# 195 SCOTT (neeson) SEEKS SECULAR SAINTHOOD!

Dear Scott

Almost every day I receive, in my Facebook feed, a ‘sponsored’ advertisement from you!

Given that I am a fairly harsh critic of you and of CCF I wonder why I am included on your Facebook list of people to impress with your good works!

All of these ‘sponsored’ advertisements have one thing in common – photos of you!

Photos of you with the Dalai Lama, with pretty Hollywood actresses, with young girls in your arms (always girls!), with government officials receiving awards – replete with red sashes across your chest, medallions…. The list goes on.

You are an egomaniac of Donald Trumpian proportions, Scott. I wonder if you are aware of how obvious you are? Of how you advertise your need for attention; your need to have the world see you as a secular saint – the man who gave up his millionaire’s lifestyle in Hollywood to rescue children from…from? From their families!

There is no 
suggestion in any of the photos you bombard Facebookers with (how much do these self-congratulatory ads cost?) that the kids you ‘rescue’ have families. The subtext is:

 “These kids do not have parents that can care for them as I do.”

This lie lies at the heart of CCF’s many scams.

The photos I receive on an almost daily basis are all advertisements for Scott Neeson:

                      “What a wonderful man I am! Look at me, look at me, look at me.”  

You are a marketing guy, Scott, and good at it. And it is yourself you are marketing – on the backs of poor and powerless Cambodians you have conned into signing their kids into your care; whom you have got to sign contracts that require the poor families to repay CCF allt he money spent on their kids if they step out of line!

This ego-driven approach to convincing donors to give money to CCF has worked well this past decade. The money has flowed into CCF’s coffers - millions of dollars in what is probably Cambodia’s biggest charity scam. But the money tsunami has slowed to a trickle, hasn’t it!  Donors and sponsors have done their homework,  asked questions (like “Who owns the houses ‘gifted’ to poor families”) and, in the absence of answers, have taken their charity dollars elsewhere.

They have discovered that behind all the sizzle, all the CCF-generated public relations spin (aided and abetted with interminable photos of you with kids, and the occasional grannie), you are a fraud. They are deserting you and CCF in droves and supporting NGOs committed to keeping families together; not breaking them up. You are no longer wallowing in easy money and have had to tighten your belt – get rid of as many of your CCF ‘orphans’ as you can to make ends meet.

On the plus side, this means that CCF ’orphans’ no longer need to sleep 2, 3 and 4 to a bed. The downside, though, is that the kids you have been kicking out of CCF recently are not all that happy. After all the years they have been helping you raise millions of dolalrs in donations, all based on the premise that they had no families to take care of them (only Papa Neeson can do that!), you have thrown them back into the very same materially poor families  you ‘rescued’ them from. You have not helped these families, over the years, to become self-sufficient.

So, it’s back to square one for the ‘rescued’ kids and their families! And in the meantime you and CCF have how much in the bank? How much in assets? Oh, and a restaurant (“Black Bamboo”) in which you can wine and dine donors and Cambodian government officials alike; the same Cambodian officials who then drape a red sash over your shoulder as a reward for having done what the Khmer Rouge did so effectively – break up families. The difference between you and the Khmer Rouge is that the KR broke up families for ideological reasons – to usher in a new age. Year Zero. You break up families because your fund raising model necessitates that you present the kids you ‘rescue’ as having no families that love them; that want to take care of them. You have marketed this idea very well but fewer and fewer donors and sponsors believe it any longer.

Part of your marketing ploy is to use Charity Navigator to let the world know how terrific you and CCF are. As anyone with a modicum of common sense can figure out, Charity Navigator is a scam but let’s just pretend, for a moment, that it is not; that Charity Navigator actually did some research thorough enough to give CCF a 99.25% score! As an “An Organisation You Can Trust”.

Some questions for you, Scott, to see just how accountable and transparent CCF is:

How many CCF students who have attended university have actually graduated? I hear that CCF has only one graduate student to date?

Is this right or wrong? If wrong, what is the correct number?

Some inside information:

Four young women who were slated to go to university had to work at CCF for a year, with no pay, before they were allowed to attend? Right or wrong?

Those few CCF high school graduates who do go to university are told by CCF which subject they must study. They do not get to choose their own subjects. Right or wrong?

These university students, along with everyone else within CCF, must do as they are told by CCF or risk being told they must repay all costs incurred in their education and accommodation during the years they have been at CCF. Right or wrong?

For CCF high school graduates who do not wish to go to university, what courses are they able to do to equip them for a career that will enable them to earn a decent living and lift their poor families out of poverty?

Is it true that all older students at CCF are required to do free ‘community work’? Or, to put it another way, that their chances of being assisted by CCF in higher education are dependent on their doing unpaid work for CCF?

So, Scott, is it in fact true that 79% of CCF high school graduates go to university?