson (which I try not to do) I remember the story of Icarus.
"Icarus's father warns him first of complacency and then of hubris, asking that he fly neither too low nor too high, so the sea's dampness would not clog his wings or the sun's heat melt them. Icarus ignored his father's instructions not to fly too close to the sun, whereupon the wax in his wings melted and he fell into the sea. This tragic theme of failure at the hands of hubris contains similarities to that of Phaëthon."
Neeson's hubris will bring him undone. He will fly too close to the sun, the wax in his wings will melt and he will dash into the sea. Unfortunately for all the kids he removes from their families it may take a few years for the wax to melt.
You've lost the plot james, most of us read ur blog because we are concerned for David fletcher and would like to know how he is doing and if there are any updates with his case.
ReplyDeleteFear not, Anonymous 10.20, there is more than one plot here.
DeleteScott Neeson may well be a sub plot in the David Fletcher story but he is a significant one given the role he played in having Mr Fletcher arrested for a crime that his alleged victim claims never occurred and which a medical report prepared for the Phnom Penh Municipal Court claimed had not occurred.
In anticipation of an onslaught of verbal abuse from Team Neeson, here is what Neeson had to say in 2010 to 'journalist' Andrew Drummond:
“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.”
David Fletcher was ‘sent packing’ one month later and has been in jail ever since.
There has been a new development in the David Fletcher case. It will be the subject of my next blog entry.
Seriously - this blog and ricketsons rants sound like a broken record. The fact remains that Fletcher has convicted and is going to serve his 10 years in gaol - nothing Ricketson or anyone else can do about it. As for Neeson, well he will continue doing what he does and his organisation will continue to get bigger - the only thing that will stop him is if he dies of a heart attack or if Cambodia tomorrow becomes a singapore and there is no longer any poor families or children in Cambodia. Either way I think none of the above will occur in the foreseen future so how about you look at someone else to critics Ricketson or perhaps that is impossible because there you have no-one left on your list.
DeleteThe only developments for the Fletcher case will be Fletcher talking more bullshit and Ricketson getting suckered into thinking that this creep is innocent. Cambodia is not going to give this convicted criminal a second look in - they have bigger fish to fry that this insignificant kiddie fiddler. Egg on your face is coming Ricketson and you are going to be the laughing stock of the world.
ReplyDeleteTeam Neeson
DeleteEgg on my face is coming, is it? What, you've put through a call to the appropriate person in government?
As for David Fletcher, much as it may irk you, the fact is that he, like all those in Cambodia accused of a crime, are entitled to a fair trial conducted in accordance with the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr Fletcher has been denied such a trial for more than five years now.
If, on the basis of evidence presented to the court, and after Mr Fletcher has been given his legal right to present a defence, he is found guilty, he deserves to be in jail.
Would you deny Mr Fletcher, or anyone else accused of a crime, the right to a fair trial?
As for the question of Mr Fletcher's innocence or guilt this is for the court to decide. The fact that the alleged victim says she was not raped and the medical report presented to the court (and the court's request) says that she was not rape, I think there is some reason to doubt the original guilty verdict - one which was pronounced by a court hearing to which Mr Fletcher was not invited and of which he was unaware until after the verdict had been announced.
Same boring rant. Get over it Ricketson. Fletcher was found guilty. End of story!
ReplyDeleteVery interesting James that you have a host of commenters who are adamant that Fletcher should do time for a crime he didn't commit and use a trial that didn't happen as proof of his guilt, against all evidence, yet these same posters express no concern with the harm done by Neeson to children that he has taken from their families, to raise in an orphanage.
ReplyDeleteFuckwit or perhaps you are a kiddie fiddler yourself hence why you are in Cambodia!
DeleteWhy are you in Cambodia, Anonymous 10.13
DeleteTo make sure we minimise the numbers of fuckwits like you adding to the number bottom feeders already here.
ReplyDeleteAnd how do you do that Mr Neeson?
DeleteThe surety of delusion is strong in this comment section. That kind of conviction is only seen in the scummy conspiracy theory community.
ReplyDeletePlease tell me how Neeson is getting rich by being director of CCF?
CCF gets four stars from Charity Navigator and a score of 99.05 out of 100 which is about as high a score as you can possibly get. It received a score of 100 (out of a possible 100) for accountability and transparency.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12748#.VeJxGLkU76h
The 2014 CCF Form 990 indicates Scotts salary as $93,527. I made more money than that prior to retirement as a middle manager.
It is interesting with all the charities you could go after you are obsessed with CCF. You really should try to get productive work and perhaps see a shrink about your personality disorder.
Charity Navigator is a scam that Neeson subscribes to. They do no investigation of NGOs. Neeson salary is exempt from US taxes and highly likely that all of his expenses are covered by unsuspecting donors. 93,527 is about what 93 families live on in Cambodia.
DeleteDear Team Neeson (aka NoExitLoveNow)
DeleteMy guess is that this is you, Scott, writing this, but it does not matter. If not you, it is Alan Lemon or one of the Scott Neeson Trolls you have working for you.
You refuse to answer any questions at all and have done so this past 8 or so months. You think that if you continue to sling mud, if you continue to shoot the messenger, that readers of this blog will be fooled. Yes, perhaps some are, but those with a modicum of intelligence will read your evasions and outbursts of petulant abuse for what they are.
I don't really see much point in getting into a slanging match about how much money you earn on paper, Scott. it is all the money that is not on paper that is of concern; all the money that id not declared; all the property you own; the shares given to you by Twiggy Forest etc. ANd now, all the houses you are getting for free from World Housing whilst telling sponsors and donors that you are 'gifting' them to poor families. Oh, and charging Wold Housing $2,800 for houses that cost $1,000 to build.
Anyone who has ever made a negative comment about CCF on Charity Navigator and had it removed almost immediately knows that Charity Navigator is a scam. I have written about this before:
http://cambodia440.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/118-charity-navigator-scam.html
The notion that you could get 100 out of 100 for transparency and accountability is just nonsense. If you were accountable and transparent you would answer questions. You answer none. Ever.
I am not obsessed with you. I stumbled upon you by chance when Chuan and Ka asked me to help them get their daughters back from CCF. You refused to return the girls to their family, citing a 'contract' that they had signed with you. There was no contract and even if there had been it was illegal.
You have, in fact, signed 'contracts' with most (but not all) of the mums and dads who have kids in CCF residential care but they are not allowed to have copies of the contracts and are intimidated into silence if they dare step out of line.
The only reason you are able to get away with all this, Scott, (other than in the obvious ways that arise from being well connected politically and with money to burn) is that the Cambodian media has decided, for its own reasons, not to ask questions of you; not to conduct any kind of investigation into the many scams you are involved with - the latest of which is the World Housing scam.
You can fool all the people some of the time, Scott and you fool some of the people all the time but you can't fool all the people all of the time.
As I am sure you are well aware, all that it will take to bring your house of cards crashing to the ground is one Khmer man or woman, no longer intimidated by you, to come forward and talk about what goes on behind closed doors at CCF. Once one has gone public others will follow and then it will be a tsunami. You must know this. If you don't, you have become deluded by your own publicity and will fall hard when the time comes.
Yes, you have all the connections and money required to keep this day of reckoning at bay, but only for so long.
Your creepy pedophile friend David Fletcher (a convicted pedophile in Great Britain) started an UNREGESTERED charity (where donations went into his PRIVATE BANK ACCOUNT). He was then convicted of rape in Cambodia. I cannot speak to whether this later conviction was appropriate or not. He was definitely a creepy character. The fact that you were his friend says a lot about you. It is interesting that you are engaging in a vendetta against CCF, but seemed unconcerned about the actions of your pedophile friend or the functioning of his charity.
DeleteHa Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Paranoia runs deep in the James Ricketson blog (as well as delusion). More conspiracy theory thinking. You actually think I am Scott Neeson. Ha Ha Ha Ha
DeleteHa Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Scott Neeson controls the ratings given by Charity Naivgator. More paranoia and conspiracy theory nonsense.
You said that Scott never answers any questions:
http://www.khmer440.com/chat_forum/viewtopic.php?t=38333
This actually answers your questions so you are an obvious liar.
The last bit of your reply sounds a lot more like a revenge fantasy than displaying any concern for the children currently helped by CCF a fact that cannot be denied. You seem to believe you should be in charge - that every decision should be run by you. Sorry, but people who have earned that honor will continue to be in charge.
Dear Scott Neeson (aka NoExitLoveNow 1.33)
DeleteDavid Fletcher had sex with a 15 year old girl. This was against the law. it was illegal. It was not a pedophile offence. Check your definitions.
David Fletcher did his time in jail and is entitled to the presumption of innocence in relation to his raping of Yang Dany. The same applies to James Mc Cabe, whom you have heading up your Child Protection Unit. He is a convicted felon who did time in jail (more than Fletcher) but he is entitled to get on with his life.
You apply a double standard here. Apply the same criteria when judging David Fletcher as you apply when judging James Mc Cabe.
As for your not being able to speak of whether or not David Fletchers conviction was 'appropriate' or not, stop talking (writing) nonsense. You played a very significant role in having David Fletcher charged with an offence you know that he did not commit. You were (are) not alone.
David Fletcher is not a friend. He is someone I met by chance who had clearly been denied his right, in accordance with Cambodian law, to a fair trial. This was the full extent of my concern until Yang Dany told me, several times, that David Fletcher had not raped her; until her mother told me that he had not raped her daughter; until I discovered that Yang Dany and her mother had been told that there was $30,000 compensation for them if they pressed charged; until I read the doctor's report that declared Yang Dany to be a virgin after her alleged rape. 'Brutal rape'.
You were (are) up to your neck in this Scott. You wanted to get rid of David Fletcher and you succeeded. Congratulations on a job well done!
...to be continued...
...continuing...
DeleteLet's face it, Scott, registered or unregistered, it suited your purposes to get rid of David Fletcher - whom you saw as intruding on your turf. You wanted to be King of the Castle.
As for David Fletcher being 'creepy', do you think that your subjective assessment of 'creepiness' is sufficient to put a man in jail for 10 years ago? If so, here's some news for you, Scott. The most usual word tyo describe you by people who have met you is 'creepy'.
Do these subjective (and far from flattering) assessments of you mean that you must be guilty of 'grooming' young girls? No. It is not against the law to be 'creepy'.
Oh dear, Scott, you reach back 9 or 10months to one Khmer440 comment for evidence that you answer questions! You did not answer questions then and you have not answered one since then. When next I write to your major sponsors (which will be soon) I will do nothing more than list the questions you have refused to answer this past 9 or 10months. No commentary. No 'conspiracy theories', no speculations. Just questions that you refuse to answer. My guess is that there are a few dozen of them. You have zero commitment to the precepts of transparency and accountability. You rely on press releases and Facebook declarations about how wonderful you are to get your message across. And you are lucky, in Cambodia, to have newspapers that have decided to allow you the keys to the city; that will ask no tough questions and conduct nothing that even remotely resembles investigative journalism.
As to your last odd statement, where have I ever suggested (or implied) that I should be in charge.
My questions to you are not about 'revenge'. this is not the role of journalists. My role, as a journalist critic, is to hold you accountable for your actions. In any other country but Cambodia there would be several journalists doing what I am doing.
Let me add here, by way of concluding this 'rant' that rather than abuse me verbally and shoot the messenger (its getting tiresome, Scott!) you could discredit me very effectively by answering questions in such a way as to demonstrate that you are not engaged in multiple scams and that I haver my facts wrong.
You will not do so because facts, evidence, truth are like Kryptonite to Superman. You avoid them at any cost. The cost,now, is to your own credibility as someone committed to transparency and accountability.
Why would Scott feel threatened by Fletcher? There have been NGOs operating in Steung Meanchey for 20 years - NGO's that CCF has worked with for years. NGO's far bigger than Fletcher. NGOs that CCF works with. There is zero credibility in the argument that Scott was worried about Fletcher 'stealing his thunder'. There is a hell of a lot of credibility in the argument that Scott was worried that a pedophile with form was operating a shody, unregistered operation down at the dump.
DeleteMr Ricketson
DeleteI am a fan of Cambodian kick boxing. You and Mr Neeson are engaged in a most interesting bout. Most would put their money on Mr Neeson but my money is on you.
There is one area of research that you seem to have neglected.
It might be well worth your while to make some enquiries about some of the men who stayed at the Walkabout Guesthouse 10 years ago. And if you can track down any of the teenage girls working there then they might have some interesting stories to tell about these men’s sexual proclivities.
Keep on kicking, Mr Ricketson, even when Mr Neeson, with the help of his ‘friends in high places’ seems to have you on the ropes.
There was a pedophile working in the Phnom Penh Rubbish dump10 years ago and his name was not David Fletcher.
Do tell Mr. Walkabout!
DeleteYeah, David Fletcher was the definition of creepy. An old man who's defense regarding his rape charge is to claim he only took the sixteen year old girl to a room in a wine shop and removed her clothes. Then he paid the child's parents 150 pounds so that he could marry the girl. The girl in Great Britain was 15 (he was 53), he said he would pay her 250 pounds, got her drunk, and took video. He later said that she was his girlfriend (very creepy – shudder).
DeleteThere is more creepy in this article.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/british-paedo-running-kids-charity-230087
and here.
http://postimg.org/image/wqw04vjs9/full/
As I said previously, of course I cannot say anything about David Fletcher's guilt as I am not Scott Neeson. Further, I am unaware of the extent of Scott's knowledge about this (not being Scott). A person should not go to jail if they didn't commit a crime; however, as I said I cannot speak regarding the appropriateness of the conviction. David Fletcher was convicted by a Cambodian court – not by Scott Neeson. There were many people and organizations involved. Scott Neeson expressing his honest and true concerns about this creepy convicted sex criminal running an unregistered and completely unaccountable charity did not convict him or send him to jail. The system that gathered, prepared, and presented the evidence and the judge that convicted him did. If you are concerned about the Cambodian justice system I suggest you take your concerns up with them.
Witless Walkabout,
DeleteOf course this is not a kick boxing match. This is a guy working hard running a charity and a troll who lives in a delusional world following him around and kicking him in the shins because the guy running charity doesn't jump when the troll asks him to.
Scott (aka NoExitLoveNow 3.15)
DeleteYou get 10 out or 10 for persistence.
David Fletcher’s main defense is that:
(a) Yang Dany and her mother, Sekun, insist that he did not rape her.
(b) The medical report prepared for the Phnom Penh Municipal Court (at the court’s request) claimed that Yang Dany’s hymen was intact; that she was a virgin.
The judges, in their wisdom, in this closed trial to which Fletcher was not invited to attend or present a defense, decided that Yang Dany’s hymen must have grown back.
In a properly constituted court anywhere else in the world the case would have been thrown out.
That you find David Fletcher ‘creepy’, Scott, is neither here nor there. There are plenty of people who find you ‘creepy’ but this does not make you guilty of rape.
As for the Mirror article, the contents of which were extracted from Andrew Drummond’s article (to which you made a very significant contribution) this is tabloid sensationalism. You shouldn’t believe everything you read in the tabloids, Scott. Just as sponsors and donors should take with a huge grain of salt all that you say in your press releases.
“Gifting” homes to poor Cambodian families! Please, Scott, tell the truth. The houses/homes are gifted to you and you rent them to poor families who are prepared to abide by your rules and regulations.
You are a marketing man, and very good at it, and will tell people whatever you think they need to hear to open their wallets.
As for David Fletcher being convicted by the Phnom Penh Municipal court and not by you, of course this is technically true. And yes there were other agencies involved in investigating David Fletcher. However, not one of these agencies came up with any evidence that he was grooming young girls or that he had raped anyone.
David Fletcher’s demise began when Peter Hogan (Khmer440) decided to go after him. He enlisted you and others to the cause, gave you a copy of the newspaper article from 1998, you then gave the article to the British Embassy, the British Embassy subsequently destroyed the evidence that Mr Fletcher was not even in Cambodia at the time of the alleged rapes. And so it goes. Justice, Cambodian style.
Finally, yes it is a matter of concern to me that justice had not been done in the case of David Fletcher; that he has received nothing that even closely resembled a fair trial. Mind you, this is true for an enormous number of people who must trust their fate to the Cambodian Judicial system. It was chance that led to my meeting David Fletcher. If it had been someone else denied natural justice I would have defended them in the same way.
David Fletcher is entitled to a fair trial. As you know, as all in Cambodia know, fair trials are as rare as hen's teeth, especially when there are vested interests involved - either those who want to see innocent people in jail or guilty people out of jail.
You are still demanding answers regarding “Sokayn” (not her real name). Of course, this was addressed in the link, but of course you are still shamefully repeating the same lies without apology or retraction. You are even saying that this question was not being answered. Your complaint that the link is old is irrelevant. You said, “You answer none. Ever.” Further, the fact that it is old makes it more damning that you are still suggesting that this question has not been answered and that your questions in general are never answered, “ever”.
DeleteNo, Scott
DeleteI am not 'demanding' answers re Sokayn (or, as you spell it, Sokheng). I am referring to the dozens of questions I have asked you this past 9 or so months.
Yes, the use of the word 'ever' was incorrect. However, I did not see your nan-answers on Khmer440 as counting as they were nonsense.
Be that as it may be, let's agree that you did, once, nine months ago, answer some questions. Now, would you please answer the questions asked a a few blog entries ago regarding World Housing. I will refresh your memory. Here's 11 questions for you to answer today:
(1) Who has bought, and continues to buy, the land on which the World Housing houses are being built?
(2) How many homes has World Housing donated to the Cambodian Children’s Fund to date?
(3) How many of the homes are occupied by families now?
(4) How many people were the houses designed to have living in them?
(5) How many people do the home actually have living in them?
(6) How much rent must the occupants pay per month? $15 a month is the amount most often mentioned by those who rent the homes. Is this correct?
(7) Is it true that these donated World Housing homes are only available to be rented by families who have children who are in residential care with CCF?
(8) What are the rules and regulations that families must agree to before they are allowed to rent the homes that have cost CCF not one cent?
(9) Are the families renting houses from CCF allowed to retain a copy of the contract they have entered into with CCF?
(10) How many families have been evicted as a result of their not being able to afford the $15 a month, if this figure is correct?
(11) How many families have not been able to abide by (or have been unwilling to abide by) the rules and regulations laid down by CCF and have been evicted as a result?
On the basis of CCF’s 2013 tax return, and with the application of a little maths, it is clear that CCF claims to be spending $4,000 per CCF child per annum. Is this still the case in 2015? It is difficult to make any mathematical calculations based CCF’s 2014 tax return, as it has been laid out in such a way as to obscure what money is spent on which programs.
And here, Scott, if you are in the mood to be answering questions, are a few that I put to World Housing. The World Housing Board, as is the case with the CCF board, is well aware of this housing scam and has chosen to remain silent. Perhaps you could answer on World Housing's behalf since the idea of 'gifting' houses was yours in the first place. Great idea, incidentally. Or it would be if the houses were 'gifted' to those who need them and to whom you claim to have given them!
DeleteScott Neeson does not have to pay $1 to construct the World Housing homes in Steung Meanchey. World Housing has ‘gifted’ them to CCF and the houses are erected on land owned by the Cambodian Children’s Fund.
CCF then rents these ‘gifted houses’ to impoverished Cambodian families and makes a profit. It is not a huge profit but it is a profit.
Given that the ‘gifted’ World Housing houses have been built on land owned by CCF (‘gifted’ to CCF by sponsors and donors) the families that rent these houses can never own them (call them their own.) They will forever be dependent on the good will of Scott Neeson and obliged to abide by his rules and regulations. These rules and regulations are strict. They include the prohibition of members of the family visiting or staying in the houses.
Do you, the recipients of this letter, believe that this the best, or most appropriate way, to generate ‘sustainable change’ within impoverished Cambodian communities? Or has World Housing, in conjunction with the sponsors and donors who bought the land for CCF, given Scott Neeson carte blanche to create a community that is totally dependent on him?
Have any of you ‘thought leaders’ seen a copy of the contract that CCF enters into with families who rent the gifted World Housing homes?
Are you aware that the World Housing homes ‘gifted’ to Scott Neeson re only available to be rented by families that have children taking part in one of CCF’s ‘programs’?
Are you aware that each of these CCF children generates $4,000 in income each year for the Cambodian Children’s Fund – in a country in which the per capita income is a little more than $1,000 a year. This is not a groundless assertion, as would become apparent if you were to look back through some old blog entries. The following may be a good place to start:
http://cambodia440.blogspot.com/2015/02/96-message-for-heather-graham-re.html
Is World Housing assisting in the development of a strong and self-sufficient Cambodian community in Steung Meanchey or is it giving Scott Neeson both free housing and philanthropic credibility in an experiment in social engineering in which he calls all of the shots?
Are developers who pay their $50,000 to join World Housing being beguiled into believing that they are buying homes for poor people when in fact they are buying homes to very rich individuals like Scott Neeson, who then rents these ‘gifted’ homes to very poor people and locks them out if they get behind in their rent? Yes, CCF locks out tenants who get as little as $12.50 behind in their rent.
Ha Ha Ha Ha You are still referring to me as Scott. Yep, the delusions and coming to conclusions without evidence is strong.
DeleteOf course you are changing the subject. You are still saying you didn't get an answer regarding “Sokayn” (not her real name). You are still shamefully repeating the same lies without apology or retraction. Can you admit now that you lied and did in fact receive an answer regarding “Sokayn” Can you now apologize for lying when you said you didn't receive and answer regarding this girl? Can you retract and correct any allegations you have posted about her?
So you think you are a journalist. What journal do you write for? Is this what you think journalism is - just typing a list of questions on a blog? Is that what they taught you in journalism school? Which journalism class covered harassing donors to a successful children's charity because that charity does not do things exactly as you want.
DeleteI always thought journalism was something else entirely.
Dear Scott (aka NoExitLoveNow 2.03)
DeleteI write for a blog that goes by the name Cambodia440.
All investigative journalism starts with questions. Those being investigated are apt to remain silent if they have something to hide. he investigative journalist (blogger, filmmaker) must then gather evidence from wherever s/he can. This is what I have been doing. All the evidence points to your playing fast and loos with the truth and being engaged in a variety of money-makiong scams. The World Housing scam is the one that even Blind Freddy could figure out: 'gifted' houses given by World Housing to CCF.
And, on whose land have these houses been erected? Land belonging to CCF? Land belonging to you?
You will not, of course, answer these or any other questions - other, perhaps, than a question i might have asked you some years ago about Sokayn and her family. As I have made clear below, if I have made a mistake (call it a lie, if you like) I will happily retract whatever it is I wrote and apologise.
I will agree with you on one pointe here. Journalism is not, as a rule, about harassing donors to a successful charity. You can call it 'harassing' if you like. I call it pointing out to sponsors and donors questions they should ask of you, off CCF, of the CCF board before parting with their money.
If some of these sponsors and donors have stopped sponsoring and donating do you think it might be because they realise, in the absence of answers from you, that CCF is not all that you say it is? I find it hard to believe, for instance, that any developer in Vancouver would want to spend $50,000 to join World Housing in order to be provided with the privilege of giving you free housing. I find it hard to believe that World Housing would wish to continue working with someone who charged them $2,800 for a pre-fab home that costs $1,000 to manufacture.
The most goes on and on. To my way of thinking only sponsors and donors who are blinded by your undoubted talents in marketing would wish to give you any money at all when you lock poor families out of their homes for being $12.50 behind in their rent.
If your money raising activities have been interfered with you have only yourself to blame for playing fast and loose with the truth and for being neither transparent or accountable in what you and CCF do.
It is probably not too late for you and CCF to redeem yourselves, though I doubt that you will as you have crated a monster for yourself. it is a monster that necessitates a constant stream of children to be rescued by Saint Scott - the wonderful man who gave up his multi-million dollar Holly wood lifestyle to rescue poor children from their families.
Scott, you have been in Hollywood long enough to know that your script is not working. It needs a total re-write. You need to fire the writer you have had on board for a decade now - even if it is yourself - and hire someone who can tell a story that will stand up to scrutiny.
As I have made clear below, if I have made a mistake (call it a lie, if you like) I will happily retract whatever it is I wrote and apologize.
DeleteWhen did this happen?
Of course, you are just asking questions - like any good conspiracy theorist. That is why you cannot actually publish an article in any respected journal.
DeleteHow much does blogging pay? I'm just asking questions.
Scott, aka No Love, Exit Now 3.15
DeleteConspiracy theorists don't ask questions; they provide ready-made answers (and usually fallacious) answers to questions.
Which 'respected journal' are you referring to in a Cambodian context? The Phnom Penh Post? The Cambodia Daily? The Khmer Times?
Blogging doesn't pay. Nothing. It might come as a surprise to you, Scott, but there are people in this world who do things for reasons other than increasing their bank balance.
Can you point me to any published article written by you about CCF or Scott Neeson in any journal (in Cambodia, Australia, or any other country) respected or otherwise (preferably respected)?
DeleteOf what relevance is a published article by myself about you and CCF?
DeleteMy point is that this blog is not journalism. I'm suggesting that an actual respectable journal would demand more than making lists of questions, making insinuations, and delusional rants.
DeleteNo Love, Exit Now (aka Scott N)
DeleteDoes it matter what you call this blog?
The questions are all legitimate ones. They are the kids of questions journalists should be asking of NGOs such as CCF that shift millions of dollars a year. They are the kinds of questions that sponsors and donors should be asking before they give money to CCF.
It is because there is no-one asking these questions that CCF is able to get away with the scams it does.
Instead of answering questions you continue with your foolish schoolboy abuse in hopes of discrediting the person asking the questions. This is blindingly obvious and the more you refuse to answer questions the more people are going to wonder: "Why does Scott answer no questions?"
Below is a list of 3 questions for you Scott. For Alan Lemon and James Mc Cabe. they concern the death of a teenage girl whilst in the care of CCF. Will you refuse to answer them on the grounds that I am not a journalist? Will you answer them is a 'genuine' journalist from a 'respected' publication asks them?
That is what I thought. No actual journal takes you seriously.
DeleteOf course you would publish if you could. However, what you do is not journalism. You are merely a troll. Your posts are only suitable for other alienated conspiracy theorists and trolls.
Of course, not being Scott, I cannot answer your questions. Perhaps the delusion is self reinforcing. You think I'm Scott because you are delusional, and the fact that the make believe Scott doesn't answer your questions reinforces your delusions further. This also plays to the other other alienated conspiracy theorists and trolls who read this blog.
Scott (aka No Love, Exit Now)
Delete(1) I've never approached any publication to see if it would like ti publish an article of mine about you and CCF. Indeed, I have never written an article or even thought of doing so.
(2) You can dismiss this blog if you like but it is interesting to see how often you, and other members of Team Neeson, come here to try and discredit me. Why bother? If all I write is just nonsense who do you waste your time? If you came on here to answer questions I could well understand your visits - often many times in a day - but given that you do not answer questions I wonder why you bother?
Let me ask you a question: If, instead of a blogger and a troll like me asking you questions, a real bona fide journalist were to ask the same questions, would you answer them? If a 'real' journalist from the Cambodia Daily, the Phnom Penh Post or the Khmer Times were to ask you, say, if a girl in CCF care had died at the Russian Hospital during the Khmer New Year, would you answer or would you accuse them of being conspiracy theorists and trolls for having the temerity to ask questions of a man such as yourself?
You are extremely lucky that no English language journalists in Cambodia will ask you any tough questions. This luck will not last forever. One day you will meet your match in a 'real' journalist who is not taken in by your PR and who actually makes an effort to do some proper investigative journalism.
So fuckwit - are you suggesting that Neeson and other people who choose to run NGO's should all have a salary equivalent to the people they are helping? Thats what you are suggesting aren't you? - that Neeson should donate all of his salary to 93 families and he himself live like a bum in the streets! You are a dickhead if you think that is the case. Just because they run an NGO doesn't mean they can't be paid well for it. $100k salary for running a company that has revenues in excess of $8 million isn't extreme at all - in fact its low and I would suggest that all the people who donate to CCF wouldn't have any issues with paying Scott that salary considering the work he does. Seriously - where do you get these ridiculous ideals from? I earnt 3 times Scott's salary last year working for a private company - does that make me any different to Neeson just because I choose to work in the private industry and not the charity sector? All I can smell and see is stale piss, hatred and a lot of jealousy from a few bloggers who have failed in life and are looking to blame it on someone else. Pathetic!
ReplyDeleteYou don't read very well do you? Apparently missed some schooling also. I'm only suggesting that 93,000 tax free in Cambodia is a lot of money. He might well be able to SAVE more on 93,000 in Cambodia, than he could on a million in California.
DeleteScott, Alan, Team Neeson (Anonymous 12.11)
DeleteYou really should at least try to disguise your paranoia or, at least, hold off a few minutes before responding petulantly to comments about Neeson's wage. Neeson's wage is only a small component of what CCF spends on him - what with the first class air fares, the first class hotels, junkets to Western Australia for a photo op with the Dalai Lama, trips to Los Angeles to hob nob with celebrities etc.
CCF's own tax return for 2013 states that CCF spends $2,000 a year accommodating one child in residential care. And a further $2,000 a year per child on education. Both these figures are nonsense. The build of the $4,000 a year per child winds up...where does it wind up? Who knows, but certainly not helping the families of the kids - who get $250 worth of rice a year.
If CCF were truly transparent and accountable, Neeson would account for this $4,000 per year per child. If Neeson had any commitment at all to the precepts of transparency and accountability he would explain ho wit is that he tells sponsors and donors he is 'gifting' houses to poor Cambodians when World Housing is 'gifting' them to CCF.
Come on, Scott, show us how transparent and accountable you really are? Answer some questions and stop relying on your Trolls to shoot the messenger!
This is an interesting read
ReplyDelete# 118 Charity Navigator a scam
Dear Scott Neeson
How can you, with a straight face, declare that Charity Navigator has given the Cambodian Children’s Fund a 100% rating in the ‘transparency and accountability’ category!
CCF runs in a fog of secrecy. You never answer any questions at all – not just from me but from any journalists.
As you know, as I know, as anyone with an IQ over 100 can figure out for themselves, Charity Navigator is a scam. Comments critical of CCF are deleted almost immediately.
Does Charity Navigator charge CCF to delete negative comments? If so, what a wonderful way to squeeze money out of NGOs eager to be at the top of the pile and be able to publish ‘results’ such as those to be found above.
It is very easy to publish whatever lie you like on a social network site, as is the case on CCF’s Facebook page. It is also very easy, thanks to Google, for any lies launched into cyberspace to be found and exposed by anyone with the most basic of ‘Google-search’ skills.
It doesn’t take long, for instance, to find this from the Vancouver Sun last year:
“Neeson had been travelling in Asia in 2003 after leaving 20th Century Fox, where he had made more than 200 films in 10 years, including Titanic and Braveheart.”
This information would, no doubt, impress many a potential donor of sponsor.
“Scott Neeson has made 200 films! Wow!”
A little more Google research would reveal to potential donor of sponsor that you have not, in fact, made one film. You were involved in the marketing of Hollywood movies. Perhaps even 200 of them. A potential donor of sponsor might feel justified, at this point, to ask:
“If Mr Neeson plays fast and loose with the truth about the 200 films he has made, can I believe anything he says?”
The rest of this blog entry reads as follows:
Delete"A potential donor of sponsor, armed with a couple of typing fingers and with access to Google, could also learn from the internet that:
“…for every unit sold (by a construction company in Canada), a new 130-square-foot home worth $2,500 will be built in Steung Meanchey to house families who eke out a living on the garbage dump.”
Mmmm, very impressive. Canadian home builders donating houses to poor Cambodians who work in a rubbish dump.
Well, not quite. The homes given to CCF are not passed on to poor homeless Cambodians . CCF rents these homes to the families whose children are in CCF residential care. The land on which the houses are built belongs to you/CCF so there is no chance that these people will ever own them. They will, for as long as they live in them, have you as their landlord.
If potential sponsors and donors are vigilant, they might even stumble upon this blog and learn that perhaps not everything that appears in cyberspace about Scott Neeson and the Cambodian Children’s Fund is necessarily true. They would also discover that the guy writing the blog has been variously described as someone who hates Scott Neeson, is a wanker, a nutter, a cunt, a ‘looser’, a ‘kiddie fiddler’ a slug and many other unpleasant things. Maybe all or some of them are true?
In this new digital age our hypothetical potential donor or sponsor is free to read as much or as little as s/he likes of this blog and form an opinion about both the blogger and CCF. And, of course, yourself.
This is democracy in practice. Sometimes harsh, yes, but the aim of journalists and bloggers (and of course documentary filmmakers) is to hold people in positions of power accountable for how they wield that power. And it is up to other journalists, bloggers and filmmakers to hold each other accountable. (In this instance, me.)
This is the way the system works. Or should work. If I make statements here that are factually incorrect these should be pointed out to me and if I persist in making false statements I should be exposed as a liar. I should not be allowed to get away with it.
In practice the various Trolls that espouse your cause on this blog rarely, if ever, attack me on the basis that I have been factually incorrect and pointing out to me why. No, the abuse is almost always personal – the belief being, I guess, that if I can be discredited as (see list above), then all that I write becomes questionable.
This may work for some potential sponsors and donors but the more discerning ones and, I suspect, the ones with the deepest pockets, are going to look beyond the abuse to the facts. And, if they wish to be careful about which charity they give their money to, they will ask you questions. Lots of questions.
The Neeson Trolls tell me, often, that you are too busy a man to bother reading the nonsense I write here. You and I know that this is not true. The only way it could be true is if you simply refuse to open any email from me; if Bob Tufts (board member) refuses to open any email from me.
The tide of history is against you, Scott. In the not-too-distant future running an orphanage will not be seen as an asset but as a liability. OK, you don’t run an orphanage. You merely have 500 or 700 kids living in dormitories who have mums and dads. Call them what you will, these kids are effectively living as orphans and being presented to potential sponsors and donors as kids who would have no future if not rescued by you. Not true. You could be ‘rescuing’ entire families, revitalizing communities. This is the way of the future and it would be great if you could get on board. You clearly have the marketing skills to take CCF in a new direction and take your sponsors and donors with you."
Thinking about Neeson and the words "Pathological liar" and "serial liar" seem appropriate.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhy did you delete it Scott?
DeleteYou are such a pathetic troll you even respond to deleted comments.
DeleteHa Ha Ha Ha
Mr Neeson, if David Fletcher must by definition be guilty of rape because he had underage and illegal sex with a 15 year old girl in 1998, does tis mean that James Mc Cabe is guilty of drug offences in 2015 because he committed similar offences in 2002?
ReplyDeleteEither both men are entitled (as should all accused) to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty or both men must, by definition, be guilty of any offence in the future that is similar to the one they committed in the past.
You can't have it both ways.
To refresh your memory and those of other readers as to just who is it at CCF in charge of the protection of children:
THE AUSTRALIAN JUNE 03, 2008 12:00AM
A FORMER officer from Australia's top crime-fighting agency has pleaded guilty to stealing drugs in a bogus sting in 2002.
James Anthony McCabe, 39, was due to stand trial on armed robbery and drugs charges in the Sydney District Court.
He agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charge of robbery in company, with the drugs charges to be considered only as an aggravating factor when he is sentenced.
Crown prosecutor Ken McKay accepted his plea.
McCabe, a Victorian police officer on secondment to the National Crime Authority, was charged after a Police Integrity Commission investigation in 2004.
The PIC heard evidence from a number of former NCA informants that McCabe and his partner, former NSW police officer Samuel John Foster, set up drug deals and stole cash and drugs in phoney busts.
Foster and McCabe were investigating Asian organised crime for the NCA, now known as the Australian Crime Commission.
"The methodology involved was to arrange a purchase of prohibited drugs from a person known as a drug trafficker," facts tendered to the court state.
"As the deal was finalised, Foster would arrive with another person and pretend to arrest those present.
"Foster would then persuade the drug trafficker that his primary interest was in arresting (the informants) ... and he was prepared to ignore and go easy on the drug trafficker.
"On the basis that the loss of drugs was preferable to arrest, the drug trafficker would be willing to cut his losses and depart without the drugs or monies."
McCabe today admitted his role in one such bust, involving the theft of a "significant" quantity of methylamphetamine, or speed, in September 2002 from a dealer known only as APW1.
Foster and McCabe went with a number of informants to a location at Enfield, in Sydney's west, where a pre-arranged drug deal with APW1 was taking place.
According to the agreed facts presented to the court, the pair ambushed the deal, arrested their informant and sat APW1 in the gutter while they took the drugs from his car....
Was this a scam that Alan Lemon was involved in also or is that what was being investigated?
DeleteThis is why Neeson is criticised so much. You have a cunt like MCabe who used his power as a police officer to do robbery and sell drugs. What a fucking lowlife. And he is found guilty and does jail time but Neesons till hire him to run his CPOU and be around children. What a fantastic role model this cunt is. It doesn't make sense - did MCabe have something over Neeson perhaps. The plot thickens, someone has said Neeson visited Martini and walkabout bars on many occasions lockage for young girls and now he is forced to hire Mccabe - i smell a rat.
DeleteAnonomous 9/2 12:07 Never mind evidence as long as you smell.
Deletewhat more evidence do you need you fuckwit - McCabe is s fucking criminal who did jail time. What normal person would hire such a person if there wasnt more than meets the eye? Its idiots like you who give scambodia justification!
DeleteWhat more evidence do I need?
DeleteSome, you fuckwit.
I wouldn't bother trying to explain anything to NoExitLoveNow - he has already shown that he is one of Team Neeson's fools, most likely an employee or some closely joined associate who also benefits from the CCF scam.
DeleteWow, your smell must be a really strong smell if you can tell who I am without any evidence whatsoever. The conspiracy theorist delusions are really strong on this blog.
DeleteDear No Love, No Exit Now (aka Scott Neeson 2.18)
DeleteTime to come out of the closet and use your own name.
Part of being an investigative journalist is cross-referencing clues or triangulation of data. On top of this is the fact that your computer leaves an identifying trail leading back to the IP Address of the person making a comment. I would love to take credit for this recent discovery but I am a Luddite when it comes to computer and cyberspace. Fortunately, I now have someone at my side who is not. I would suggest, next time you write as NoExitLoveNow that you use a different computer to your own.
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you trying to threaten me in some way? Don't you have the ability to block me? If you don't like answering questions, just block me, leave my posts unanswered, or just admit that you aren't willing to answer questions.
DeleteYou will notice that the person to whom I was replying was actually using the screen name "Anonymous". I don't even know to which "Anonymous" I am responding.
The internet is a dangerous place and I am not willing to give my real name, but of course, as I have stated repeatedly to no avail, I am not Scott Neeson. The fact that you are so sure that I am says a lot about the quality of your reality testing ability.
Scott
DeleteWhy would I block you? Other than in very rare circumstances (clear defamation) I have blocked no-one. I have not blocked those on Team Neeson who clearly are threatening me - implying that you can do this or that to me by calling your friends in the government. For better or for worse, warts and all, you are I are both on naked display here. Readers can make up their minds about both of us - based on a good deal of evidence now.
What questions are you referring to when you write,"If you don't like answering questions."?
Ask me any question you like and I will answer it. I do, however, not being psychic, need to know what the questions are. Fire away.
It is you, Scott, who do not answer questions; who will go to great lengths to shoot the messenger rather than do so.
What are you on about IP addresses and suggesting I use a different computer? Why should that concern me?
DeleteNo, no reason for concern, Scott. Just answer some questions and take responsibility for them. Stop using Team Neeson Trolls as your proxys.
DeleteHow about using the internet you moron and you will find the evidence that McCabe went to jail. fucking retard!
ReplyDeleteI've heard that during the CPU police training, McCabe teaches ethics and integrity hahaha
ReplyDeleteDear Scott (aka NoExitLoveNow)
ReplyDeleteYou write, above:
"You are still saying you didn't get an answer regarding “Sokayn” (not her real name). You are still shamefully repeating the same lies without apology or retraction. Can you admit now that you lied and did in fact receive an answer regarding “Sokayn” Can you now apologize for lying when you said you didn't receive and answer regarding this girl? Can you retract and correct any allegations you have posted about her?"
For the benefit those readers who have no idea what you are talking about, (including myself) could you please point out what lies I have told about Sokayn and her family? If you quote what I said that was a lie, and if it is demonstrably so, I will retract it and apologise. However, it is difficult to do so if I do not know what lie you are referring to.
Dear Scott Neeson, Alan Lemon, James Mc Cabe
ReplyDeleteI have a few new questions for you. I doubt any of you will answer them. Transparency and accountability are totally absent from CCF’s operational modus operandi.
These are questions I hope the mainstream English language media in Cambodia (Cambodia Daily, Phnom Penh Post, Khmer Times) might at least ask:
(1) Is it true that a teenage girl living in one of CCF’s residential facilities became seriously ill but died because CCF refused to help her?
(2) Is it true that a young male resident in a CCF facility, upset by CCF’s refusal to assist this sick girl, complained to James Mc Cabe about it and was, shortly afterwards, kicked out of CCF?
(3) Is it true that this young man was told, by James Mc Cabe, that if he even stood out the front of CCF he would be arrested and jailed?
If this story is not true, Scott, Alan and James, you need only to respond with:
“This story is not true. No girl residing with CCF died under the circumstances you have described.”
There is more to this story. After the girl died in the Russian Hospital, CCF refused to allow her friends to attend the funeral. Afterwards, CCF did all it could to cover up the death. It is not talked about. Neeson, Mc Cabe and Lemon will not answer your questions, Mr Ricketson, and since no-one else is going to ask the death of this girl will be swept under the carpet like so many things at CCF.
DeleteMEMO:
DeleteTo:
James Ricketson and bona fide journalists
The Cambodian Children's Fund has recently kicked out a number of your men who could not abide by Mr Neeson's oppressive rules.
I understand that they are not very happy.
Now that they are no longer under the thumb of CCF they may be prepared to share some of their stories.
You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel now James. CCF is killing kids now. You need to see a shrink, mate. You are serious sick in the head.
DeleteAnonymous 7.14
DeleteIf this story is true, CCF has failed in its duty of care to the girl who died. The questions are legitimate. If no girl died under such circumstances Neeson can respond accordingly.
Anonymous 6.43pm - instead of sending this rumour driven comments to Ricketson and asking him to look into it, how about you produce the evidence yourself or go and speak to the people yourself. The reason neeson and CCF bare no scars from any of these comments is because no-one can produce any evidence. Its all gossip. So re the girl who died - does anyone have her picture, does anyone have a stamen from the family, does anyone have any statement or records from anyone at CF to prove she went there?. Re the men leaving CCF - does anyone have their names or addresses, does anyone have proof to show that they worked there.
ReplyDeleteAgree Anonymous 6.52. Ricketson is just a muck-raking rumour-mongering cunt who hates Scott Neeson because he has made something of his life. James fucking Ricketson is a has-been loser who hates everyone and is bitter about the world.
DeleteAnonymous 6.52
DeleteAs I mentioned above, if this story is just gossip, scuttlebutt, Neeson can say so. His silence could mean one of two things: (1) The 'gossip' is true or (2) Neeson does not respond to 'gossip'.
I would content that the death of a girl in CCF care is the kind og 'gossip' that is deserving of a response - even if Neeson hands responsibility of responding to one of his team of trolls.
I don't think that silence will work this time around.
Ricketson - you are delusional. Why should neeson say 'no' - its you and your bloggers who are making this shit up. Seriously, you are a fool. In your logic, you can just speak lies, create rumours and generally write false information about someone and its up to the person you are writing about to answer the questions. Sorry, but from where I come from that doesn't occur - what should happen is that you should be held accountable for the words you and your bloggers speak. If you can't provide real physical evidence 9and that doesn't mean what you think inside your little brain) then you should be made to pay heavily for the falsities that you write. One thing is for sure, if you were writing about me and my company in the way that you write about Neeson and CCF I would of taken it to court in many jurisdictions long ago.
DeleteAnonymous 8.05
DeleteNeeson can, if he so chooses, not respond at all to the questions I have put to him about the girl who died. He does not answer questions so this is more of less what I expect of him.
If the story has no substance, if no CCF girl died under the circumstances I have described, he and CCF are in the clear and there might be some validity to the proposition that I have just asked these questions to be, at the very least, a nuisance, and at the very worst to imply that CCF has failed in its duty of care to the girl.
As for your assertion, "if you were writing about me and my company in the way that you write about Neeson and CCF I would of taken it to court in many jurisdictions long ago," please provide one example from my blog where I have made a statement about Scott Neeson that is actionable?
If Scott wishes to use the Cambodian legal system to concoct an actionable charge (he could certainly afford to do so) this is his prerogative.
This 'dying girl' story is an old one. The girl was not in the care of CCF when she died. End of story.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately with the lies and spin from the Neeson camp, we can't believe a word you say. So the story is not over until the media investigates it. Where is the Cambodian media???
DeleteYou are a fucking idiot. How can we believe a dickhead keyboard warrior who posts anonymously, making accusations without a shred of evidence. Go back to your $1000 a month teaching job you clown.
DeleteWhen she died, she was in the car of the Russian Hospital, but she was a CCF. Girl.
DeleteDear Anonymous 8.24
DeleteThe story may be an old one but it is new to me.
I did not mention in my original questions that the girl had died in the Russian Hospital but, if the story is true, this is where I have been told she died. So you have heard the same story, it seems, to the one I have heard.
This, of course, does not make it true.
It certainly does seem that there was a girl who died at the Russian Hospital but whether or not she was a 'CCF girl' or not is the question. If she was, various questions arise. If she was not, CCF has no questions to answer.
Was she in CCF care before she died?
ReplyDeleteSo where is your evidence of this. I dont like Neeson but none of you can provide any evidence. Thick as bricks!
DeleteAnonymous 8.59
DeleteAnonymous 8.49 simply asked a question. S/he did not make an assertion.
My question is the similar:
Was the girl in CCF care shortly before she died?
If the girl that died was not in CCF care at any time, the answer from CCF is a simply one:
"No girl in CCF care has died."
Alternatively:
"A girl in CCF care became ill, was taken to hospital and died."
Either answer would suffice to end any and all speculation.
No girl at CCF has died whilst in our care.
DeleteNext rumour.
Was that because she was in the care of the Russian Hospital? Was she a CCF girl?
DeleteIn "OUR" care?? So is this Neeson, Lemon, or McCabe? I know that no one from CCF reads this blog......ha-ha!
DeleteAnonymous 10.29
DeleteAnyone could make such a statement. It is worthless unless it comes from Scott Neeson, James Mc Cabe or Alan Lemon.
You may or may not be one of these three. If you are, let me be a little more specific with my question:
"Did a teenage girl who was a resident at CCF get sick when she was visiting her family and die at the Russian Hospital?"
A 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice but will be useless, either way, if it does not carry any of your names.
The question has been answered. Done, finished!
DeleteAnonymous 10.49
DeleteThe question has been answered by someone who prefers to remain anonymous. It is meaningless.
Read my lips Ricketson you stupid cunt. No girl died. The story is bullshit. You made it up you fucking pathetic looser
DeleteRicketson is a pedophile. He associated with David Fletcher in the days when Fletcher was grooming children at the dump site. Rickets used Fletcher to get access to children where he was often seen with them sitting on his knee and in very close contact.
ReplyDeleteI spoke to two people yesterday from an organisation who said police were looking at Rickets activities involving children as one family who he had stalked and threatened to give him an interview had complained to the police.
It appears that Rickets isn't telling everyone the whole story.
Anonymous 9.04
DeleteI met David Fletcher in September 2014.
Two years prior to his arrest he was under investigation by at least four different bodies - being followed and photographed.
If I was often seen with children sitting on my knee it is highly likely that there is a photograph of this. At the very least, surely one of these investigative bodies, had they been doing their job properly, would have been aware of my activities (as you allege) and acted accordingly.
As for the police looking at my "activities involving children' I look forward to my interview with them when and if it occurs.
Given that Yang Dany and her mother were told they could receive $30,000 in compensation if they accused David Fletcher of rape, it would not come as a huge surprise if $30,000 were offered to a family to concoct a charge against me. I am not sure that this would be a wise move as it would draw to CCF precisely the attention it is seeking so hard to avoid.
Let the dice fall as they may.
hahaha I just posted some comments about the quality of people who are supporting Ricketson - the first being that cunt Robert Jamieson - and low and behold - Ricketson has deleted the post.
ReplyDeletePissing myself laughing how it is ok for Rickets and his motel crew to shtick good people and defame them but when some people start writing comments that exposes how shiny Rickets and his followers are - they deleted the posts.
Fucking pathetic group of no-hopers!
Dear Anonymous 9.57
DeleteIt doesn't take much to get yourself pissing with laughter, does it? Fortunately, there are nappies for grown men. Perhaps you should avail yourself of a packet to avoid embarrassment in social situations in which someone may crack a joke.
I have deleted no comments. If and when I do (and I have only done so a few times, when the comments were clearly defamatory) a note comes up to say that the comment has been deleted.
Post the comment again after you have changed your nappy.
No need Ricketson - Im off to play golf and enjoy my freedom - unlike your germ mate Fletcher - by the way, seeing you care about the slug so much, have you been going to prison on a daily basis and delivering him food and health care items? The answer is no - because your only interest in that cunt is igniting your blog.
DeleteEnjoy your golf, Anonymous 1.06. And your freedom.
DeleteNo, I don't go to the prison on a daily basis but reasonably often.
I have, however, been working quietly behind the scenes to secure him a fair trial so that he too, if he is found to be not guilty, can enjoy his freedom. I don't think Mr Fletcher cares too much for golf, though.
sory about girl true. girl die kmer new year. ccf not help. everybody know. many anger with ccf. mr cabe anger too. sad too much and no onealow to funeral girl
ReplyDeleteWhere is the press, where is the press, where is the press????
DeleteIn Neeson's pocket. In Neeson's pocket. In Neeson's pocket.
DeleteGood at attempt anon 11.22 to make a comment that looks like Khmer wrote it - fucking idiot! Produce the girls name and other details so someone can confirm if its true or not and not just make a baseless comment.
DeleteAnonymous 1.03
DeleteWe finally agree on something. The comment that seems, at first glance, might have been written by a Khmer person, feels fake to me.
I have, today, been asked by a journalist for evidence that a CCF girl actually died. What was her name? Without some evidence, without some facts, how could he ask Neeson any questions at all. In my response I included the following:
ReplyDelete“I spoke, two weeks ago to an 11 year old girl who attends CCF school for half a day and works in the dump the other half because CCF gives her family virtually no help at all. She needs to work in the dump to help feed her family. Meanwhile, Neeson is claiming it costs $2,000 a year to educate this girl. There are so many instances of this. (Your newspaper) went after Somaly Mam on the basis of much much less than is available on Neeson. If you don't ask questions, you will get no answers.
When I posted both a little film and wrote a blog entry about a family locked out of their house because they were $12.50 behind in their rent, no newspaper took up th story. Not one even showed the remotest interest. As it happens, it probably wouldn't have made much difference if you had because CCF heavied this poor man and wife and told them they had to retract what they had told me. As I write, it would not surprise me at all if Neeson is onto the family of the girl who died (and yes, the story is true) telling them what he will do for them if they retract the story that is well known to everyone within CCF; well known to the kids who Neeson refused to even allow attend her funeral.”
In this instance, regardless of whatever inducements might be made to the family of the girl who died, there are too many people who know about it for it to remain secret forever. There are only so many people who can be bought off!
I should add here that there is no suggestion that CCF caused the death of this girl. It is CCF’s response to her illness “We dont want to know!”, the covering up of her death, CCF’s refusal to allow her friends to attend her funeral and the threats made to a friend of the girl’s to keep his mouth shut that are of interest. Why? Because the image of CCF that Scott goes to great lengths to propagate (and he is very good at it) is quite different to the truth of what actually takes place within CCF, behind closed doors. I will be so bold (and I hope Scott sues me for articulating the idea) as to suggest that CCF’s way of controlling both recipients of its largesse and its staff is not unlike those employed by the Mafia: “Speak out and you will regret it.”
If ever there was a defamatory statement in this blog, there it is, Scott. Call your lawyers, start legal proceedings. See you in court.
Sue the cunt, Scott. Fuckign sue him. He is a fuckingt scumbag nuisance and needs to be got rid of. fuck him
ReplyDeleteTake th4 cunt out. Fucking bullet to the head os what he needs.Wy do you let hims in sult youlike this Szcott?
DeleteSadly James, I think what you say is true. So how can he Sue, let alone the dirt on CCF that would be exposed!!!
ReplyDeleteNeeson won't sue. He wants to keep a lid on CCF's modus operandi; not open it up for for the kind of scrutiny that would arise from my arrest. The Cambodian media wold find it hard not to report this and this, in turn, would lead a large audience/readership to my blog. This is the last thing Neeson wants.
DeleteI wouldn't count on it James. If Neeson feels cornered he will do what any cornered animal will do, use whatever weapon is at his disposal to protect himself. You will get no support from the Cambodian media. You know that, don't you?
DeleteIts not Neeson you need to worry about. Its James Mc Cabe. Read this transcript of Mc Cabe talking about what happens if people don't play the game he wants it played:
DeleteCHRIS MASTERS: You begin to see how dangerous these liaisons can be. On either side, divulging what you know could have fatal consequences. Here James McCabe revealed to another police officer an apparent willingness to play tough with informants.
TELEPHONE INTERCEPT, McCABE: There's no fucking doubt in the world he's been thinkin' of doing a runner prior to taping up.
MAN: Yep.
McCABE: But he, once I had him on tape as we all know, even when we gig up, you know, when I, when I meet him sometimes I wear a wire. The fact is, all I gotta do is play that tape to the wrong fuckin' crowd and he's a dead man anyway.
HE'S A DEAD MANY ANYWAY!
And this guy, James Mc Cabe, a convicted criminal prepared to be complicit in the death of someone who does not play the game his way, is heading up Neesons Child Protection Unit.
Watch your back, Mr Ricketson. Mc Cabe is dangerous.
Mc Cabe is just another one of Neeson's great management decisions! I think he should have tried to graduate from high school.
DeletemcCabe isn't dangerous - he is a fucking goose! - a few people around town starting to talk about how he has ripped them from his so called 24-assist business - which is run by another quality expat - ben Brett - he has had more business ventures than Donald Trump. Isn't cambodia wonderful - it is home to so many bottom feeders
ReplyDeleteFuck, I googled Mc Cabe. He's a rascal isn't he! Check this out
ReplyDelete"James Anthony McCabe, 39, was due to stand trial on armed robbery and drugs charges in the Sydney District Court. He agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charge of robbery in company, with the drugs charges to be considered only as an aggravating factor when he is sentenced…McCabe and his partner, former NSW police officer Samuel John Foster, set up drug deals and stole cash and drugs in phoney busts. Foster and McCabe were investigating Asian organised crime for the NCA, now known as the Australian Crime Commission. "The methodology involved was to arrange a purchase of prohibited drugs from a person known as a drug trafficker," facts tendered to the court state. "As the deal was finalised, Foster would arrive with another person and pretend to arrest those present. "Foster would then persuade the drug trafficker that his primary interest was in arresting (the informants) ... and he was prepared to ignore and go easy on the drug trafficker. "On the basis that the loss of drugs was preferable to arrest, the drug trafficker would be willing to cut his losses and depart without the drugs or monies." McCabe today admitted his role in one such bust, involving the theft of a "significant" quantity of methylamphetamine…”
McCabe goes around telling everyone that is was just a misunderstanding and he got caught up in it. Funny how he refused to go back to australia to answer the misunderstanding and then Hun sen had to kick him out of the country and then he went to jail for 4 year for a misunderstanding. I have been told that mace is not allowed to meet with donors and anyone of importance relating the CPU and for a guy who Neeson thinks is the best person for the job he isn't showcased very well - I wonder why - Neeson must be so proud in telling everyone that Mcabe is so good that he hides him. What a quality outfit this ccf mob are
ReplyDeleteIf you want to read in some detail just how it was that Mc Cabe got caught up in his little 'misunderstanding check this out:
Deletehttp://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2004/s1131829.htm
Lots of interesting stuff to be found with google. This is from just a year ago, about Scott Neeson’s latest recruit:
ReplyDelete"Kevin Tutt left his job as principal of the private Prince Alfred College in Adelaide to move to Phnom Penh and immerse himself in these kinds of problems. A few months ago he became head of teaching and learning at the Cambodian Children’s Fund, accepting a steep pay cut. Divorced with three adult children, and a friend of Cox’s, he too admires Neeson’s determination. “Scott struck me as an incredible visionary, a deeply compassionate man with an enormous commitment to the kids of Steung Meanchey,” Tutt says...."
Whatever happened to Kevin Tutt? Its an open secret in Phnom Penh that he and Neeson had a major falling out and Tutt left after a few months? Did Tutt resign or was he sacked?
When is someone going to take James fucking Ricketson into a back alley and kill the cunt?
ReplyDeleteThat an article questioning the wisdom of building Neeson Cripps could give rise to so much vitriol says a lot about a sector (hopefully small) of expatriates living and/or working in Cambodia. If you think Neeson Cripps is a good idea, argue in favour of it. There are some good arguments that could be made for why the new Academy is preferable to building schools in villages but no-one seems to be interested in making such an argument!?
Delete