# 175 Scott Neeson plays fast and loose with the truth....again!

Scott Neeson is the penultimate PR man. He will say whatever he needs to say in any particular situation to achieve whatever goal he has set for himself. And he is very good at it and the media, by and large, laps it up.

In Scott Neesonland truth gets mixed up with fiction and no-one, unless they look very closely and ask a few questions, will be able to figure out where truth ends and the fiction begins.

“At a meeting held this week in Phnom Penh, His Excellency Vong Soth, Minister for Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation (MoSVY) and CCF Founder and Executive Director Scott Neeson discussed the importance of setting rigid guidelines for NGOs dealing with vulnerable children.

The Minister expressed his appreciation at CCF’s support of the Royal Government’s regulations regarding residential care for vulnerable children.  The Minister said that all NGOs need to apply this new policy and meet the standards that have been set, and congratulated Scott and CCF on their efforts to help vulnerable people.  

Neeson congratulated the Minister on the residential care policy, saying enforcing it will go a long way to protecting the rights of vulnerable children and safeguarding against unscrupulous people opening residential care facilities for their own personal gain.

According to Scott’s own figures, as presented to the IRS in 2013, it costs CCF $2,000 a year to provide accommodation to one child in residential care and another $2,000 per year to educate this child. That’s $4,000 a year for a child who is in residential care and going to school. This is is more than double, often triple and sometimes four times as much as this child’s family earns in a year working in the rubbish dump.

Neeson committed to make CCF a model NGO that the ministry can use as a standard for how the residential care guidelines should be implemented by other NGOs.

In the last two years, CCF has built more than 360 homes for families in the Steung Meanchey community.  CCF’s extensive child care, community support and healthcare programs enable children to live at home with their families while attending CCF’s award-winning education program.

CCF has not built 360 homes. The number is 180. And the houses, owned by whoever owns the land, have only been built ‘for families’ in the sense that families get to rent the houses from the owner of the houses and land. Who this person is, is a closely guarded secret.

A number of basic services encourage school attendance, starting with the provision of subsidized rice.

Subsidized rice amounts to $120 a year for the family of a child in residential care – not much compared to the $2,000 or $4,000 a year CCF is pulling in per child whilst the rest of the family survives on $1,000 a year.

CCF’s support increases in line with the family’s commitment to regular schooling, providing safe domestic situations and preventing the child from undertaking labor.

Some children attending CCF schools are also working in the rubbish dump to help support their families.

Families who prioritise their child’s education, provide safe living conditions free from domestic violence or drug and alcohol abuse are provided the option of moving into a World Housing home.

Although a more complex approach to ensure regular school attendance, this model keeps the child and family together. Most of all, it works, with remarkably low absentee rates, increased parental engagement and a new sense of hope.

CCF does not keep families together. I have met parents who ask for their children to be returned to their care who are told that they have signed their parental rights away with the contract they put their thumb print to. The parents are not allowed to keep a copy of the contract and Scott Neeson refuses to allow anyone to see or read it.

Of the more than 2,250 children in CCF’s education program, 88% stay with their families each night or, if in higher education, at least twice a week.

Some basic arithmetic is required here. CCF claims to be spending $2,000 per year on the education of one child. Given that the majority of 2,250 children are going to free government schools, for half a day at least, and sleeping with their families, how is this $2,000 a year being spent?

For children who come from outside of Phnom Penh, CCF arranges regular transport back to their families once or twice a month. Parents are encouraged to visit their children and, if necessary, CCF will pay for their transportation.

CCF encourages children to live with their families, and re-integrates children from residential care if changes in their family situation make it safe for them to move home.  Children learn more and function better when part of the community.

CCF refuses to return children to their families if parents ask to be re-united with their children

The Minister congratulated CCF on its commitment to finding resources and supporting families to keep children living at home.  He praised the CCF Granny Program, which not only provides care for elderly people in the Steung Meanchey community, but also builds connections between the younger generation of CCF students and the wisdom of older people in the community.

In the meeting, Minister  H.E. Vong Soth, “expressed his endless support to the organization for carrying out its duty so far on the development of the whole society, especially on helping to further promote the construction of houses for poor families in the community.”

Accepting an invitation to attend a World Housing opening, the Minister said MoSVY will fully cooperate and support CCF in its efforts to assist the impoverished children in Cambodia.

CCF is not constructing houses for poor families. CCF is using donor and sponsor monies to buy houses which it then rents to poor families. The houses are owned by whoever owns the land upon which they are built.

Sponsors, donors and members of the 4^th Estate should ask Neeson who owns the land.

Everything Neeson says about CCF needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

# 174 Human rights are no longer a 'top priority' for the Government, says Foreign Office chief, Sir Simon McDonald

Human rights are no longer a 'top priority' for the Government, says Foreign Office chief

Top official says 'prosperity agenda' now takes precedence over fighting injustice

         

Oliver Wright Political Editor

The Independent

         

@oliver_wright

        

Saturday 3 October 2015

         

Human rights are no longer a “top priority” for the Government, Britain’s most senior Foreign Office official has admitted, as ministers put resources into supporting trade deals ahead of tackling injustice in other parts of the world. In a remarkably frank admission to MPs, Sir Simon McDonald, Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, said that human rights no longer had the “profile” within his department that they had “in the past”.

And he added that the Conservatives’ “prosperity agenda” was now “further up the list” of areas on which the department was concentrating its dwindling resources.

Last night human rights charities said Sir Simon’s comments were as “astonishing as they were alarming” and described the change in focus as “deeply regrettable”.

The Conservative chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Crispin Blunt, added that it was “one of the consequences of inadequate resourcing to run a sensible foreign policy”. 

Sir Simon made his remarks to Mr Blunt’s committee when he was questioned about how his department was prioritising resources. Asked whether human rights were now one of its “lower-priority activities”, Sir Simon replied: “Well, answering as Permanent Secretary, I say that although it is one of the things we follow, it is not one of our top priorities.” He added: “In a more constrained environment, the need to concentrate on Europe, Eastern Europe and Russia, and the Middle East has supplanted it to an extent.”

While Sir Simon said human rights was part of that work, he also admitted it was secondary also to the need to promote British companies abroad.

“I would not dispute that right now the prosperity agenda is further up the list [of priorities,” he added. 

Sir Simon was speaking shortly before George Osborne embarked upon a week-long trade mission to China where he was criticised for failing to publicly raise human rights abuses with his hosts. The Treasury said claimed Mr Osborne had raised human rights in a section of speech to the Shanghai Stock Exchange where he said: “We have different political systems. We’re a multi-party democracy. So of course we will disagree on issues. But let’s conduct our discussion on the basis of the mutual respect of our two great nations.” 

His comments suggest that the Foreign Office has substantially altered it priorities since Philip Hammond was appointed as Foreign Secretary last year.

His predecessor, William Hague, pledged in 2011 that there would be “no downgrading of human rights” under his watch, adding that “pursuing a foreign policy with a conscience is the right thing to do” and was in the “long-term enlightened national interest of our country”.

Amnesty International’s head of policy and government affairs, Allan Hogarth, said they were deeply worried by the comments and would be urgently raising the matter with ministers. “When much of the Middle East is in flames and a refugee crisis is engulfing Europe, Sir Simon’s comments are as astonishing as they are alarming,” he said.

“There should never be a trade-off between economic interests and the lives and liberties of people. We’ll be seeking to follow this up at the highest level within the Foreign Office,” he added.

David Mepham, UK director of Human Rights Watch, said: “This unwillingness to fully champion rights and fundamental freedoms runs counter to the best traditions in this country’s history and weakens the UK’s global standing and influence.” Mr Blunt said Sir Simon’s admission would form part of a wider inquiry by his committee into Britain’s policy on facing down human rights abuses.

“It does seem that this has been downgraded and there will be colleagues who will be immensely concerned about this,” he said. “I think that the use of our soft power around agendas such as human rights is particularly important.”

Mr Blunt added: “If we are beginning to see human rights work formally come second fiddle to a commercial strategy, it fits pretty oddly when we are still speaking the language of a great power such as getting stuck into conflicts such as Syria.”

A Foreign Office spokeswoman insisted that human rights were still “an integral part of the Foreign Office’s work” and were “intrinsically linked with many aspects of our national interest, including the stability and prosperity of our international partners”.

“The UK plays a leading role in the Human Rights Council, calling recently for resolutions on Syria and Sri Lanka and we are committed to using our global network to promote and protect universal human rights across the world,” the spokeswoman added.

# 173 What happened to Mr Fletcher’s passport?– Version # 4, as presented by Sir Simon Mc Donald, Permanent Under-Secretary of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office

In a 16^th Jan 2015 letter sent to Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond in relation to the mysterious disappearance and reappearance of Mr Fletcher’s passport I made reference to what was going on as being “worthy of a Jeffrey Archer or John le Carre novel.”

I was not far wrong.

The problem with liars, in both detective thrillers and in real life, is that they all too often forget which lie they have already told. In the case of the FCO the latest spin doctor brought in to explain what happened to Mr Fletcher’s passport  does not bother to look back through the FCO files and make sure that the latest version of ‘the truth’ does not contradict earlier versions!

So it is with Mr Fletcher’s passport.

Three different versions of what happened to the passport had been presented this past year. Then, a few weeks ago, a fourth appeared - in the form of a letter from Sir Simon Mc Donald KCMG KCVO, Permanent Under-Secretary of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office:

“I am sorry that I am unable to explain what happened to your passport between June 2010 and July 2012, but I welcome the PHSO’s conclusion that, in forwarding your passport to HMPO for cancellation, the FCO acted reasonably and in line with our guidance.”

It is not very reassuring to know, in this ‘Age of Terror’ that Britain’s FCO can simply lose track of a passport in its possession for a period of two years and have no idea how it left the Thai Embassy, where it went and how it was that it came to mysteriously reappear in the Thai Embassy!  

Who was using it and for what purpose? Or had it simply fallen down the back of a couch!?

There is a problem with Sir Simon’s letter, however. He is being disingenuous at best and parsimonious with the truth at least!

FCO documents that make it quite clear that Mr Fletcher’s passport was in the British Embassy’s possession on 28^th July 2010. An extract from one such document reads:

28^th July 2010

“Will take a/n’s passport to the IDC  tomorrow so that he can draw his money from the Western Union. Once we get hold on that amount the deportation will be in place. I am trying to find out about the flight cost and its availability and it is likely to be early next week.”

So, at least one month after Sir Simon claims the FCO lost track of Mr Fletcher’s passport it was still in the FCO’s possession.

Let’s give Sir Simon the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps what he meant to write was “between  July 2010 and July 2012”, not “between  June 2010 and July 2012”.

A typographical error!

But then there is another FCO document, dated  23^rd May 2011, in which the following is to be found:

23^rd May 2011

“I told Mr Fletcher that we were now holding his passport…”

Another typographical error?

How many typographical errors should we allow Sir Simon, Permanent Under-Secretary of State?

With the aplomb of Sir Humphrey, having presented lie # 4 relating to Mr Fletcher’s passport, Sir Simon announces:

“I am satisfied that this issue has now been concluded.”

It has not been concluded, Sir Simon. You need to present Mr Fletcher with version # 5 of what happened to his passport – the truthful version.

You cannot and will not do this, of course, because you, Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond, two Ambassadors (Thailand and Cambodia) Ross Allen and many others within FCO involved with this cover up would have a lot of egg on your collective faces if the truth were to emerge. Better to let Mr Fletcher die in jail without the benefit of a fair trial than to have a trial in which it becomes pubic knowledge that the FCO destroyed evidence relevant to Mr Fletcher’s defense  and then told a series of lies to account for the mysterious disappearance and reappearance of the defendant’s passport.

As for Sir Simon’s declaration that “FCO staff will of course continue to provide consular assistance to you,” this is laughable on many counts. Quite apart from the destruction of Mr Fletcher’s passport, the FCO has placed every obstacle it could in the way of Mr Fletcher being provided with a fair trial.