Dear LICADHO, ADHOC and other human rights organizations,
Is the Cambodian Children’s Fund contract below a
binding legal document?
Does the CCF contract breach the legal, human and
constitutional rights of the parents who sign it?
I draw your attention, in particular, to
“Article 3a
(i)
The parents/guardians agree to reimburse
and compensate any costs of expense including blood test and vaccination for
child, and financial and materials support to their family, although it was a
gift or loan, and other expenses while their children were residing in CCF if
they demand to bring their children back…”
I draw your attention also to the:
Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual
Exploitation
Article 8:Definition of Unlawful Removal
The act of unlawful removal removal in this act shall
mean to:
1) Remove a person from his/her
current place of residence to a place under the actor’s or a third persons
control by means of force, threat, deception, abuse of power, or enticement, or
2) Without legal authority or any
other legal justification to do so to take a minor person under general custody
or curatoship or legal custody away from the legal custody of the parents, care
taker or guardian.
3)
Article 9: Unlawful removal, inter alia, of Minor
A person who unlawfully removes a minor or a person under
general custody or curatorship or legal custody shall be punished with
imprisonment for 2 to 5 years.
In
accordance with Cambodian law, does CCF’s refusal to return children to their
families without payment constitute “unlawful removal” as defined by Law on
Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation?
The
Cambodian Children’s Fund refuses to allow parents to keep a copy of this
contract. Do you believe that this is an abrogation of the human rights of the
parents?
If CCF is
in breach of any of the human legal or constitutional rights of the Cambodian
parents who sign this contract (and children who have no choice but to abide by
its terms), will any human rights organization in Cambodia defend the rights of
exceptionally poor people who are unable
to pay thousands of dollars to CCF if they wish to have their children returned
to their care?
Kingdom of Cambodia
Nation Religion King
Cambodian Children’s Fund
DUTY OF CARE AGREEMENT
This Duty of Care Agreement (hereafter referred to
as the “Agreement “) is entered by
and between the following parties on this ____ day of_____, 20__:
_________________ [and] ________________, citizen/s of the Kingdom of Cambodia
having Cambodian identification card number/s ______________ and ______________, and residing at ___________
Village, __________ Commune, __________ District, __________Province, Kingdom
of Cambodia (hereinafter referred to as the “Parents”); and
Cambodia
Children’s Fund, a foreign non-governmental organization, duly registered and operating
in Cambodia with it registered address at # 870 Street Lum, Dom Nak
Thom, Khan Stueng Mean Chey, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, (the “CCF Community Centre”) represented by a designated CCF official
Cambodian citizen having Cambodian identification (hereafter referred to as the
“CCF”).
The Parents and the CCF may hereinafter be
individually referred to as a “Party” and collectively referred to as the “Parties”.
Recitals:
A. The Parents are the lawful
parents/guardian of _________, a child born on________ at________ Village,
______ Commune, _________ District, _______ Province, Cambodia (the “Child”) and the Parents have the
authority to act on behalf of the child including, but not limited to, the
power to sign this Agreement;
B. The CCF is a not-for-profit origination
operating for humanitarian purposes with the objective to provide impoverished
children with quality education, care and professional opportunities to better
enable them to acquire employment and contribute positively to their
communities (the “CCF’s Programs”);
C. The CCF is willing to give its
assistance to the Child by accepting them into the CCF’s programs and caring
for the child at the CCF Centre or such other location where the CCF operates
its programs. This agreement encompasses all CCF operations, including
CCF facilities, vocational training centers operated by CCF and any future
operations;
D. The Parents grant the duty of care of
the Child to the CCF during the period of the Child’s stay with the CCF in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
Now, therefore
the Parties have agreed on the terms and conditions of this Agreement as
follows:
Article 1 Purpose and Nature of the Duty of Care
1.1
The Parents/guardian agree to allow CCF to enter the Child into the CCF
Programs which will involve providing the basic needs of the child including
shelter, education, healthcare and food, as well as quality education and
vocational training.
1.2
The CCF agrees to care for the Child and operate the CCF Programs to the
best of its abilities and capabilities and in accordance with the CCF
Charter.
1.3
Both the CCF and the Parents/guardians acknowledge and agree that whilst
CCF will take the duty of care for this child seriously during the term of this
Agreement, at all times the Parents/guardians will remain the true legal
parents/guardians of the Child and shall retain all the legal responsibilities
applicable to legal parents/guardians under the law.
Article 2 Duration and Termination of the Duty
of Care
2.1
This Agreement shall be effective on the signature date of this
Agreement until the date on which the child is returned to the care of his/her
parents/guardians (the “Duty of Care
Period”) upon termination.
2.2
Each Party has the right to terminate this Agreement upon the giving of
reasonable notice to the other party, upon which termination the Child will be
returned to the Parents/guardians provided that the CCF is confident that the
child’s welfare is not at risk. If in the
circumstances of any risk, the CCF will inform the relevant authorities.
Article 3 Parents’ Promises and Acknowledgements
The Parents
promise and acknowledge as follows:
(a) The Parents/guardians agree and authorize
the CCF, acting reasonably and in the best interests of the Child in the CCF’s
opinion, to make medical and health decisions in relation to the Child,
including but not limited to:
(i)
An initial medical exam on the child’s arrival to identify any
pre-existing illness, injuries or signs of any form of abuse.
(ii)
providing vaccinations against disease;
(iii)
performing regular health checks on the Child which may involve testing
blood for the purposes of screening for contagious and blood-borne diseases
such as Hepatitis B and HIV; and
(iv)
providing care, emergency or otherwise, in the event of grave illness or
accidents effecting the child, if deemed by the CCF, acting reasonably, to be
vital to the health of the Child or potentially life threatening;
and parents/guardians agree
that the CCF shall not be liable in any way for any injury or illness resulting
from the above administration of medical and health care. In addition, the CCF is under no obligation
to treat medical conditions beyond common ailments and general health
treatments.
(b) The Parents/guardians acknowledge that
the CCF is allowed to use photographs of the child on its website and
advertisements.
(c) The Parents/guardians will encourage the
child to come to CCF to study regularly and punctually. Any unexplained, frequent absences can result
in expulsion from the CCF.
(d) The Parents/guardians acknowledge that
the CCF can expel the child if the child’s behavior goes against the policies
and the practice of the CCF or the well-being of other children.
(e) The Parents/guardians agree and permit
their children, who reside and/or study in CCF, to take part in the CCF
programs without any condition. In such case, there is no necessity for CCF to
get prior approval from the parents/guardians for their children to begin any
new CCF program.
(f) The Parents/guardians agree with the
CCF to administer its Programs and to make decisions with respect to the child’s
advantages in terms of program involvements and that the Parents/guardians will
not interfere in such decision making processes.
(g) The Parents/guardians acknowledge that
the CCF is a humanitarian not-for-profit organization and that it is reliant
upon funding from charitable sources.
Accordingly, they acknowledge that the CCF may not be able to provide
the CCF Programs in the event that such funding is not available and that CCF
is able to terminate this Agreement in accordance with Clause 2 and will have
no liability or obligation, financial, pastoral or otherwise, in the event of
such termination.
(h) The parents/guardian acknowledge that if
their child gets a mild or serious injury or death in or out of the CCF premise
incidentally by their carelessness or in a situation that beyond the control of
the CCF would not be the responsibility of the CCF and the CCF would be under
no obligations to compensate to the family of any damage, especially the child
who has a serious ailment, for instance, epilepsy or convulsion diseases and so
on
(I) The Parents/guardians agree to
reimburse and compensate any cost of expense including blood test and
vaccination for child, and financial and materials support to their family, although
it was a gift or loan, and other expenses while their children were residing in
CCF if they demand to bring their children back or the decision made by the
child him/herself and that such those decisions may affect the child’s future
and advantages without obvious justification from the parents/guardians.
Article 4 Obligations of the CCF
The CCF will do the following:
(a) Provide the child, during the Duty of
Care Period, with the basic needs of the child including shelter, healthcare
and food, as well as quality education and vocational training. The CCF shall be under no obligation to
provide any further assistance to the Child, although it may chose to do so
from time to time in its absolute discretion.
(b) Not claim or demand any costs whatsoever
from the Parents in relation to the provision of the matters outlined in
Article 4(a) or any other matter whatsoever related to the CCF Programs,
whether during or after the Duty of Care Period. But if the kid’s parents/guardians
violate their duty as stipulated in article 3, they must compensate CCF in
compliance with the article 3(I).
(c) Return the Child to the Parents, upon
completion of his or her education or training or on demand, provided that the
CCF is confident that the child’s welfare is not at risk. In such circumstances
the CCF will inform the relevant authorities.
(d) Endeavor to inform the Parents/guardians
of all matters relating to any serious medical or non-medical matters, however,
CCF reserves the right to act without prior consultation with the parents in
the event of grave illness or accidents effecting the child, if deemed by the
CCF, acting reasonably, to be vital to the health of the Child or potentially
life threatening and with the certification from medical doctor in charge.
Article 5 Amendment, Supplement and settling of
dispute
The Parties agree that all amendments, supplements
or interpretations of the Agreement shall be agreed by the Parties in writing.
Any dispute that may arise out of this Agreement
shall be settled by the Parties amicably. Any dispute which cannot be amicably settled
by the Parties shall be settled by binding arbitration in a location to be
decided by the mutual agreement of the Parties. The dispute shall be settled by
one arbitrator or more mutually agreeable by the Parties. The arbitrator’s
decision shall be final and binding on the Parties. The Parties agree that they
will not refer their dispute to any court in the Kingdom of Cambodia.
Article 6 Severability
If any of the provisions of this Security Agreement
shall be held invalid or unenforceable, this Security Agreement shall be
construed as if not containing those provisions and the rights and obligations
of the Parties shall be construed and enforced accordingly.
Article 7 Validity of the Agreement
This Agreement is made in English and in Khmer
languages in four originals (two in English and two in Khmer). Both languages
have equal effect. This Agreement is effective on the date of its signature by
the Parties.
This Agreement has been read aloud to the Parents/guardians.
The Parents have understood and agreed to the terms contained in this Agreement
and have acknowledged such understanding and agreement by signing and/or thumb
printing this Agreement below next to their respective names.
In witness whereof, the Parties execute this Agreement before the witnesses on the
date stated above
Parents/guardians Witnesses
__________________ __________________
Mr. ……………………. Name:
…………………
__________________ __________________
Mrs. …………………… Name:
…………………
CCF
____________________ ____________________
By its authorized representative Name: ……………………
Name: …………………………..
“Is the Cambodian Children’s Fund contract below a binding legal document?”
ReplyDeleteYes.
“Does the CCF contract breach the legal, human and constitutional rights of the parents who sign it?”
No.
“In accordance with Cambodian law, does CCF’s refusal to return children to their families without payment constitute “unlawful removal” as defined by Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation?”
No, (assuming you are not lying again about “CCF’s refusal to return children to their families.”) You have already proven to be an unreliable reporter of the facts.
“The Cambodian Children’s Fund refuses to allow parents to keep a copy of this contract. Do you believe that this is an abrogation of the human rights of the parents?”
It is not a matter of belief. It is not a violation of their human rights in anyway, though, if what you are claiming is true (and that is a big ‘if’ given your history of reporting falsehoods as fact) it may invalidate the contract.
“If CCF is in breach of any of the human legal or constitutional rights of the Cambodian parents who sign this contract (and children who have no choice but to abide by its terms), will any human rights organization in Cambodia defend the rights of exceptionally poor people who are unable to pay thousands of dollars to CCF if they wish to have their children returned to their care?”
Moot question since it is not in breach of any of “the human legal or constitutional rights.”
Dear Anonymous 12.59
DeleteIt would be valuable to know if this opinion, so rapidly given, is based on the law? Are you a lawyer? Can we take it that this is a lawyer's opinion?
Dear Anonymous 12.59
DeleteWhilst awaiting an answer to the question I have already asked (because your legal qualifications are relevant here) let me ask you another.
You say I am an an unreliable reporter of the facts. Can you please make up a list, say a list of five, facts that I have reported unreliably? If not five, how about three?
If you are indeed a lawyer you will appreciate the difference between facts and allegations and how important it is to distinguish between the two.
If people need certain qualifications in order to answer your leading questions, why didn't you state that before you asked the questions? If I say 'yes I am a lawyer' are you then going to ask if I am trained in Cambodian law? And if I say 'yes, I am trained in Cambodian law,' are you then going to ask if it is Cambodian contract law? You're just being slippery James. You're not really interested in the answers to these questions. If you were, you'd have simply gone and asked a lawyer months ago and have your answers already, and you'd be telling us, not asking strangers on internet.
DeleteWhich raises the question, what is the point in asking asking these questions? Since you are not interested in the real answers, it would appear that your point is to make implications of impropriety against CCF and Neeson, but since you don't have the courage or legal wherewithal to do it, you resort to cheap rhetorical fallacy and 'when did you stop beating your wife' style backhanded accusations.
Also, just how many times do you have to be caught lying to show that you are a liar? Why 5 or 3? Why not 1 time or 10 or a thousand? There is another question I think we all know the answer to.
Your willingness to fabricate 'facts', your resort to fallacies and deflective quibbles, your general slipperiness and unwillingness to deal honestly here, are all putting a spotlight on the failures to make a compelling case against CCF and Neeson or for Fletch.
Dear Anonymous 1.52
DeleteMy legal advice is that the contract is not legal. However, this comes from a regular lawyer and not one expert in human rights or children's law. Hence my asking the question of human rights organisations who have qualified human rights lawyers on staff.
You were so quick off the mark in your response to the post, and so definite in your answers, that I figured you might be a qualified lawyer. Now I have no idea. It is you who are being 'slippery' here.
As for asking lawyers months ago, I was not in a position to do so as I did not have a copy of the full contract. As soon as I did have one I get some legal advice - as mentioned above.
I am not making implications of impropriety against CCF and Neeson. I am coming right out and saying that, regardless of the legal standing of the contract, it is unethical, immoral, to ask parents who can neither read nor write to affix their signiature (thumb print) to such a document and then deny them a copy of it.
If you know the answer to the question of how many lies I have told, why not give some examples? You won't because you hope that if you just keep throwing mud, some of it will stick. You could seriously demolish my credibility here by listing my factual mistakes. Why don't you do so?
As for 'Fletch' (Mr Fletcher) he has nothing to do with the legality or otherwise of this contract; with whether or not it is a document that an NGO should induce vulnerable parents to sign and which can ten be used as a reason not to return their children.
Human rights lawyer might read the document differently. We shall see.
"My legal advice is that the contract is not legal. However, this comes from a regular lawyer and not one expert in human rights or children's law. Hence my asking the question of human rights organisations who have qualified human rights lawyers on staff."
DeleteThen why are you asking strangers on internet? You have been running this blog for almost two years, and yet in that two years you couldn't be bothered to obtain answers to the most fundamental legal questions necessary to make your case? And that now you've decided that the best place to get the legal advice is from strangers on internet?
I'm calling BS on that one, for your sake. Because either you are incredibly incompetent and remiss in your duties as a journalist to secure and confirm the most basic information necessary to your story in a timely fashion (and bizarrely naive about using strangers on internet for expert advice), or, more likely (and more generously to you), you are disingenuously wording accusations of impropriety against CCF in the form of implicative questions because you know that you know it's not true and you cannot support it as an honest assertion. At least the latter doesn't paint you as an idiot.
Dear Anonymous 10.27
DeleteThis blog entry is an open letter to human rights organisations that do have qualified lawyers on their staff capable or formulating a legal opinion. I am not asking ‘strangers’ on the internet for a legal opinion, though if they have one, and if they are qualified to offer one, I would love to hear it. As for the ethics of forcing very poor parents to sign a document such as this one anyone and everyone is free to comment. And they are. Including yourself.
I am not “disingenuously wording accusations of impropriety against” CCF. Let me be clear. I am accusing Scott Neeson and CCF of forcing parents to sign a document that is in breach of their human, legal and constitutional rights as parents.
It was not until a week ago that I obtained a full copy of CCF’s pro forma contract (though it seems to have three clauses missing) so I was not in a position, two years ago, to obtain answers to fundamental legal questions. I was in a position, a few weeks ago, to quote some parts of the contract and did so immediately.
From my 25th April blog:
“The Cambodian Children’s Fund is using legal trickery to make it impossible for parents to have their children returned to their care other than at the whim of Scott Neeson or his staff.
With the provisions outlined in this contract CCF seeks to convince parents that if they withdraw their children from the NGO’s care they must pay CCF many thousands of dollars! This is despite the fact that every child at CCF has at least one sponsor – paying CCF $150 a month to care for that child.
That CCF should ask the poorest of the poor parents to re-pay money provided by sponsors is morally reprehensible.
Further, CCF seeks to convince these parents – many of whom can neither read nor write – that they have, in signing the contract, relinquished their right, if they are unhappy about the arrangement they have entered into with CCF, to seek redress in a Cambodian court of law.”
Dear Anonymous 12.59
ReplyDeleteLet’s just say that you are a lawyer and that you are right. The contract is a legal one. Just because it is legal doesn’t make it right. From a moral point of view.
Some maths:
All children at CCF have at least one sponsor.
Sponsors pay $150 towards the care of one child per month.
Sponsors pay CCF $1,800 towards the care of one child for one year.
If impoverished parents, many working in the rubbish dump for $2 a day, (considerably less than $1,800 per year) are required to repay CCF, it could cost them $1,800 per child per year.
In the case of one family I know of, with five children in CCF residential care at one point, that’s $9,000 per year. Given that this family had 5 children with CCF for five years, that’s $45,000 the mother, who works in the dump, would, from a contractual point of view, have to pay to get her children back.
Now, in the real world, CCF knows that there are no families able to pay such sums. CCF does not intend to get its money back but it can hold such a contractual condition over the heads of the parents to control them. “You want you children back? Sure, here’s your bill.”
The phrase, “control by means of force, threat, deception, abuse of power, or enticement,” is the one that lawyers would argue over in court but I am concerned here with the morality of getting parents to sign such a contract; not with the legality.
Anon 1.52 there is no use debating with this fucking idiot. he has no facts and no evidence to prove any of the ridiculous allegations he makes up. Go through his entire blog - as soon as someone with half a brain questions Ricketson and asks him to prove anything, he goes into defence mode and immediately responds as above 'asking a question instead of answering - its his way to negate his inadequate argument. An absolute pathetic individual. No-one is listening to him, no-one cares about his drivel and no-one will respond to his falsities.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous 2.08
DeleteNow that you've got that off your chest, what is your take on the contract? Legal" Illegal? Ethical? Unethical?
I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that CCF's World Housing initiative is a scam; that Scott Neeson was lying when he said (for more than 12 months) that CCF was 'gifting' houses to poor families. In his own roundabout way Scott acknowledged that he had been lying when he admitted that in fact the houses were being rented to families. He will not come clean on who owns the houses, though. Someone does, but who? Certainly not the families living in them.
That the families don't own the houses is a fact. That someone else owns them is a fact. That these houses have added between $500,000 and $1 million in value to the land they have been built on is a fact. That the owner of the land upon which the houses are being built has made between $500,000 and $1 million out of this scam is a fact. You can skirt around thee facts with name-calling (as you do) but the facts remain.
The same applies to this contract. It is a fact. The key questions are (1) Is it legal and
(2) Is it ethical?
The answer to neither questions can (or should be) arrived at through the kind of name-calling you engage in.
Why would anyone want to waste their time listing all your lies Rickets. You are the laughing stock of Cambodia and hated by everyone. Your a cunt and you know it
ReplyDeleteYou've just wasted however long it took you to write this comment! Why not waste a couple more minutes demolishing me with a list of my lies?
DeleteAonymous 152,208 and 153
DeleteWhere are your facts ? you have been challenged on another post to give us some specific facts about James lying , your answers ,none ? only unsupported vitriol.
To any unbiased fair minded person you come across as wanting to vent your spleen and protect your untenable positions .
James fights for the underdogs in society .
You are so embittered and dishonest James has many times put up facts and figures re' CCF .
It is an indisputable fact that Scot Neeson on the internet said that he was gifting homes to poor families (LIES) , donors in Canada were led to believe this was true .
Later when questions were being asked he changed to saying the houses were being rented .
In any other country he would be in prison , especially if you follow the money trail.
Please do not bother to try to defend the indefensible unless you can support what you say.
Give us some cold hard facts , support your position with credible specific examples .
You never do just the same old biased , blind ignorant opinions .
It would be great if we could both enter an intelligent debate not one devoid of facts.
Well said anonymous 4.21 AM.
DeleteTo all the critics of James , in language I'm sure you will understand
"PUT UP OR SHUT UP "
Ask these Team Neeson Trolls a few questions that only need simple answers and they go all quite. Why is that? Because they can only abuse, not answer questions
DeleteJames Ricketson wrote: "Scott Neeson, as owner of Khmer440"
DeleteThis contract is an outrageous example of human rights violations that CCF does. If any real human rights organizations see this, Neeson should be put in prison along with those that work with him! More great work from you James! Thank you!!
ReplyDeleteI'm no lawyer, but I do know my alphabet. There is no Article 3 (i) in this "contract". Article 3 (a)(i) states, "An initial medical exam on the child’s arrival to identify any pre-existing illness, injuries or signs of any form of abuse." What you have quoted as Article 3 (i) is in fact Article Article 3 (l). I wonder what happened to Articles 3 (i), (j) and (k)? I guess you wouldn't know anything about that, right? And, putting that aside, what precisely does a blank agreement prove? Is there any length you won't go to in your malicious vendetta? Seems you won't balk at fraudulently modifying a document to prove some point - whatever that might be.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous 11.11
DeleteThis is not just a ‘blank agreement’. It is the pro forma contract that parents of children are told by CCF they must sign if their children are to be taken into residential care. CCF retains the signed contract. The parents are not allowed to have a copy of it. This means that one month down the track, one year down the track, they have no idea what they have signed or what their rights are. They have no contract they can take to a lawyer (if they could afford one) or to a human rights organization – if there was one interested in safeguarding their human and legal rights!
So, when parents such as Ka and Chuan ask for the return of their daughters, they are told by Scott Neeson and his team that they have signed away their rights as parents. These poor illiterate people have no way of knowing is this is true or not and even if they suspect that it is not true, what can they do to get their children back?
I should add that in the case of Ka and Chuan (in 2011) they were never told by Neeson that they had to repay the money CCF had spent caring for their daughters. This was not an option. Neeson was simply not going to release he girls back into their family. Nor was he going to produce the contract that he claimed made his refusal legal. The process whereby Neeson essentially kidnapped these two girls is to be found at:
http://cambodianchildrensfund.blogspot.com/2014/05/9-email-to-scott-neeson-22nd-feb-2014.html
Here is an extract from an email I sent to Scott:
“I eventually tracked down the parents, despite your attempts to make this impossible. They informed me that they had recently asked the CCF to return their daughters to them and that CCF had refused to do so.
I asked the parents if they had signed any form of contract or agreement with CCF in relation to their daughters that gave CCF a legal right to keep the girls against the wishes of their parents. They said no, that they had entered into no written agreement with CCF.
I cannot speak to the truth of what the parents told me regarding a contract or agreement – only that they wished to have their daughters returned to their care and that CCF refused.”
Scott Neeson had no legal right to retain custody of these two girls when their parents had asked their their return. This constituted “illegal removal” and in a country in which the rule of law applied Neeson would have been in court facing charges carrying a jail sentence.
As for Article 3 (i) in fact being Article Article 3 (l), you are quite correct. I must confess that I made the assumption, wrongly, that ‘i’ comes after ‘h’ as I read through the contract. I guess it is possible that 3 (i), (j) and (k) were deleted by CCF. I certainly haven’t deleted them. If you happen to know the contents of 3 (i), (j) and (k) please do share them with us.
It is hard to imagine, though, that 3 (i), (j) and (k) give back to the parents the rights that the rest of the contract takes away. I am quite prepared to be proven wrong, however.
Oh really - CCF deleted Article 3 (i),(j) & (k)? What possible reason would they have for doing that? Where did the blank agreement - sorry, "pro forma contract" - come from? Do you have an actual signed agreement? If so, let's see it. I ask again what does a blank agreement prove? From what I have observed over some time now, whenever anybody challenges what you say, you duck and weave like a prize fighter and I see others have made the same observation, but I'm betting it won't stop you. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story, right?
DeleteDear Scott Neeson/ Alan Lemon (aka Anonymous 7.34)
DeleteI have no idea why these three clauses were deleted. Post them here and we can decide for ourselves if they change, in any way, the basic thrust of the contract.
The pro forma contract comes from a CCF computer.
No, I don't have a signed contract but the fact that you ask the question suggests that you do. Do you? Or is the contract a fake that I have conjured up out of thin air?
The reason why Scott Neeson (if, indeed it is not Scott writing) refused to allow parents to retain copies of contracts, is so that if and when he was exposed as a fraud he could say, "This is not my contract? I would not ask any parent to sign this!"
I can see this coming. OK, so why not release a copy of the pro-forma contract that you do get parents to sign? You will not do so - at lease not until you have shredded the illegal contracts you have in the CCF files and replaced them with a new and improved contract that provides parents with the very rights your original contract denied them.
Fortunately, despite the hold you have over your staff (intimidation is a powerfull control tool) there are some who have access to the CCF computer who are sick and tired of your lies.
As for my not letting the truth stand in the way of a good story, why not present an alternative story and cease with your rather weak attempts to shoot the messenger.
Ah, that's better - back to the imaginary conversations with Scott Neeson and Alan Lemon - I've missed them. I'm neither one, but I think you know that don't you? I'm betting you realize that neither one would waste their time on this grubby blog - and let's face it - that's all it is, but I must admit it's entertaining at times.
DeleteAnd just how would you have access to a CCF computer? I don't either but I'll bet no such "pro forma contract" exists or ever did - at least not in the form that you've produced here. I don't know where you got it from, but it's pretty clear that even if it is based on a real agreement, it's clearly been modified. If you didn't do it, is someone trying to pull the wool over your eyes?
As for shooting the messenger - why not (metaphorically of course) if the message is pure nonsense motivated by your almost psychotic obsession with Scott Neeson and CCF?
Let's face it you don't have a very good track record do you? Screen Australia - fail; Citipointe Church - fail; David Fletcher - fail. Is it any wonder you can't get anyone in the real world take anything you say seriously? Unless, of course you count the small band of barstool warriors that hang on every word you say - the losers and misfits that have nothing better to do than try and cut down the tall poppies.
Over to you James - let's see a bit more of that famous ducking and weaving that you've developed so well.....
Dear Anonymous 7.42
DeleteI am not too much concerned with who you are or by what name you chose to be known.
As for neither Scott Neeson or Alan Lemon not wasting their time, this is, as you know, nonsense. Scott is very media savvy. In fact he is very clever at using the media to keep CCF up and running. He would be very foolish not to be aware of, and respond to, to a blog such as this one. Scott is not foolish.
As for the contract, it is just as it came to me. If Scott Neeson and Alan Lemon (who is a lawyer) insist that this is a modified or even a fake contract, why not release a copy of an actual contract - with names redacted but with thumb print signiatures intact?
This is not going to happen. Refusing to allow parents to retain copies of the contracts they signed was designed, as a ploy, to allow Neeson and Lemon a way out of their scam if a contract ever came to light.
As for the rest of the comment, it all falls under the category of "Shoot The Messenger" and is not worthy or a response.
Ah, dazzling foot work as expected James, but what a tired old cliche - no not you - the "Shoot the Messenger"response. Surely you've played that one to death. How about a bit of "playing fast and loose with the truth" - another oldie but goodie that you seem rather partial to.....
DeleteThe 2 NGO that call themself "Human Rights Orgs." in Camboddia are a joke, mildly spoken. While they do everything to discredit the Cambodian Gov. (whatever it does), posts edited Video Clips of Demonstations against Bus Companies they do not have a single comment on some much more BURNING issues like the annual fires set on Bokor Mountain, devastating pristine Rainforest and leaving large parts of destroyed land, vulnerable to land slides and causing health hazards in Kampot and it´s Province every single year so that one Tourist Guide has now claimed that Bokor Mountain is actually an active vulcano. Not a single comment in the past 3 years, ever. Health of the Forest and the People is not on their agenda.
ReplyDeleteProvoking the Cambodian Gov. however is like we witnessed recently with Adhoc´s recent Black Friday campaign. The whole campaign was launched to get some of it´s activists arrested so they can claim that the Cambodian Gov. attacks human rights. All this is done to incite hate and violence against the Government so they NGO can get it their way which often enough is a carbon copy of what one foreign gov. in particular wants. A regime change so they can establish it´s base to cement it´s interests on Cambodian Soil.
Interesting to read how Jame's anti-CFF campaign dovetails so nicely the Hun Sen government's current attacks on NGOs and civil rights in Cambodia. Not being well connected to the real world, Jame's doesn't seem to understand this dynamic or why journalists at the Daily and Post are reluctant to attack NGOs in general, (especially when the source of the info is so dubious.) On Jame's paranoid reasoning, the reluctance of the media to attack NGOs is because "Scott Neeson owns the Post and Khmer 440."
DeleteDear Anonymous 4.12
Delete(1) Hun Sen's current attacks are focused on human rights groups and, to a lesser extent (for now) on newspapers that refuse to do his bidding and call him Samdech His attacks are not focused on the many hundreds of NGOs working in Cambodia.
(2) Critical though I am of both the media and human rights groups for turning a blind eye to the illegal removal of children from their families (and Neeson is not the only offender) they will have my total support if (as I hope they do) they stand up to Hun Sen.
(3) It is not a matter of journalists attacking NGOs in general (and I have never suggested this) but of exposing fraudulent NGOs. To not do so may, in the short term, protect the good NGOs from being tainted by the actions of the bad NGOs but, in the long term, the good NGOs will suffer. When Somaly Mam was exposed as a liar all NGOs doing work similar to hers suffered. When CCF is exposed the response of many donors and sponsors will be "Why bother giving money. They are all corrupt."
If the NGO community does not self-regulate and shun dodgy NGOs they will thrive and, when they are exposed, hurt everyone.
(4) As for the information I present here being dubious, please list a few examples. This is just more shoot-the-messenger stuff. ANd not very imaginative. You can do better!
Scott Neeson does not 'own' the Phnom Penh Post. he is a part-owner of it. However, as I have made clear on several occasions, this is not a problem - as long as Post journalists are able to report on Neeson and CCF in the same way they would be able to with an NGO that was not part-owner of the newspaper they work for.
For a blog that supposedly no-one is reading 18 comments in 12 hours is not bad. Keep up the good work James. Team Neeson is clutching at straws.
ReplyDeleteSeveral, or the same one, of these posters has quite an interest in denying the illegality of this immoral document!! I can't imagine that "they" are very happy that you are again exposing them!!!
ReplyDeleteJames, I have just one question for you, oh let's make it two. Are you the one taking children from their families, or is it Scott Neeson? Are you the one stealing homes from the impoverished, or is it Scott Neeson?
ReplyDeleteI cannot comment on the accuracy of Mr Ricketson’s facts but I would like to comment on Mr Neeson’s strategy in confronting these alleged facts.
ReplyDeleteHe and his colleagues decided that the best policy in dealing with Mr Ricketson’s blog was, and remains, to pretend that it does not exist. In this way they wold feel under no obligation to respond in any way to the many questions asked by Mr Ricketson.
This may well have been an effective strategy if Mr Ricketson had given up, packed his bags and left Cambodia. He has not.
It is no longer in any way credible that Mr Neeson can pretend not to be aware of the contents of this blog. As a consequence, regardless of how accurate or otherwise Mr Ricketson’s facts are, his silence makes clear that he does not want anyone looking too closely at the Cambodian Children’s Fund.
It is now difficult to understand, if Mr Ricketson’s facts are wrong, why Mr Neeson does not go public with a set of facts that would reveal Mr Ricketson to be a liar!
I will reserve judgment until I hear both sides of the story but the longer Mr Neeson refuses to tell his side the more inclined I am to believe Mr Ricketson.
"...his silence makes clear that he does not want anyone looking too closely at the Cambodian Children’s Fund."
DeleteNo it doesn't. Ricketson, unfortunately, does not come off as credible source of information. Just look at this blog. He comes off as some sort of fanatic, even kind of scary (just look at his how he stalks and harasses people and his interaction with the 440 guy below), and clearly willing to twist and distort and maybe even fabricate. Whatever respect and address his work may have been entitled has long long long been lost in Ricketson's erratic and somewhat frightening behavior and presentation. Neeson is well advised not to give him any attention at all, both because it may lend him credibility he no longer deserves and because it may further inflame his stalkerish tendencies.
Dear Scott Neeson, Alan Lemon or whichever Neeson Troll it is that has written this comment as Anonymous 11.06.
DeleteIf I am not a credible source of information, point out to me the many instances that reveal my lack of credibility?
You will find, if you actually read this blog, that as far as CCF is concerned the 'facts' I have gleaned have all come from the CCF website, from CCF press releases and from tax returns that CCF haas made.
If I have quoted any of these incorrectly, point this out to me and to other readers of this blog.
Let's just say that your characterisation of me is correct, OK? I am a 'fanatic;, 'kind of scary', I 'stalk and harass people', I 'twist and I distort and maybe even fabricate'.
OK, that's me in a nutshell. Now, if some other journalist/blogger were to ask the same questions as I have been asking and to publish the same figures I have published, would you, Scott Neeson, answer his or her questions? Would you point out to this journalist/blogger who is not me in precisely what way s/he has misinterpreted the figures that come from CCF's own tax returns?
No, of course not. The few journalists who have tried to ask you questions meet with the same response.
"Let's just say that your characterisation of me is correct, OK? I am a 'fanatic;, 'kind of scary', I 'stalk and harass people', I 'twist and I distort and maybe even fabricate'.
DeleteOK, that's me in a nutshell. Now, if some other journalist/blogger were to ask the same questions as I have been asking and to publish the same figures I have published, would you, Scott Neeson, answer his or her questions?"
Good question.
Yes. If this was coming from a credible, reliable source, presented in an accessible, journalistic fashion, it is much more likely that people would take it seriously, that it would be addressed in a serious fashion by people who respond to your blog, that it would be picked up by the mainstream press and that may even force the principals to address the situation publicly.
There are people that were interested in this story in the beginning, in the media and even on the forums, but your behavior got you banned and helped turn people off. You've even turned it into an embarrassment, an extra hurdle people have to get by if they want to address it. Intentional or not, here you have made this story about you, and anybody that wants to consider its merits now also has to get past what you have done to it.
Dear Anonymous 5.00
Delete“Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.”
I swas banned by Kmer440 because I refused to abide by the rules that part-owner Kevin Nudd laid down. This is well documented. One of the rules was that I could not out any of those who had, anonymously, defamed David Fletcher. As someone who believes in transparency this was a condition I could not abide. And I wasn’t all that interested anyway in having access to Khmer440 – a gossip site. Nothing wrong with gossip but I’m not interested in it. And I do take exception to the kind of anonymous gossip that is designed to belittle and destroy people like Mr Fletcher.
This is just more ‘shoot-the-messenger- stuff. I don’t care what you opinion of me is. I don’t care what the opinion of Khmer440 people is. I don’t care what the opinion of journalists is. These are of no relevance. It is the questions I raise that are relevant and you, along with many others, seek to use your low opinion of me to evade answering any questions of all.
Let me ask you just one: “Do you believe that the contract CCF forces parents to sign is a fair and equitable one?”
Your opinion of me has no bearing on the question, though I am sure you will try to make it seem as though it does.
Another question: “Scott Neeson calimed, in a very pubic manner, that CCF was ‘gifting’ houses to poor families. This was not true.” Does this lie bother you at all?
Again, your opinion of me (the person asking the question) is irrelevant.
Are you at all interested (as I am) to know who is the lucky beneficiary of the $500,000 to $1 million worth of free housing?”
Please, answer these simple questions and, if you feel so inclined, explain to me why yours or anyone else’s opinions of me has any bearing on the validity of the questions.
Anonymous 11:39, it has been well over a year and nothing from Neeson, only his stooges. Many of the comments, trying to shoot the messenger, are from "high level" stooges that he employes. He very well knows about this blog. Remember he is a fanatic trying to control media. I don't think that Mr. Ricketson is very popular at CCF with all that he has exposed about Scott Neeson! The problem for Neeson is that it is all true.
ReplyDeleteI would like to address this issue of James boldly stating that Scott Neeson is the owner of Khmer440. He isn't. I am. I normally ignore James' nonsense because I don't want to get dragged into his debates, but on this occasion the claim is so absurd it needs to be addressed for what it is: either a complete mistake or a disingenuous lie.
ReplyDeleteScott Neeson has no stake in Khmer440. He never has, and he doesn't now. I have never met Scott Neeson. I know who he is, but have never spoken to him nor had any dealings with him.
I wrote to James yesterday via email to point this out. He chose to ignore my email. So I'll post it here instead. If James would like to meet me face to face to discuss Khmer440, I would be more than happy to. He can contact me at Admin@khmer440.com
Happy to meet you any time, Kevin. You name the time and the place. Mornings, early afternoon are preferable to me but I'm flexible.
DeleteYou have mail.
DeleteDear Kevin, aka scobienz
DeleteHere's the email you just sent me:
Excellent.
Then you can explain to me why you are saying Scott Neeson is an owner of Khmer440.
"I am free tomorrow at noon. Coffee Bean on Street 57, corner of 306 in BKK1."
See you there at noon.
cheers
How very rude and inappropriate.
DeleteKevin, aka scobienz
DeleteI am not sure if the 'rude and inappropriate' comment is from you or someone else.
If it is from you, by making a comment here using your Khmer440 moniker, you were making our dialogue public. I responded in public.
After an email exchange between us you decided to cancel the meeting. C'est la vie!
What does it mean that Kevin aka: scobienz, cancelled the meeting? He is the one that proposed it, chose the time and chose the place??
Delete"After an email exchange between us you decided to cancel the meeting. C'est la vie!"
DeleteWise move on his part. If your prior behavior wasn't enough, your response after he graciously agreed to a meeting proved you untrustworthy. If that wasn't deliberate on your part, and you don't recognize how your dysfunctional behavior is inappropriate, self-destructive and drives people away, you have a serious problem that is going to prevent you from ever being taken seriously.
If nothing else, now you know that you gave false information when you said Scott Neeson owns Khmer440. Time to go back and edit your post and note the correction, and give us some hint that you are not the dishonest reporter you appear to be.
Kevin Nudd (aka Anonymous 6.32)
DeleteWhy do you write anonymously when it is clear that only you could have written this comment?
As you know, when we completed our email correspondence, I said that I would publish it on this blog. I then decided against it. I figured that a spat between you and me, much as it may be of some interest on Khmer440, is not really of interest on this blog.
I will publish it, if you like?
You have no idea what might have transpired had we spoken, in what would hopefully have been a civilised dialogue. It was you that chose to cancel this dialogue; not me.
If you disagree that it was you who made this decision, please feel free to say so. As you know, I will not censor your xomment.
From word-one you persist in your inappropriate behavior. The question here is whether you are deliberately self-sabotaging to avoid the truth and honest discussion or if this is something you do on some sub-conscious level.
Delete"You have no idea what might have transpired had we spoken..."
LOL, No sh*t.
Kevin Nudd
DeleteA couple of years ago you banned me from making comments on Khmer440. This didn't bother me too much as it was, at the time you took it over, just a gossip site. There is nothing wrong with gossip - except when it is of the kind that results, in a very real and direct way, in the imprisoning of a man (David Fletcher) without a trial - on the basis of such gossip. Between them, Peter Hogan and Scott Neeson (with a few others) went after Dvid Fletcher. Each had their own reasons for doing so - none of which had anything to do with his guilt or innocence.
A few days ago, following in the tradition started by Peter Hogan, you tried to start a thread that would give people an opportunity to express their opinions as to why I hate Scott Neeson. You did not start a thread that was inviting readers to comment son the whole range of questions that could (and should) be asked about this man and his running of a for-profit NGO that forces impoverished parents to sign illegal documents and which steals houses 'gifted' to poor families. No, all you wanted was some juicy gossip.
You have chosen, Kevin, to continue on with a tradition set up by Peter Hogan. I imagine that it draws a lot of readers to your site and maybe all these eyballs generate some income for you. However, don't expect me to treat, with any professional respect, a man such as yourself who is doing Scott Neeson's bidding - for whatever reason you are doing it. Please feel free to publish out email communication in its entirety. but please stop with this childish pretence that you are not Kevin Nudd when any fool can see that the only person who would be pricy to our email communication is yourself.
Really, Kevin!
And after two years of stalking and harassing people, coming off like a wild-eyed fanatic in this blog, repeating yourself dozens of time in an attempt to get anybody to listen to you, Fletch is still in jail, CCF is running along just fine, both local and international media has shunned you and don't pick up anything from your blog after 193 entries, and you are still applying the same inappropriate, off-putting cheap rhetorical tactics here in this post, as if it'll be different this time. You know what Einstein had to say about this? "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
DeleteBTW, you have now accused me of being at least 6 different people. Maybe more. And haven't got it right once. Paranoid much?
Sounds like Kevin Nudd has some very serious intellectual and emotional issues!
DeleteDear Scott Neeson, Alan Lemon, Neeson Troll (aka Anonymous 8.35)
DeleteWild-eyed fanatic though I may be, the questions remain:
(1) Are you the owner of the lease on the Black Bamboo restaurant? (2) Did the renovations for Black Bamboo really cost $300,000? (3) If so, did you pay for the renovations yourself or did CCF sponsors and donors pay for them? (4) Who owns the land upon which the World Housing homes are being erected? You? CCF’s Country Manager? Someone else in the Team who is now between $500,000 and $1 million richer? (5) Is the contract I have posted on this blog a fake? Or is it real?
I’ll add another: Who is the teenage girl in the photo of you? A CCF student? And how old is she? Mid to late teens is my guess? And you? In your 50’s.
As for your Einstein quote…After two years Hun Sen is still in power, the middle east problems continue, rich people continue to send their money to tax havens and charity scams persist wordwide. Your observation that only an ‘insane’ person would continue to fight against such evils is nonsense. I imagine that there would have been people like you throughout history who would have said, “Hey, you’ve been fighting against slavery…for the rights of women to vote…against racial and sexual discrimination…for free education and medical care…for two years now and you’ve obviously failed. Give up!”
The fact is, Scott, that long after you and I have shuffled off our mortal coils, rich people will still be using tax havens, dictators will still rule many countries, women will be stoned to death for adultery…and so on. And, of course, there will be crooks and con artists who take advantage of the kind hearts and generosity of donors and sponsors to steal whatever they can in third world countries whilst spending huge amounts of their stolen money on pubic relations to make themselves look good.
Incidentally, your latest paid-for ad on Facebook is a very effective one. Or, should I say, would be very effective for donors and sponsors who donpt bother to do any research. It features a boy in a CCF classroom with no shoes on, and no shirt, but with a big smile on his face. You write, “But he is is happy and excited because he has the opportunity to study – not just at private school curriculum but English and computer studies.”
Wow! So here’s a kid so poor that his mum and dad can’t afford to buy him shoes and a shirt, and you’re teaching his to use a computer! Out of your $10 million or so in donations and sponsorships you get a year you can’t afford $1 to buy this kid a pair of thongs? $3 to buy him a shirt? Is he (and his family) eating nutritious food? Hard to imagine if there is no money in the family budget for a pair of thongs.
The subliminal message of this photo is: “Look at the great work that Daddy Neeson is doing to educate poor kids but, hey, he needs some help so he can buy this kid a pair of thongs and a shirt. Where do I send my $150 a month to sponsor this delightful child?”
And when these generous donors and sponsors do send their $150 a month, do you tell them that you force the parents to sign a contract in accordance with which they would have to give this $150 a month back to CCF if they wanted their child returned to their care?
When histories of this era of free-wheeling con-artistry and wholsesale theft in Cambodia are written in years to come (and they will be) there will be, you’ll feature as one of the more successful con-artists of the era. Readers will shake their heads in wonder: “How did he get away with it? Right under the watchful eyes of human rights organizations and the media?”
If exposing men like you is symptomatic of insanity, I plead insanity.
cheers
"Wild-eyed fanatic though I may be, the questions remain"
DeleteUnfortunately, they don't. If they did, some real newspaper would have picked it up by now. What remains now is the crazy guy, still acting crazy, even a bit crazier now fabricating things and playing catch-me-if-you-can, tainting and overshadowing any story that may have been here. You had what might have been a tempting little meal for us but then you shit all over it repeatedly. The meal is gone, now hopeless buried in a great pile of excrement, and that is the only thing anybody can see now.
Oh dear, Scott! (or whichever member of Team Neeson it is doing Scott’s bidding with comments such as this) aka Anonymous 1.04
DeleteYou really do think, don’t you, that if you can shoot the messenger his questions become irrelevant. If you throw enough dirt at me (“great pile of excrement”!), that some of it will stick and that dumb readers will think, “Oh if Scott says that what Ricketson writes is a “great pile of excrement”! I’m not going to read his blog anymore. The reverse is true. I am not sure how this works but every timeyou and your Team Neeson buddies post comments like this my page hits jump exponentially. Maybe its because there are some readers less interested in the actual content than in the possibility of blood on the floor.
Whether I am crazy or sane, my questions are of the kind that journalists should be asking. And, in one case I know of, have been asking. This particular journalist got the same runaround as I get – to the extent that Neeson refused to speak with him and wouldn’t answer his mobile phone if he saw that it was the journalist calling.
Neeson suffers greatly from paranoia – as anyone who has worked with him will tell you. He used to have 4 body-guards – believing as he did that he needed protection. (He’s cut it back to three as CCF feels the Pinch financially!) From what? From whom? I don’t know. Parents whose children he would not return to their care!
And there are other journalists who would just love to ask Neeson some questions; who would just love to write about him and CCF an article that was not just badly disguised CCF public relations material.
Quite apart from part-owing a newspaper (the Phnom Penh Post) there are other ways in which someone with a lot of money (and Neeson has bucket-loads of it) can see to it that investigative stories about him do not see the light of day.
I am not alone is pondering the many questions I have raised here. There are plenty of others, including sponsors and donors who have been deserting Neeson and CCF in droves recently. They have done their homework and discovered that all in Neeson World is not as it seems to be. They look at a photo of a boy in a CCF school with no shirt and no shoes and ask themselves, “I’m sponsoring a boy like this to the tune of $150 a month and Neeson can’t afford to buy him a $1 pair of things and a $3 shirt!”
One does not need to be a great mathematician to see that Neeson’s figures simply don’t add up.
As with so many other in Teram Neeson the bulk of your comment is shoot-the-messenger’ stuff and not worth commenting on. Do you really believe that you can shut down questions with abusive language? But do keep it up, please, as it is great for my page view hits.
"Whether I am crazy or sane, my questions are of the kind that journalists should be asking."
DeleteSo how's that working out for you? Two years of this blog, nothing in the local papers, nothing in the intl news, Fletch in prison, CCF chugging along, Scott still cuddling kids for the cameras, donations still flowing.
Are you helping or hurting James?
Working out just fine, Anonymous 5.31, but thanks for your concern!
DeleteThat Somaly Mam was a liar was known for several years before the Cambodian media got around to exposing her so I'm not too much fussed that the local media has no interest in Neesons lies at this point.
It took me 6 years of writing about Citipointe church's illegal removal of girls from their family so one must be patient in Cambodia. If by 2020 Neeson still has his media 'Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free' card I might start to get a little discouraged. Check in with me in 2020.
As for 'helping or hurting' you clearly have no idea of a journalist's role. It is not to 'help' or to 'hurt' but to report the facts as clearly and as honestly as possible and allow readers to make up their own minds about what they read.
The contract that forms the centre piece of this bog is a fact that I am sharing with readers. They can make what they will of it. They can decide that it is fair or unfair; legal or illegal. Or, as at least one person has done, challenge its authenticity.
James if you don’t mind my saying so you are too fucking polite with these morons. They duck and weave and find the most pathetic reasons not to answer questions and you treat them with respect. Fuck that. These guys are obviously Neeson, Lemon and Mc Cabe and they can come right out and say “This contract is a fake” or “This contract is real and we stand by it.” They are fucking cowards as well as being crooks hiding behind this anonymous bullshit. Why doesn’t the fucking press ask these lying cocksuckers is the contract is for real or not. Does Neeson own all the fucking media in this country. Jesus wept!
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous 8.36
Deletethe way in which Team Neeson does not answer questions, answers a lot of questions. I doubt that nay but died in wool Neeson Trolls cannot see for themselves what is going on here. In Team Neeson's many and varied attempts to shoot the messenger it is winding up shooting itself in the foot every time.
Yes, the Neeson Neeson camp know they cannot defend the indefendsible . The low level scum resort to what they know best , fraud,deceit , chamelons that they are,anything that they can to protect their criminal money making goldmine
ReplyDeleteSilence from Team Neeson as it tries to figure out some new way to 'shoot the messenger'.
DeleteI imagine that Team Neeson is preparing a new 'shoot-the-messenger' attack. We can only hope that the Team can come up with something better than their most recent, and very lame, efforts to avoid answering questions. And Team N needs to consult with Thesaurus to find some new terms of abuse. The ones they are using now are a little shop worn.
DeleteWhen Team N does launch its next 'shoot-the-messenger' attack my response will be something along the lines of:
"Yes, Scott, I may be all those things you call me, a truly unlikeable and reprehensible human being, but my questions remain: (1) Are you the owner of the lease on the Black Bamboo restaurant? (2) Did the renovations for Black Bamboo really cost $300,000? (3) If so, did you pay for the renovations yourself or did CCF sponsors and donors pay for them? (4) Who owns the land upon which the World Housing homes are being erected? You? CCF’s Country Manager? Someone else in the Team who is now between $500,000 and $1 million richer? (5) Is the contract I have posted on this blog a fake? Or is it real? Whichever one it is you must have at least 1000 contracts at least, signed by parents with their thumb print? Why not invite members of the press and of human rights organizations to look at them and decide for themselves if the contracts are fair and legal? If I am all the dreadful things you call me here is a golden opportunity to totally destroy my credibility. Why not take it and be rid of me? Shoot the messenger once and for all?”
Where is the Cambodian Daily on CCF ?
ReplyDeletewe know the Phnom Penh Post
will never go against their Masters , APLE and CCF .
The Daily is showing a lot of guts exposing the truth on the political front .
We need them to stand up for the rights of the illiterate , impoverished families and their children,\.
Daily where are you ?
I have been having a row of sorts with the Daily since 2008 regarding its refusal to go after shonky NGOs. The newspaper simply won't do it. At one point, thinking out loud, I suggested that perhaps the reason why the Daily won't expose fraudulent NGOs (Somaly Mam being an exception) is that a substantial number of the Daily's readers are NGOs and the newspaper does not want to alienate its readership. I was told, in no uncertain terms, that this was nonsense. I have been unable to think of any other reason why, even when evidence of NGO fraud is well documented and irrefutable, the Daily won't touch it with a barge pole.
Delete"I have been unable to think of any other reason why, even when evidence of NGO fraud is well documented and irrefutable, the Daily won't touch it with a barge pole."
DeleteSo far there isn't any trustworthy or credible source presenting evidence of the NGO fraud you refer to, let alone "well documented and irrefutable" evidence. It is unfortunate because it could be an important story. If you know some credible person who has that kind of evidence, please encourage them to contact the Daily, or maybe even start a blog where they present the evidence and spur the newspapers into covering it.
Dear Anonymous 6.37
DeleteI will, yet again, present the evidence in a new blog entry when time permits. And when I say 'irrefutable' I mean 'irrefutable'. It was known to the Cambodia Daily and to the Phnom Penh Post back in 2008. David Boyle, at the Post did, to his credit, try to run with it - until, that is the NGO in question made legal threats against the Post. At which point the Post backed right off. But at least the Post made an attempt to run with the story. The Daily did not. I remain mystified to this day as to why this was so.
I was told that The Cambodian Daily is itself an NGO anyone know if this is true ?
Delete"I will, yet again, present the evidence in a new blog entry when time permits."
DeleteWill you try to do it correctly this time, in a proper journalistic fashion that is not off-putting and is accessible to most, and has some hope of persuading people to take you and the issue seriously, or will it just be yet another repeat of the previous 193 lather-mouthed exercises in alienating the reader? If the latter, don't bother.
I will make the blog to which you refer (to be written when time prevails) very very simple for you, Anonymous 4.18. It will have nothing whatsoever to do with the previous entries on this blog as it has to do with quite a different corrupt NGO – namely Citipointe Church’s “SHE Rescue Home.”
DeleteAs for my ‘alienating’ readers you certainly do not seem ‘alienated’ You keep coming back for more! Is this because you have some sado-masochistic trait to your character and just need to get your daily fix of pain!?
I take it as a back-handed compliment that so many people who hate this blog with such passion nonetheless keep coming back to tell e how much they hate it. Keep it up.
I do it for the sheer thrill of finding out who I am this time. I'm always a little disappointed to be relegated to Team Neeson. I prefer to be Jim 'NGO Badboy' McCabe or Steve 'Loose Cannon' Morrish or Alan 'Not a Fruit' Lemon, or best of all, like today, The Scott Himself, the windmill at which you tilt.
DeleteDear Anonymous 5.44
DeleteI have to thank you for boosting my page view count with your nonsense. You do Team Neeson proud - whether you are part of the inner sanctum or just some bar stool shit stirrer. Keep up the good work.
Who is that wild eyed fanatic groping the young girl in the above photo? Is that her Daddy?
ReplyDeleteJust one of the perks that goes with running a child protection unit.
DeleteShe looks well protected.
DeleteLet’s hope she was well protected :-)
DeleteIf not maybe Daddy Neeson is also daddy Neeson LOL
DeleteI have to smile when I read Team Neeson comments. They never (and I mean NEVER) answer questions. Not even the simplest questions that need only a yes/no answer. Why do they think they are fooling? Do they think that everyone who reads this blog is an idiot?
ReplyDeleteYes, anyone who reads this blog and believes a word of what Rickets writes is a cunt like him.
ReplyDeleteYour response 10.06PM
DeleteReflects your low level of intelligence .
You do not have any constructive criticism based on facts or specific examples to give .
Just gutter language , is that the best you can do ?
I notice too there are far more supporters of James here than Neeson trolls lately .
I guess you are running out of ideas in your attempts to avoid the truth
Methinks you are the one of low intelligence anon 3.30 not to realise most of the Neeson trolls as you call them have simply got better things to do than respond to the insane ravings of a tosser like Ricketson. As for me I just need a good laugh every now and again and Ricketson certainly provides that. He is a total waste of the use of oxygen. FYI I think you will find there are a total of 5 or 6 idiots that make multiple comments on behalf of James, and their allegiance to James and his great friend Fletch the Letch is of great concern to many.
DeleteDear Anonymous 4.27
ReplyDeleteRead what you have written: "most of the Neeson trolls as you call them have simply got better things to do than respond to the insane ravings of a tosser like Ricketson"
Are you trying to tell us all that you are a Neeson Troll? Or that you have nothing better to do - since here you are commenting? Get a life, man. If this blog is as bad as you say it it, why not get your jollies elsewhere?
The porn pest and his pals are back posting nonsense so I will, until they find somewhere else to go to vent their anger (and repressed homosexual inclinations) be moderating comments.
ReplyDeleteDear Scott Neeson
ReplyDeleteThis afternoon I spoke with the mother of a 14 year old girl who was, until recently, in CCF residential care. I know the mother and her family well. I learned that the mother had withdrawn her daughter from both the school and residential care because CCF hd insisted that a condition of her remaining in care, and at school, is that she should work, for no wage, taking care of children.
Not only is it illegal for CCF to force a 14 year old to work for CCF, to get her to work without paying her a wage has a name. It is 'slavery'.
I wonder how many other child slaves you have working for CCF.
No doubt your Trolls will accuse me of lying here. OK, here's a challenge for any journalist who might be reading this. Come with me and meet this mother and her children and find out for yourself, from the family itself, about their experience with CCF. Having introduced you to the family I will withdraw so that there can be no suggestion that my presence is inducing them to lie.
If there is any one journalist prepared to meet this family I can promise you that one look at where they live and a conversation with the children who have been resident at CCF will shock you.
James, Everytime you turn over a rock in Scott Neeson's garden, you find more snakes. If Neeson had any integrity, he would resign immediately!! Since he doesn't, we can hope that law enforcement catches up to him!
DeleteThats interesting Jame, you report that children are stolen from their families and held against their parents will at CCF and then in the next breath you casually mention the mother withdrew her. I have a feeling that there might be another more truthful side to this story. But I guess that will never get told will it.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous 5.18
ReplyDeleteAs is the case so often (most often) with Team Neeson Trolls, you twist words to serve your own agenda.
CCF can, if it so chooses, use its illegal contracts to intimidate parents into believing that they have no rights; that they have given their parental rights over to CCF. This was the case with the two daughters of Ka and Chuan - who asked me to intervene and help them get their daughters back.
Whilst this intimidation can and will work for many parents it will not work for all. In the case of Ka and Chuan's daughters, for instance, one of them absconded from CCF. And in the case of the 14 year old girl I spoke with yesterday, her mother refused to allow her to return to CCF after a family visit because she believed that it was wrong for a 14 year old girl to be forced, by CCF, to work as a baby-sitter for no wage at all.
If you would like to meet with this mother and her daughter and talk to them yourself please feel free to send me an email and I will arrange it. You will not, because your only interest in writing this comment is, in the most pedantic way, to try and shoot the messenger.
"As is the case so often (most often) with Team Neeson Trolls, you twist words to serve your own agenda."
ReplyDeleteA bit like the pot calling the kettle black isn't it James? Same tired old "shoot the messenger" response whenever anyone challenges your "irrefutable evidence" of CCF's wrongdoings. What a charlatan you are and that's why no real journalist will ever take you seriously. Your reputation as a serial pest and nutter precedes you and your track record demonstrates your incompetence.
Censoring the comments now James?
ReplyDeleteYes, Anonymous 2.27, I am censoring (a) links to pornographic photos and (b) repetitive quotes from a screenplay of mine. If the person who keeps posting these wishes to comment on my skills (or lack thereof) as a screenwriter, please feel free to send me an email. This forum, this blog entry, is not about my screenwriting but about the contract that CCF forces parents to sign. Any and all comments about this will be posted.
DeleteStill waiting for you to drop the censorship BS James - are you getting a bit sensitive - a bit late in the day for that, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteSee comment above, Anon 4.31
DeleteAnd the comment below wasn't me as I'm sure you know. This blog is NOT about the blank agreement that you claim without a shred of evidence that CCF forces parents to sign - it's about your almost psychotic obsession with CCF. What a waste of some considerable talent. You are quite articulate - why not take up a worthwhile cause? There are plenty of them out there.
DeleteAnd you could easily stop the unwanted content by requiring all commentators to post under their real identities instead of hiding behind their anonymity to defame your targets. I hear you say, what about you?- Well I'm not defaming anyone. You make the rule and I'll happily comply - unlike the handful of sniveling cowards that regularly post on this grubby blog. As I said before, you're a charlatan.
Dear Anonymous 7.58
Delete(1) Do you know that the contract presented here is a fake?
Ys or no?
(2) Do you think it may well be a fake?
Yes or no.
(3) If you think it may be a fake, do you think I went to all this trouble to create a fake contract just to annoy Scott Neeson?
Yes or no?
(4) Do you believe it to be appropriate that parents are not allowed to retain copies of the contracts they sign with CCF?
A for anonymous versus identified comments, I agree with you. I think that it would be far preferable that people take responsibility for what they write. You could set an example by revealing who you are.
(1) No.
Delete(2) Maybe - but if it is not a fake, it appears at the very least to have been modified, ie the missing Article 3 (i), (j) and (k). And I'm betting that the author of Article 3 (l) was not the author of the rest of the document.
(3) I don't know but perhaps, at the very least, you should check the reliability of your source or, better still, produce a copy of the agreement that has actually been signed.
(4) That is your claim, but where is the proof that this actually occurs?
As to revealing who I am, I'll happily do that when everyone else is required to reveal who they are. It's your blog James - you make the rules. I'll bet you won't, because it will reveal the fact that you only have a handful of supporters who make multiple comments (usually defamatory or mere scuttlebutt). And that handful of sniveling cowards would almost certainly drop off if they couldn't hide behind their anonymity, wouldn't they?
Dear Anonymous 10.24
DeleteLet's approach this 'contract' business from a different angle.
Can you think of any valid reason why any NGO should keep secret a contract that it enters into with families it is purportedly helping. Yes, the names of families, individuals, should be redacted, but why should such contracts not be in the public domain?
Why should parents not be allowed to keep copies of such contracts and so not be in a position to show it to anyone else (a human rights organisation, for instance)?
I have no idea what has happened to the missing clauses. Perhaps you should ask Scott Neeson or Alan Lemon - the man (a lawyer) responsible for the contract. It may well be that there was a change of heart within CCF about these clauses and they were simply dropped. Does it really matter? Do you think that these clauses would give back to parents some of the rights that the rest of the contract takes away from them?
As for the 'rules' as you call them, I am not going to change them midstream. I would much rather live in a world in which everyone could express their opinions freely but this, alas, is not the direction the internet has taken.
As for the number of my 'supporters', as you call them, i have no idea how many there are. I suspect that most of the 200 - 400 people who visit this site and neither supporters or trolls but simply mn and women with an interest in what I write about. Whether they agree or disagree with the positions I take is of no relevance.
As for the reliability of my source, I can vouch for it.
Your just a cunt Rickets. Everyone says so.
ReplyDeleteVery big survey you've done if everyone says so. I think everyone doesn't say so and you are just a stupid liar!
DeleteAs I have said before (and you deleted) copies of your screenwriting have relevance on this blog. They show your mental state of mind and confirm you are not a normal mentally well balanced human being to produce such fantasy and nonsense.
ReplyDeleteThey merely demonstrate the fantasy world you live in and your need (as several have commented on previously) to get some professional help.
Dear Anonymous 4.25
DeleteI am writing a 10 hour TV thriller. You choose half a page of dialogue between fictional characters and decide that it is clear evidence o that I am not a "normal mentally well balanced human being".
Really, Anonymous 4.25!
Your foolish comments suggest that you are a paid-upmember of Team Neeson determined to take any and every opportunity to shoot the messenger.
You need to lift your game and be a little more imaginative in your efforts at character assassination.
So why not simply let it be published to enable readers to have a better idea how your mind works James.
DeleteThey would certainly gain more of an understanding of the person running this blog and editing comments he does not like under the heading they are either shooting the messenger or have no relevance. Stop being such a coward
Yea, let it be published James! Just like Neeson does on his Facebook page and GreatNonprofits page!
DeleteJust what is that you stand for ?
DeleteWhat is your benchmark of right and wrong ?
You profess to support Scot Neeson and CCf.
By implication you support
his documented(and saved) ;lies about gifting homes to poor families.
The Same homes he has stolen he or who ? are now rented to the poorest of society .
The number of homes are in the hundreds , who is the beneficiary of the rents ?
Where does that money go ?
The recent disclosure asked of children who have been asked to do unpaid work .
No money to buy balloons for the kids at New Year?(Pathetic
Most of these are criminally fraudulent actions.
There are more but we can disclose them when the time is right .
You support CCF and Neeson , and all of his rotten fraud against the most vulnerable in society .
Yet you cry terrible ! about a few lines he has written for a T V script .
You can turn on a T V and see the same or more salacious any night of the week.
You are sanctimonious hypocrites , clutching for straws.
Because you cannot defend the indefensible !
Looks to me like the grossly illiterate Wes is back ...
DeleteDear Anonymous 7.08
DeleteI have no idea who wrote this comment but for you to dismiss it on the basis that the writer is 'grossly illiterate' is the kind of 'shoot-the-messenger' tactic that Team Neeson engages in. Dont bother to answer legitimate questions; attack the credibility of the person asking the questions.
Please give us an example of your literacy ?
DeleteMy name is not Wes and never has been
Please give us an example of your literacy ?
DeleteMy name is not Wes and never has been
Anonymous 7.08
DeleteI thought Anonymous 5.26 , made some very valid points, your refusal to address them and take a position for or against, again highlights the weakness of Team Neeson .
You run away from having to face up to the facts as always run away from tough questions .
How pathetic !
The last A'PLE case.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how much APLE promised (cash) as a reward for their total cooperation (the Mothers) and possibly also set the mark for the 3000 USD compensation.
http://www.khmertimeskh.com/news/25132/american-on-trial-over-underage-girls/
Re:tpf-cambodia
It seems that someone has put all tpf-cambodia webpages online, using archive.org as the source. Just search with Yahoo or bing and look for thierry darnaudet.
an example: https://tpfkhrbyzpcqcqp5.onion.cab/04.htm
I cannot comment on the specifics of this case. The accused may be guilty or innocent, I have no idea. And nor should any reader of the Khmer Times.
DeleteWhat I do know is that whether APLE is involved in a case, caution is recommended. This is an organisation whose raison d'etre, whose marketing model relies on a constant stream of convicted pedophiles.
If any NGO promises $3000 to a family if they can get a daughter (or son) to allege that X did this or that, of course the NGO will find some desperately poor families that will the the bait.; accuser X of doing Y.
The problem here is that APLE has little in the way of credibility anymore. Theiery Darnaudet is a man of such questionably integrity that his pronouncements, made through his puppet Samleang Seila, should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
A quote from the Cambodia daily last September:
San Sony, a lawyer from anti-pedophile NGO Action Pour Les Enfants (APLE) who is representing the victim, and Hing Bunchea, the Appeal Court prosecutor, urged the judges to disregard Mr. Fletcher’s claims and focus solely on the fact that he had missed the deadline. “The time to appeal has passed,” Ms. Sony said. “The defendant is just making excuses.”
In October last year, Ms. Dany and her mother, Keang Sokun, recanted the rape allegations to reporters, saying that APLE had told them they would receive $5,000 compensation if they made the claims.
“APLE knew that Dany was not raped,” Ms. Sokun said.
Outside court Monday, Ms. Sony conceded that the doctor’s report suggested Ms. Dany was not raped but said the facts of the case were irrelevant at this point.
“I deny to focus on this fact of the case because my director…didn’t allow me to,” she said. “This case only involves procedure.”
Samleang Seila, about whom the kindest thing that can be said is that he is an idiot, has no concern about the guilt or innocence of men caught up in the APLE web. it is all about raising money - which requires a constant stream of convictions.
Samleang Seila, you are as corrupt as you boss Thierry Darnaudet and if you have the balls to take e to court and sue me for defamation, please do so. If you send your thugs to my hotel again I will photograph them and publish these photos online. If you have paid-off (and hence corrupt) court officials, now is the time to send them to my hotel with whatever legal document you thing may stop me from from exposing you as a fraud.
It has been obvious for years that Action Pour les Enfants is a corrupt NGO. No news here. And that Naly Pilorge, of Licadho fame, was one of the founders of this corrupt NGO. Scambodia indeed! Human rights org works with scumbag Darnaudet to screw readily exploitable white trash expats and desperately poor Cambodians prepared to say whatever words are put into their mouths by APLE to get three grand. They never get it though. APLE is a criminal org that should be run out of town.
Deletehi,
ReplyDeletehere a few threads on khmer440. Nothing really new here.
Re: Sunrise in Kampot I´ve seen this woman many times with another older american or canadian woman. They both looked like circus clowns but i never knew they ran a childprotection NGO. when will the Cambodian Gov. stop these kind of people running NGO´s in Cambodia. They´re a real danger for khmer kids. Just look at their ad´s.
Re: Sunrise - Geraldine Cox
http://sunrisecambodia.org.au/how-to-help/brainstrust/
Re: james ricketson on khmer440
http://www.khmer440.com/chat_forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=55096
Re: Licadho
http://www.khmer440.com/chat_forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=55276
Any response from Licadho or Adhoc James?
ReplyDeleteLicadho is busy SELECTING People that they see as qualified to get their Human Rights blessing. The Organisation is not concerned when it comes to people like David Fletcher that never ever received a fair trial. Human Rights is only a Billborad logo but in reality this Organisation takes any opportunity to discredit the Cambodian Government in order to trigger an uprising and Regime Change. This is their real program !
ReplyDeleteOne thing that all NGO in Cambodia seem to have in common is that they DON´t answer questions.
The entire NGO industry seems to be made up of narcists that think: How dare you to ask or critizise what we do (WE ONLY DO GOOOOD !). Which means that anyone asking questions or critizes is BAD ! This is the reason why over 60 countries around the world had to issue stricter laws on NGO´s. It´s time for the Cambodian Government to excercise the LANGO Law on those that are busy to derail the country.
Just come across this blog ,having worked in the field of rehabilitating drug users , the photo of the man holding that young girl inappropriately close to him is frightening .
ReplyDeleteHis dilated pupils and glassy stare are clinical symptoms of class one drug use ,such as Cocaine, Ice , Methamphetamine Crack and other Opiates .
Any one of them could produce the same symptoms .
Other symptoms also include Paranoia, Delusion , and a sense of invulnerability .
Please don't tell me it's true he is responsible for running an orphanage and has close contact with vulnerable children ?
That is Scott Neeson, you might notice that he is wearing lipstick also. Yes he comes into contact with vulnerable children, in fact he has taken hundreds of them from their mothers. Yes, we believe him to be a drug abuser.
DeleteAnd Team Neeson doesn't deny it! He also has an admitted drug dealer, ex-policeman, that works for him as the head of his Child Protection Unit!! You can't make this stuff up!
DeleteVery good article in today's Phnom Penh Post Re' poverty pimping
ReplyDeleteCambodian Children's Fund gets a mention alongside some others .
It mentions CCF's use of children in distressed situations, alongside of a DONATE link .
There is also a mention of CCF's use of a photo of an easily identifiable young girl who was the victim of a crime !
This is poverty pimping at it's worst.
Sophal Ear a professor at an American University says "these photos are used to pull at the heartstrings of donors and wring donations in the millions of dollars from donors".
The question arises where does all these millions go ,who is accountable ? it seems at CCF there is no accountability .
Yes, a good article. Congratulations to the Phnom Penh Post and to journalist Audrey Wilson in particular:
ReplyDeleteThe young girl in Sunrise Cambodia’s recent fundraising campaign has been labelled a “sex worker” in glossy typeface. Her face is smeared with dirt. She is accompanied by a “trafficked kid” and a “homeless teen” on the page.
The campaign, launched on April 17 to capture donations through the end of the fiscal year, had raised $162,956 at press time for the Australian organisation. But the ads – which say the money will go to vocational training programs – have earned ire from Sunrise’s peers.
Weh Yeoh, the director of OIC Cambodia, ignited a social-media firestorm last week when he tweeted the images. “I’m pretty sure this breaches all kinds of standards around positive portrayal of children,” he wrote. (Yeoh declined to comment for this story.) Sunrise’s chief executive and fundraising mastermind, Lucy Perry, quickly fired back: the models were paid, she said, and the ads drew donations.
Others soon piled on, labelling it “poverty porn”. The campaign and ensuing discussion raised a familiar question for development NGOs: When does a photo portraying local context – and children – do more harm than good?
Child-focused organisations sometimes commodify images: clean copy for support, and powerful photos for funds. But if the subject of a photo is dirty, in distress, or identifiable, some argue, the image serves only to exploit.
“The ’80s are calling – they want their pics of fly-covered starving African children back,” wrote Celia Boyd of Phnom Penh’s SHE Investments, on Twitter. “[The ad] seems to blatantly ignore the idea of portraying children as human beings with dignity,” she added in an email to Post Weekend.
Some simply questioned the ad’s chosen focus. “Why not [opt] to portray the children AFTER getting the benefit of an education?” one tweeter suggested.
But Perry, who is based in Sydney, argued that the ends justify the means. “It’s the only way to bring the horror home to generous Aussies,” she tweeted. “They won’t donate if you show a picture of a seamstress looking happy.”
Others beg to differ.
“Just because it raises money, it doesn’t make it right,” fellow Australian Leigh Mathews, of Re/Think Orphanages, said this week. On Wednesday, her organisation delivered a letter of complaint to Sunrise’s board of directors, signed by 22 others.
...to be continued...
...following on...
DeleteFriends International’s 2011 campaign put models in a box. Photo supplied
In Mathews’ eyes, the campaign is unethical, models or not. “They’re not a dignified representation for children. They are dark,” she said. “Best practice is to show kids as they usually are . . . And if any of this [the accompanying stories] is remotely true, that’s a complete breach of [the children’s] rights.”
The Australia Cambodia Foundation (ACF), which oversees Sunrise and partners with nine other child-focused NGOs operating in Cambodia, has its own child-protection policy. It states that children “will always be portrayed in a respectful manner”.
Australian organisations can volunteer to abide by standards from the Australian Council for International Development (ACFID), Mathews explained. ACFID insists on “dignified” images of local individuals and communities. But these standards remain rooted in the donor country, if at all.
On the ground, the issue comes down to informed consent, said Anna McKeon, a Phnom Penh-based communications consultant. Most children’s organisations run images of their activities in their fundraising materials, and have their own strict guidelines. With candid photos, informed consent is easily obtained when a guardian signs a child up for a program.
But a focus on an individual story – described in the industry as a “hero shot” – requires more than a signature, McKeon said. “You need to sit down with the family. You have to explain the wording, and what the impact would be for them,” she said. And if the paid model in the photo benefits from the organisation, things become more complicated. “Yes, it’s informed consent, but ethically it’s a minefield,” she said.
The identity of the kids in Sunrise’s campaign remains murky. Perry described them on Twitter as “paid models”, “real people” and “internal resources”. In an email to Post Weekend yesterday, she confirmed the “models” were children who live near a Sunrise orphanage and healthcare centre.
...to be continued...
...following on...
DeleteSunrise Cambodia’s own story is rooted in the 1990s, when Australian Geraldine Cox “took in” a group of children she met along the Thai border. Sunrise is the kind of influential organisation from which local ones might take cues, according to McKeon.
Based on an orphanage model, which according to Sunrise is moving toward community-based care, it derived support from Cox’s appearances in international media over the years – accompanied by children’s stories. Cox remains Sunrise’s president, as well as the president of the board of directors at ACF.
CCF hosts ‘Transformation Tuesday’ on its website. Photo supplied
But it’s not the only children’s organisation with “hero shots”. The Cambodian Children’s Fund (CCF), founded by Scott Neeson in 2004, frequently runs individual stories on its website and on Neeson’s personal Facebook page.
The website features “Transformation Tuesday” images of kids holding photos of their pre-program selves – often dirty and in tattered clothes – alongside a “donate” link. Sometimes children are pictured in distress. A February photo posted to Neeson’s page with a description of a highly publicised crime story left the young victim easily identifiable.
A spokesman said this week that all of CCF’s images were in line with its media policy, which – like ACF’s – seeks to protect children’s identities and dignity.
Cambodia’s most infamous case of donor exploitation revolved around Somaly Mam, who resigned from her eponymous sex-trafficking foundation two years ago over allegations of deception and mismanaged funds.
Since the early 1990s, Mam had collected donations by winning hearts. But her fabrication extended to her “girls”: investigations by the Cambodia Daily and US publication Newsweek found not only Mam’s story, but many of theirs – retold to Oprah and the New York Times – to be falsehoods. A recent fundraising campaign for Mam’s rebranded organisation features a simple abstract design.
Other organisations have countered “poverty porn” with awareness-raising ads. Friends International, which works to keep children out of institutions, has run a series of highly publicised campaigns, also featuring children (none beneficiaries, communications director James Sutherland assured).
Campaigns in 2011 and 2014 placed children in transparent display cases and boxes to highlight the harms of orphanage tourism. “We don’t follow the unfortunately common ‘pity charity’ models of fundraising,” Sutherland said. “Our campaigns . . . are designed to push people into thinking about the consequences of their actions.”
But when it comes to many donors, the images of children used in marketing materials – “models” or not – remain part of a bottom-line calculation.
“It’s about pulling heartstrings and making people want to give,” said Sophal Ear, a professor at Occidental College in the US and the author of a book on aid dependence in Cambodia. “And these impressions can be enough to wring [millions] out of donors.”
For her part, Lucy Perry of Sunrise made these priorities clear.
“I am sure you can appreciate that with only 37 days left in the financial year and $430,000 yet to raise, I just don’t have the time to give you minute details [on the campaign],” she said in an email. “Onwards!”
http://m.phnompenhpost.com/post-weekend/posing-poverty-porn-murky-ethics-ngo-fundraising-hero-shots
No surprise, too to see some 20odd NGO critizising Sunrise´s Marketing. Most of all they think that these donor funds should have ended up in their own pockets.
DeleteI repeat what i said many times over and over again: The Cambodian Gov. should close ALL foreign run / operated / funded Childcare Centers. These kids don´t belong in the hands of some unscrupulous People that exploit the lax enforcement of setting up an NGO in Cambodia. Khmer Kids should be raised and taken care of by their own kin. Just imagine some Hindu-Indian would turn up in lets say switzerland to take care of the many drug addicted kids there and soften them up for a change of their religious belief towards Hinduism (or any other foreign religion from a totally different society). Of course not all NGO are driven by Religion but western people running or working in these Organisations bring their own culture with them and believe that it is superior to that of the mostly buddhist khmer.
http://www.phnompenhpost.com/post-weekend/posing-poverty-porn-murky-ethics-ngo-fundraising-hero-shots
@Anonymous 4:34 AM You really hit the bulls eye! Exploitation and abuse of children by NGOs running Cambodia's lucrative "Child Welfare Industry" has been going on for much too long. It's about time to get rid of these parasites that are fattening themselves at the expense of their donors and - more importantly - our own children. Send them packing, the whole lot!
DeleteYour a fucking hipocrit Rickets. one minute your damning the Post to hell the next your eaping praise on it. You forget to take your medication or what?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous 5.09
DeleteThe Phnom Penh Post has good journalists working for it and when they do good work why should I not praise them for it? It may have become apparent to Chad Williams and the PPPboard that it is not a good look, and undermines the newspaper's credibility, to be seen as a mouthpiece for CCF - providing Neeson with free positive publicity.
Perhaps the Post might now take a look at CCF's contract and ask Neeson about it? Perhaps the Post might ask Neeson many of the questions I have asked in numerous blogs and to which he has provided no answers at all. If they start to dig around a little they will discover that there is much more to know about CCF than I have revealed here - but the tip of the iceberg. I am not sure how long it will take for certain things to become pubic knowledge but when they do I can assure you they will make for front page news.
Looks like Neeson has been working overtime to violate children's right! From taking children, illegal contracts, slavery and poverty porn!!
ReplyDeleteI think that the time has passed when Neeson could pull himself and CCF out of the legal and ethical mess they have created for themselves. Regardless of the amount f money they have to splash around for PR purposes (and they have a lot) the truth will out.
DeleteHe keeps houses from the impoverished also, doesn't he? He should be in prison!
DeleteIf you can do so, watch this:
ReplyDeleteEleven years ago Tara Winkler was a naive 19-year-old living a sheltered life in Bondi when she decided to travel to Cambodia for a holiday. Prosperity to poverty was certainly eye-opening for her, especially when she visited little children in the country’s many orphanages. Tara fell in love with them – it’s impossible not to – and she vowed to rescue as many kids as she could. She started up her own charity and home and raised her profile back in Australia to raise money for the orphans of Cambodia. Then she discovered she had been completely fooled because, as it turned out, most of her “orphans” had parents and families. But instead of giving up she decided to expose this cynical tourist trap, and then save the children in a completely new way.
Reporter: Allison Langdon
Producer: Laura Sparkes
To watch the full episode, visit 9Now
Contacts:
Tara Winkler’s book, How (not) To Start An Orphanage...by a woman who did, is published by Allen and Unwin. All royalties from the sale of the book will be donated to the Cambodian Children’s Trust. You can purchase a copy from all good bookstores or online by clicking here.
If you are interested in finding out more about Tara’s Cambodian Children’s Trust or would like to donate visit the website.
For general inquiries email: info@cambodianchildrenstrust.org
For donations email: donations@cambodianchildrenstrust.org
Or call Cambodian Children’s Trust on 1300 664 799
http://www.9jumpin.com.au/show/60minutes/stories/2016/saving-the-children/
And keep your eyes open for Tara Winkler on TED
ReplyDeletehttps://tedxsydney.com/contributor/tara-winkler/
Tara's commitment to keeping impoverished families together is in stark contrast to Scott Neeson's warehousing of 'orphans' in crowded institutions.
Pretty well all of the kids in CCF's residential care (700+) have families. Neeson's 'rescue' of them is what provides CCF with its income stream - at the expense of the families that are broken up.
The CCF institutional model is bad enough but made worse by scams such as the World Housing initiative. This does not deliver 'gifted' houses to poor families. World Housing provides poor families with alternative slum housing that they must rent. Neeson is both a liar for having deceived sponsors and donors about the 'gifting' and a thief for having given these 'gifted' houses to himself or to someone else in the CCF 'family'.
Evidence has been available for many years that Neeson's model for children is WRONG! He seems to be unable to read the facts or else he could care less about helping children. His list of "sins" is a long one and anyone with any moral compass would return the children he has stolen, back to their families and help the families. His actions and his drug abuse, should disqualify him from having anything to do with children.
ReplyDeleteI fully endorse the comments regarding keeping children in institutional care,the evidence has been well documented and put forward by many studies of the long term harm done to these children .
ReplyDeleteThe studies show much higher rates than the norm , for drug addiction , prostitution , suicide , incarceration in prisons and other social evils.
The Ideal model to help the families and children , is family support , keeping the children within the family , supporting the parents to improve their lives , providing health care and advice to the whole family .
Education for the children right through to High School , providing scholarships for the academically gifted students and vocational training for the others .
From my own experience with working as a volunteer for a very large N G O , I questioned their their sales pitch to donors and others that "THEY ARE CREATING LEADERS " I have never seen a job add for a Leader ?
They can't all be Leaders .
Check out Neeson's latest Charity Navigtator rating for the Cambodian Children's Fund. What a joke. 100% for 'Transparency' and 99% for 'financial'. I wonder how much Neeson had to pay Charity Navigator to get such ratings?
ReplyDeleteCharity Navigator screens postings so that honest facts do not show up. Great Nonprofits takes down honest posts and leaves up lies. On GreatNonprofits, new posts have not been allowed since January. Neeson controlling the media! Both of these sites are scams!
DeleteWhen are the "media" ever going to do what they are supposed to do ask questions of CCF ?
ReplyDeleteI fear in Cambodia there are too many in the media that seem to want to avoid this why ?
There have been so many instances of CCFs lies and fraud highlighted for all to see on this blog .
I have no confidence that the media in Cambodia will do what is right ethically , just ask and pursue the truth , what evolves
will either show that CCF is doing a good job or is a corrupt organization using the most vulnerable in society to use as a front to draw millions in donations much of which goes in to Scot Neeson's and his cronies pockets .
I also have no confidence in the Cambodian Media
ReplyDeletein doing what they are supposed to do pursue the truth ask questions .
If someone can interest an overseas Investigative Journalist , we might finally get justice for the families and children exploited by CCF .
The stolen homes alone with donors lied to that they were being gifted to poor families , the homes were subsequently rented to the the families , yes this would be a great. story exposing a great wrong .
Not to mention the other frauds and scams perpetrated by CCF
You can review GreatNonProfits on their Facebook page.
ReplyDeleteYes you can and Great Non Profits has shown to be a scam .
ReplyDeleteIf you pay them enough they will only put positive comments about your N G O .
Negative comments or any comments that don't show anything but shining praise for CCF are deleted almost immediately .
Try IT ?
You can't post about CCF on the GreatNonProfits site as they have blocked new postings since January. Neeson controlling the media again! As far as I can tell CCF is the only NGO on GreatNonprofits where you can not post comments. More scam from Neeson!
ReplyDeleteSo he is using Charity Navigator and Great Nonprofits to keep the truth from donors? More scams from Neeson, not a surprise.
ReplyDeleteIs Neeson high on something in the above photo? Is he a meth addict?
ReplyDeleteI have hears from a few sources its cocaine
ReplyDeleteNo doubt a legacy from his time in Hollywood .
He could also be using other stuff
Apparently his use of cocaine is quite heavy.
Where are all the Neeson/ CCF Trolls ?
ReplyDeleteSo quiet !
You don't want to defend Daddy Neeson ?
Are you saying that Neeson is a cocaine addict, that hired an admitted drug dealer to run his Child Protection Unit, and he runs the lives of hundreds of children, that he has taken from families, to raise in institutional care? REALLY NOW?
ReplyDeleteJames... any new updates?
ReplyDeleteNo news. I am caught up with other things just now and will be for a few more weeks. Nothing much is happening other than the fact that Scott Neeson is getting rid of as many of his CCF kids as possible, as fast s possible (cash flow problems). These young men and women have essentially been dumped back into the real world of Cambodia with no support, no re-integration programme and no money. They are not happy and, I suspect, will make their displeasure known in one way or another. As I have anticipated for some time it will be disenchanted former CCF kids who ultimately bring to the attention of the pubic just what goes on behind the scenes within the NGO. It will be harder for the Cambodian media and human rights groups to ignore what these kids say than it has been to ignore what I write. It is just a mater of time before the CCF house of cards collapses under the weight of Neeson's lies.
DeleteBullshit. The only reason you have stopped writing anything is because no-one cares about your lies and your blog gets no comments. Neeson isnt dumping children. In fact he is opening another CCF house. You are a liar Ricketson. Everything you say is lies and you think you can get away with it on this blog. Karma is a beautiful thing.
DeleteIf karma is a beautiful thing, Scott Neeson will be in real trouble when former CCF young adults, kicked out of CCF, start to tell they truth about their experiences.
DeleteIf I am a liar, Anonymous 7.05, point out to me (and readers of this blog) what I have written, what I have posted, that is not true.
As is always the case with Team Neeson Trolls such as yourself (if you are not Scott Neeson himself) you will provide no examples of my lies - for the simple reason that there aren't any.
So now he is dumping the children back without helping them adjust or helping the families? How is he going to fix the lost generation that he has created by taking children from their families for over 10 years now? He still has HUNDREDS of children in his institutional care!
ReplyDeleteHe should be jailed four taking these children from their families in the first place!!
ReplyDeleteA reminder of what people like Scott Neeson do once they "graduate" from their NGO business.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens to Child protection NGO's after they're forced to shut down?
Here is a perfect example:
Camila Batmanghelidjh was the founder of the now-defunct Kids Charity, London
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3660946/Boss-scandal-hit-Kids-Charity-wasted-46million-taxpayers-cash-dropped-chauffeur-meal-Michelin-starred-restaurant.html
Now who do you think was paying for her lifestyle?
Time for Donors to face reality. Hello Scott Neeson (CCF), Thierry Darnaudet (APLE), Francesco Caruso (ADM Capital), Andres Torres (globalhumanitaria)!
These guys prefer to stay in the background and have most of their posts on the web deleted by professionals. They simply vanished in the void. The damaged done, the pockets full of cash.... off they go. Sometimes they resurface like above mentioned Camila Datmanghelidjh. The list is endless.
Charities in the UK are now in dire straights:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/28/trust-charities-low-charitable-work-public
http://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2016/feb/03/the-charities-act-what-you-need-to-know
Maybe that is why Neeson is sitting on over $10,600,000 in donor money that he doesn't spend on the children or the families??
ReplyDeleteInteresting article on the Yahoo U S site today
ReplyDeleteThe Cambodian Media would not dare to print
I hope I'm wrong
What article? Can you provide a link or some clue as to how we may read it for those of us who are not psychic :-)
DeleteTry this one James: https://www.yahoo.com/news/watchdog-cambodian-pms-family-rules-business-world-too-065946756.html
DeleteYes,
DeleteI have been following this story in various newspapers.
Whoever would have guessed that Hun Sen and his family are corrupt thieves!
“BANGKOK (AP) — An extensive network of businesses controlled by the family of Cambodia's longtime leader sustains and is sustained by his authoritarian rule, making foreign investment in the country risky, says a report issued Thursday by the research and advocacy group Global Witness.
The London-based group, which focuses on exposing the corrupt exploitation of natural resources in the developing world, says the family of Prime Minister Hun Sen uses a business empire worth at least $200 million along with influential positions they hold in the military and government to keep a lock on power. Significant holdings in the media, along with close ties with other powerholders and business cronies tighten their grip.
The report, 'Hostile Takeover: The Corporate Takeover of Cambodia's Ruling Family,' describes the 30 years Hun Sen has been in power as "characterized by electoral fraud and the brutal suppression of political opposition, including through murder, torture and arbitrary imprisonment," an assessment shared by human rights groups such as Amnesty International.
It said that 40 percent of the country's 16 million people still live below or close to the poverty line.
Hun Sen, who became prime minister in 1985, vowed during the 2013 election campaign to stay in power until the 2028 polls. Now 63, he is seen as grooming one of his three sons to succeed him.
Data for the report mainly came from the Cambodian Commerce Ministry's online corporate registry, where Global Witness found that 21 of Hun Sen's closest relatives were registered as holding interests in 114 private domestic companies. It says the holdings "span many of Cambodia's most profitable sectors, including those known to be riddled with corruption such as mining, gambling and real estate." Trading, energy, real estate and construction are other sectors in which the family is active.
There was no immediate comment from the government. However, two of Hun Sen's children posted responses on their Facebook pages, saying the report contained misinformation and was intended as a political attack on their father. Hun Mana, who was highlighted as the family member most active in business, sarcastically thanked Global Witness for its work, which she said was "all lies and deceitful to confuse the public about what my Father has accomplished."
She and her brother Hun Manith accused the country's two main English-language newspapers, The Phnom Penh Post and the Cambodia Daily, of colluding with Global Witness to defame their family. Hun Sen, who in the past year has become very active on Facebook, re-posted their comments and said he shared their point of view.
Global Witness believes the actual value of the family's holding is likely to be much higher than $200 million because of incomplete information and the use of third parties to hold shares.
Some of their businesses, through direct and indirect relationships such as franchising and distribution deals, have links to international brands such as Apple, Nokia, Visa, Unilever, Proctor & Gamble and Honda, it said.
...to be continued...
…continuing…
Delete"These relationships not only raise ethical questions for the brands, they also pose significant risk," said Global Witness, saying there are worries about an opaque business environment and the risk of breaking national and international anti-corruption laws.
Besides facing a stacked deck in any business dispute — Cambodian courts are considered vulnerable to political influence — foreign companies face possible legal sanctions under their own home countries' anti-corruption laws.
"Due to a lack of transparency and pervasive corruption, all business transactions involving the Cambodian government, including public procurement, infrastructure contracts and natural resource allocation, present heightened risk for foreign investors," Global Witness said.
The report said that appointing family members to key official and semi-official posts — in politics, the military, police and the media — is another essential element of Hun Sen's control.
His two older sons hold important military posts. The youngest is a member of Parliament. The eldest daughter — who has the largest number of business holdings in the family — is one of Cambodia's only two tycoons with radio, television and newspaper outlets. Two of the children are married to offspring of deputy prime ministers.
With rapid economic growth for the past two decades along with a cheap labor force and minimal regulation, Cambodia has attracted foreign investment from the West as well as China. In 2015, Britain was the second-largest foreign investor in Cambodia after China.
The United States is Cambodia's largest trading partner and export market.
Other critics point out that the powerless pay the price for corruption through the destruction of their environment and land grabs.
"In Cambodia, economic control and political repression are two sides of the same coin. Under Hun Sen, political power is used to obtain economic resources, which are in turn used to obtain more political power," Sebastian Strangio, author of the book "Hun Sen's Cambodia," told The Associated Press.
"The cycle never ends. This has had pernicious effect on Cambodia's development. Instead of flowing to the national budget, where it can be spent on services like health and education, a huge proportion of the national wealth circulates in a nether-economy that is opaque to outside scrutiny."
Are you listening/reading Mr Neeson and cronies ?
ReplyDelete"The winds of change they are a blowing "
I mentioned to you a little while ago that change is a constant in life .
Your reply was not in your lifetime ! Really ?
Recent history is proof of that
Start planning your next move
Get out now , before you have to
Is there any further information about the young girl that died from CCF neglect of care?
ReplyDeleteKevin Nudd is a fuckwit. What kind of person buys a blog that defames people. A closet pedo? A loner? Or perhaps just a social misfit. He works for VDB Loi now. I wonder if their clients know that his blog defames them. Could be worth letting companies know this.
ReplyDeleteHe bought what Blog ?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 6.30 AM , you are hypocritical , you condemn Kevin Nudd then you go on to blatantly defame him in the usual terminology of The Scott Neeson Team .
ReplyDeleteTypical gutter tactics and language when someone does not follow your agenda and the party line of CCF
I really enjoyed reading this post, big fan. Keep up the good work andplease tell me when can you publish more articles or where can I read more on the subject?
ReplyDeleteריצ'רד טוויל