Thursday, April 7, 2016

# 189 "Daddy give everyone a wonderful life in CCF" Scott Neeson self-promotion!

Dear members of the Phnom Penh Post staff


I tried to write to a few of the journalists amongst you but the PPP server bounced them. The powers that be at the PPP do not want me to communicate with any of you by email.

How do you all feel about the Phnom Penh Post providing Scott Neeson and the Cambodian Children’s Fund with free public relations material?

How do you feel about having, as part owner of the Post, a man who insists that PPP journalists, only write positive stories about him and his NGO?


“Since 2007, the Post (has) faced constant turmoil and criticism from many of its excellent journalists on staff who protested the degrading of a once impenetrable iron curtain that, prior to Dunkley, never compromised the integrity and fearless editorial independence from the many vested, often corrupt, moneyed interests in Cambodia, including the ruling dictatorship in political power.”

Nate Thayer

You might like to ask Sue Townsend, friend and associate of Scott Neeson and a member of the wealthy Australian family that co-owns the newspaper, if it is true that she and Scott must now pump $50,000 a month into the PPP in order to keep the ailing newspaper afloat? If so, and if Scott Neeson owns 50% of the PPP, does this mean he is pumping $25,000 a month into the newspaper to pay your salaries? If so, where does this money come from? Donations given to CCF to help impoverished families in Steung Meanchey?

Sue Townsend & Dalai Lama

How do you feel about not being able to ask any questions about Scott Neeson’s World Housing initiative? Like, “Who owns the land upon which the houses ‘gifted’ to poor families have been erected? Scott Neeson himself?  Country Manager Kram Sok Channoeurn? Do you find it annoying (to say the least!)  not being able publish whatever your research might uncover about World Housing or many of the other CCF initiatives that raise both ethical and legal questions – like the removal of 700+ children from their families, to be brought up in what is, in effect, an orphanage?  An orphanage in which children with real fathers are encouraged to call Scott Neeson ‘Daddy’. (That Neeson should boast of his ‘Daddy’ status on his Facebook page speaks volumes of how insensitive he is; how out of touch with reality!)

“Once Dunkley compromised the Post's integrity by cutting sweet advertising deals in exchange for fawning coverage, employed corrupt journalists who subordinated the independence of their news stories for personal financial gain and access, muddied the previously clear line between the advertising department and the newsroom, and undermined the reputation of a free press in Phnom Penh by offering little different than the already available questionable news fare in Cambodia, it has been a decidedly uphill slog to recover.”

Nate Thayer

Do you approve of the ‘fawning coverage’ the Post gives to Neeson? Supposedly news stories that are really little more than advertisements for Neeson, CCF and the CPU?

CCF net assets 2014, US$11.5 million

With the Maha Songkran holiday just 6 days away wouldn’t you like to ask Scott Neeson why he has told the 700+ children in residential care that there will be no balloons, no decorations, this year because CCF can’t afford them?

“Scott, at the end of 2014 CCF had $14 million in assets, $3 million in cash! How is it that CCF can’t afford to buy balloons for the kids this year!”

 (Upon reading this I imagine that Scott will send out for balloons and other decorations so that one of his Trolls can write, “Wrong, Rickets. The kids will get their balloons as always.” Mind you, the words ‘loser’, ‘jealous’, ‘moron’ and other colourful epithets will be used as Scott tries, yet again, to shoot the messenger.)


Of course there are many other questions. Like:

“How much did Scott Neeson and Sue Townsend pay for their photo opportunity with the Dalai Lama?”

Scott Neeson, Dalai Lama & Sue Townsend

And

“Who is the teenage girl in the arms of a man more than twice her age? Is she a CCF girl? Is Scott her ‘daddy’?”

Daddy!?

And countless more to be found in this blog.

I do not know the answers to these questions. Scott Neeson does not answer questions from me as a matter of principle. Perhaps if a delegation of journalists from the PPP were to ask him some of them he would answer. And if he does not, that is your story. And if the PPP will not publish it because Scott Neeson is part owner of the newspaper, that makes the story all the more important to be told if you value your independence and integrity.

My suggestion:

The next time Chad Williams asks any of you to re-write a Scott Neeson press release and make it seem like a news story, say ‘no’. Tell Chad Williams that you want to write about World Housing, about why it is, with millions of dollars in assets, Scott has announced that there will be no balloons this year for the CCF kids!

'Salaries' $3.7 million! 'Other Expenses' $4.6 million!


When Neeson’s House of Cards collapses under the sheer weight of his lies there will be a lot of people with egg on their faces – including journalists who, on instructions from Neeson himself (via Chris Dawe and Chad Williams), failed to ask the right questions or, having asked them, failed to publish what they discovered.  Declaring, at some time in the future (and it may be soon), “I had no idea that the World Housing initiative was a scam” will not wash. Claiming that you were just doing as you were told will not absolve you of your ethical responsibilities as journalists.










62 comments:

  1. So on top of being a liar and a thief, he brainwashes the children into believing that he is their DADDY, then denies the children in his care the simple pleasures of celebrating the New Year, while he sits on millions of dollars in donated funds??? WTF kind of monster is this?? How can he have any credibility with a normal, thinking person?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. my dear, if you were either normal or thinking, you wouldn't be commenting. you believe without thinking or researching.

      Delete
  2. I think he had $6.1 million in cash or cash equivalents (bank CDs).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yet more lies from sad old Rickets, the lord of hate and pestering to somehow be significant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He isn't lying, he is obviously pulling data from a chart of Neeson's. Maybe Neeson is lying?? Neeson can hardly tell the truth....EVER!!

      Delete
  4. So the question that raises it's ugly head: is Neeson a drug addict or is he mentally deranged?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm not that good with maths but even an idiot can see from these figures that around one third of all money given to the Cambodian Children's Fund in 2014 was spent on salaries - $3.7 million out of $11.1 million.

    OK, so there are a few expats working for CCF and lots of Cambodians but it would sure be helpful to know how much of this $3.7 million was going to Neeson, Mc Cabe, Lemon and other white skinned men and women and how much was going to Khmer men and women. Perhaps, if you are reading this Neeson, Mc Cabe or Lemon, you'd like to fill us in?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As with the poster above, I’m not much good at maths either but am very curious to know how it works as far as CCF salaries are concerned.

      Let’s presume that Neeson, Mc Cabe and Lemon earn around $100,000 a year each.

      That’s $300,000 of the $3.7 million salaries bill accounted for.

      Let’s say that there are 5 other expats working for CCF earning $80,000 a year.

      That’s another $400,000 of the salaries bill accounted for.

      This leaves us with $3 million in salaries to be accounted for.

      Now, let’s just say that Scott is very generous and pays his Khmer staff $4,000 a year.

      CCF could afford to pay 750 Khmer staff members $4,000 a year and the salaries bill would be accounted for, all $3.7 million of it.

      I think it highly unlikely that CCF is paying staff $4,000 a year. Probably more like $2,000 a year. If so, CCF could employ 1,500 Khmer staff members to take care of 700 kids. Two staff members for each boy or girl in residential care.

      These are just ballpark figures, of course, but they reveal that in order for anyone (sponsors and donors in particular) to know if CCF monies are being well spent there needs to be a breakdown of the wages of non-Khmer staff and Khmer staff. How much do CCF teachers earn, for instance? How many such teachers are there given that most of the CCF kids are educated in free government schools.

      How much does Country Manager Kram Sok Channoeurnearn? How much do the 15 or so members of her family working for CCF earn each?

      The figures posted by CCF are more misleading than illuminating; give rise to a whole host of questions. For instance, what does ‘Other Expenses” of $4,653,865 refer to? That’s one big lump of money to put into a category titled ‘Other Expenses’!

      And what does ‘Program Service’ refer to? $73,349? Is this the mount of money spent on ‘rice support’ and helping out CCF’s ‘grannies’. Whatever it is, it is but a fraction of the salaries bill and raises the question: “Is CCF’s top priority ‘salaries’ or the provision of ‘services’?

      ....more to follow...

      Delete
    2. ....

      A little more ballpark maths.

      $3.7 million (salaries) + $4.6 million (other expenses) = $8.3 million

      CCF claims to be taking care of (in one way or another) 2,000 children. All but 700 or so live with their families but, for the sake of the ballpark maths, lets divide $8.3 million by 2,000.

      $4,150 per child. Imagine what the family of this child could do with $4,150 each year?

      I imagine that there are journalists at the Phnom Penh Post who would just love to ask the kinds of questions I am asking here. I imagine that it must be frustrating for them to be muzzled by Chad Williams (editor) and Chris Dawe (publisher)?

      Mind you, I don’t envy either Chad or Chris? What choice do they have but to muzzle their journalists if Sue Townsend’s family has entered into an arrangement with Scott Neeson NOT to have such questions asked; not to have any other articles written about Neeson and CCF other than those written by Neeson’s PR person, to be cut and pasted to create the illusion of ‘news’.

      Neeson’s latest PR person has left the CCF fold recently. His wage: $75,000 a year! Not a bad wage in Cambodia when your main task is to make Neeson look as good as possible and to keep both sponsors and donors convinced that their money is being well spent. (How much do all those Facebook sponsored ads cost? Of cute kids? Of Neeson with cute kids? Of Neeson announcing that he is going to receive an award?)

      Another question arises: “If Neeson, can use his money (donor and sponsor money, actually) to influence the Post’s editorial policy, are others with a lot of money (individuals and organisations) able to do likewise? If so, how many others are there? How much of what we read in the Post is actual news and how much is the news that certain vested interests wish to be published? How much news that should be published in the Phnom Penh Post is not published, because this would upset these vested interests?

      Michael Hayes would be rolling in his grave if he were dead. Given that he is not dead it must be disheartening for him off to see the newspaper he founded and put so much effort into publishing, without fear or favour to anyone, (including the government) be compromised in the way it has been.

      Delete
  6. And I came across this. Relevant to the topic under discussion here:

    Cambodian Activist’s Fall Exposes Broad Deception

    By THOMAS FULLERJUNE 14, 2014

    PHNOM PENH, Cambodia — The fall from grace of one of Cambodia’s most prominent social activists and the unraveling of her sad tale of being an orphan sold into sex slavery has highlighted what aid workers here say is widespread embellishment and in some cases outright deception in fund-raising, especially among the country’s orphanages.
    Somaly Mam, who rose from rural poverty in Cambodia to become a jet-setting and glamorous symbol of the fight against the exploitation of women and children, stepped down last month from the United States-based charitable organization that carries her name after details of her widely publicized story were thrown into question.
    Ms. Mam — who has been praised and supported by Hollywood stars and United States government officials and celebrated by the American media — reinforced the image of Cambodia as a destitute country still suffering from its legacy of genocide, helping generate millions of dollars for charities.
    But activists say her story is part of a larger tale of deception meant to attract foreign money into impoverished Cambodia. Such duplicity, they say, has drawn some foreign donors into unwittingly perpetuating a system that keeps thousands of poor children with parents in orphanages for years.
    Although some families send children because they cannot provide basic care, others are lured by the institutions’ promises that the children will receive a better education. But child advocates say the orphanages are often more intent on making money and too rarely make good on their promises.
    S├ębastien Marot, the director of Friends International, a charity that specializes in helping children in Cambodia and neighboring countries, said the organizations misrepresented themselves as orphanages because it helped them raise money. “An orphanage is an easy sell,” he said. “They are distorting reality so that they can attract more compassion and money.”

    to be continued

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A government study conducted five years ago found that 77 percent of children living in Cambodia’s orphanages had at least one parent.
      Continue reading the main story
      Advertisement
      Continue reading the main story


      The empathy of foreigners — who not only deliver contributions, but also sometimes open their own institutions — helped create a glut of orphanages, according to aid workers, and the government says they now house more than 11,000 children. Although some of the orphanages are clean and well-managed, many are decrepit and, according to the United Nations, leave children susceptible to sexual abuse.
      “The number of orphans has been going down and the number of orphanages going up,” said Sarah Chhin, who helps run an organization that encourages children in orphanages who have families to return home. “We are forever having people say, ‘I’ve come to Cambodia because I want to open an orphanage.’ ”
      A United Nations report three years ago said some orphanages “exploit the problem of poverty by actively recruiting children in poor families by convincing, coercing or even paying parents to give their children away.”
      In many cases, human rights activists say, the children are ordered to pose as orphans to attract foreign donations.
      “Pity is a most dangerous emotion,” said Ou Virak, the founder of a human rights organization in Phnom Penh. “Cambodia needs to get out of the beggar mentality. And foreigners need to stop reacting to pure emotion.”

      to be continued

      Delete
  7. Hong Theary, a 22-year-old university student who spent more than four years in an orphanage in Phnom Penh, says she was one of those forced to lie and beg for donations from foreigners, although she comes from what she calls a “happy family” of rice farmers. Her parents sent her to the orphanage thinking she would get better schooling.

    “It was a waste of time — I didn’t get anything out of it,” Ms. Theary said of the orphanage, which has since shut down. “The only person who benefited was the owner.” The head of the orphanage instructed her to take on a Canadian couple as “adoptive parents.”
    “I regret that I did not tell them the truth,” Ms. Theary said of the Canadians, who visited Phnom Penh a number of times and gave financial support that ended up with the orphanage director. “They were always good to me.”
    For a time, Ms. Mam was considered the country’s most famous orphan. She wrote an autobiography that described her as an orphan trafficked into sexual slavery, and she was often described in heroic terms in the American news media, including in columns by Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times. Mr. Kristof wrote in a recent blog post that given the doubts the recent revelations raised for him, he wished he had never written about her.
    Her accounts were called into question last month in a report in Newsweek that quoted childhood friends and local government officials from Ms. Mam’s native village disputing her story of orphanhood and teenage sexual slavery. The report also quoted a woman who said her own story of sex slavery was “fabricated and carefully rehearsed for the cameras under Mam’s instruction.”
    Ms. Mam stepped down last month from the American foundation, which is dedicated to eradicating the trafficking of women and girls in Southeast Asia, after the organization received the results of its own investigation by a law firm. The foundation now plans to change its name. Ms. Mam stands by her account.

    to be continued

    ReplyDelete
  8. Did the kids get their balloons?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 3:15, do you mean did Neeson awaken from his methamphetamine stupor (after Ricketson pointed out the idiocracy of Neeson's actions) that he was a total and complete a-hole for denying the children that he has stolen from families, the happiness of the New Year, by depriving them of the few dollars it would take to buy balloons?? Not trying to put words in your mouth.

      Delete
  9. Is it fair to characterize Neeson as a drug abusing, high school drop out who is a control freak? Are all of his employees forced to sigh non-disclosure agreements?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Is the Cambodia Daily newspaper willing to print the truth about Neeson, or is he paying them off, too? There should be some newspaper interested enough in investigative journalism to review the facts about Neeson.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The plot thickens. Contrary to the claims of the anonymous creep that claimed to have seen your arrest warrant at court and heard that several NGO want to sue you for defamation James Ricketson has not been arrested, charged with defamation or similar by any of these CCF Supporters incl. the Media. This brings me to the conclusion that when the CCF Bubble finally bursts it will be a big mess, perhaps a mini version of the current Panama Scandal ? I really admire Ricketson for his persistence. Keep going James !

    ReplyDelete
  12. What wonderful role models the children have! A drug abuser that they are supposed to call 'Dad', a confessed drug dealer who violated his trust with all Australians and another disgraced ex-policeman whose ex-girlfriend ran a hostess bar (dumped Lemon, married a Nigerian and had a baby with). You can't make this stuff up!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. How does Scott Neeson manage to convince billionaires like Gina Rinehart and millionaires like Sue Townsend to pour money into his many scams?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like most donors, they are nieve and never scratch below the surface.

      Delete
  14. One of Neeson's tricks, a few years ago, when he had visitors like Sue Townsend or Gina Rinehart, was to take them to a class full of kids and have someone tell them, in Khmer, that he was going to give an extra bowl of noodles to one of the kids in the classroom. This would lead to them all jumping up and down to get Scott's attention, shouting out to him with their happiest smiles. To someone who did not know what was going on ( Sue and Gina) it would appear that they loved Scott and were excited to see him. Smoke and mirrors. Show biz.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yes 8.58 AM.. Where is the only Cambodian Newspaper that I had some respect for "The Cambodian Daily" on the rights of children and their families in Cambodia ? Have you just thrown them into the too hard basket ?
    Or are you like the Phnom Penh Post ? and have an obligation to the corrupt NGOs Like CCF and APLE and so are required to do what is required by them , never to print the truth ? Only print what will be acceptable to them ?
    Does your company policy .." Without fear or favor " really mean something or is it just a marketing gimmick , just another lie in Cambodia ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ 8.51 & 6.19

      I talked with former Cambodia Daily journalist in 2014 who told me that the Daily would never publish anything negative about Scott Neeson or the Cambodian Children's Fund. He did not explain why. he is not longer a former Daily journalist but is working for the newspaper again. The next time I see him I will be asking him WTF! WIth the Phnom Penh Post, the Khmer Times and Khmer440 all in Neeson's pocket and the daily self-censoring there is no way that Neeson's scams are ever going to see the light of day.

      Delete
    2. To Mr Bernard Krishner ,
      Publisher of The Cambodian Daily
      There are very serious question being asked here and they relates to your OWN and your Editors honesty and integrity and and your duty as the senior executives of a major newspaper in Cambodia .
      The question .. is The Cambodian Daily beholden to Scot Neeson and CCF or any other NGO ?
      Is the journalistic integrity of your paper for sale ?
      It has been said that you will not print anything negative about CCF ; WHY ?
      The points raised by the post 8.58 AM and others on this blog about CCF and refer to crimes against Families , children and serious fraud that amounts to millions of dollars .
      " Evil exists when good men do nothing "
      Does The Cambodian Daily really print
      "The news without fear or favor " ?




      Delete
    3. I too wonder why it is that the Cambodia Daily avoids looking at any of Scott Neeson's scams - the most notable and obvious one being the World Housing scam.

      Delete
  16. RICKETS YOUR A CUNT. SCOTT NEESON HAS MADE A DIGGERENCE BUT YOUVE DONE FUCK ALL BUT MAKE TROUBLE BECAUDE YOUR JEALOUS OF JIM. BECAUSE YOUR A LOOSER YOU JUST WNAT TO CUT DOWN TALL POPPIES FUCK YOU AND FUCK ALL YOUR COCKSUCKER FOLLOWERD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Team Neeson Troll (aka Anonymous 2.20)

      Are you the new person at CCF " in charge of connecting CCF with the world, whether it be through websites, photos, videos, blogs, social media." If so, I suggest that you only do so when sober. Or, if you must write when intoxicated, at least check your spelling before you press the 'publish' button.

      Delete
  17. Anon , 2.30 Sounds like we have hit a raw nerve !
    You are so drunk again , why ?
    are you so stressed that the truth is coming out ?
    I sincerely suggest that you seek help for your alcoholic dependence .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Truth is not popular with Scott Neeson or Team Neeson!!

      Delete
    2. Yes, Anon 4.56

      It is very hard to keep secrets in this new digital world we live in. The truth has a tendency to slip out eventually - regardless of the many attempts (including non-disclosure clauses in contracts) by Neeson and his Team to massage and manipulate the truth.

      Delete
  18. I reckon Bernard Krishner has doen the same deal with the Daily that Bill Clough has done with the Phnom Penh Post - not to write anything bad about Saint Scott! How about it, Bernie, why not let your journalists off their leash?

    ReplyDelete
  19. The Cambodian Daily chief executives are aware of the comments made here by Anon' 9.35 AM April 11th,
    yet their defence is silence! within legal parameters silence can be construed as an inference of guilt .
    All they have to say is that their is no truth in the claim that they have sold out their journalistic integrity to Scot Neeson and APLE .
    Silence is adopted by the guilty and the cowardly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I agree totally with you regarding The Cambodian Daily
      The Phnom Penh Post too over a very long time and more so since Chris Dawe and Chad Williams have been at the helm have been complicit in crooked journalism .

      There have been many instances shown on this blog and and in other media of the lies and criminal corruption committed by APLE and their executives , Thierry Darnaudet, and Samleang Siela , Scot Neeson and CCF.

      The former APLE Country Director Katherine Keane openly admitted that she could no longer print the lies that were fed to her and she could not live with her conscience any longer so she was forced to resign.
      James Ricketson and some others have shown documents highlighting the fraud committed by Scot Neeson and the illegal removal of children from their families .
      In any other law abiding democracy you would be exposed for criminal collusion , lose your license to operate and bring shame on yourselves and the Profession of Journalism.
      Chris Dawe and Chad Williams you are guilty of allowing the criminal acts of APLE and CCF to flourish and by doing so, allowing more human suffering and injustice to continue .
      You as publishers and journalists are as complicit as APLE AND CCF even more so as you have the power and duty to stop it.
      This suffering and injustice is the human tragedy that is like a cancer in in Cambodia .
      Unlike Katherin Keane you have no conscience .

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous 7.46

      Somewhat reluctantly I have come ti the conclusion that the print media in Cambodia (all of it) has been corrupted by Neeson's money and that there is no newspaper that can afford (and I mean this in every sense of the word) to write anything negative about either him or his NGO.

      I there were any journalist, any newspaper, with the balls to do so, they would ask (but one of many questions) if Neeson is the owner of BLACK BAMBOOO or of the long term lease on the property on which the restaurant rests. They would ask if it is true that Neeson paid $300,000 to have the building renovated and if this $300,000 was Neeson's own money or money that had been given to him by sponsors and donors to help impoverished families?

      Add this tithe list of questions you are not allowed to ask, Phnom Penh Post journalists, because Neeson is, in a financial sense at lest, your boss. Co-boss.

      If the restrictions placed on you as journalists by Neeson annoys you, offends your personal sense of journalistic integrity, why not, collectively, defy Chad Williams, Chris Dawe (two journalistic and publishing harlots) and refuse to publish his PR press releases as news and insist on being free to explore and report on his activities without fear or favour. What are Chad and Chris going to do? Fre all of you to appease Neeson? I doubt it.

      Stand up to Neeson, Dawe and Williams. Refuse to be journalistic lackeys. Most of you do very good work as journalists. Don't let it be compromised by Neeson's money.

      Delete
  20. Dear Phnom Penh Post journalists

    The PPP server rejects emails from me but I hope that some of you get to read this here.

    I have been approached by some very wealthy Australians (mining magnates) who are interested in investing in a state-of-the art orphanage. They are aware of the sensitivities surrounding the word 'orphan' so do not want this word to appear anywhere in the media.

    Their concern is with providing vulnerable children from impoverished backgrounds with a decent education, healthy food, and accomodation of the kind that their parents cannot provide them with, living on or below the poverty line.

    It is to be hoped that in the fullness of time the children that pass through this yet to be named NGO will become tomorrow's leaders - in both politics and business. The public relations firm whose services have been engaged have indicated that this 'leaders angle' will be one of the strong selling points of the NGO.

    The wealthy founders of this ground-breaking initiative wish to be sure that it receives the publicity it deserves when the NGO is launched in the near future. To that end they are wondering how much it would cost to have favourable articles about it published in the Phnom Penh Post? Actually, there would be no need for Post journalists to write articles about the NGO. There are competent pubic relations personnel on hand to write the articles. These would then be forwarded to the Post and one of you could be given the task, by the Editor, of cutting and pasting it so that it does not read like a public relations press release but appears to be 'news'.

    For these wealthy patrons money is no object but they do wish to keep costs down as much as possible and are wondering if, in achieving the objective outlined here, they would need to pay by the word or by the article? And, in return for this service, would you journalists receive any 'bonus' or would publishers of the Phnom Penh Post view this service rendered as merely one part of your journalistic duties?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am hopeful that you are joking James. Why would anyone smarter than a worm, want to take children from their families??

      Delete
    2. Anon '12.30 AM .. It seams your powers of deduction are not very good , Scot Neeson uses the children as a product to draw millions of dollars in donations , WHERE THOSE DONATIONS GO ? Is the question you should ask !

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous 12.30

      Yes, I am joking.

      The answer to your "Why would anyone smarter than a worm, want to take children from their families" question is two-fold:

      (1) Because they believe that Khmer children are better off growing up in an institution ('orphanage') than with their families and

      (2) Because there is sponsor and donor money to be harvested by an NGO in 'rescuing' children who are 'orphans' that cannot be harvested with 'help the family' and 'help the child's community' PR initiatives.

      Delete
    4. Then harming the children is of no consequence to Scott Neeson??

      Delete
    5. Absolutely of no consequence , this is the man who stole houses bought by sponsors money , same sponsors were told they would be given to poor families . Scott's publicty machine then shows the houses "he has given tho the families" ?
      he then rents them back to the families under strict conditions,example ,if the get a little behind in their rent they are locked out and no relatives allowed to visit .

      Delete
    6. He's a fraud. The evidence is clear. He has two crooked ex-cops working for him and has silenced the media and human rights groups with his money. Neeson is corrupt and all those who support him are corrupt. Even if they support him by saying nothing about his scam they are corrupt. Poor Cambodia to have such a group of unprincipled and criminal people in the county to help them. Disgusting.

      Delete
  21. Neeson has spent years building walls around his charity empire. Complete with foot soldiers that include ex-Australian police officers . One which spent time in jail for drug ripoffs and drug dealing. Holding guns to the heads of dealers and unloading them of their drugs and cash. The other ex-cop who was also a former prison warden was basically kicked out of the force for being a security threat and his association for hanging out with his best buddy McCabe.

    There are lots of journalists and NGOs who are onto Neeson who want the truth told and these bastards exposed and James Ricketson is the only one who is single handledly taking them on here . They do their best to smear Ricketsons name. But we know the truths and they are told right here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have had my doubts about the Phnom Penh Post for a few years now - wondering how skewed the 'news' was to serve the needs of vested interests. It was just a gut feeling but it grew with time - especially when it became obvious that Neeson was using the Post for his own self-agrandisement; to help build the myth he has been creating about himself for years now. As part owner of the Post he has been able to get away with it. My concern now, and I suspect that it is the concern of many a Post reader, is to what extent anything read in the newspaper can be accepted as 'the truth' (insofar as journalists are ever able to achieve this goal) and to what extent 'the news' has been modified by whoever (or whatever organisation) has paid for the service. I am sure that Chad Williams, Chris Dawe and Bill Clough will be offended by this suggestion. However, if this influencing of editorial policy to please Neeson has occurred (as it obviously has) why not to please others who have the cash to pay for the service?

      Delete
  22. So Neeson pays families for their children in small cash loans and rice. $250 in rice aid for the average family each year, despite his taking in more than $1,500 per child each year from sponsors.In return he receives unlimited access to their children. With signed contracts giving him more rights than their own mothers and fathers. Contracts that are kept secret – even from the parents. Filling his accounts with an endless supply of donations. He further exploits the children by having them calling him ‘daddy’. This is not only creepy but hugely damaging to every child and family this NGO comes in contact with. And the human rights people say nothing. And the media says nothing. What part of his deranged mindset thinks that such actions are creating tomorrow's leaders. just another example of westerners like Neeson coming to Cambodia living in fantasyland

    ReplyDelete
  23. It is not just the Phnom Penh Post that has made a fool of itself by selling out to Neeson. it is all the media who give Neeson a free run despite all the evidence that has mounted up of his scams. Somaly Mam's lies were chicken shit alongside Neeson's whoppers. Isn[t there just one journalist with the balls to go after Neeson and resign in protest if their editor refuses to publish what they write because of some deal that has been struck with him?

    ReplyDelete
  24. @ Anonymous 3.11

    There are some very good journalists at the Post who are not at all happy that Scott Neeson is part owner of the newspaper they work for. They are committed to good journalism and do not want anyone - not Neeson or any other person with deep pockets - to be influencing the editorial policy of the newspaper. They are caught between a rock and a hard place. They love their jobs. They need their jobs. They have no choice other than obeying the rules of the gamed as laid out by Bill Clough and Scott Neeson. It is the same, on a larger scale, with Rupert Murdoch. This is the reality of the situation PPP journalists are confronted by so give them a break, Mr Ricketson, and try to see their situation from their point of view.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then they are cowards that lie to their readers. They are not journalists or reporters. Bury them Ricketson! They have sold their soul to Neeson's lies!!

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous 1.06

      If I were a journalist working for the Phnom Penh Post who loved my job, believed in quality journalism and valued my journalistic integrity and was confronted with a part-owner interfering with editorial policy I would refuse, as a matter of principle, to write PR for Neeson. I would gather together all the other journalists who felt the same way and, en masse, confront Chad Williams and Chris Dawe with an ultimatum: "None of us are going to write public relations material for Scott Neeson or do cut and paste jobs on press releases he sends to PPP and asks to be turned into news."

      What are Chad and Chris going to do? Fire a whole lot of journalists? (Imagine the bad publicity for PPP!) Or, deliver an ultimatum to Scott Neeson: "You may be part owner of the newspaper but this does not give you the right to have any influence at all over what is published and what is not published in the Post." What is Neeson going to do? Fire Chad Williams and Christ Dawe?

      If journalists, Chad and Chris all object to having the newspaper's freedom to publish what it likes, Neeson will have to cave in. The negative publicity attending his demand for editorial control would destroy whatever small amount of credibility he has.

      Call Neeson's bluff. He'll huff and he'll puff and he'll threaten to blown your house down but he is all hot air - about as substantial as the house of cards he has built and which goes by the name of the Cambodian Children's Fund.

      Delete
    3. Of course you would James, but you have balls. These other so called reporters are unichs, and so is Chad Williams! I unbelievably sad state of affairs in SCAMBODIA!!

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous 12.25

      It does not require balls at all. It is simply a matter of abiding by the journalist’s code of ethics. These may vary a little from country to country but here are the basics relevant to journalists working for the Phnom Penh Post:

      - To report and interpret news with a scrupulous honesty.

      - Not to suppress essential facts nor distort the truth by omission or wrong or improper emphasis.

      - Not to allow his personal interests to influence him in the discharge of his duties, nor to accept or offer any present, gift or consideration, or benefit or advantage of whatsoever kind that may have the effect of so benefiting him.

      - To use only fair and honest means to obtain news, pictures and documents.

      - Always to reveal his identity as a representative of the press before obtaining any personal interview for the purpose of using it for publication.

      - To do his utmost to maintain full confidence in the integrity and dignity of the calling of a journalist.

      Delete
  25. Wonderful ,just wonderful !!
    I can't wait for next weeks amazing revelation that Scott Neeson was a member of the Waffen SS and personally responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews ,Gays and baby pidgeons !

    Seriously James how can anybody take you seriously ?
    Personally I just read this drivel for the entertainment value ,and you are entertaining in a demented sick kind of way .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Team Neeson Troll (aka Anonymous 11.32)

      You do the Team no favours with such silly remarks.

      As for whether or not anyone takes my questions seriously or not, or what I discover daily about Scott Neeson, that is up to them. If they come here merely to be entertained, so be it. You certainly seem to have nothing better to do with your time that to keep coming back to "read this drivel for the entertainment value."

      As is the case with all members of Team Neeson, with Neeson himself, with Alan Lemon, with James Mc Cabe and the CCF board, you answer no questions. The best you can do, in your own amateurish schoolboy manner, is make foolish snide remarks. I doubt that anyone other than fellow Team Neeson members takes you at all seriously.

      Still, I have to thank you for your foolish comment since, as always, there is a little spike in page views when you make your presence known.

      Given that you will read this, if only to try to think of some smart-arse way or shooting the messenger again, here's an old question for your:

      "Who owns the land upon which the World Housing houses have been (and being being) constructed?"

      I'll add another for you:

      "Does Scott Neeson own the Black Bamboo restaurant? Or, to be more precise, has he acquired a very long lease on the building in which the restaurant has been constructed?"

      And another:

      "If Scott Neeson spent $300,000 having the building renovated to turn it into the swish restaurant it is, where did the money come from? Was this Scott's own money? Or was it money provided by sponsors and donors to be used to help impoverished families?"

      This is a question that Scott Neeson will not answer. It is a question that no journalist at the Phnom Penh Post can (or will) even ask.

      And if a journalist from another newspaper were to try to find out, from public records, just who owns the lease on the Black Bamboo property they would find it impossible to do so. Why is this?

      I hope that you have found this response to your comment entertaining! I am sure that your response to it (devoid of answers) will be very entertaining for all of us.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 11.32PM.
      So you support Scott Neeson's Fraud and crimes against children and families ?

      You mention the Nazi's an evil entity yet within their ranks there were some who had the courage to stand against him against Hitler.

      You mock James for standing up against the corrupt media and NGO's .
      By your own admission you support this evil that exits in Cambodia .
      APLE . CCF and it seems all the Cambodian print media.

      The readers here who are far in in the majority in supporting James can judge for themselves who is the sick morally bankrupt
      pathetic excuse of a human being


      Delete
    3. Anonymous 7.04 ,

      No,no,no ! You misunderstand me my friend, I do not mock James for standing up against corrupt NGO's and Media.
      I mock him because he is a deluded failed Journalist(self styled) and also a serial fuckwit who digs himself deeper and deeper into the shite with every outlandish accusation he makes it's so entertaining.


      As to his 3 questions ?

      1 Nourn owns the land in partnership with Hun Sen.

      2. Scott Neeson owns Black Bamboo

      3, He raised the money by selling crack cocaine to all the kids around Steung Meanchey which he hides in the free dolls he gives to the children ! Fucking brilliant eh! Who would ever suspect that?





      Delete
    4. Yes Anonymous. 4:56 you are well qualified as a member of team Neeson. You have proven that you are an idiot!

      Delete
  26. Hey , anonymous 4.56 just got some great news you will be so happy to hear about .
    A script is being written now for the next series of underbelly it will feature yourself .
    For the readers here underbelly is a big hit Australian TV crime series based on real events ; Scot(Daddy)Neeson , James McCabe , Alan Lennon will all feature extensively in some episodes .



    Sco

    ReplyDelete
  27. Rather an idiot than a deluded fuckwit Jamsie boy!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hey , anonymous 4.56 just got some great news you will be so happy to hear about .
    A script is being written now for the next series of underbelly it will feature yourself .
    For the readers here underbelly is a big hit Australian TV crime series based on real events ; Scot(Daddy)Neeson , James McCabe , Alan Lennon will all feature extensively in some episodes .



    Sco

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are'nt you forgetting yourself as the hero James ?
      Selflessly sacrificing yourself campaigning against corrupt organizations(Everybody) whilst safely ensconced in your NGO headquarters down on St 136.
      Obviously you'll have to knock off for the night time entertainment though, everybody needs a break though eh ?




      Delete
  29. Come on, Team Neeson, you can do better than this. If you are going to try to shoot the messenger with innuendo, use a little imagination and go for broke. I guess this must be a little difficult these days now that you've lost the $75,000 a year services of Ryan Witcombe. Did Ryan jump or was he pushed? Was $75,000 a year not enough for Ryan to make Neeson look good in public? Or had Ryan found out too much about Neeson's scams and could take no more of it? Ryan, if you are reading this, perhaps you could share your experiences with us. And you too, Asha. Did you leave because you did not think you were being paid enough or because you have a conscience?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Disgraceful to think Ryan Witcombe is paid such high wages 75k usd dollars tax free ! . More than he could ever earn in Australia.

      Why is it that Neeson pays huge incomes to westerners. Wasn't he meant to be helping locals. Why not employ khmer Maybe because they lack the scamming skills needed to craft and graft common place stories into heard wrenching drama. Seems the whole org is filled with thieves and scammers. While CCF local staff are paid pitiful wages and work longer hours.

      Families remain locked in poverty paying rent in Neeson's slum . while Neeson exploits their children for millions in charity money funding his ever growing multi million dollar empire.

      Neeson hides behind his 4 body guards. From who?
      the angry parents whom he has stolen their children. Or the ever increasing pressure of media wanting to know answers.

      Delete
  30. Ha,ha,ha !
    You really are getting desperate James!!

    Yet more smears and innuendoes sad twat that you are !

    ReplyDelete