 |
| Mey Mey, aged 3 |
Dear Scott Neeson
Meet Leng Kak, aged 45, with the 2nd
youngest of her 8 children, Mey Mey, aged 3.
 |
Leng Kak & Mey Mey
|
Mey Mey’s family has generated $45,000 (at least) in
sponsorship monies for CCF over the past five years. 6 of Kak’s 8 children are
back working in the Phnom Penh rubbish dump. The family has nothing to show for
CCF’s 5 year intervention in the lives of the children and their mother.
 |
| Mey Mey |
Here is Kak off to work in the
Phnom Penh rubbish dump, carrying the tools of her scavenger’s trade.
 |
| Leng Kak leaves for work |
6 of Kak’s 8 children work with
her in the dump.
 |
| Leng Kak's 8 children |
You may recognize Seang Kry. She,
along with 4 of her siblings, were in residential care with the Cambodian
Children’s Fund for five years.
 |
| Seang Kry |
Seang Kry is too young to work 11
hours a day, 7 days a week in the dump. She only works a few days a week.
Her 11 year old sister, Seang Ly
is not too young, however. She works in the dump every day.
 |
| Seang Kry & Seang Ly |
And
nor is her 15 year old brother, Vouern too young. He can earn
between $2 & $3 a day scavenging and help support the family.
 |
| Vouern |
Sister
Seang Vy, aged 14, is not too young either to work full time in the dump. She
and Seang Ly were in CCF residential care until earlier this year.
 |
| Seang Ly & Seang Vy |
You
may recognize Seang Vy. CCF staff told her earlier this year her that if she
wanted to stay in residential care she would have to work, unpaid, taking care
of CCF children as a nanny. (Forcing kids to work for no wage is but one of the
many scams you are involved in.)
Behind
Seang Vy and Seang Ly in this photo, sister Seang Kry plays with her friends on
top of bags of scavenged plastic.
 |
| Seang Vy & Seang Ly |
The
buyers of recycled plastic will only pay for clean plastic. One of Kak’s jobs
is cleaning the plastic. To do this she must stand, waist deep, in stagnant
toxic water.
 |
| Leng Kak cleans scavenged plastic |
Below
the waist infections are common. The family has no money to go to the
doctor so infections (common in the line of work the family is engaged it) must
simply be endured.
This
is Sopaul, not a member of Leng Kak’s family but a neighbor in the small
community that lives by the dump.
 |
| Sopaul |
Aged
67, Sopaul works full time as a scavenger, and has done for 26 years.
 |
| Sopaul & Raksmey |
She
had a badly infected finger recently. Unable to afford to visit a
doctor she cut a hole in a lime and put her finger in it to avoid further
infection.
 |
| Sopaul |
Sopaul
has not received one cent of assistance from CCF’s ‘Granny Program’.
Kak’s
youngest daughter Meng Hong's prospects for the future do not look good.
 |
| Meng Hong, aged 2, Leng Kak's youngest child |
Nor do those of sister Mey Mey.
 |
| Mey Mey, aged 3 |
When
they are old enough they will join their siblings working in the dump or in
some other similarly demeaning form of slave labour.
The
Cambodian Children’s Fund has played a significant role in the lives of the
members of this family for the past half decade. The question is: “Has CCF
helped this family in any meaningful way?”
 |
| Seang Ly, Leng Kak, Mey Mey, Seang Vy |
Some
maths will help here:
Whilst
in residential care each of Kak’s 5 children had a sponsor paying $150 a
month to CCF.
Sponsors
were paying $750 a month to care for 5 children.
Kak’s
5 children were generating $9,000 a year of income for CCF.
All
5 children were attending government schools. These are free of charge, so their
education cost CCF nothing.
All
5 of Kak’s children were sleeping at night in dormitories – 2, 3 and 4 kids to
one bed. And the children were placed in different residential care facilities,
as is CCF’s policy. Keeping families together is not a top CCF priority.
 |
| Seang Ly |
If
CCF’s figures are to be believed (in fact, they cannot be trusted!) it was
costing you $1,800 per annum to take care of one of Kak’s children – close to
double the per capita income in Cambodia.
In
the meantime Kak was working 11 hours a day, 7 days a week, to support herself,
Meng Hong and Mey Mey. Her income for the year was less than $1000.
CCF
boasts of its ‘Outreach’ program. In the case of Kak’s family, this amounted to
‘Rice Support’ - $250 of rice each year.
 |
| Leng Kak,Mey Mey & Seang Kry |
Some
more maths:
CCF
Sponsors supported 5 of Kak’s children to the tune of $9,000 a year.
CCF
gives $250 or this $9000 to Kak to help her, Meng Hong and Mey Mey
Not
satisfied with the financial windfall Kak's family represented, CCF
decided that 14 year old Seang Vy should pay for her keep by working for
free as a CCF nanny – taking care of young children you have removed from
families similar to her own and which you pass off to gullible sponsors and
donors as kids whose parents don’t love them, parents who are violent,
alcoholics etc.
 |
| Mey Mey, Seang Vy & Seng Ly |
You
do not actually call them ‘orphans’, Scott, but the message you put out in the
media is that were it not for you these kids would have no responsible, caring
and loving adult to take care of them. This is a lie. Cambodian parents love
their children, as do parents all over the world. Yes, some parents are
alcoholics and some beat their children. This is so in our own countries also.
We do not, as a result, allow NGOs to remove these children from families just
because you feel like doing so and because it is good for the CCF business model: the more kids in residential
care, the more sponsors, the greater the capital inflows!
Kak
did not like the idea of 14 year old Seangy Vy working as a CCF nanny slave so
pulled her out of residential care earlier this year.
 |
| Seang Vy, holding mandarin, with sisters Mey Mey, Seangf Kry & Seng Ky |
Forcing
a 14 year old girl to work for no income for CCF is not only a blatant human
rights abuse; it is also against Cambodian law. This means nothing in Cambodia,
of course, if you have a lot of money and can pay corrupt Cambodian
officials to turn a blind eye to such abuses.
 |
| Seang Vy pours condensed milk into bread roll. A treat! |
The
same applies with the fraudulent ‘contracts’ you force parents to sign. These phony
‘contracts’ (parents are not allowed to keep a copy) are, in reality, just another
way of intimidating parents into complying with your dictatorial wishes and
empire building. If they do not, parents risk having their children ejected
from CCF and having to repay all the monies allegedly spent by CCF in the
children's care, as is stated clearly in the CCF ‘contract’ they have signed.
These ‘contracts’ are illegal, as you know, but fortunately you have, in Alan
Lemon, corrupt former Australian Federal Police officer with legal training to
administer this side of your business.
Forcing
children at CCF to work for no wage is but one of many of the human rights
abuses you practice. Fortunately for you, Cambodia’s human rights organizations
do not rate the illegal removal and detention of children from their families
very high on their list of human rights abuses to write reports about!
None
of Kak’s children are now resident in CCF. All but Meng Hong and Mey Mey are
working in the rubbish dump. This is necessary if the family is to
survive. None of the children are going to school. The family has
absolutely nothing to show for its 5 year involvement with CCF. CCF’s coffers,
on the other hand, have swelled by $45,000.
Kak’s
family is a very close and loving one. Their problem is not an alcoholic
father, parents who beat their children or any of the other justifications you
give out for removing children and incarcerating them in a CCF residential care.
Kak’s family’s problem is poverty, pure and simple. Extreme poverty. The only
employment available to them is working in the rubbish dump.
The
$9,000 that CCF received in one year of ‘caring’ for 5 children would have
bought a house and block of land for the family back in the province from which
they came.
The
$18,000 that CCF received in two years of caring for 5 children could, in
addition to buying a house and land for the family, have been invested in
helping it become self-sufficient in a business enterprise of some kind. And
imagine what an investment of $45,000 could have achieved in guaranteeing the
futures of Kak’s 8 children!?
Instead,
after several years of CCF intervention in the lives of the members of this
family they are all working in the rubbish (except for Hong Meng and Mey Mey),
are suffering from malnutrition, have no access to medical care, are not going
to school and are destined to live lives of extreme poverty.
Families
such as Kak’s are easy prey to the likes of CCF.
 |
| Seang Ly takes Meng Hong and Raksa for a ride! |
Sponsors
and donors feel great sympathy for kids like these who don’t have enough to
eat, kids who live in slums, kids who have to work in a rubbish dump. Their
hearts melt (as they should) when they see photos of young children who must
work in a rubbish dump to help their family survive. Wallets are opened. Money
flows into CCF’s coffers, photos of the kids appear smiling on CCF’s Facebook
site and in the interminable hagiographic articles that you manage to get
published about what a hero you are to have given up your $1 million a year
Hollywood job to rescue kids from the rubbish dump.
What
never appears in any of these articles is just how much money you have made
exploiting the poverty and powerlessness of the Cambodian people. ($45,000 from
Kak’s family) Much more than you would have made in Hollywood (where your
career was on the skids) and with the added advantage that your ego gets to be
boosted by your seeming to be some kind of secular saint to the well-heeled New
Yorkers who come to your gala fund raising events.
 |
| Heather Graham, CCF board member |
 |
| Heather Graham, Scott Neeson & CCF kids on display! |
Here,
the rich and famous (Salman Rushdie, Heather Graham) and those on the lookout
for tax breaks (Steve Tisch, Cammie & John Rice), can hear the sad but uplifting
stories of young Khmer boys and girls, dressed up in suits and fancy clothes
for the occasion, rescued from poverty by Saint Scott.
 |
Salman Rushdie @ CCF gala fundraiser
|
What
your New York patrons don’t see and will never find out about is that these
kids return to their crowded dormitories in Phnom Penh and every few weeks get
to visit the the rest of their families still working in the rubbish dump with
no assistance from CCF at all.
 |
| CCF kids flown to New York to be put on display |
 |
| John & Cammie Rice |
(Now that CCF is in severe financial
difficulties and you are kicking kids out of the dormitories as quickly as you
can, the sharing of beds is no longer necessary. The remaining victims of your
funding model can, at least, get to sleep in their own bed!)
CCF
is mostly smoke and mirrors. A sophisticated scam.
 |
| Steve Tisch |
And
it is a scam that is aided and abetted by the media in Cambodia and
internationally. In Cambodia there is the Phnom Penh Post which, because it is
partially owned by you, will never publish anything that is in any way
critical of CCF or yourself, as proprietor. Nor will the Cambodia Daily publish
anything other than cut and paste versions of CCF press releases. For reasons
that I do not pretend to understand (and can only guess at) the Cambodia Daily
will likewise not publish anything negative about you or CCF.
 |
| Leng Kak & Seang Ly |
You
might respond to this with:
“That’s
because there is nothing negative to publish.”
Leaving
aside the various scams that have been written about in this blog is great
detail (World Housing, the missing $2 million of salary monies, for instance)
there is Leng Kak's family.
I
have been offering to introduce journalists from the Cambodia Daily to Leng Kak
and her 8 children for more than 18 months now. And to other families
whose first hand experiences with CCF would reveal to a Cambodia Daily
journalist the reality behind CCF’s child rescue model – a far cry from the
impression created with photos of happy smiling children – all too often, in
the case of cute little girls, in your arms.
 |
| Heng (oldest daughter, aged 19, Seang Ly & Seang Vy |
A
diligent Cambodia Daily journalist visiting these families would ask questions
like: “How many children sleep in each bed at CCF?” (see previous blog entries
for countless other questions) and draw their own conclusions – which may well
be different to my own. The Daily refuses, point blank, to ask you questions or
to look closely (indeed, at all) at your CCF operation.
The
CCF house of cards will, of course, collapse under the weight of your lies and
spin at some point. Those of us who are well aware of what a fraudulent organization
CCF is (the entire NGO community in Cambodia) can only hope, when CCF does
collapse, that you have in place structured re-integration programs for the
children in your care; that they are not simply dumped back with their
families, as Leng Kak’s children have been, with no backup and no financial
assistance.
 |
| Vouern & Seang Ly |
The
reality behind the Facebook spin is that CCF is extracting children from
families and leaving the rest of the family working in the dump and living in
makeshift dwellings such as those seen here. Children from scavenging
families fill beds and provide you with great photo opportunities.
 |
| Scott Neeson with kids |
Is
there any pretty little girl at CCF who has not been picked up by you and had
her photo taken in your arms this past decade? Almost always the girls are
smiling in these photos but every now and then you can read in the expression
on the young girl’s face: “Who is this man who has just picked me up and is
smiling so hard at the camera for no apparent reason!?”
 |
| Scott Neeson & bewildered young girl! |
It
is to be hoped, when CCF collapses, that the media that has been complicit in
your scams, does not try to protect itself by refusing to report it in an
honest way. This applies also to human rights organizations such as LICADHO whose concern for the human
rights of the Cambodian people does not extend to the 9,000 or so fake orphans
in the country that generate so much in the way of income for dozens of
fraudulent NGOs.
Despite
the $45,000 (at least!) that CCF has earned from sponsors to help Leng Kak's
family, it is not better off than it was five years ago. The $45,000 has either
been wasted or found its way into the acquisition of property - the Black
Bamboo restaurant and the other millions of dollars worth of land and housing
that will be at your disposal when CCF collapses and all the kids in
residential care are back where they started a decade or so ago.
 |
| Seang Vy, Seang Ly & sister-in-law Raksmey |
If
any journalist asks (and they probably won't) to respond to the allegations I
make against you and CCF (and have been for a few years now), you will say that
all I write is lies. If so, prove it by answering the countless questions I
have asked in previous blog entries; prove it by demonstrating, in concrete
terms, just what CCF has achieved this past decade in terms of assisting
families to become self-sufficient.
 |
| Scott Neeson with teenage girl |
After
the expenditure of close to $40 million you must, surely, have some great
success stories to point to?
 |
| Meng Hong & Leng Kak |
Yes, Scott Neeson is a POVERTY PIMP in the land of scams. Those who support his scams through donation or are employed by CCF are also complicit in this disgrace and share in the harm that they impose on these children and families! When will Cambodia enforce their laws and arrest these perpetrators?
ReplyDeleteYour a cunt Rickets and will get whats coming to y0u
ReplyDeleteI really find it appalling and cannot believe why no single western media outlet is picking up this story when it is so obvious what is happening. What you expose here about the CCF is just the tip of the NGO-in-Cambodia-Iceberg (and the rest of the 3rd world for that matter). It does not surprise me that more and more countries around the world are saying "Thanks but NO thanks" to the scam and fraudulent infected AID Industry Western countries like Australia (which seems to have outnumbered the French, American and other European countries NGO's) and ban them outright. The Cambodian Gov. would really do good to make good on the promise to start handcuffing those unregistered NGO (of which there are many, many more than you would think) in Cambodia. Then scrutinize the "REGISTERED" ones and find out where donor funds are spent for what purpose. (After Years of combatting any regulation of the NGO Sector by not only the Aid Industry but also by the US Government and the EU the NGO in Cambodia finally got green light to rid the 25% Max. Spending of Funds for Administrative Purpose and can now spend "unlimited" amount of what donors gave to help Cambodia. That alone should trigger an outcry by the media....., but they're busy sipping champagne at charity parties in 5 Star Hotels.
ReplyDeleteI am disgusted that this kind of scam/fraud the CCF is running here is still going on unabated.
Keep going Ricketson, the shit will hit the fan one day and turn the entire NGO industry here in solid brown.
Well, anonymous 11.39pm, I can help you understand "why not one single media outlet is picking up on this story". Think about it, dimwit. Or call the editors and ask. It's because it is all fiction!! I thought that was known by all. Think of it as a set of scales: all the media, all the auditors and watchdogs on one side; on the other a convicted serial blogger. And who do you choose to believe?? Look at the fact sheets and you may have a revelation... maybe.
DeleteYou don't even care that you have shared a picture of a totally naked young girl with the world, as long as you think it helps in your bizarre vendetta against Scott Neeson, do you? And then you accuse Neeson of improper use of girls in photography? Ugh. Everything about you is sick and sordid.
ReplyDeleteTeam Neeson rides again. Its OK for Neeson and his team to make 45 grand out of this poor family but its not OK to have a photo of a mother holding her naked baby daughter! What kind of people are you?
DeleteJust another pathetic attempt by Team Neeson to shoot the messenger
DeleteI had a conversation a couple of years ago with a guy who used to be a journalist with the Cambodia Daily. We were talking about Neeson. He told me that the Daily would never publish a story critical of Neeson. He didn't say why. I won't mention his name because he's a good guy and now is working back at the Daily but I think you'll find that the journalists there have been told by the editor that Scott Neeson is off limits and the reason is because Bernie Krisher has told him Neeson is off limits. Maybe you need to ask Mr Krisher?
ReplyDeleteI love this shit. The media are too scared of Neeson! He own the Cambodian Government! Only Ricketson knows the truth as Australia's investigative genius!
DeleteEven the bar talkers couldn't make up more ludicrous stories! Thank you for the laugh.
Yes, I think James is right and the local papers are unlikely to investigate any of James claims regarding Scott Neeson and CCF. I am sure Mr Krisher would investigate if there was anything to investigate other than the conjured up smoke and mirror distortions that Mr Ricketson has been publishing for the past few years. Take a look at Ricketsons history, he is a very sick and twisted old man,everything he touches turns to shit and he befriends some total scum with extremely dubious backgrounds when it comes to unhealthy sexual interests in young girls. At the end of the day why would the press want to waste their time doing a job that has already been done in the past by reputable newspapers because of the ramblings of a mentally disturbed old man. His comments on the rich and famous on the lookout for tax breaks also shows his total ignorance on the tax system. James, please explain to us how anybody donating for example $1,000 to charity gets a tax break. By making a donation they are just not paying tax on the $1,000 they give away, they are still much worse off personally by helping people in need because at the end of the day instead of keeping their after tax funds they get to keep nothing.
ReplyDeleteDear Team Neeson Troll (aka Anonymous 4.55)
DeleteSince you last graced this blog with your wit, your wisdom and your mastery of the English language the world has changed. President Elect Donald Trump, like you, have no interest in facts, evidence or truth. You will fit into this new post-truth world perfectly. If you say something often enough, loudly enough, for long enough it will become, for many, the ‘truth’.
And so it may be here, also. There will be those who think that your insults (which don’t bother me at all incidentally) carry more weight than the facts exposed – available to anyone who bothers to look, do a little research and ask a few questions.
In the case of this family the $45,000 CCF has taken in from sponsors over a period of 5 years has done nothing of value for the family. They are in precisely the same position they were in before the five kids were ‘rescued’ by CCF. And it is the same story across the board – kids and families who have not benefited at all from the intrusion of CCF into their lives; from the removal of children from their families.
The best way for you, for Scott, for Alan Lemon, for James Mc Cabe, for James Wright to counter what I write here about how ineffective CCF has been this past decade in actually helping anyone, is to present lots of examples of families that have benefited greatly from the $40 million of so that CCF has spent since its inception.
Where are the families who have lifted themselves out of poverty with CCF’s help? Where are the small businesses that CCF has helped to set up so that families can be self-sufficient?
Destroy my arguments against CCF with a mass of evidence about how successful CCF has been in achieving its stated goals.
Alternatively, you can just keep the insults coming and hope that the messenger will die as a result. In fact, as I have mentioned before, this kind of invective-filled rant only serves to boost my page view rate for the day. So, please keep at it.
And I trust that you have a merrier Christmas than your words suggest you are capable of.
Cheers
James (bitter old man) Ricketson
Interestingly just the same nonsense repeated by you again and again James with nothing other than bar room gossip to substantiate it. How about an explanation about the tax breaks you talk about for something new. Or of course just a simple statement such as "yes readers, once again I did no research and had no idea what I was rambling on about"
DeleteDear Team Neeson Troll
DeleteIt is clear that facts, evidence and truth mean nothing to you but just in case anyone who read this comment of yours might contain an element of truth, let me drawy your attention to what can be founs on the CCF website:
“In the United States 100% of your chash donation ro CCF is tax deductible, as is 100% of your sponsorship dollars.”
So, Steve Tisch and John & Cammie Rice can claim 100% of the money they give to Scott Neeson and CCF.
If you don’t believe me, google it. And I suggest that before you make any other silly comments such as this one that you do at least 2 minutes of research.
Ricketson you really are stupid. Let me try and explain it to you in the same way I would do to a 2 year old in the hopes you might then understand it.
DeleteIf I give to any registered charity (not only CCF) and at the end of the year list it as a donation I will receive back $37.50 for every $100 I have donated if my income is between $37,001 and $80,000 which will increase if my salary is higher. At no stage will any government in the world give 100% back as you claim. This means by giving $100 I finish up $62.50 out of pocket by anybody's maths. So again I ask "where is the tax break that you waffling on about ?
Once again our self proclaimed "investigative journalist" appears to have opened mouth before engaging brain.
Dear Alan Lemon, or Scott Neeson or James Wright or whichever member of Team Neeson it is who has made this demonstrably false comments.
DeleteLet me talk you through it.
Firstly, type "Cambodian Children's Fund Tax Deductibe Donations" into google. Got that!?
Now you will find amongst the options "Contact Us" and, a little down the list the letters F.A.Q.
There are various questions listed that a potential donor or sponsor might be interested in the answer to. You still with me?
Now scroll down to "Donating" and scroll further down to the question:
"Is my donation tax deductible"
Click on it and you will see the words I have already quoted above.
“In the United States 100% of your chash donation ro CCF is tax deductible, as is 100% of your sponsorship dollars.”
And the words following:
"In Australia, donations over $2 to approved CCF programs are tax deductible..."
There are some more words but they merely amplify what I have already quoted.
So, there it is in black and white. What is written there in the CCF website constitutes a fact - whether you like it or not.
What this means, in reality, is that sponsors can pay $150 a month for a child (similar to the children that appear in this blog entry) without one cent of it being used to actually help the family on a path to self-sufficiency. The person giving the money believes they are helping poor families and, as an added bonus, claims their tax-deduction. Little do they realise that they are merely helping swell CCF's bank account and that none of the families are better off, in the long term, as a result of CCF removing the chilsdren from their families.
Now you can argue this till the cows come home but I think that any sensible reader will want to be convinced with evidence that a substantial number of families can be held up by CCF as evidence of your success; that shooting the messenger is not an answer to any question at all and merely serves to make you anhd the rest of Team Neeson look very foolish indeed.
Anonymous 10.06. I wouldn't bother trying to explain this further to Ricketson. Two attempts and he still can't grasp something incredibly simple, or realise that such a shaky grasp of basic logic and simple finances completely undermines everything else he writes here for any reader to see. Leave him to it.
DeleteHere is the question you posed:
Delete"James, please explain to us how anybody donating for example $1,000 to charity gets a tax break."
The answer to the question was to be found on the CCF website. I have quoted it twice, I do not need to do so third time.
If what is on the CCF website is not an accurate reflection of the truth (which would be unsurprising!) this is not my problem.
But your objections here are really just your lame way of shooting the messenger. If I were to misspell a word or make a mathematical mistake you would write, "See, Ricketson is incompetent when it comes to maths, everything he writes therefor is bullshit."
But let's come at this from a different angle.
Leng Kak's kids spent 5 years in CCF residential care. This generated $45,000 in sponsorships for CCF, of which $1,250 was given to the family, over a period of 5 years, in rice support.
The family is no better off than it was five years ago. Five of the kids work in the rubbish dump. A ten year old girl works part time in the rubbish dump. In what way can CCF hold this family or any other family up as a success story?
The failure of CCF to help Leng Kak's family in any real way is symptomatic of the failure of CCF. Now that you are shedding kids as fast as you can (as a result of loss of sponsors and donors and incompetent financial management) there will be more and more children and young adults back in the community with nothing to show for their time at CCF and certainly ill-equipped to earn a decent living with the supposed skills they have learned at CCF.
You can cosmetically hide the failure of CCF for only so long before the sheer mass of unhappy CCF 'graduates', back in their impoverished communities with nothing to show for their experience with CCF, is difficult to hide.
Shooting the messenger may work in the short term but not in the long term.
James you really are thick beyond belief. If we all worked with your theory we could give 100% of our money to charity and claim back from the government and solve world poverty in 24 hours. (Mind you I do not know where you could get your regular personal subsidies from the government thereafter) As anon 11.30 states you really have no grasp of finance or tax.
DeleteAnonymous 12.59
DeleteYou asked a question. I answered the question quoting from CCF's own website. You can keep banging on about thiw for as long as you like (great for my page view hit) but it is really a red herring.
Regardless of what tax benefits have accrued to sponsors and donors the fact remains that $40million (approximately) has been spent by CCF and there is nothing to show for it.
Instead of repeating what you have said three times now why not, since you are close to CCF (if not a member of the core team) let readers here know what CCF can point to by way of evidence that $40 million has been well spent.
You won't go down this path, of course,. You will simply come back with some new variation of how thick I am.
Deal with the issues, answer the questions, and stop trying to deflect attention away from these with your own personal analysis of what "100% tax deductible" means.
All you usual dickheads making accusations with any proof - and wanting transparency. So why are you all anonymous? Get some balls and put your name to accusations! Or are all these comments from Ricketson???
ReplyDeleteHere are the answers to Mr Ricketson's lying allegations. Yes, those very same answers to questions that he says CCF refuse to give. So that's just another lie to add to the pile.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.cambodianchildrensfund.org/fact-sheet-5/
Mr. Ricketson, if you have time to write hundreds of blogs against Scott and CCF, why don't you spend time helping those people and children? Maybe you can show your care by starting to help to improve the family of Leng Kak since CCF cannot do their job well enough? How about that, Mr. Dick Head???
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous 11.33
Delete(1) I have been helping this small community of men,women and children working in the dump for the past three years. My help is limited by my finances. Indeed, I am the only person helping this community of 18 or so families. There are no NGOs helping them at all. I regularly pay doctors fees for sick members of the community, have paid the school fees for some kids and regularly buy rice, fruit, vegetables and bread for members of the community. Just last week one family needed a large battery to provide light for the family. I bought one. A year or so ago I showed a photo of Scott Neeson to members of the community and asked if they knew who he was. Only those kids who have been with CCF knew. Scott has never once, in the past three years that I have been visiting this community, visited it himself. The only interest CCF showed in the community, about 2 years ago, was when CCF staff wanted to remove the son of an intellectually handicapped women and place the boy (his name is Raksa) and place in in CCF residential care. There was no thought at all on the part of CCF of helping the family. All CCF wanted was Raksa. His mother, Eak, did not want to give up her son and eventually, after placing a lot of pressure on her, CCF gave up.
On top of this I have been paying school fees for many kids this past 21 years and have one particular family in which all the kids school fees are being paid by me.
So, I am dojng a great deal, as it happens to hep impoverished families in Cambodia.
However, what I do has no bearing at all on my role here as a journalist/blogger. Even if I were not helping anyone I am entitled to do what journalists do - investigate scams such as CCFs and expose them to public scrutiny. The notion that only someone helping poor Cambodians is qualified to write about them is nonsense. Journalists from Cambodian newspapers (both English language and Khmer) do not need to become NGOs in order to write about NGOs.
Ricketson, Now I understand your hatred of Neeson. He made it big in film making and you failed to achieve anything. You are trying to make your own garbage dump charity (for 18 families) and it's also failing. Do you see the pattern here? ENVY, my sad friend, is the worst of motivators.
DeleteCCF's website says it operates in "the most impoverished communities in Cambodia, centered around the former garbage dump at Steung Meanchey." Are these photographs taken in Steung Meanchey, James?
ReplyDeleteCCF does absolutely nothing to help this small community of 18 or so families in Steung Meanchey. Nothing.
DeleteMind you, nor is there any other NGO helping them in any way.
The greatest need the community has is medical attention. It is rare for me to visit when there is not someone with an infected cut on their hand or leg or someone with an upper respiratory problem as a result of breathing toxic air in the dump. I either take them to the doctor or give them money to go to the doctor. This is usually just $20 - not a lot for me but a small fortune for someone earning $2 - $3 a day.
Sopaul, 67, has been very ill recently and had to go to the doctor. She has been unable to work. And nor should any 67 year old woman be working in the rubbish dump. And nor should there be any 10 year old kids working in the rubbish dump,but there are are.
That kids still work in the rubbish dump should be front page news. It should a scandal that all human rights groups, all embassies, all NGOs should be kicking up one hell of a fuss about. They are not.
But didn't the rubbish dump move out of Phnom Penh (http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/capitals-new-dump-opens)? This is confusing. And isn't there a medical centre which is free for all in Steung Meanchey, run by CCF?
ReplyDeleteYes, the rubbish dump moved further out, close to the Killing Fields.
DeleteIf there is a medical centre that people in the community have access to, no-one has told them about it. No bud comes to pick up the sick and wounded to take them there.
There are at least three women who are in their sixties who work in the dump; who are 'grannies'. They receive no help at all from CCF. NONE. ZERO. The Grannies program is, as far as I can see, smoke and mirrors also. No doubt there are a few grannies who get some help but I see no evidence of any kind of long term solution to the problem of women in their 60s (or men, for that matter) being provided with an alternative to living in the dump.
CCF is all about what it APPEARS the NGO is doing. If there is a photo opportunity to be had helping a few grannies, yet, let's go for it. Looks great on Facebook. As for actually helping them in a sustainable way, no way!
Okay, now I am totally confused. You wrote many times that these families are working on the dump. But as you just said, the dump is not in Phnom Penh any more, and not near where CCF operates. So its not surprising if they haven't seen a picture of Scott Neeson. Hopelessly confusing, or you have your facts all mixed up, or are just making it up.
DeleteOh dear, it seems as though I might be dealing with James Wright here!
DeleteIf it is you, James, do you really have nothing better to do with your life that to do Scott Neeson’s dirty work for him? And do it badly, I might add.
Or if this is you, Alan Lemon, or Saint Scott himself, why not simply answer questions.
For others reading this who might be confused; for that is truly the aim on Anonymous 1.46 - to throw up clouds of dust to obscure CCF's multiple failures and scams:
The Phnom Penh rubbish dump is situated on the outskirts of Phnom Penh. As I have already indicated, it is close to the Killing Fields.
The families work in the rubbish dump and their rough dwellings are situated about 200 meters from the dump.
When scouting for children to remove from their families and place in residential care at CCF, this is one of the communities CCF staff came to. Many families were conned into believing that CCF intended not just to help the children but the whole family. They did not know that each of the children from the community in CCF residential care earned CCF $150 a month, or $1,800 year.
These children represented a financial windfall for CCF. Not only that, in the case of Seang Ky, aged 14, CCF expected her to work as an unpaid nanny. this was not just a breach of her human rights; it was also illegal under Cambodian law. As you know, CCF has breached Cambodian law on multiple occasions by forcing kids to work for CCF for no wage.
All clear now?
...to be continued...
...continuing...
DeleteAnd, as I mentioned, CCF staff (not Neeson himself) made several visits to the community trying to get their hands on young Raksa - a good looking boy whose mother is intellectually disabled. The CCF staff did not care at all about Eak, or about Eak's elderly parents. They just wanted Raksa - to be presented by Scott as one of the children he had 'rescued'. The fact that Raksa's mother loved him, the fact that Raksa's grandparents love him, was of no concern to CCF staff. They were on a fishing expedition. ANd this is what the children are for CCF - pawns in the CCF funding model - based on the following premise:
"If it were not for CCF these kids would lead miserable lives in homes in which their parents are alcoholics, criminals and do not love them. I, Scot Neeson, am the only one who can save them from such a dreadful life."
if Scott ever bothered to spend time with these families and to see how much mums and dads live their kids (as is the case for most parents all over the world) he would hang his head in shame for having implemented a business model that necessitates breaking these families up.
Scott does not see this. He is an egoist and a narcissist whose primary concern is with projecting an image of himself as a man with saintly qualities who has made a huge sacrifice to hekp these families. He can get away with this subterfuge because there is no one, no body, no newspaper, no human rights organisation prepared to ask him the very basic questions I have been asking him for a few years now.
Scott's money has bought him immunity from any and all scrutiny. Actually, I should not refer to it as 'Scott's money; because it is the money donated to CCF by kind-heaerted men and women who really do believe that what says about CCF is true. There are less and less of these nowadays - hence to precipitous drop off in CCF funds. You can only fool all the people some of the time. Eventually, even the most naiver and trusting of donors and sponsors start to ask questions and wonder where the money is going and what CCF has to show for the $40 million it has pent over the past decade and more.
When the truth is known (and it will be, despite Team Neeson's shooting of the messenger) the Cambodian Children's Fund will go down in Cambodian history as the greatest charity scam of the past 30 years - far outstripping the Somaly Mam controversy of a few years back.
Enjoy the ride whilst you can, Scott. Squirrel away as much money as you can in Swiss bank accounts or the Cayman Islands. The party will end eventually, as I am sure you know deep down.
I trust that you have as merry a Christmas as you can given the imminent collapse of your mini Empire
Mr Ricketson, you are exposing a multi-million dollar scam. Scott Neeson and his Cambodian Children's Fund are just one small part of this scam. You have politics, money and powerful people who will not be happy with what you are doing here. Be careful. These people have no scruples. Life is cheap. Be ever vigilant
ReplyDeleteI'm not Scott Neeson or any of these other people you mention, that's just weird paranoia. I was honestly confused but I'm not confused any more. You are just flat out lying.
ReplyDeleteThat dump is about 15 kilometres outside of Phnom Penh. It is not by any stretch of the imagination on the outskirts. It is not in Steung Meanchey, as you said before, which is where CCF works. I honestly wondered whether you were onto something here, but I know enough about Phnom Penh to ask the right questions. You've just proven to me that this blog isn't worth reading. Thanks. That's saved some time.
Dear Scott Neeson Troll
DeleteThe original Phnom Penh rubbish dump t Steung Meanchey closed about 7 years ago. Maybe 8, maybe 6. I can't remember just now
Since then Scott Neeson has made no bones about the fact that he is still helping men, women and children working in the rubbish dump. Evidence of this is to be found in his recruiting at least 10 kids that I know of from within this small community to become residents at CCF. And then there is CCF's attempts to 'adopt' young Raksa.
When it suits CCF, this small community of men, women and children who work in the dump are amongst those CCF claims to be helping. And here you are claiming that because the new dump is not, technically, in Steung Meanchey, that "this blog isn't worth reading".
Ok, Anonymous 2.42, I hope, given that you do not think it is worth reading, that you make no more comments. You will, of course, because your job is to find any and every reason you can (no matter how petty no matter how fallacious) to shoot the messenger.
Of course I'm going to read how you respond to my comments! It's really illuminating. The facts for anyone who doesn't know Cambodia at all are that CCF operates in Phnom Penh, in an area called Steung Meanchey. Where the old garbage dump was. You tried to make out they were neglecting people on their doorstep. But these people are at least 15 kilometres away. I know a little bit about CCF and I know they only focus on Steung Meanchey, where they have their community centre and medical clinic. So when I asked if that was where these families lived, why did you lie about that? It is not a technicality. It is a geographical fact. You can bluster away if you like and call me a troll. Let others decide whether that's what I am or just someone who asked some honest questions and got some dishonest answers. And then let them decide whether they should trust all the other stuff you write.
ReplyDeleteIf, as you write, Scott Neeson in only helping kids in the Steung Meanchey area (around a dump that closed many years ago) why is it that CCF staff come to this small community (living by the new dump) recruiting kids to become residents at CCF? I know of at least 10 kids from these 18 families who have been resident at CCF.
DeleteAnd how do you account for this, to be found on the CCF website:
“Cambodian Children’s Fund transforms the country’s most impoverished kids into tomorrow’s leaders…”
And this:
“Impoverished people living in the area are provided access to our community services ranging from food, shelter, fresh water, loans, healthcare, counselling and advocacy, social bonding events, housing and other necessary provisions.”
None of these services are extended to the men, women and children living alongside the rubbish dump in December 2016.
For the most part, these services only extend to those poor people who buy into the whole Scott Neeson cult – living in accordance with his rules; abiding by his every edict; being kicked out of houses that were ‘gifted’ to them if they step out of line.
Hello Troll aka Anonymous 4:26. I haven't heard you address the issues is Scott Neeson groping every young girl that he takes from families or the fact that he takes children from families, outside houses from the poor, or is a compulsive liar. What's up with the permanent damage done to children removed from their families??? Do you know how destructive that is?
ReplyDeleteBut, Anonymous 4.47, those aren't "issues", they are just lurid allegations that nobody has substantiated. I was trying to work out the facts about if CCF really was lying about its work. What i've quickly learnt is that nobody here cares about facts. Not the writer of the blog and not you, obviously. But whether you like them or not, facts exist and matter. Screaming "troll" in response says more about you and the blogger than about me.
ReplyDeleteDear Scott Neeson Troll (aka 6.46)
DeleteYou get 10 out of 10 for persistence. The rest of the world might think the world is round but you think it is flat and you are going to stick to your guns. Everyone else is wrong.
The fact that CCF has done nothing to help this family in five years of takin gin money from sponsors is not a 'lurid allegation'. It is a fact. That Scott Neeson lied about 'gifting' houses to poor families is not a 'lurid allegation', it is a fact. That Scott Neeson forces the parents of poor families to sign illegal contracts with CCF is not a 'lurid allegation'; it is a fact. That there is $2 million unaccounted for in the CCF spreadsheet relating to salarires is not a 'lurid allegation'; it is a fact. The list goes on. And on.
You will not, of course, address any substantive issues; answer any questions. You will continue to find some small thing to nit pick at in hopes that readers will fail to notice the unanswered questions.
Again, let me ask you the most pertinent questions of all:
"What can CCF point to as evidence of the NGO's success this past 12 years in lifting families out of poverty? After the expenditure of around $40 million there must be many examples?"
Pointing to a long list of successes will do much more to undermine the position that I take here (that CCF is a scam) than you trying to make me out to be a liar because the old dump is 15 kilometers from the new one.
The following comment has been posted three times now. Each time, by the time I have checked this blog, it has disappeared. This is not the first time this has happened. In fact it happens often. I am not sure why but, as a rule, when I include the comment under my own name it tends not to be deleted. Here it is:
ReplyDeleteHey, Anonymous 6.46
Here's a 'lurid allegation' for you to explain away:
A FORMER officer from Australia's top crime-fighting agency has pleaded guilty to stealing drugs in a bogus sting in 2002.
James Anthony McCabe, 39, was due to stand trial on armed robbery and drugs charges in the Sydney District Court.
He agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charge of robbery in company, with the drugs charges to be considered only as an aggravating factor when he is sentenced.
Crown prosecutor Ken McKay accepted his plea.
McCabe, a Victorian police officer on secondment to the National Crime Authority, was charged after a Police Integrity Commission investigation in 2004.
The PIC heard evidence from a number of former NCA informants that McCabe and his partner, former NSW police officer Samuel John Foster, set up drug deals and stole cash and drugs in phoney busts.
Foster and McCabe were investigating Asian organised crime for the NCA, now known as the Australian Crime Commission.
"The methodology involved was to arrange a purchase of prohibited drugs from a person known as a drug trafficker," facts tendered to the court state.
"As the deal was finalised, Foster would arrive with another person and pretend to arrest those present.
"Foster would then persuade the drug trafficker that his primary interest was in arresting (the informants) ... and he was prepared to ignore and go easy on the drug trafficker.
"On the basis that the loss of drugs was preferable to arrest, the drug trafficker would be willing to cut his losses and depart without the drugs or monies."
McCabe today admitted his role in one such bust, involving the theft of a "significant" quantity of methylamphetamine, or speed, in September 2002 from a dealer known only as APW1.
Foster and McCabe went with a number of informants to a location at Enfield, in Sydney's west, where a pre-arranged drug deal with APW1 was taking place.
According to the agreed facts presented to the court, the pair ambushed the deal, arrested their informant and sat APW1 in the gutter while they took the drugs from his car.
"At the time APW1 feared for his safety," the facts said.
After freeing APW1, McCabe, Foster and their informant drove to the Rocks in central Sydney and met another two informants.
"At that location the drugs were divided between (the informants) for the purpose of selling the drugs," the facts said.
The drugs were never recovered or weighed and the exact quantity was therefore unknown.
McCabe fled to Cambodia after the PIC hearings and was informally extradited back to Australia to stand trial last year.
His barrister, Louise McManus, applied yesterday for the trial to be permanently delayed, arguing that Cambodian and Australian authorities had not followed due process in returning McCabe to Australia.
Ms McManus also told Judge Michael Finnane that the evidence of many of the witnesses had been contaminated by extensive media coverage of the PIC's hearings and other proceedings.
Judge Finnane dismissed the application.
McCabe's bail was continued today to allow him to gather documentary and other evidence for a sentencing hearing in the same court on July 11.
Foster was jailed last December for a maximum seven and a half years for drug, robbery, deception and corruption offences. He will be eligible for parole in March 2012.
Scott Neeson surrounds himself with the creepyest people! Is it any wonder since his business is to take children, then PIMP them to donors?
ReplyDeleteYes, that is a substantiated fact, even if it's completely unrelated to the blog above, which is the one that worried me and which I asked a question about.
ReplyDeleteThe thing which worried me was that CCF wasn't doing the job they say they do, which is helping families and students in Steung Meanchey. That's why I asked you, quite honestly, if that was where these families are, since I knew the dump was far away, and that confused me. I wasn't sure if you meant these people lived at the old dump or not, which is where CCF does work. That would have meant they were lying. You answered that "CCF does nothing to help this small community of 18 or so families in Steung Meanchey". But later you admitted they were nowhere near Steung Meanchey.
So I have two simple questions. If you try to confuse the issue by throwing new allegations in or accusing me of being Scott Neeson or insulting me or responding with anything which is not a simple and direct response to these two questions that will tell its own story. From what I've experienced so far here, that is what will happen, but I want to see if you can be honest and rational.
Why did you tell me a lie? And why do you think I or anyone else should believe the other things you have written in the blog above given you are prepared to lie about something important like that?
Dear Anonymous 5.34
DeleteCCF claims to be helping impoverished families everywhere, including the provinces. Why you are stuck on Steung Meanchey is a mystery to me. The fact that Neeson/CCF has taken children from the small community living by the rubbish dump (a 5 - 7 minutes drive from Steung Meanchey) is evidence that he still sees CCF as an NGO 'rescuing' kids from the rubbish dump. The 'new' rubbish dump.
As for believing anything I write, it is not a question of 'believing' as much as it is of answering questions. You have clearly either been employed by Neeson to be a Troll here or you have taken on this role because you have little else to do with your life.
Let me ask you just one question and see if you can answer it. What has happened to the $2 million that is unaccounted for in the CCF 'salaries' category in the NGO's financial statement?
Given that CCF scores 100% in transparency and accountability the answer to this question should be readily available. it should be possible for you or for someone at CCF to say, "Here is how the $3 million in salaries breaks down. As you can see, Mr Ricketson, every cent of it is accounted for!"
In so doing CCF could (a) reveal that it is transparent and accountable and (b) that I was wrong to infer that this money had, in some way, been spirited away by Scott and the others that make up Team Neeson.
Is Neeson the one that accused Fletcher of grooming young girls? Looks to me like he is very mixed up. Now is he molesting these young girls or grooming them?
ReplyDeleteDo you think it's going to escape the attention of anyone objective that all of that blur of words is just an obvious and clumsy attempt to avoid answering the two simple questions I put to you. Obviously you cannot simply deny lying since it's all right there, in the text above. So I know you won't provide a simple honest answer, but nonetheless I will ask:
ReplyDeleteWhy did you lie to your readers?
Why should they believe anything else a liar writes?
Are those questions that you are addressing to Scott Neeson? Very confusing since lying is Neeson's primary endeavor.
DeleteSo on top of taking children from families, houses from the impoverished, Neeson was also the one that falsely accused David Fletcher of grooming young girls? Looks to me that he is the one grooming young girls. Neeson is the one that should be imprisoned!!
ReplyDeleteAnother year of a multi million dollar charity that has very little to show.
ReplyDeletebut Neeson's property portfolio is growing, follow the money they say.
CCF is fashionable for the rich seeking the latest accessory, a skinny poverty child from a 3rd world country along with a heart-string story carefully scripted "with lies" by Neeson . sadder the story bigger the donation. lots of pics and plenty of dress ups to please those sending money , to share at their at lavish parties. with the realities being far different with poor families tricked into signing contacts they cannot understand, handing their children to Neeson and being locked up in dirty over crowded dorms . collecting millions in funding while the families remain in sheer poverty.
ReplyDeleteStill no simple direct response to those questions Mr Ricketson? Just in case it slipped your mind i'll repeat...
ReplyDeleteWhy did you tell a blatant factual lie to your readers (something anyone can check by reading back through the comments above)?
And why should anyone believe anything else you write without any evidence, when you are prepared to tell a lie like that?
Ricketson can't understand simple tax law let alone understand why anybody questions his idiotic statements. Hopefully though he is starting to understand why the authorities and press ignore him.
DeleteSo you idiots say that support taking hundreds of children from their families!
DeleteTeam Neeson Trolls
ReplyDeleteIF you think it is so important
that the truth be told
I am not talking about semantics that refer to the location of the dump
Please answer the following
In regard to the photo shown recently on this blog of
Neeson clutching a young teenage girl to his side
while he is under the influence of drugs .
The dilated pupils and manic stare are testament to that
Was this girl under the care of CCF ?
She seemed very relaxed considering how tightly he was holding her .
What was the relationship if she was not under the care of CCF?
Do you think it was morally correct ?
Do you think that as the principal of CCF his behavior was not only appalling but reprehensible ?
If not why ?
Hello Anonymous 9.11. You are right about just one thing - I do care that the truth be told.
ReplyDeleteSo I ask, what photo? I can't see any such photo here or on the CCF website. I did glance through the last few blogs and comments but couldn't find this photo - and the blogs were so dull and incoherent and unpleasant I had to stop.
But you're misguided if you think you are helping the blogger by making serious allegations based on the way someone looks in a photo. What the blogger needs is supporters with evidence (in fact just evidence full stop), not people who just throw mud around.
Let me explain again. I was directed to this blog and when I got here was worried. The way the blogger wrote - about grannies who weren't getting help and people unable to recognise a photo of Scott Neeson etc - it sounded like CCF were lying about what they say they will do. Which is to help communities around the old dump site in Steung Meanchey. CCF repeat this on their website and Facebook page a lot, so that would have been worrying.
So I asked the blogger if that was where the families were. You call this semantics by the way, because you obviously don't know what that means: semantics means disagreeing about the meaning of words. This was a question about facts. It's increasingly obvious that the blogger - and you - don't care about facts, but I do and most responsible independent people do.
His first answer was to say "yes these families are in Steung Meanchey and CCF does nothing to help them." Once again, this would have been a case of CCF lying and therefore very troubling. But when I asked a question to clarify he admitted they were over 15 kilometres away. So that instantly told me that he was the liar, not CCF.
So I will repeat to him the two simple direct questions i have asked several times and he has refused to answer, speaking volumes with his silence.
1) why (as anyone who reads the above comments can check) did he blatantly lie to his readers?
2) why should anyone believe anything else written by someone who lies so easily?
Dear Anonymous 3.29
DeleteTo make matters simpler for you I have posted the photo in question of Scott Neeson and one of his CCF girls.
I have made all the comments I wish to make about this photo. I will leave it to others to read into it whatever they choose; to decide on the appropriateness or otherwise of a man in his 50s, in such an embrace with a teenage girl one third his age whilst running an NGO committed to 'rescuing' young girls and boys; whilst running a Child Protection Unit whose job, in part, is to protect young women from middle aged sexual predators.
As for the rest of your comment, as for your persistence in flogging the 'Steung Meanchey' dead horse, in countless comments I will not waste my time.
No time to answer two simple direct questions which go right to the heart of your veracity and credibility? But you do have time to pander to your gutter commenters slurs by publishing a picture which proves nothing except that Scott Neeson once hugged a girl and doesn't always look good in photos (could the same not be said of you? I know it could of me.). And this evasion of two simple answers on a blog which is full of questions - isn't this the definition of hypocrisy?
ReplyDeleteI think you won't answer because there are only two possible answers.
You blatantly lied because you wanted to besmirch CCF's work and the truth didn't do the job.
And this means that your word, pretty much the only thing we have to go on when reading the above accusations, is worthless, and that this blog is just another outpost of deceit and poison on the internet.
Dear Anonymous 6.51
ReplyDeleteIf you are not in fact James Wright you have certainly adopted his –dog-with-a-bone approach to argumentation. You pick on a small detail and flog it to death whilst ignoring all questions and refusing to place what I write in a context.
I never mentioned Steung Meanchey in my original blog. And nor did I mention it in the blog entry I made regarding CCF’s locking a family out of their home (in Steung Meanchy!) because the family was $12.50 behind in their rent.
You can read the whole story here:
http://cambodianchildrensfund.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/25-scott-nesson-locks-poor-family-out.html
To make it easier for you, I will post it here in its entirely again as yet another example of how Scott Neeson and CCF screws impoverished families in Steung Meanchey:
# 25 Scott Nesson locks poor family out of their home over $12.50 debt
“These are parents of a family locked out of their CCF-owned home last month because they were $12.50 behind in their rent! Pheng Heng, aged 60, and his wife Pok Poq, aged 52. CCF has 3 of their children in care - generating between $300 and $450 a month in sponsorship income! This is three times Pheng Heng’s monthly wage when he is working. He cannot work right now owing to serious injuries sustained in a traffic accident.
Scott, here is another family you know. The parents of the family that is – Pheng Heng, aged 60,and his wife Pok Poq, aged 52. You locked them out of their home last month because they were $12.50 behind in rent owed to the Cambodian Children’s Fund.
$12.50!
The Cambodian Children’s Fund has three of Pheng Heng and Pok Poq’s children in care. Given that virtually all CCF kids have at least one sponsor, this means that CCF is generating between $300 and $450 a month in income from this family without providing any financial assistance to the rest of the family.
$300 a month is 3 times Pheng Heng’s monthly wage when he has a job. He doesn’t have a job at the moment because he was badly injured in a traffic accident and has been unable to work. So what do you do, Scott, when an impoverished family is $12.50 behind in their rent? A family whose children CCF is caring for? Lock them out of their house during the rainy season.
What kind of man are you? Such insensitive, mercenary (and dare I say, inhumane) behavior is certainly not of the variety you boast about on Facebook or talk about when interviewed in your jet-set travels around the world to remind everyone what a wonderful man you are to have given up your $1 million a year job in Hollywood to help poor rubbish dump families.
How many other families have you locked out of their homes over sums as petty as $12.50?
You will not answer this question, of course, and I can only hope that in due course the media will start to ask such questions and, when you refuse to answer them, report this – along with testimonies from families you have locked locked out or families that have suffered other human rights abuses at the hands of the Cambodian Children’s Fund.
...to be continued...
....following on...
DeleteLocking families out of their homes is not the only way that your mercenary callousness reveals itself. In my last blog entry I wrote of Tath Raksa – the 15 months old baby that CCF is determined to ‘rescue’ from his loving but very poor dump-working family.
Just three days ago CCF staff went to the home of Tath Pheng and Kim Tath (the grandparents) to apply yet more pressure on them to hand over baby Raksa. Has there been any offer from the Cambodian Children’s Fund to help Raksa’s intellectually handicapped mother, his grandparents; the entire family? No, it is baby Raksa CCF is offering to help; not the family. You want Raksa for your CCF nursery. Is there a spare bed that needs to be filled?
No doubt, in due course, if you had your way, a photo of you and baby Raksa (a photogenic boy with big brown eyes) would appear on your Facebook page and hundreds of people would ‘like’ the photo, refer to you as an ‘angel’ and in various other ways heap praise on you for being such a kind and generous man. A saint!
Until such time as some arrangement can be made to help the entire family, I will be supporting it so that the grandparents can afford to resist your high pressure tactics to take baby Raksa from them.
Please tell your staff to stop pressuring Tath Pheng and Kim Tath to give Raksa up. Tell them to back off. You should not be harvesting babies in this way, anyway, Scott. You should be helping entire families.
I can only hope that it will not take as long as it did with Somaly Mam for the fraudulent aspects of the Cambodian Children’s Fund to be exposed to public view. I hope that you are exposed before TIME or some other magazine puts a photo of you on its cover, hailing you as the savior of Cambodia’s poor and powerless – a selfless man who gave up his $1 million a year job etc.; before yet another hagiographic documentary is made by filmmakers who have not bothered to do basic research into how CCF is actually run, as opposed to how your marketing machine presents is as being run.
If you desperately need a baby, Scott, find a woman you can have one with. Stop stealing other people's babies.
What a picture! Isn't Neeson the person that his child protection unit (run by the armed drug dealer), is supposed to be protecting her from?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 6.51
ReplyDeleteAKA Neeson stooge
You are a pathetic hypocrite As someone that spent a great deal of time working with drug addicts
The photo of Neeson shows clear clinical signs of being under the influence of a class one opiate , do you think anyone would accept your premise that his facial expression is only because he "takes a bad photo " and he is just hugging a young girl ?
He is clutching her tightly to him.
If you want to have any credibibilty
please answer at least one (prefer more ) of the questions raised regarding that photo .
You will not of course .
No doubt you will follow the usual Team Neeson strategy of
mot answering any questions ,
shoot the messenger .
avoid the real issues
create smokescreens
by blowing up trivialities
you present nothing of substance at all
Christ. I've just realised I am actually talking to one person pretending to be two other people - the blogger, and the blogger pretending to be stupid and unable to write in order to make it look like he has supporters. There are too many similarities in language to ignore. This is so pathetic. And - of course, because why else would you squirt all these words around like squid ink?- you still haven't answered the questions. You still haven't explained why you told a flat out lie to your readers in the above comments. And you still haven't explained why anyone would believe anything else you say, given you lie so easily and refuse to acknowledge it.
ReplyDeleteWhy? Because you can't.
Anon 10.39 Pm
DeleteYou demand answers
Yet you totally refuse to answer any question
regarding Neeson and the young girl in the photo .
Anyone reading the question put to you regarding the photos
Would assume that an organisation like CCF
WOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE CREDIBLE ANSWERS !
Yet true to form you avoid them and put out out a smokescreen .
Answer the questions !
or be shown to be what you are a mouthpiece for a corrupt organization trying to conceal the truth .
CCF preys on the most impoverished in society and vulnerable donors
Anon 10.39 Pm
DeleteYou demand answers
Yet you totally refuse to answer any question
regarding Neeson and the young girl in the photo .
Anyone reading the question put to you regarding the photos
Would assume that an organisation like CCF
WOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE CREDIBLE ANSWERS !
Yet true to form you avoid them and put out out a smokescreen .
Answer the questions !
or be shown to be what you are a mouthpiece for a corrupt organization trying to conceal the truth .
CCF preys on the most impoverished in society and vulnerable donors
Anonymous 6.51
ReplyDeleteYou have been called out !
have noticed before that when Team Neeson
is presented with questions they don"t want to answer or clear hard facts
they go silent
and wait in in ambush
for another excuse to shot the messenger
As they " cannot defend the indefensible "
Dear Anonymous 10.39
ReplyDeleteYou are a tiresome chap, aren't you!? You seem to have nothing better to do than to keep repeating the same words and phrases?
However, since you insist on being a pedant when it comes to the words ‘Steung Meanchey’ I will reciprocate with a pedantic response of my own.
However, here’s the deal. If I answer your question I expect you to answer one of mine. Seems only fair. Deal?
(1) From Google: Mean Chey District (Khmer for "Victorious") is located in the south-eastern part of Phnom Penh, Cambodia. The district has an area of 43.79 km². Is the new dump in Mean Chey District or not? Does it matter?
(2) The new dump is 7 kilometers from the old dump (see Google) and so may well be in Mean Chey District. I don’t know. Or care.
(3) Google the following: The garbage dump (landfill) in Stung Meanchey district of Phnom Penh in Cambodia. Amongst the things you will find are dozens of photos of men, women and children working in the rubbish dump. These photos are undated but I know (because I was a frequent visitor to the old dump) that many (perhaps most) of the photos are from the old dump. However, the same images can be seen at the new dump so, from the point of view of anyone looking at the photos, whether the new dump is in Stung Mean Chey or in Stung Mean Chey province is of no consequence.
(4) This google search will also yield the following, from 08 January 2014, 14:10
“I am pleased to say that there were multiple organizations, not just the French organizations - PSE being one of them, that took in the children from this old and current tip and provide shelter and education for them. The largest such is the Cambodian Children's Fund, CCF, which please Google search for more information. The CCF looks after just over 300 young females mostly, but not entirely, from the several garbage tips of the Phnom Penh area.”
It is clear from this, as it is from the fact that several children from the ‘new dump’ went into residential care with CCF, that Scott Neeson and CCF are not merely concerned with children that live by a dump that closed 7 or so years ago but are concerned with the children of families that scavenge in the current dump – which may or may not be in Mean Chey District.
(5) I have no idea what, strictly speaking, is the name of the suburb in which the new dump is situated. When I refer to it I usually do so with the Phnom Penh dump. When I tell friends where I am going or where I have been I will sometimes refer to ‘the dump at Stung Meanchey’. Were I to catch from you a serious dose of your pedantry disease I should say, “I have just come back from the rubbish dump that may or may not be the Mean Chey District.”
Now, my question:
“On the Cambodian Children’s Fund’s approximately $3 million wages bill only $1 million, approximately, can be accounted for. Can you please explain what has happened to the missing $2 million?”
You won’t answer this question, of course, any more than you will answer any other.
Scott, I am sure you will be reading this. Might I suggest, if you must employ a troll of the James Wright variety to do your ‘shoot-the-messenger’ work for you, that you find someone of greater wit and intelligence who does not believe that repeating the same words and phrases over and over again will make them any truer than they were the first time around. Come on , Scott, you can afford it! Find yourself a top notch spin doctor ASAP. New Year’s resolution :-)
Anon 10.39 Pm
ReplyDeleteYou demand answers
Yet you totally refuse to answer any question
regarding Neeson and the young girl in the photo .
Anyone reading the question put to you regarding the photos
Would assume that an organisation like CCF
WOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE CREDIBLE ANSWERS !
Yet true to form you avoid them and put out out a smokescreen .
Answer the questions !
or be shown to be what you are a mouthpiece for a corrupt organization trying to conceal the truth .
CCF preys on the most impoverished in society and vulnerable donors
James Wright, or whoever you might be acting as Scott Neeson's 'Shoot the Messenger' Agent, your credibility rating is zero. If you, or any other Team Neeson Trolls, had any facts at your disposal, any answers to my questions, that would make me appear as only someone with an axe to grind (jealous of Neeson etc) you would have done so by now. You haven't because you can't. Neeson's self-proclaimed position as 'saviour' of poor children is not backed up by the facts. And you now it. The best you are capable of is to argue that because the new dump is not situated in Stung Mean Chey (though it may be situated in the Mean Chey District, then all I write must be false. At the risk of belabouring the point, I hope that Neeson is not paying you too much to do his dirty PR work for him because you are not very good at it.
ReplyDeleteI posted a long response pointing out why James Ricketson's blog of 11.54 was deceitful. It included links, evidence and actual journalism showing in what ways he was deliberately misleading readers. It appeared on the page but has now gone. How curious.
ReplyDeleteJames Ricketson. My response - critical of your approach and full of undeniable facts - appeared on your blog last night but then mysteriously disappeared.
ReplyDeleteWhen a previous commenters words disappeared you reposted them under your own name. Of course, that previous comment was supportive of you, while mine was full of documented facts, links and evidence that you were still trying to mislead your readers, but perhaps you might demonstrate a greater respect for the truth than you have shown so far and repost it?
Or have you finally given up on all facts you find inconvenient because they don't fit your agenda?
Dear Anonymous 4.43
DeleteFor reasons that I do not understand comments (including my own) sometimes disappear. However, they always (to the best of my knowledge) appear in my ‘inbox’ – as did the one you posted yesterday. Here it is, in all its glory. That you so so concerned with geographical details pertaining to Steung Meanchy and so little concerned with Scott Neeson illegal detention of children and the breaking up of families for financial gain says about all that needs to be said about you.
Thank you for finally responding properly, even if much of it was nonsensical. Your admission "I don't know. Or care" about a key fact is very honest of you.
Your lack of concern about facts is shown by you citing a review by some unknown person on Trip Advisor as a source. Oh come on, can't you find something more substantial? Actually, yes you can...
I did what you suggested and googled with the same search terms and guess what? A piece of thoroughly researched journalism appears much much higher on Google than those Trip Advisor reviews. It's from the Phnom Penh Post. I'd never actually read it before and it's really useful. Here's the link - http://m.phnompenhpost.com/scavengers-linger-long-dead-dump-site.
You must have seen and read it when you were scrabbling around for some way to avoid admitting your mistake/lie, but you ignored it. And why? Because it didn't fit your agenda and it makes the blog above look ridiculous.
This properly researched piece, which raises some potential criticisms of CCF, explains that they do not work at the new dump and why.
CUT AND PASTE: "Channouern from CCF explained that the absence of many NGOs at the new dump was intentional. “If we move there, it will seem like we are encouraging them to relocate,” she said." For some, this position is contradictory. Sophal Ear, author of Aid Dependence in Cambodia: How Foreign Assistance Undermines Democracy, is an academic who studies the difficult consequences of entrenched NGO culture. “[CCF are] basically saying that the people who are living in the new dump shouldn’t get the services of CCF because ‘we don’t want to encourage that’,” he said when asked for comment via Skype. “By virtue of that logic, why is CCF still at Stung Meanchey?” Channoern counters that the distinction is clear: the families at Stung Meanchey had been entrenched for decades, whereas scavengers had to make a choice to move to Choeung Ek."
This journalist explored the issues from both sides, interviewed people from organisations with real knowledge, and unearthed some serious issues. This is what a good journalist does. But you ignored it in favour of an old Trip Advisor review! Do you know how amateurish and deceitful this makes you look?
As for your question, I can't answer because I'm not Scott Neeson, much though you seem to wish I was. My apologies for that.
Also, although you "don't know or care", the new dumpsite you spend so much time at is in Dangkor district. You might find this useful if you want to try and write something accurate in the future. I found out with one easy google search. Facts are easy to find if you think they matter."
I suggest, Anonymous 4.43, that you appraise yourself of a few facts that matter (like "Where is the missing $2 million of CCF wages to be found?" than with pedantic details relating to the geographical boundaries of Steung Mean Chey
I don't think the Neeson Troll Anonymous January 2, 2017 at 7:01 AM will ever come up with answers to the fact why Families on the Garbage Dump had to sign over their kids to the CCF without being able to read or understand what they signed. The question here is how morally acceptable such behaviour is in a Western run NGO that claims to save children. The CCF is not alone using this method in Cambodia. Siem Reap is the Epicenter of this kind of business but Neeson's CCF sticks out of the crowd because of the sheer volume of children they temporarily acquire. When these kids turn 18 they're no longer of any value to the NGO and find themselves dumped.
ReplyDeleteThe Cambodian Gov. would do good to stop this kind of business model – one that allows virtually any foreigner arriving in the country to open a orphanage, school or whatever else they call it.
Many of these NGO-Entrpeneurs are nothing but Backpackers (Maggie Eno Mlop Tapang, Sihanoukville, Sebastian Marot "Friends" Phnom Penh, Thierry Darnaudet APLE Gangstalking NGO in Phnom Penh, Siem Reap and Sihanoukville and many many more) that have absolutely no prior qualification to work with children.
Scott Neeson had a much easier time climbing up the NGO Ladder in Cambodia. He had money and very rich friends in Hollywood. Preaching HOPE, SHELTER, OUTREACH opened many wallets in western countries but these people are utterly unaware what kind of scams they support.
Starfish NGO in Sihanoukville very recently showed what kind of mindset is at work here. As a co-founder of Sihanoukville's Mlop Tapang the Scandinavian Women that ran Starfish bought a large plot of prime land on the hill above Sihanoukville with a stunning view over Ocheteal and Otres Beach. It did not take long for her to build a multistorey Villa there, with a high wall surrounding it. Years later this very NGO has this to say:
“The land prices in Sihanoukville have gone up,” said Oun Sokleng, coordinator of the Starfish Project, an NGO that builds housing in the rural parts of the province.
“The poor people—the people who work on the beach, and in construction—they cannot afford them.”
https://www.cambodiadaily.com/news/no-place-left-poor-sihanoukville-122697/
In how many real estate projects in the CCF or, better said, is Scott Neeson involved in? Does anyone care that he is now a multi-millionaire property owner?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteYou really are a cowardly prick aren't you? It's easy to make statements that you know are total bullshit when you hide behind anonymity. Grow some balls and put your name to it. And the provide some evidence for what you are saying (and don't just go on the say so of the mental midget from and his lowlife mates). But you won't will because you can't substantiate any of this poisonous crap.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteDo the FACTS include that Neeson's Weenie has a name...James Wright?
ReplyDeleteSo comments which are critical about this blog (not about the blogger, incidentally, I haven't written anything personally insulting, just pointed out some serious factual errors and questioned his motivations) are now being deleted. Sometimes slowly. Sometimes quickly. Censorship is always disappointing, but particularly when it is so clumsy. Just another reason to mistrust everything written here.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 2.19
ReplyDeleteAs I have made clear, sometimes comments disappear for no reason that I am aware of. Here's your comment again.
As for the two above that I have deleted it is because they were defamatory:
Thanks for publishing my response in full. I feel like we've probably both made our points now.
I contend that you deliberately misled your readers about the location of these poor families because the truth (that they live in an area where CCF has publicly stated that they don't provide services, because they don't want to encourage people to live there) was inconvenient to your weird anti-Scott Neeson obsession and your accusation that CCF lie about their work. I also contend that you deliberately ignored a serious journalistic piece by the Phnom Penh Post because it didn't fit that agenda in favour of a confused Trip Advisor reviewer's remark, and that your lack of interest in accuracy or facts ("I don't know. Or care.") seriously discredits you and all the other accusations you have made with only your word as evidence. Essentially, I believe you cannot be trusted.
You contend that all of these are "pedantic details", that I am missing the big picture, and that I - and others - should ignore these lies/errors, and trust that all the other outlandish stuff you have written here, about that family and CCF, is true.
Well, all the facts are up above now. I think we can leave it there and let other people decide.
So this is not defamatory you hypocrite Ricketson ? "Jimmy married his 15 year old fuck and made it legit and now runs a fucking child protection unit."
DeleteFrom what I can tell, it is all true. "Jimmy" aka James McCabe made his bed, now lie in it. I think he also was a convicted drug dealer and committed armed robbery.
DeleteWell that certainly shows what a fuckwit you are Anon 5.13. Just because you read it hear doesn't make it true.
DeleteSo Anonymous 1:56, you are here advocating for an organization that destroys families by taking their children. Takes houses intended to be gifted to the poor. Is a perennial liar. Hires 2 shamed policemen to run his child protection agency. And I'm the fuckwit? Haha.
DeleteA shamed policeman is a very different thing from being a convicted drug dealer. Yes, you are a fuckwit.
Deletehttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/ex-nca-cops-plea-deal-over-drug-sting/news-story/87ac9508f1f7d58d0eed9aa48971dc77
DeleteAnonymous 7:41, more on your pal James McCabe: But his time there is now worrying law enforcement agencies. AM has confirmed authorities are investigating McCabe's role in an importation of heroin from Cambodia to Sydney – an importation which was meant to be monitored by police. It's believed McCabe corruptly interfered with the 350 gram importation, and possibly a number of others to get a cut.
DeleteAM understands an examination of McCabe's assets encompassing his time in South East Asia has uncovered suspect bank deposits totalling at least $200,000.
Haha, what nonsense. I know, you read it on this blog so it must be true.
DeletePublished articles you retard. Read the links.http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1170197.htm
DeleteYou probably believe that Neeson doesn't take children from their families too. Right?
Is that really the best you can do fuckwit, rumour and allegations from 12 years ago. No proof just disputed claims. talk about drowning men clasping at straws
DeleteHe plead guilty, he did prison time. You denying that Scott Neeson takes children from their families too?
DeleteThank you. I don't understand why comments are disappearing after they have been live for two days but given you have reposted mine, I can see it must be some kind of error and apologise for saying you were guilty of censorship. However, I stand by the rest of what I wrote above and will now leave it for others to decide.
ReplyDeleteHey, let's get real here. I read a lot of bullshit on this blog. Not from Rickets,who has his own problems, but from the fucking morons who defend the Neese. Lets face it for all of us who have known him for years he and Mc Cabe and and Lemon have been chasing young pussy for fucking years. Jimmy married his 15 year old fuck and made it legit and now runs a fucking child protection unit. Go figure! I don't know if the Neese has mended his ways over the years now that he is a superstar but back int he day he loved his young pussy. So did Lemon. What better way to guarantee a regular supply than to 'rescue' little girls from poverty. Fucking hypocrits.
ReplyDeletewhen i was young, im really happy about my life.. but this.. break my heart :(
ReplyDeletewhoah this blog is great i like reading your posts. Keep up the great work!
ReplyDeleteYou recognize, many persons are hunting around for this info, you could aid
them greatly.
The race of the Khmer Niggers is origined from the Hindoo Indians ! You can spot them by their skin tone,midget weakling structure, ape or mongrel features !
ReplyDeletedindooohindoo
Hence, they are liars,cheaters and thieves just like the Indians - whose record of lies and cheating is well documented,as under :
Even the Hindoo monkey army asks the recruits to take exams in underwears to STOP CHEATING !
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/they-stripped-to-their-underwear-for-army-recruitment-exam-in-bihar-1282699?pfrom=home-lateststories
THIS IS NOT RIPLEYS BELEIVE IT OR NOT !
TO MAKE SURE THAT NO CHEATING PAPERS / GADGETS ARE USED BY THE INDIANS -- THE STUDENTS WERE MADE TO TAKE OPEN AIR EXAMS IN
THEIR UNDERWEARS ON THE GROUND !
CHEATING IS IN THE DNA OF THE INDIAN / HINDOO LIMPET LIMPDICKS !
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/s-h-a-k-s-p-e-a-r-in-bihar-this-examiner-is-grading-english-test-papers-752800?pfrom=home-lateststories
THE STUDENT HAS PASTED A 2 USD BILL INTO THE EXAM ANSWER SHEET !! TO BRIBE THE EXAMINER IN ANTICIPTAION AND EXPECTATION !!
WATCH THESE LIZARDS ! IT IS NOT THAT THE HINDOOS LOOK LIKE LIZARDS AND MONGRELS - THEY ARE LIZARDS AT LEAST ! EMPIRICALLY !
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/over-1000-impersonators-held-during-police-recruitment-in-bihar/
http://news.yahoo.com/paper-planes-parents-help-indian-pupils-outsmart-state-080150081.html
http://qz.com/366323/the-weird-economics-of-indian-parents-who-climb-walls-to-help-their-kids-cheat/
Hence, the Khmer and Indian Niggers are doomed !