“There is little doubt Scott Neeson devotes his
time to grooming young girls….The fact is these children can be bought. It’s
difficult to stop it. The Australian Embassy has been told about Neeson. Many
organizations have files on him, but nothing has happened. If you can get this
guy sent packing you are doing a service to the children here.”
These words, spoken by Scott Neeson about David Fletcher in June 2010, played a significant role in Mr Fletcher being ‘sent packing’. Six years later, David Fletcher is still in jail. During this six years he has not even been interviewed by the police or an investigating judge.
Scott
Neeson got his wish. A man whom he saw as a competitor in the Phnom Penh
Rubbish dump was eliminated. Neeson became king of the rubbish dump castle and
has been travelling the world ever since telling the world what a great guy he
is.
No
article about Scott Neeson is complete without a photo of him holding a little girl
in his arms. Never a little boy. Always a young girl. Always cute. Always
someone else’s daughter.
If
James Mc Cabe, head of CCF’s Child Protection Unit, were to uncover a stash of
photos, in the dozens, of a middle aged man with different little girls in his
arms, alarm bells would ring; an investigation would be set in motion.
If the
Cambodian police were to uncover such a stash of photos they would, on the
basis of evidence they have presented in Cambodian courts before, use them as
evidence that Scott Neeson was a pedophile.
And
there is at least one NGO, smelling blood and seeing a huge advantage to itself
in getting a conviction, that would tell the parents of this little girl that
if she were to accuse him of having sexually abused her the family could sue
Neeson for $30,000 in damages.
My
reading of this photo is that the little girl is mystified as to what is going
on; as if she has been chosen from a group of potential girls to be embraced by
Neeson in a photo op and lifted up by him just seconds before the photo was
taken. There is no sense in the photo that she even knows who Scott Neeson is.
Were
this young girl’s parents aware that Scott was using their daughter for this
photo op? Did they give DI WEEKEND
consent to allow this photo to be used?
Is it a
matter of concern to LICADHO, AD HOC and other human rights organizations that
Scott Neeson exploits vulnerable young girls in an endless stream of photos of
himself with them in his arms.
Does Scott
Neeson’s use of such photos amount to exploitation of poor vulnerable children
and their families?
Will
the Cambodian media ever get around to addressing such questions or does it,
collectively, believe that such photos are a legitimate, ethical, way of
inducing donors and sponsors to give money to CCF?
I will
return to Scott Neeson’s factually incorrect ‘Fact Sheet’ when time prevails.
***
On the subject of Charity Navigator, do take a look at the scores CCF has been given in the 'Financial' and 'Accountability and Transparency' categories!
I posted a comment on Charity Navigator (see below) but it was almost immediately deleted.
Join the dots!
***
I posted a comment on Charity Navigator (see below) but it was almost immediately deleted.
Join the dots!
Post
Script
21st
September
Every few days one of these sponsored ads for Scott Neeson turns up in my Facebook feed. Every one of them has Scott with some cute little girl in his arms.
These
photos are taken by the professional media crew that Neeson employs to to keep
bolstering his image as a man who has given up everything to take care of kids
(almost all girls, you could be forgiven for thinking) who have no dad (or mum)
to take care of them.
Poverty porn!
ReplyDeleteScott Neeson is the King of Poverty Porn.
DeleteI think that it is ethically highly questionable for Scott Neeson to use cute kids as props in photo shoots that are, when all is said and done, advertisements intended to raise money for an NGO.
DeleteThis photo has clearly been set up. It has not been taken close to the Phnom Penh rubbish dump (which is several kilometers away) but on an empty block of land close to the CCF Community Centre, close to the old dump that was shut down many years ago. The empty block of land has been chosen because it is littered with rubbish left there by residents who live nearby.
Scott Neeson and the photographer, along with the little girl, have either walked from the CCF Community Centre, or driven, with the express purpose of finding the best place to take the photo. This is photojournalism at its worst. The little girl looks totally bewildered. I wonder what she is thinking: “Why am I in the arms of this man I don’t know and having my photo taken by a stranger?”
She is much too young to realize that she is the produce being sold to gullible sponsors and donors. And her parents, if they are even aware that their daughter is being used in this product shot, would have no idea that this photo will yield CCF God knows how many thousands of dollars in donations.
That the NGO community in Cambodia turns a blind eye to this particular form of child abuse is a disgrace. The same applies to human rights organizations that say nothing and to the media - without the moral courage to challenge Neeson’s exploitation of children in photos such as the ones that he publishes (himself with little girls in his arms) with monotonous regularity.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI have deleted a comment that contains scuttlebutt that is of no relevance. And I will continue to do so. Here is the comment, slightly censored:
ReplyDelete"Scott Neeson is a compulsive liar that should never be around at risk children. How many lives has he destroyed by taking them from their families? Doesn't his education consist of being a high-school flunkout? The people that he surrounds himself with are equally despicable."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteSorry, no scuttlebutt.
DeleteAgain, some comments disappearing! I have no explanation. They arrive in my inbox but, when I come to the blog they are not here. When I re-post them under my own name they seem to stay. Here it is:
ReplyDeleteKeeping the Beast alive !
APLE's latest ruse: experts say online child sexual exploitation and abuse are on the rise in Cambodia.
The fact that sexual child exploitation and abuse has significantly reduced in the past ten years does not seem to be of interest to APLE who runs the online reporting website. APLE has always had such a function on their website aplecambodia.org.)
I believe APLE is trying to get away from it's fishy reputation. One of the main reasons Cambodia as a whole is regarded as a Pedophile Heaven around the world is thanks to APLE.
Now APLE calls itself internethotline-cambodia.org. This is most probably a new Organisation recently registered to distance itself from the original founder of APLE, French national Thierry Darnaudet from Dax in southern France. Darnaudet has been in hiding since 2014.
It would be interesting to find out who runs such websites (showing sexual child abuse) in the first place. In the US it was ICE and the CIA in many cases. In the UK Gov. Agencies like CEOPS are suspected of doing the same.
Also of interest would be to find out if APLE is filtering out non-Cambodians (and perhaps only westerners) so that it can exclusively follow these cases in order to reestablish it's fundraising through western media outlets. Most childsex abuse cases involving local Khmer men but APLE has never been of interested in this. Nor has the western media.
The new Hotline:
internethotlinecambodia.org
New Hotline Aims to Fight Growing Online Child Sex Abuse
by Hannah Hawkins | September 15, 2016
An internet hotline aimed at combating online child sexual exploitation and abuse, which experts say are on the rise in Cambodia, was officially launched on Wednesday at an event in Phnom Penh—almost a year after it first went live.
...to be continued...
The website—internethotlinecambodia.org—is run by anti-pedophile NGO Action Pour Les Enfants (APLE) with support from the InHope Foundation, a global organization that develops local hotlines for reporting online child sexual abuse.
DeleteAPLE country director Samleang Seila said online child exploitation in Cambodia was a growing concern, but that there was little dedicated research and resources going toward the issue.
Mr. Seila said street-based sexual exploitation—in which children, normally from impoverished families, physically meet their abusers—had declined over the past five years due to broad efforts to catch offenders. This has pushed perpetrators underground and online, he said, where their crimes are harder to detect.
“Sex offenders have had to find other ways to abuse children, which is why online sexual exploitation has increased,” he said.
James McCabe, director of operations for the Child Protection Unit, agreed that “serious pedophiles” were moving off the streets.
“I have to agree there have been significant improvements in cracking down on child trafficking when you think of the resources that have gone into [it],” Mr. McCabe said, adding that the progress “may be a contributing factor to why it’s being pushed underground.”
“Serious pedophiles are now using sophisticated ways to abuse children,” he said, citing as an example the alleged Australian pedophile Peter Scully, who is accused of live-streaming videos of children being tortured and sexually abused in the Philippines.
Mr. Seila said the hotline—which has been active since November, but only recently received an official government endorsement—had received 62 reports of online child sexual exploitation or abuse so far, or “about four or five cases a month.”
Amy Crocker, a development coordinator for InHope, said the new hotline also served as a way for Cambodia to contribute to the global fight against online child exploitation.
“Cambodia can also now participate in [an] international network—they can receive reports from other hotlines, and they can also send reports to other hotlines so hotlines in other countries can take action,” Ms. Crocker said.
Sebastien Marot, executive director of Friends International, an NGO that works with vulnerable children, said the organization’s long-established Child Safe hotline was generally not used for reporting online crimes.
“I honestly don’t know if we’ve received any [cases] so far,” Mr. Marot said, adding that this was not a reflection of the situation in the country, but rather how the hotline was used and promoted.
“It will be interesting to see what APLE will receive in terms of reports and cases and how they can act—that will be very interesting to look at,” he said.
hawkins@cambodiadaily.com
Question for Mr Neeson:
ReplyDeleteBob Alexander if your second in command at CCF. He is your employee. You pay him a wage. He is also on the board of directors of CCF – a not-for-profit charity. Do you see any conflict of interest here?
Nicky Cummins is also an employee of Scott’s and on the board of directors. Of course the board of directors is not going to stop the Neese’s scams when their income depends on the scams. Get real.
DeleteRegarding Mr Neeson's 'Fact Sheet'
ReplyDeleteIt is good to see that Mr Neeson finally want to talk about facts. It is a pity therefore that he throws so much opinion and accusation into his ‘fact’ lists. He also uses some of his ‘facts’ rather disingenuously. Mr Neeson talks about ‘harassment’ as a fact. No such harassment has taken place. Mr Neeson has been asked to justify his and his organization’s behaviour, perhaps in an over-insistent way, but neither he nor his staff have been harassed. Similarly Mr Neeson relies heavily on the ‘fact’ of Charity Navigator’s rating as conclusive evidence of his organisation’s ‘transparency and accountability’. Charity Navigator’s rating are no such thing. Charity Navigator, described by a leading Philanthropy magazine as ‘influential and controversial’, Mr Neeson suggests, conducts in-depth evaluations of the bodies it rates. It does not. It analyses the financial data provide by those very charities in tax returns. From the CCF returns however, there are a number of genuine facts which Mr Neeson has opted not to mention in his defensive material. Here are some of them.
Fact 1. Between 2010 and 2014 CCF’s income was more than $36 million.
Fact 2. In 2011 CCF ‘lent’ a total of $95,000 to 3 senior staff members, one of whom was the Finance Director and another was the Country Manager.
Fact 3. Mr Neeson, who portrays himself as a man ‘who has nothing’ pays himself around $8,000 a month, not high in US terms but 8 times the average annual income in Cambodia. He has also imported his own car from the US, but that’s another matter.
Fact 4. In 2014 CCF’s salary bill was $ 3.7 million. This is for a programme that claims to be looking after 2700 youngsters, most of whom live at home. That gives a notional salary spend per child of more than $1000, while the average income in Cambodia around $950 per annum.
Fact 5. At the end of 2014 CCF was holding just under $5m in land and $3.5 million in investments. In his own right Mr Neeson is also a landowner in Cambodia. He became so in spite of laws that preclude non-Cambodians from owning land.
Fact 6. In the CCF returns for 2014 'Travel' accounted for about $240k. This suggests an average spend of $20,000 each month for an organisation with its major operational focus in one part of one city in Cambodia.
The above are taken from CCF’s F990 filings, available publicly.
There is more to come.
More facts:
DeleteFact 7. In CCF’s flagship location in central Phnom Penh, CCF1; resident students, almost all of whom are over 18 years old:
7a. Share beds (one group of 10 boys in a 4x4 m room (exclusive of a toilet) had 4 bunk beds between them).
7b. Have no dining room. The room once used as a dining room was taken over for administrative use. Residents eat wherever they can find a space to sit.
7c. Have no dedicated social space beyond corridors or their multi-shared bedrooms
7d. Are monitored by up to 8 internal cameras.
7e. Lived in a regime which banned ‘games’ including chess; had no fitness program and no hobbies/personal interests program.
Fact 8. CCF is dominated by the family of the Country Manager whose sisters, brother, father, husband and brother-in-law have held or are holding key positions in the organization. These positions are favorably remunerated.
Fact 9. The first 4 girl students selected to go to university were unable to undertake their first year of studies because of internal administrative errors. Instead they were employed as full-time ‘interns’ on no pay.
Fact 10. Mr Neeson has had input on the quality of his organisation’s educational approach from professional education specialists of high standing. These educators experienced CCF at first hand over significant periods. Their conclusions regarding CCF education standards were not positive. Mr Neeson dispensed with their (free) services.
One final fact:
CCF has, and does, keep siblings from the same family in different residential establishments.
And a very final fact, included only because Mr Neeson attempts to suggest that there is something sinister in anyone having dealings with someone convicted (in Cambodia’s highly questionable legal system) of serious crime, rape in the instance he cites.
CCF has ejected numbers of students over the years, declaring their offences unforgivable. The same line has not been taken throughout the organisation. The head of CCF’s Child Protection Unit is an Australian national and a convicted corrupt policeman who was sentenced to almost 4 years in prison for crimes involving drugs and robbery. In Australia he would not be allowed to work with children. In Cambodia he is Mr Neeson’s friend.
The above facts do not constitute a comprehensive list.
Where are the Cambodian Press on the above FACTS ?
DeleteTheir silence makes them complicit in the continual criminal exploitation of the poorest an most impoverished in society who are pawns in Scott Neeson"s criminal facade .
Media is meant to act as a watchdog to protect public interest against malpractice .
Media as the fourth pillar of democracy has an all embracing role to act against oppression , malpractice injustice and partiality .
To be aware of crimes against the most vulnerable in society , have the duty and the power to expose and correct these crimes and yet do nothing is a crime against humanity
Where are the Cambodian Press on the above FACTS ?
DeleteTheir silence makes them complicit in the continual criminal exploitation of the poorest an most impoverished in society who are pawns in Scott Neeson"s criminal facade .
Media is meant to act as a watchdog to protect public interest against malpractice .
Media as the fourth pillar of democracy has an all embracing role to act against oppression , malpractice injustice and partiality .
To be aware of crimes against the most vulnerable in society , have the duty and the power to expose and correct these crimes and yet do nothing is a crime against humanity
Australian Connection in Cambodia's Child Welfare Industry
DeleteHow come Australian-run NGOs use Cambodia as a playground for their ill-conceived social experiments and dominate the Kingdom's lucrative "Child Welfare Industry"? Some of the most prominent players in the market, like Scott Neeson's controversial Cambodian Children’s Fund (CCF) and Sunrise Cambodia (run by Geraldine Cox and Lucy Perry) have become multi-million US$ enterprises. They are all run by Australians. These little regulated NGOs engage in practices that may actually harm children. That's why Tara Winkler, another Australian, now battles them with her own NGO, named Cambodian Children’s Trust (CCT).
Sunrise, for instance, has been widely criticized for using "Poverty Porn" in their fundraising campaigns, while Neeson's CCF faces accusations of separating children from their families by tricking parents into giving up their kids (by means of what might be an illegal contract) so that they can become fodder for money-raising campaigns.
To make things worse, the head of the Kingdom's self-constituted Child Protection Unit, James McCabe, is a convicted criminal and disgraced former cop from Australia. McCabe is apparently sponsored by Neeson's CCF.
But nothing compares to the despicable attitude of the Australian Government that used Cambodia as a dumping-ground for unwanted refugees from their notorious Nauru detention camps.
“This was a refugee dumping deal, pure and simple – with Australia paying blood money to a poorer country to accept responsibility for people that Australia didn’t want,” as Phil Robertson, Human Rights Watch Asia deputy director, pointed out recently.
No wonder many people around here deeply despise anything related to "Down Under".
It's been weeks that I've been in contact with this spell caster. He was recommended to me by Sharon Moore. Dr Abalaka help me out with my finances and also a favor spell. His Email Address is dr.abalaka@outlook.com. We've been very good friend and he rendered so many services like Love Spells, Luck, Money Spells, Health, WellBeing, Protection, Healing, Curses, Hex, Breakups,NEW! Combo Spells, Authentic Voodoo Spell, Business spells, Health/Healing spells,Curse removal, Job spells, Healing from all kind of diseases, Love binding, Barrenness(need a child), Need love, Lotto spell,Promotions spells Success spell, Money rituals, winning court case, Divorce spells, Low sperm count, Infertility in women, Breast enlargement/reduction,Penis enlargement/reduction and so many others. Wish you all the best
ReplyDeleteCharity Navigator is a corrupt organization, as is Great Non-Profits, intended to mislead the donor. They know nothing about these organizations and cowtow to their members. They should be exposed for the deceitful organizations that they are!!
ReplyDeletehello james ricketson,
ReplyDeletei hope that i have got the right james ricketson.
i am the webmaster of onwardoverland.com.
you may continue to copy whatever you want from my website.
you are always targeting the CCF ngo.
our mutual friend peter is always targeting APLE.
i am always targeting world vision.
all of these ngo's are as bad one as the other.
i am interested because i am being gang stalked in thailand
but the "information" comes from cambodia
where i rented a house 10 years ago.
i have never done anything to do with children in my entire life.
i don't even know what are the allegations against me.
they, whoever they are, go to great lengths to make sure that i do not find out.
my friends think that it is a case of mistaken identity.
the khmer police told me recently that they made it up just for fun
and not to worry about it. they told me that there is no story and that i was not on their list.
i believe that the information and my photograph is held on a private group on facebook
and that many people such as motodops have access to it.
my website is only for me to practice my programming skills.
recently i changed one detail on the home page and received 1000 extra hits.
so i conclude that my web site is being monitored.
this email has no point. it is just to set the record straight.
best wishes
EMAIL TO CHARITY NAVIGATOR
ReplyDeleteDear John (Pat) Dugan,
As Charity Navigator’s co-founder and board chairman, I have a couple of questions for you about the Cambodian Children’s Fund.
You have given this NGO a rating of 100% for transparency and accountability. How did you arrive at this figure? Given that you have around 8,000 charities registered with Charity Navigator I am curious to know how you arrive at percentage assessments?
If Charity Navigator were to conduct even half an hour of internet research into Scott Neeson and the Cambodian Children’s Fund it would become immediately apparent that neither are in any way transparent. Or accountable.
I am curious to know, also, why it is that comments I post on Charity Navigator that are in any way critical of CCF, or which raise legitimate questions about the legality of some of its operations and the ethics of others are immediately deleted? This applies to others a who are critical of CCG and/or Scott Neeson.
How do you decide which comments to delete and which to allow to remain? Are charities registered with Charity Navigator able to pay to have negative comments removed?
My previous communications with Charity Navigator have been ignored. You definitely do not get anywhere close to 100% for ‘transparency and accountability’.
best wishes
A RESPONSE FROM CHARITY NAVIGATOR
DeleteHello James,
Thank you for your inquiry. I am the analyst responsible for CCF's profile on our site. The reason they receive a 100 points for A&T is because they meet all the metrics we have listed for that dimension of our rating. As part of our A&T evaluation we check to see if organizations make certain information available on their site for donors to access, such as their most recent audit and 990, staff, board and a donor privacy policy. We also check to see if they have certain policies in place such as whistleblower or conflict of interest policies, items we extract from the 990. To read more about our A&T metrics please visit the methodology section of our website here: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid....
If you have publically available information regarding the questionable conduct or operations of a charity then I encourage you to forward that information to our CN Advisory Issuance Commitee at the following email address: CNAdvisory@charitynavigator.org. You can read more about how we decide to post a CN Advisory on our website here: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid...
Regarding the comments you posted, they are powered by Facebook and we do not monitor them. We do not have the ability to delete comments, it would be up to the user to delete their own comment.
Hope this helps clarify things a bit. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns.
Best,
Marwah Maasarani
Program Analyst
Dear Marwah Maasarani
DeleteI do not understand what “meet all the metrics we have listed for that dimension of our rating” means? Please explain.
I do understand what “we check to see if organizations make certain information available on their site for donors to access” means, however. The question is:
Do you check to see if the information available to donors is accurate? Truthful?
For example:
If CCF makes available on its website the ‘fact’ that the charity is ‘gifting’ homes to impoverished families, is there any mechanism whereby Charity Navigator can (or does) check to see if this is true? And if someone points out to Charity Navigator that CCF does NOT ‘gift’ homes to impoverished families, but rents these homes to them, do you ask CCF if it has misled donors and sponsors?
I could provide you with a long list of things that CCF says that it does but which it does not do. Indeed, I have done so before. It certainly seems to me that any of your 8,000 ‘charities’ can say whatever they like about themselves and that you have no way to check to see if they are telling the truth.
Do you ever do a little basic mathematics to see how much money a charity is actually spending on those it is purporting to be helping?
By its own admission, CCF receives around $10 million a year from sponsors and donors.
By its own admission, CCF is educating 2,211 children
By its own admission 75% of these children live with their families.
This leaves 553 children in residential care.
Do a little maths here, Marwah Maasarani
$10 million divided by 2211 children = $4,500 per child per annum. (The average Cambodian family survives on a little more than $1,000 a year!)
Bear in mind that most of the CCF kids are attending free government schools so the bulk of the money is being spent on the kids in residential care.
CCF does provide $250 per annum in rice support to the families of the kids in residential care. I am not sure if the kids who live with their families get the $250 worth of rice each year but lets presume they do and return to our calculator.
2211 x 250 = (approx) $500,000
Let’s subtract this amount from $10 million. We are left with $9.5 million.
Now lets divide $9.5 million by the number of children in residential care – 553. And what do we get?
$17,500
Yes, it is costing around $17,500 to keep one child from a poor Cambodian family in residential care for one year. This in a country with a per capita income for family of a little more than $1,000 a year.
You don’t smell a rat, Marwah Maasarani?
CCF may well argue that it has its granny program and its medical service. Fair enough. How much do these two programs cost each year? Do you know? And if you do, can you point out to me where I, as a potential sponsor or donor, can find this information on the website of a ‘charity’ to which you have given a 100% rating for transparency and accountability.
Really, Marwah Maasarani, Charity Navigator is a very naïve organization if it simply takes at face value what charities tell it. If you do not do any fact checking your ratings are worthless.
And you are wrong about the deletion of comments. I am not alone in having my comments deleted. Indeed, right now my comments are totally blocked.
If you are interested in knowing a little more about CCF finances, based on its 2013 tax-returns, go to:
http://cambodia440.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/96-message-for-heather-graham-re.html
They only look at the financial reports the CCF provide them, they know nothing about taking homes from the impoverished, taking children from families, or sounding money while sending the children to public school. They deceive donors and provide a perfect cover for Neeson's scams!
DeleteFunny enough that only 5 star posts get to stay on the GreatNonProfits CCF site. I know that they have taken down hundreds of honest posts....but only 5 star posts stay. Blatant lies stay...but honest posts get taken down. They are just another of Scott Neeson's scams that he controls and uses to swindle money from well meaning donors!
ReplyDeleteYou are a moron. Likely one of Fletcher's crew.
DeleteYes Anonymous 1:26, you are a moron. Why don't you take a look at the posts before you advertise your ignorance?
DeleteIt is common for CCF staffers to ask sponsors what child they prefer and present a photo list of children available for sponsorship . " Rich " sponsors often have special requests such as they want a child of particular age and gender. Neeson does his best to please and accommodate such requests. Once a suitable child has been found a background story of despair is created aimed to pull the heartstrings and some big $$.
ReplyDeleteSponsors visiting children in Cambodia have regular access and shopping trips with their sponsor child. Never is the child's real family invited to meet the sponsors and accompany their child. There is no doubt the aim is to create a perception that the child is alone in the world. Pushing boundaries of human trafficking you might say .
Australian Connection in Cambodia's Child Welfare Industry
DeleteHow come Australian-run NGOs use Cambodia as a playground for their ill-conceived social experiments and dominate the Kingdom's lucrative "Child Welfare Industry"? Some of the most prominent players in the market, like Scott Neeson's controversial Cambodian Children’s Fund (CCF) and Sunrise Cambodia (run by Geraldine Cox and Lucy Perry) have become multi-million US$ enterprises. They are all run by Australians. These little regulated NGOs engage in practices that may actually harm children. That's why Tara Winkler, another Australian, now battles them with her own NGO, named Cambodian Children’s Trust (CCT).
Sunrise, for instance, has been widely criticized for using "Poverty Porn" in their fundraising campaigns, while Neeson's CCF faces accusations of separating children from their families by tricking parents into giving up their kids (by means of what might be an illegal contract) so that they can become fodder for money-raising campaigns.
To make things worse, the head of the Kingdom's self-constituted Child Protection Unit, James McCabe, is a convicted criminal and disgraced former cop from Australia. McCabe is apparently sponsored by Neeson's CCF.
But nothing compares to the despicable attitude of the Australian Government that used Cambodia as a dumping-ground for unwanted refugees from their notorious Nauru detention camps.
“This was a refugee dumping deal, pure and simple – with Australia paying blood money to a poorer country to accept responsibility for people that Australia didn’t want,” as Phil Robertson, Human Rights Watch Asia deputy director, pointed out recently.
No wonder many people around here deeply despise anything related to "Down Under".
Removing these children from their families, is human trafficking!
ReplyDeleteJames Wright, Team Neeson Troll #1, employed by Scott Neeson to write abusive comments on this blog, comments as follows on a You Tube video video I posted a couple of years ago dealing with the Cambodian Children’s Fund locking a family out of their home.
ReplyDeleteJames Wright
Anyone who has doubts about Scott and CCF's credibility should read this first. James Ricketson is a sleaze.
https://www.cambodianchildrensfund.org/fact-sheet-1/
CCF's facts are mostly factually incorrect and are designed to create the illusion of answering questions. The questions remain.
For those who have not seen the video, it can be found it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=Ve280RWEV5w&google_comment_id=z13ctlgpfu3dvlzww04cdhaa0rmexffh0vc0k&google_view_type#gpluscomments
Proof that Neeson still has the charm. What bullshit! He never had it, never will. What those ladies need is bullshit repellent!!
ReplyDeleteSince you started deleting posters critical of your attacks on child welfare organizations and your defense of a convicted pedophile, this place has just died.
ReplyDeleteNot deleting posts.
DeleteThe rest just the idle ramblings of a troll with nothing better to do with his time.
Who is the convicted paedophile Anonymous 2:26? Are you confused with the admitted drug dealer that runs Neeson's so called Child Protection Unit?
ReplyDeleteWhere are the tax returns for 2015? It is now October 2016!
ReplyDeleteThe CCF website. Where would you expect them to be? Bloggers get the commenters they deserve, it seems.
DeleteThere are no tax returns there only the 990 and consolidated report. Hiding everything that you can, then lying about it?
DeleteDo you even know what a tax return is Anonymous 5:07? All of the prior year tax returns have been removed from the site also.
DeleteSo where are the tax returns James Wright??
DeleteAll kids displayed here on the bottom of this blog feature a bracelet tag. I wonder if it's equipped with a rfid chip to keep track of them 24 hrs/day for whatever purpose the ccf has in mind. The top picture looks like a classic example of those people APLE likes to target. White/over50/and this evil look. I wonder if APLE ever stalked Neeson. If not, they should. As we know APLE's former country director (Hang Vibol) got jailed on child sex offense claims. Thierry Darnaudet, APLE's founder got similar claims but apparently got away with it.
ReplyDeleteJames, I wonder if you have read the the bottom feeding posts posted on expat website Khmer 440 about you? You have hit a nerve and those paid CCF supporters are doing a fairly poor effort in poking holes in your investigations . All I can say is James keep up the work exposing this Fraudulent charity and their crimes against Cambodia children and families.
ReplyDeleteI was reading Khmer 440 . There's a few CCF supporters who banding together making you sound mad. They are clearly paid supporters.
DeleteWhy on earth would CCF bother to pay people to make James look mad when a) he does such a wonderful job of that himself, completely gratis, and b) he has the stalwart assistance of his own supporters. I mean, just look at the posts above. The completely demented comment about bracelet "tags" (when anyone who has even spent half a second in Cambodia will know they are Buddhist blessings), the bizarre paranoid ramblings of "John Black" with his stalking gang and mysterious shadowy persecutors, the guy DEMANDING tax accounts which are on the CCF website, the mad conspiracy theories about armies of people being paid to undermine James (though, to be fair, they are probably inspired by James' own conspiracy theories that Scott is paying off the Cambodian Government, Charity Navigator, all journalists AND Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook). Well, birds of a feather.... It is coming to something when the commenter who is offering witch doctor services seems pretty sane in comparison to the others.
DeleteDear Team Neeson Troll (aka Anonymous 4.07)
DeleteI have not bothered to look at (read) whatever is written about me by James Wright on Khmer440. Anyone interested can read statements about my 'madness' and what is written in my blog, the questions asked, and make up their own minds.
On the one hand I am accused of censoring comments and now I am accused of allowing to remain on the blog comments that may be silly - like the one regarding the bracelet tags. Cant win when there is a team of you (a small team to be sure) determined to shoot the messenger.
To the best of my knowledge no-one (including myself) has claimed that there are 'armies of people being paid to undermine James.' Please cite your source for this.
This is a classic straw man argument.
Charity Navigator has no credibility. It relies totally on self-reporting. So if Scott claim to have 110% transparency and accountability this is what Charity Navigator would publish.
As for the media the Phnom Penh Post won't publish anything negative about Scott as he is a part owner of the newspaper. Or maybe he has recently sold his share. I am not sure. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
As for The Cambodian Daily its journalists (or some of them) may ask the right questions of Scott but since he never answers them the newspaper does not think there is a story. I have invited the Daily a few times to meet with families that have ben screwed by CCF and allow its journalists do their own research and make up their own minds. All such invitations have been ignored.
Not quite sure where Zuckerberg fits into your straw man argument! Please explain.
The only role played by Facebook in maintaining the CCF House of Cards is the interminable sponsored ads with photos of Neeson with cute girls in his arms - ads for what a wonderful caring person Scott Neeson is. Facebook is a business and part of its revenue stream comes from sponsored ads. CCF is a business and part of its revenue stream comes from fostering and maintaining the Scott Neeson myth - Hollywood mogul with $1 million salary gives up life of luxury to devote his life to helping poor Cambodian 'orphans'.
Neeson has made millions in Cambodia running his not for profit NGO. He owns millions of dollars worth of real estate. It's all smoke and mirrors, as anyone who has worked for CCF for long enough knows.
Families stuck living in the world housing slum village paying rent is only making things worse as many families have had to sell their homeland to keep up with rents forced upon them. Stuck in Iimbo while CCF has their children making millions under contracts they cannot read and have no copy.
ReplyDeleteThanks to you Mr Ricketson we are all aware of the shocking truths behind the child charity industry
DeleteI hear Neeson sold his share in the Phnom Penh Post? True or false? Anyone know?
ReplyDeleteJust as you thought James. Revenue is down nearly half a million dollars, salaries are up more than a million dollars. Half of their revenue is from three top donors. Fund raising expense is up 5 or 6 times what they spent in 2014. All of this is due in part to your great work. Keep exposing this fraud!
ReplyDeleteActually, I had no idea that CCF revenue was/is down by half a million dollars! Where can I find this information? And the fact that there are only three top donors? I am sure others would like to know this also. The same applies to salaries.
DeleteI have looked at the audit for the CCF financial year ending in Dec 15 and can’t figure out where the money has gone.
DeleteThe figures given are designed to confuse; not elucidate.
Let’s start with:
‘Contributions’ - $9,614, 516.
I’m guessing this money came from sponsors and donors. Then:
Program Services - $9,433,318
So far, so good.
Then there is an item referred to as:
Direct Program Expenses - $2,771,192
My guess is that into this category fall (1) Education, (2) Medical, (3) Rice Subsidy, (4) Granny program.
If I am wrong in my assumptions here I trust that some member of Team Neeson will correct me; add to this list!
If I am not wrong it wold be good if CCF were to break down this $2.7 million in ‘Direct Program Expenses’ in a little more detail.
At the top of the column there is this thing called ‘Compensation’ $3,718,132
Things get a bit murky here.
Given that there is no category for ‘Salaries’ my guess is that ‘Compensation’ refers to salaries. (Again, please correct me if my presumption is incorrect here, Team Neeson)
So, in one year CCF paid more than one third of the money it took from sponsors and donors (roughly $10 million) on salaries - $3.7 million.
Some maths is in order here.
By its own admission CCF has 553 children in residential care.
Divide $3,718,132 by 553 and you get $6,723
CCF is paying $6,723 per annum in wages for each child in residential care.
Or, if you want divide the wages by the total number of kids being educated by CCF you get around $1,700 in staff wages per child.
Whichever way you do the maths here there is something very wrong if it costs CCF close to double the per capita income, in wages, to educate one child – including the residential care of 553 of these children!
As a rule, when I quite figures such as this James Wright and his Team Neeson Troll (TNT) friends go out of their way to shoot the messenger. How about this time, James and TNT, you simply attack me on the basis of my figures. If I have got them wrong, correct me. It is difficult to make head or tail of where and how money is spent by looking at CCF Financial Reports.
Instead of publishing the tax return, where these items would be clear, they intend to make a hodgepodge of confusion by only publishing the 990 and a consolidated version of the tax form. They have also taken down previously published tax forms. They do not want you to have the information.
DeleteScott Neeson is a coward.
ReplyDeleteIt's clear now that he (and Licadho, APLE etc.) will never open a court case against James Ricketson. The shit would simply hit the fan and all details of their wonderfull NGO-Budget World would be exposed.
The financial transparency report is a piece of paper that even donors won't understand. This is no exception in the NGO World of Cambodia. Break down the budget figures in vague categories and consider the job (transparency is something else !) done.
I never quite understood why so many NGO's get away with this. It's not only an isolated case in Cambodia but common practise around the world.
Unicef a few years ago sent 10 of it's staff on a fact finding mission to Cambodia "Water works" and ran an online blog about it every day. You had to be blind not to see that this was simply a sponsored Holiday Trip for their most successfull fundraiser staff/volunteers. When asked about the cost of this trip I was referred to their annual transparency report which of course only appeared about 1 year later and had no specific detail about this trip of 10. I estimate that the trip had cost Unicef 30.000 Euro which could have paid for many badly needed wells in the country side.
Needless to say that Unicef runs a small town of it's own in Phnom Penh with access to numerous SUV and a lot of staff in already in the country. Unicef in Europe did not want to have any of this and simply shrugged of any criticism. Why should the CCF be any different ?
No wonder NGO's in Cambodia have been fighting the NGO Law for almost a decade (with the support of the US Government). Transparency is something they all hate because it would expose their donor base and "ADMINISTRATION" Costs like Salaries.
Scott Neeson's Cambodian Children's Fund is the most corrupt NGO working in Cambodia. And that is saying something. The competition is fierce. Fuck them all. Blood suckers. Scam artists. Where is the media in this? The Post's silence is understandable. Neeson part owns it. The rest? Pussies.
DeleteIf your figures are correct, Mr Ricketson, the Cambodian Children's Fund is a scam of epic proportions.
ReplyDeleteIf my figures are incorrect it is because CCF's financial statements are laid out to obfuscate, not to clarify, how much money is spent on what.
DeleteI am quite happy to be corrected and repeat here what I write a few days ago:
"As a rule, when I quite figures such as this James Wright and his Team Neeson Troll (TNT) friends go out of their way to shoot the messenger. How about this time, James and TNT, you simply attack me on the basis of my figures. If I have got them wrong, correct me."
Cambodia and the mushrooming NGO Sector
ReplyDeleteBack in 1993 Cambodia counted 94 NGO's. Only 10 of them had any Australian influence, while there are now over 40 Australian NGOs registered and an even larger number of unregistered charities in 2016.
http://cambodianpeaceworkers.com/?page_id=32 (1993).
In 2016 there are more than 5000 NGO !
=============================
How to raise money from Tourists :
The NGO List: Grassroots NGOs Seeking International Travelers :
Generating income from foreign Volunteers (often labeled as "Hug a Cambodian Orphan" Holiday Travelers) is another source of income.
The CCF of course uses this source of income, too: https://www.cambodianchildrensfund.org/volunteer.html
Did you read the bit about how much they charge?
DeleteThe above Blogger , 9.15 PM , did not specifically say CCF charge volunteers ,,there numerous so called charities that advertise online and do
Deletehe was alluding to them
I just checked it out Anonymous 10.41. The answer is - zilch. Nada. Took 30 seconds to click the link. CCF don't charge their volunteers. More false accusations on this ridiculous page which could have been established as incorrect with 2 minutes more research. Like blogger, like commenter... Unless of course they are the same person, which is what it reads like these days.
ReplyDeleteLike you, Anonymous 10.45, I spent 30 seconds checking out CCF’s online ads for unpaid volunteers.
Delete"Sharing Your Skills
Unfortunately CCF does not accept short-term volunteers. Aside from some specific projects advertised, volunteers must be able to commit to at least 3 months. Volunteering at CCF is an extremely rewarding experience, however it can also be very challenging. If you want to join our team on the ground in Cambodia, please view our current openings.
Let’s Talk Money
Volunteers are not required to pay CCF to volunteer with us. But… we can’t pay you either. Our resources are reserved for the children, programs and community projects we run. For this reason we are unable to provide housing, payment or stipends for volunteers. Volunteers are required to provide their own flights, visas, accommodation and living expenses."
I was curious to discover what skills CCF exploits with its unpaid foreign volunteer labour?
Are these skills that no Cambodians have? Skills that Khmer men and women could be paid to put to good use? Take this job, for instance, advertised on the CCF website:
Community Youth Leadership Trainer Level 1
Placement Outline
Position Title: CYLD Trainer Level 1
Location: Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Salary/Stipend: This is a voluntary position with no salary
Status: One month or longer (Saturdays 8am-11am)
Why is this not a paid job that could be given to a Khmer man or woman who knows the community? Who may well be part of the community? Who understands Khmer culture?
The notion that a foreigner can fly in, with little or no knowledge or experience of Cambodian culture, and become a Community Youth Leadership Trainer is just absurd. And pay for the privilege! Extraordinary arrogance would be required of any inexperienced foreigner even wanting to take on such a job. This is nothing more than an invitation to a cashed-up poverty tourist to come and hang out with some cute kids for a month or more on Saturday mornings. And, given that there is no mention of police checks, an invitation to a poverty tourist with a predilection for vulnerable children to come and try their luck with some CCF kids.
A suggestion, Scott Neeson:
Out of CCF’s $3.7 salaries allocation find a few thousand dollars to employ some Khmer Community Youth Leadership Trainers to work Saturday mornings.
Here’s another:
Position Title: Yoga Instructor
Location: Phnom Penh Cambodia
Salary: This is a voluntary position with no salary
Status: 3 months+
Perhaps a member of Team Neeson might like to answer this question? Given CCF’s 100% rating for ‘transparency’.
“If CCF really thinks that teaching kids yoga is more important than helping these kids’ families in a meaningful way, why not pay to have some Khmer yoga practitioners to train to become teachers?”
Uh, I saw this come up on their website and Facebook less than two weeks ago - a story about a Khmer volunteer in this exact role. Do you pay attention to anything that CCF even does?
Deletehttps://www.cambodianchildrensfund.org/news/spotlight-on-sophanna/
What James will say: He is a very, very busy man with better things to do than bother to look at the publicly available newsfeed of the NGO he has declared his weird war on.
ReplyDeleteWhat James will mean: He endlessly googles and searches on Facebook for any new fact he thinks he can twist or use against CCF and his "arch nemesis" Scott Neeson, but ignores the overwhelming majority of stories, facts and irrefutably positive things that don't fit with his bizarre conspiracy theories.
As a bonus feature he might do a bit of his usual mental contorting and accuse CCF of using this poor Khmer man as slave labour, or the volunteer being a paid ruse to distract the world from CCF's villainy. There's certainly no chance of him admitting he is a) provably wrong b) a lazy researcher and/or c) a liar. Oh, and we're all Scott Neeson of course.
Oh dear, just when it seemed as though Team Neeson had given up on shooting the messenger, here you are again, Anonymous 5.20 - shooting the messenger rather than answering any questions.
DeleteI have to give it to you and to other members of your Team - you are sonsistent in your refusal to answer questions or, in this instance, correct me if I have made some wrong assumptions in my reading of CCF's Financial Statement for the financial year ending Dec 2015.
It would be so easy, if you have have facts and figures at your disposal, to respond with, "What you do not understand, James, in your reading of the Financial Statements, are the following..."
And then demonstrate my incompetence with mathematics, with my inability to read a Financial Statement correctly, that the figures I have quoted above are wrong.
Let me refresh your memory:
"in one year CCF paid more than one third of the money it took from sponsors and donors (roughly $10 million) on salaries - $3.7 million.
Some maths is in order here.
By its own admission CCF has 553 children in residential care.
Divide $3,718,132 by 553 and you get $6,723
CCF is paying $6,723 per annum in wages for each child in residential care.
Or, if you want divide the wages by the total number of kids being educated by CCF you get around $1,700 in staff wages per child.
Whichever way you do the maths here there is something very wrong if it costs CCF close to double the per capita income, in wages, to educate one child – including the residential care of 553 of these children!"
Explain to me, explain to the readers of this blog, how and in what way my maths here is faulty?
You will not, of course. You never do. You will huff and puff, set up a straw man (google it) and hope that readers of this blog are too dumb to see what you are up to.
Well, shit, Rickets. This is pretty easy. There might be "553" kids in residence but there over 2,000 students at CCF schools. over 130 are at university. That big number you pulled out also pays for the CPU, a nationwide program that supports the Cambodian police in investigating crimes against children. It also includes the cost of a free to access medical center that is also not just for 553 you've chosen as your denominator. It also includes the housing program etc etc. All of this is discoverable if you cared.
DeleteAlmost everyone here knows you can't read a simple financial statement since you tried to conflate CCF's total rental expanses with Scott's hotel bill during your acute analysis of the 2014 statement. You idiot.
Dear Scott Neeson, James Mc Cabe or Alan Lemon (aka Anonymous 7.16)
DeleteNow that wasn't all that hard, was it? Answering some questions?
Why are there no figures in CCF's Financial Report that indicate how much is spent on each of these initiatives? Would you, in the interests of transparency (you do, after all rate 100% with Charity Navigator) like to give us some of the figures that are not included in your Financials.
How many of the 2000 students are attending free government school?
How many of the 2,000 students are attending schools paid for by CCF donors and sponsors?
How many teachers does CCF employ to teach the students who are not going to free government schools?
How much money do you pay these teachers per month?
How much does it cost CCF to send one student to university for one year? I mean, university fees plus living allowance?
How much does CCF spend in one year with its CPU program?
How much does CCF's free medical centre cost per year?
With these figures at hand it will be much easier to do my sums; must easier for anyone interested in where the $10 million each year goes, to do their sums.
Why not itemise how much money is spent on each of CCF's initiatives? How much do the three of you earn per annum, for instance? Why are your wages kept secret?
Do you know just how plain weird you sound when you accuse everyone who happens to think you are wrong or laughable of being Scott Neeson, Jim McCabe, Alan Lemon, Team Neeson etc? Presumably including the many people laughing at you on Khmer 440 (yes, yes, I know, you don't read it, you're such a very busy man):
DeleteI am none of the above. Neither am I Anonymous 7.16. I am a rubbernecker and the guy who laughed at you for your cock up over the Cambodian volunteer. And I'm not so stupid not to realise that all of your bluster since then has been your way of trying to distract from the fact that you had made a fool of yourself again and avoid having to admit you'd made another stupid, sloppy mistake.
Also, if you truly believe, as you appear to, that the only people who read and respond to this blog are either people who already agree with you or people who disagree because they are paid by Neeson, then doesn't it make this whole pathetic venture pointless, since you are either preaching to the choir or to people who are unpersuadable?
Dear Team Neeson Troll (aka Anonymous 8.12)
DeleteWhether you are Scott Neeson, James Mc Cabe, Alan Lemon or James Wright is of little interest to me. Your job, as you see it, is to shoot the messenger. Your job is to try, in whatever way you can, to avoid answering put to Scott Neeson, CCF and the CCF board and make it seem that the questions are either irrelevant or signs of some form of mental instability on my part.
Readers can and will make up their own minds.
As for people laughing at me on Khmer440, I could care less. And I don't read it not because I don't have time but because I have no interest.
If you have indeed laughed at me you have a strange sense of humour. Wha? cock-up are you referring to vis a vis Cambodian volunteer?
As for who reads this blog I have no real idea of their identities - other than a few people, like yourself, whose finger prints are pretty easy to read. All I know is that between 260 and 300 people a day visit the blog. Sometimes 500. So, whether they come to l]have a good laugh or to learn something new about CCF I have no idea. And nor is it a matter of huge concern to me.
So no I am neither preaching to a choir nor trying convince anyone of anything. All that I am doing, and this is what journalists do, is present facts, raise questions and hope that readers will arrive at their own informed opinions.
In fact I am quite busy and this blog occupies very little of my time.
As I have pointed out to you before,when you make these silly comments (and you do so frequently, by whatever name you choose to be known by) my page views jump astronomically, so thanks again for that, cheers
James, you truly are an idiot. Unless you are monitoring and cross referencing i.p addresses (assuming everybody has a static address) you have no idea how many people visit this blog. We both know that once again you are being caught out manipulating statistics. I suspect it is much more likely there are 26-30 Ricketson trolls who each visit 10 times a day (or maybe 13-15 visiting 20 times a day)giving you these numbers. Please show us sometime that you are not quite as stupid as you portray yourself to be.
DeleteDear Team Neeson Troll (aka Anonymous 4.33)
DeleteSome homework for you:
Start a blog, using the free template that is 'blogspot'.
You will discover very quickly that you are alerted, in real time, to the number of page hits each blog entry receives - on a daily basis.
Yesterday, for instance, I received 263 hits. Today the number rests at 248 so far. The day ends (because the blog operates on US time) at 11 am this morning Phnom Penh time.
It is possible, from looking at the stats as they come in, to know which blog entries are of interest and which are of less interest. it is also possible to know what times of day people read this blog. Less people read it on the weekends than during the week, for instance. And more people read it during work hours than after work hours. This leads me to speculate that a lot of readers (perhaps most) are NGOs who check the blog out during their work hours. Perhaps they are the same people who visit Khmer440 in order to get another perspective. This I do not know.
Given that I am the only one who sees these statistics there would be little point in my sitting here clicking open blog entries in order to increase my page hits. For the record, as of right now, 118,390.
Start your own blog and you'll discover these things.
You accuse me of ignoring "the overwhelming majority of stories, facts and irrefutably positive things that don't fit with his bizarre conspiracy theories." Fair enough, now tell me (us) a few of these stories about "irrefutably positive things". And provide me (us) with some facts that I seem to have missed or, better still, verifiable facts that reveal my mathematics vis a vis CCF's Financial Statements.
ReplyDeleteYou are not going to, are you?
Of course not.
Any answers to questions Team Neeson?
DeleteHow much does the CPU set you back each year? And the Grannie program? And the Medical program?
Everybody knows blogspot page view count is notoriously inaccurate. Especially on low count blogs like this, most page views are bots and other fake views, hundreds daily on average. http://www.themilelongbookshelf.com/2014/03/discussion-how-accurate-are-your.html#.WAcMScl418E
ReplyDeleteThe traffic is so low here that third party stat counters are unable to count the traffic, registering it as 0. https://www.similarweb.com/website/cambodia440.blogspot.com
As Bloggers know well, "Rule #1 of blogging stats: The only way to know if a human is reading your blog is if they are talking with you." http://www.hanselman.com/blog/7BloggingStatisticsRulesThereIsLifeAfterPageViews.aspx
According to Jame Ricketson there has never been more than 8 or 10 people here posting. According to Ricketson everybody who responds that doesn't agree with him is either Scott Neeson, James Mcabe, Alan Lemon or James Wright. So that's 4. Then there is Ricketson, so there is 5. Beyond that, there are 2 or 3, maybe 4 pro-Ricketson posters who keep repeating the same of thing over and over, and presumably a couple of those are Ricketson sock puppets. So all in all, by Ricketson's own count, there are probably 8 people here. No wonder that 2 years into this blog, (longer counting his other blogs,) not a single reputable media outlet (or any media outlet) has picked up the story. The only place he is ever mentioned outside of this blog is at K440 where they just laugh at him.
I have no idea how accurate or inaccurate the page view counts are. And nor does it bother me particularly. I am not out to win a page view contest. I am out to place on record certain things about CCF, to ask certain questions. If these are not picked up by the mainstream media, so be it. The same applied for along time with Somaly Mam also. Everyone in the NGO world knew she was a liar but the mainstream media averted its eyes for years; acted as if it was not happening. CCF's time in the sun will come and when it does it will come as no surprise to whoever has been reading this blog.
ReplyDeleteOn the question of page counts I can say this. There are certain blog entries, sometimes old ones, that continue to get many more hits than others - even very recent ones. This suggests to me that many more people find topic A interesting than Topic B. On another of my blogs a post from two years back gets a lot of hits every day. If these hits are being arranged by a computer, why does it pick on this particular blog entry? And why do page views go up during work hours an down after work hours and even further down on weekends and during Khmer holidays? I tis hard to imagine why any computer program would be programmed to do this - especially given that I am the only one (as a rule) who sees the stats!?
No doubt you will have an explanation. Great, let's have it.
Oh, one last question: If, in reality, no-one is reading this blog, why do you put so much effort into shooting the messenger? Surely the messenger is dead already :-)
You truly are stupid James if you think that old blog entries are more popular just because they are still receiving hits. Just engage brain for half a second and think about how many people like me have a blog in their history that they have been to previously that stays in their history, rather than type in https://cambodia.blogspot each time they just click on history and select your current blog from there. It increases your hits and falsely shows one blog to be more read than others. You really are stupid if you believe each hit is a new reader. Anon 4.33 was spot on when he/she suggested as all you have is a few trolls logging on 20 or so times a day. Engage brain James and think before opening mouth and showing the world how ill informed you really are.
DeleteDear 'Shoot-The-Messenger' Neeson Troll (aka 7.51)
DeleteYou are certainly putting a lot of effort into comments on a blog that you are convinced that not no one reads! Have you got nothing better to do with your time?
Let me give you an example that raises doubts about your theory.
Three years ago I wrote, on another blog of mine, a pice entitled SLUTS. The first line of the piece was "Sluts Is Miley Cyrus a slut or just pretending to be one? "
This blog entry receives about a dozen page views a day. And has done so for three years. Often more. It receives more page views than any other blog entry I have made.
Why? I think the answer is simple. Men interested in porn use the word 'sluts' in their google search and up comes my article. I suspect that 99% of those who visit this page do not read beyond the first sentence. They were hoping for something salacious and would have gone away disappointed.
The same principle applies on this blog. Any bog entry that deals with the incompetence of the British Commonwealth and Foreign Office receives few page views. And pretty much every other topic receives fewer page hits than those that have the name 'Neeson' in them.
Again, I don't think it is necessarily that there is an eager readership out there waiting to hear the latest on Scott Neeson. I suspect that it is more the case that people who have heard about CCF and Scott Neeson 'google' him and up comes my blog.
How many of them read beyond the first sentence I have no idea.
As for my having a few Trolls that log on 20 times a day, why on earth would they do that?I am the only person who sees the statistics!
Given that you are convinced that no-one reads this blog I ask, again, why you bother to spend so much time telling me (and the others who are not reading the blog) that no-one reads it? DFo you not have a life?
They log on 20 times a day in order to see if anybody has responded to your ranting about Neeson, Lemon and McCabe you dopey twat. Even you cannot be so stupid as not to realise that. Your hits are not from new readers they are from the band of morons that comprise team Ricketson. Lets just start publishing exerts from your latest failed script and see if that does anything for readership numbers.
DeleteDear Alan Lemon
DeleteIt is you, isn't it, Alan? It certainly carries your distinctive writing style! Or is someone pretending to be you by writing in your style?
Any 'supporters' I may have have better things to do than to log on 20 times a day! Why on earth would they do that? To boost the page view count of the blog? A page view count that only I get to see? What would be the point?
It would seem that you have nothing better to do with your time than to flog a dead horse.
What effort?
ReplyDeleteFor once James might actually be right (after all, if a clock can be right once out of every 43,200 seconds then James can be right once out of every 43,200 rants and rambles). Why are we bothering commenting here? James is completely immune to reason, facts, evidence, irony, doubt, self awareness etc. I know how hard it is to resist pointing out the sheer idiocies of what he writes (God, I know) but honestly, let's just stop feeding this troll. He's never going to admit he's made a mistake or lied, and he's never going to stop, he'll just respond with the usual boring repetitive bluster about "straw men", "Team Neeson", "shoot the messenger" etc. If the shadowy "Team Neeson" cabal could also agree to stop commenting in some ritual in their secret lodge, then even better. Let's just stop. I'll go first, starting.... NOW.
ReplyDeleteI will miss you, Anonymous 9.50, and I am sure my page view ratings will drop now that you have decided to no longer grace us with your pearls of wisdom.
DeleteSo James,that salary figure would include the money that he pays the two disgraced ex-policeman? Would it include the money that he pays James Wright also, or wasn't he on the payroll in 2015? Do we know who the three large donors are? Where are the tax returns that a prior poster lied about when she said that they were on the website?
ReplyDelete