Sunday, June 29, 2014

# 15 More questions for Scott Neeson

Dear Scott

You have decided not to answer any of my questions of a week ago.  I have some more. Let me preface these by reiterating that I have every reason to believe that on many fronts CCF is doing good work. However, this does not absolve CCF (or any other NGO) from the need to be transparent and accountable for the way in which sponsors and donors’ monies are spent.  

# 1 Do you own land in Kep with ocean views, land in Kampot with river views and other properties in Kampong Cham?

# 2 Would it be fair to say that the combined value of these properties, acquired in conjunction with a Cambodian partner, would be in the vicinity of $1 million?

From the mandatory filings about its finances that CCF has to make to US authorities, I see that your income from CCF (for 2012 – maybe it’s gone up since then?)  was $85,593.

This information is publicly available at:

There is only one listed ‘key employee’ in:

Part VII, Section A.  Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees and Highest Compensated Employees

 (13) Scott Neeson, Exec Director; $85,983

‘For an organisation which is said to have some hundreds of staff (can you let me know exactly how many?) to look after 2000 (?) children, 30% of whom are resident, it surprises me that there is only one ’key’ employee.

# 3 Are you the only person in this category (Part V11, Section A) who receives an income?

If so, what are sponsors and donors to make of some of the other items in the budget? For instance?

5. Compensation of current officers, directors, trustees and key employees
5B: Program service expenses: $71,781

# 4 As the only ‘key employee’ of CCF it would seem that this $71,781 is an expense accrued by yourself. Is this so?

And what about:

16. Occupancy
16A: Total Expenses; $294, 835

This reads as  though ‘occupancy’ might relate to hotel expenses!?

# 5 Did you manage to accumulate $294,835 in hotel expenses in the financial year of 2012? It may be that many of these these hotel expenses (if my guess is right) may have been accrued by others?

# 6 If the term ‘occupancy’ refers to something other than hotel expenses, could you please clarify?

You will appreciate, Scott, that all these questions simply relate to matters that any potential donor or supporter should know about if they are to make an informed decision as to where they might want to place their money.

And then there is the significant travel bill:

17. Travel
17A: Total Expenses; $245,566

CCF’s Travel costs seem pretty high too, especially for an organization that deals with one community in one part of one city in Cambodia.

# 7 What proportion of this $245,566 is spent by CCF on flying you  around the world?

It would seem (and please correct me if I am wrong) that in addition to your $85,000 wage, you receive generous benefits from being able to travel the world and stay in expensive hotels.

The financial statement to be found online (see above) relates only to the US branch of CCF.

# 8 Are financial statements available for CCF Australia? CCF UK?, CCF Hong Kong?

# 9 Is there a statement available that provides the total amount of funds flowing from all sources into the Cambodian Children’s Fund?

# 10 How many employees does CCF have?

You’ll certainly be aware, Scott, that the prevalence of unfairly low pay in Cambodia has led to many strikes and demonstrations recently:

#11  How many CCF employees are paid at the International Labor Organization's recommended rates? How many are paid at a lower rate?

The following comment appears online in response to your Ted talk:

“Scott Neeson is doing a great job for children. To make sure that your donation and money are not stolen by Kram Sokchannoeurn, Country Manager, who bringing her sisters, husband, cousin and other relatives to work in CCF, Scott Neeson needs to reform and build a preventive system against internal corruption or fraud and stop nepotism inside CCF.”

# 12 Is it true that the country manager mentioned in the comment has 2 of her sisters, her brother in law, her husband and other relatives holding senior positions in CCF?’

Just a final question that one relates to the scale of the donations CCF receives.

# 13  Did CCF receive $1 million worth of Fortesque Metal Group shares a few years ago?

And a final observation:

Based on the ‘total revenue’ from US sources, presumably not taking into account money from other sources, (please correct me if this is a wrong assumption) in the 2012 financial year it cost CCF $5 million to feed, clothe, house and educate the children in the NGO’s care. Utilizing a ballpark figure of 2,000 children, it costs CCF a bare minimum of $2,500 per annum to take care of one child.

I have recently spoken with the parents of children resident at CCF whose combined income, working in the new dump, is $1000 per annum.




  1. the internal nepotism amongst the khmers at the very top, kram etc, is pretty bad

  2. You've opened up a can of worms Mr Ricketson that no NGOs want opened. They will use whatever means they can to destroy their credibility, as you can see from so many of the comments.

  3. I haven't read many of the comments, quite deliberately. I read a few early on, realised what was going on (character assassination) and thought it best not to subject myself to abuse. However, judging by the number of comments (and I am told some are complimentary, not abusive) there is a lively debate going on at Cambodia 440 - despite the obvious censorship. The rights and wrongs of my position or Scott's are less important than that these be openly discussed and if this is happening, good.

  4. This is not an open discussion. It is one heavily weighted against you, Mr Ricketson. I have had my own comments in favour of the very debate you have opened deleted almost immediately. And you will be aware, I presume, that more than one of those using an alias to attack you is Scott Neeson himself. He does this with the full knowledge and approval of Peter Hogan (Keeping It Reil) who runs the Cambodia 440 site. They are friends and Peter will do all he can to protect a mate. Watch you back! This is a dangerous town to make enemies in.

  5. I have known from the outset that Peter Hogan s Keep it Reil. It is a pity that the Cambodia 440 is run by a man who thinks that positing a photo of myself alongside Jimmy Saville is a serous contribution to the debate taking place! That Jimmy Saville had long hair and was a pedophile it stands to reason, in accordance with Peter Hogan logic, that I must also be a pedophile! Poor Cambodia, having such men inflicted upon it. Still, to his credit and despite his crude analogies and censorship, Peter is allowing the debate to continue and this can only be a good thing. The longer Scott refuses to answer any questions the more likely it is that Cambodia 440 followers will wonder why? "How can Scott say he owns no house and no car if he owns $1 million worth of real estate in Cambodia?" He can, of course, respond with, "What Mr Ricketson is alleging is a lie. I own no land in Cambodia." The same goes for the million dollars worth of shares given to CCF. Do they show up on the books anywhere? Or am I mistaken in my belief that such shares exist? If so, why doesn't Scott simply come out and say so?

  6. Occupancy relates to costs associated with the organisation's physical presence: rental of offices, buildings and land. It certainly doesn't refer to expenses for hotel stays.

    You don't do yourself any favours by posing such uninformed questions. Do yourself a favour next time and spend 5 minutes googling the meanings of terms you don't understand.

    1. Fair enough. Yes, I should have checked on the legal definition of 'occupancy'. Thanks for pointing this out. My other questions remain, however. If you have answers to them, whoever you may be, please share them with me. As I have made clear, my job is to ask questions and hope to receive answers.

    2. I don't have answers because I'm not that in touch with CCF or their strengths or weaknesses. Nothing wrong with asking questions, but in cases like this, it's best to make sure you do sufficient research before blurting out allegations of a highly serious nature. After SMF debacle, it's more important than ever to ensure the NGO set are walking the talk and being as transparent as possible, but that doesn't mean that a misunderstood reading of a legitimate expense or action should be given credence simply because the question is asked.

      I'm not sure of the relevance of the exec director's personal property holdings? Is he supposed to live as an ascetic in a cave? No one can fault anyone in the NGO sector for using their earnings, or what they earned in previous careers, in any way they choose.

      I assume you've read through the audited financial reports and annual reports? 17 properties which serve beneficiaries are listed on the 2012 annual report, giving an average of around $14k per property, per annum. Not an unreasonable figure for rental of facilities supporting 2,000+ children across education, housing, healthcare etc.

      If you look at the audited finances for 2012, the 245,566 in travel expenses is broken into three parts: program, general and administrative, and fundraising. 158k, 46k, and 40k respectively. So if the executive director *was* rorting first class flights for fundraising junkets he'd only have taken about 4 flights during 2012. Somehow I don't think he's schmoozing on A380 flights every weekend.

      I can't find anything related to Fortescue metal gifting shares to CCF. You'd think that would be something Fortescue would be promoting, not hiding. The fact there's nothing probably means there's nothing to it.

      Lastly, if it costs 2500 per child per year for education, housing, healthcare, then it's still money well spent. The fact that families living in poverty get by on 1000/year says a lot about what the children in those families are missing out on - no education, no healthcare, no hope, no future.

      I'm all for keeping NGO's in check, but do so in a reasoned, accurate way, and make sure your own cards are on the table before throwing stones.

    3. Is $2,500 for education, housing, healthcare etc per child money well-spent when mum and dad are working in the dump earning $1,000 a year between them and having their kids growing up in an institution, brought up by paid staff? All of the research indicates that kids, even the kids of the poorest families, are better off living with their families than in an institution.

      In the case of the family living in the dump for which I offered to buy land, it was to get the whole family out of the dump that I made the offer.. The mother and father said that for $2,000 they could buy a small piece of land and a house and not have to work in the dump anymore.

      As it happens I have bought a house and land for a family that was living on the streets of Phnom Penh. Total cost $1,500. I bought the family $1,000 worth of rice paddy and a yuk yuk - another $2.500. So, for $4,000 it was possible to get this family off the streets of Phnom Penh and give its members a fighting chance at survival.

      If you are Australian, or if you are familiar with the Australian policy of last century (and the 19th C) of removing Aboriginal children from their families to give the good education,housing etc, you will know that this exercise in social engineering caused so much damage to parents and children alike that Australia eventually made a formal apology to what we refer to as 'the Stolen Generation'.

      Again, if you do your research, you will find that it is estimated that 75$ of 'orphans' in Cambodia have at least one parent alive. Or, to put it another way, 75% of 'orphans' could, with some help, be placed back into the communities they come from where they re surrounded by members of their extended family.

      One other point to make about my guestimate of $2,500 per child. This is only taking into account the money raised by CCF in the US - as far as I can tell from what is available online. It would seem that there is a good deal more money than this flowing into the CCF coffers. It is hard to know by simply looking at a statement that is US specific. Hence my questions.

      I'd love you to point out to me what allegations I have made and what stones I have thrown? My questions arise from a few years of being stone-walled by Scott Neeson and from my obligations as a journalist and filmmaker to get my facts right.

      As the risk of belabouring the point, of course Scott Neeson (and you and I) have a right to own land in Cambodia. I am not questioning Scott's right to own land but if he says that he says he owns nothing - no car, no house - and it tens out he does, legitimate questions arise about his honesty. If I were as public a figure as Scott and I made a statement about myself that you felt (on the basis of what you had been told) was wrong, what would you do? I would hope you would ask me, "James, you said x but there are lots of people who say y,which is it?" If I knew x to be the case I would get straight back to you and say, "Regardless of what you have heard, x is the case." The same applies to the $1 million worth of shares. If no such shares were given to CCF, Scott should just come out and say, "James CCF has never been given $1 million worth of shares. You have been misinformed."

      I'll stop here as I am repeating myself.

    4. Reluctant to remain anonymousJune 30, 2014 at 3:27 AM

      I lice and work in Cambodia. I am part of what might be seen as the 'NGO community' by outsiders. There is no 'community' though - just individual NGOs doing their jobs well or badly and in between. One fact is beyond doubt though, in my experience: there is being created here a 'stolen generation' - children emoted from their families and brought up in institutions. I would suggest that any reporter, any filmmaker, any researcher seek out the families and find out from them how they feel about their experiences at the hands of all NGOs who, for one reason or another, remove children from families. Talk also with the Khmer staff who have worked in these institutions and find out how they del about the way in which children in their care were treated. Ask the young people who have lived for most of their teens in one of these institutions how they feel now, looking back, on their experiences. In short, ask the Cambodian people and, all of you, stop acting as though the fate of Cambodians rested in the hands of NGOs. We are here to help, that is all. I wish to remain anonymous because I work with people with whom I have major disagreements and do not wish to be seen to be undermining their work. they mean well but, I fear, a time will come when the very people they have come here to help turn on them, on us, and say, "Why did you not help us in the Cambodian way? In the villages and the communities that could have helped these children if any help had been offered?"

    5. I am familiar with the issue of orphans in Cambodia, along with the stolen generation and ongoing issues of sovereignty and policies harming indigenous Australians. I completely agree that there needs to be a holistic approach that helps to raise families out of poverty, not just the kids.

      Do these kids have families? How many? Why is this not disclosed? What assistance is provided to the families? If so, do the parents have free access to their kids? If not, there's clearly something wrong with the way they operate.
      I am hesitant to say that buying a poor family a farm and giving it to them will solve any problems, but actually create a whole set of new problems. Are they farmers? Are you going to provide them agricultural training? Could they tend a paddy of rice and become self sufficient, or will their lack of agricultural knowledge mean they end up with a barren plot and a . My work in Cambodia exposed me to the very real vacuum of agricultural know how throughout the country, where marginalised communities really don't know how to farm their land beyond a subsistence, nutrient poor, laborious existence which doesn't provide ample income to send kids to school beyond primary level.

      Make your film, with or without CCF's answers, but if your claiming to be documenting truths, make damn sure you're completely confident in the veracity of your claims so that the film can make a real difference and shake the perches of the NGO elite. Don't let it be full of guesswork and assumptions that I or anyone else can correct or disprove through a google search in a matter of minutes.

      Did CCF receive shares? This should be plainly obvious in their financial reporting. If you don't know how to find it, engage someone who can.

      Sure, owning a significant amount of land may speak to Neeson's authenticity, but for me it's fairly inconsequential. Of course there's a narrative he's selling, that's the game his and all NGO's play, and as much as you want to make it personal, your story/film needs to be objective. This blog leads one to think you're obsessing over Scott and not looking at the larger picture of, as noted above, enforced reliance on NGOs to 'save' Cambodians from themselves (and their leaders), and the creation of a stolen generation of Cambodians by well meaning white folk who can't help but repeat the mistakes we've been making for the last 200 years.

    6. Thanks for this. A response, in no particular order.

      Yes, CCF's ownership of shares is only consequential if the money has not been declared anywhere - if, that is, there are shares. If there are not, Scott could quite easily say, "There are no shares." The same applies for land ownership. It is only relevant because a significant part of the narrative Scott uses to raise money for CCF is that he has given up everything and owns neither a house nor a car. If this part of the narrative is not true, which other parts of it are not true?

      As for my 'obsessing over Scott', if you read my blog from the beginning you will find that all I wanted, at the outset, was to make contact with the family I had filmed and to which I made a promise. I had no intention of 'investigating' CCF. After two and a half years of getting no answers from Scott, of being stone-walled, I went public. In so doing, lots of people approached me with information. Whether what I have been told is true or not true, I don't know. In asking Scott I am, as I should, giving him the opportunity to provide answers. When he does not answer questions or when, as he has recently, he answers questions and I receive information that suggests his answers are incorrect, more questions arise. And I cant help but ask them. I have an obligation to ask them. Was Simon Marks being obsessive when he kept investigating Somaly Mam? No, he was doing what a good investigative journalist must do.

      Also, I have a professional obligation to get my facts right. If I do not, I can be (and deserve to be) sued. Broadcasters are vigilant in this respect also. Their lawyers will look at my film closely and will not allow anything to go to air that is defamatory. My own lawyer will do likewise.

      To be continued…

    7. You are right about the problems inherent in buying land. I am not suggesting that this is necessarily the solution. I used it only as an example. In the case of the family I have been helping, I bought the father a tuk tuk. It seemed like a great idea but, in reality, there are so many tuk tuks now that this is not a a great way to make a living for a man (as this father is)who is shy and who speaks little English. He and his wife used to run a stall down by the river, at a time when there were many stalls. They also rented a boat on which they lived and which they used to ferry tourist at sunset. Their way of life and their mode of income generation ended when the boulevard was renovated a few years ago and the stalls closed down by the authorities.

      I use this only as an example to show that I am aware of the complexities inherent in 'helping' poor people. The same applies for the kids who are 'rescued' by NGO. I have been coming to Cambodia for close on20 years and I know a lot of these kids. Yes, it may be great for them to spend five or six years in an institution, receiving as education three meals a day etc but what happens to them when they are 18 and have to re-enter the real world? How many of them are equipped by their BGO experience to get decent jobs? Any job at all? Not many, in my experience. Lots of the girls, on release from the NGO, are pregnant within a year and have two kids by the time they are 20 - thus repeating the cycle of poverty. They have not been taught about contraception. They have not been provided with contraception. And often they cannot afford it. And if, by the time they are 25, they have six children, what options are open to them to prevent baby # 6 from being conceived? I have recently tried to find out,for one woman I know, how she could (after her 7th baby, at age 28) have an operation to prevent her from having more kids. The two quotes I have received come in at round $500. What poor family has $500 to spare?

      What is required is a holistic approach to helping whole families within their communities. There is no magic bullet. Every family is different. For me, the most important thing is to see to it that the parents can feed their kids and get them to school - particularly the girls. It is well known that many of the problems arising for families with too many mouths to feed are solved through the education of women.

      Enough from me for the time being. Thanks for your input. It is a pity that dialogue such as this require that so many (indeed most) contributors feel the need to remain anonymous

    8. Thanks for the background. I've come here via K440 and haven't looked much into the background of what's happening here. Also, I'm remaining anonymous because who I am or where I have worked isn't pertinent to the discussion, and as I came via K440 I'd prefer to keep my identity there and here separate.

    9. I both understand and respect your wish to remain anonymous. However, I do wish that discussions such as this one could happen in an open forum and, perhaps, lead to the implementation of ideas. When I first came to Cambodia in 1995 I was involved in a lot of conversations such as this one. There was a general consensus that educating the next generation was a top priority. A generation later and it hasn't happened. In 1995 there were also more 'orphanages' than there were orphans to go around so parents were sending their kids to Phnom Penh to hang around on the street until they were 'rescued'. Again, there was much discussion about this but no action. I fear that, like Groundhog Day, I will be in cambodia in five years and find that the orphanage and rescue business is still thriving, that yet another generation of kids (girls in particular) are growing up without a proper education and that girls are not being that about (and provided access to) contraception.


  7. I see via CCF Facebook page Neeson making attempts to overshadow any bad press .. he's a spin king in a Kingdom full of corruption along with his dodgy man club soaking up millions while refusing to answer any questions. l just watched the Australian Story via Ytube with Neeson saying he owns nothing, if he happens to own land in Cambodia then he is should come out and explain why he feels the need to lie.
    Jane WA

  8. Indeed Mr Scott is spend 300 thousands for business class flights and 5 star hotels while children live in terrible cramped living conditions. staff report many as 30 children made to sleep together in over crowded rooms.
    how can this happen . while do people support him . why he want to take children from poor family

    1. I have never heard the figure 30 kids in one room but have been told that between 15 and 20 kids live in one room - though not the kind of room shown to journalists, visiting film stars etc. As for whether Scott spends $300,000 on first class airfares or not, I have no idea. I have asked Scott but he refuses to answer. Scott quite foolishly responded to my original post (letter to Heather Graham) and opened up a Pandora's box of questions that he now seeks to avoid answering. He may have perfectly good answers (see above re 'occupancy') but if he does, why doesn't he simply come out and say, "No, CCF does not own $1 million of FSQ shares. No, I do not own $1 million worth of land." It is his evasiveness that leads me (and others) to wonder what he is trying to hide.

      If you can, anonymously, let me know how you know about the $300,000 spent on hotels and business class flights I would appreciate it. Otherwise what you write is just rumour and of no value.

    2. If he his spending 300,000 on luxury flights and hotels, it isn't with CCF money, as the audited financials clearly show.

  9. Peter Hogan has locked off the Cambodia 440 discussion about all this. So much for free speech!

    1. Yes, I have noticed. Very foolish of him in that he has just drawn attention to the fact that he wishes to control the discussions that take place there and, if they do not go as he wishes, he can close them down. Regardless of which side of this debate you are on (there are of course more than two sides) the debate is a good one to have. It should not be censored, however.

  10. It costs $140 a month to sponsor a child at CCF. That's roughly $1,700 a year. Is this the total cost of keeping one child at CCF for a year? Dies anyone know the answer to this?

    A garment factory worker earns in the vicinity of of $1,100 a year. The ILO minimum recommended wage is around $1,900 per year - just a little more than the cost of keeping a child at CCF.

    The mother and father of a child living at CCF earn a combined income of around $1000 a year if the figures being presented here accurate.

    It costs $1,500 to buy a home and a small block of land in the provinces for an entire family.

    If a family has two children living at CCF, it would only take six months of sponsorship at $280 a month to buy this family a home.

    I am not a mathematician but it seems to me it would be much more cost effective, for those families working in the dump who have no home, to buy them a home.

    Or am I missing something?

    1. You are missing something but you are asking the right kinds of questions. I am not much good at maths either but here goes:

      It costs $150 a month to sponsor a child at CCF. That's $300 a month is two children from one family are being sponsored. That's $3,600 per year.

      In the case of the family I have been trying to make contact with, for the cost of keeping both girls in an institution, CCF could have bought the family a small home in Prey Veng (where the family comes from) and a rice paddy that could generate $1000 of income in a year.

      Over a period of 7 years sponsorship of these two girls would generate around $25,000. Think of other ways in which this $25,000 might have been spent. Here's one suggestion:

      But the family a small home and a small block of land. In my case (also in Prey Veng) this was $1,500. This is a gift. Provide $3,500, again, a gift, to help the family get started as rice farmers or whatever income generation scheme is suitable to their talents. Then, make certain amounts available to the family to loan, if need be. These could be interest free loans or with a modest interest rate.

      Bearing in mind that these are ballpark figures, lets say that over a period of a few years this hypothetical family borrows $5,000, the total amount invested in making this family self-sufficient would be $10,000 - considerably less than the $25,000 spent keeping two kids in an institution for 7 years.

      As I imagine is apparent, I believe that institutional care should be the very last option considered in helping Cambodian children. If the kids only have one parent (75% of 'orphans') provide whatever support is necessary to the one parent. In the case of kids that really do have no mum and dad, find an uncle, an aunt, some member of the extended family or, if need be, the village, and offer whatever support is required to keep the kid within his or her community.

      Living within their own communities would provide the vast majority of the kids in care with a much better environment for them to grow up in. And it would cost NGOs less to support the kids within the community.

      The downside of this scenario, from an NGOs point of view, is that the NGO cannot quite so easily (and with less photo opportunities) present him or herself as the 'saviour'. 'Saving' kids (but not their mums and dads) and having hundreds of them in care provides wonderful photo opportunities for NGOs. A child whose life has been improved through being able to stay within the loving embrace of family and community does not provide the same photo opportunities.

      In order to obtain the $150 a month sponsorship figure I went online and looked at the CCF sponsor site. There, laid out for the discerning sponsor, are photos go kids waiting to be sponsored - Nara, Vana, Sala etc. Other than their age there is no information about these kids at all. Do they have a mum and dad? Are they orphans?

      It is a meat market of sorts. "Mmmm, I think I'll have that one, she has such a cute smile and that one too, he looks to be a little cheeky."

      Whilst this child version of a dating site does not state it, these kids are being presented to the viewer, to the potential sponsor, as kids who have no mum and dad, not uncle or aunt, no grandma to take care of them.

      I have had enough first hand experience now to know that the bulk of kids who are presented as de facto orphans do have families. And I have met enough of these families, their hearts broken at the loss of their children to NGOs, to know that there is something very rotten in the state of Denmark.

      There is also a collective silence about what is going on, and what everyone knows is going on, within most of the NGO community.

      I wonder how many Somaly Mam-type scandals need to occur before the NGO community takes some concerted action to prevent Cambodian children being stolen from their families.

  11. How pleasant to find here in this blog that dialogue is civilised and devoid of the spite and nastiness to be found on Cambodia 440

    1. Yes, and how interesting that Mr Scott Neeson, the Pied Piper of Phnom Penh, should refuse to answer any of the questions that Mr Ricketson has asked him in his last two posts. My doubts about Scott Neeses, based on nothing other than his rampant egomania, have grown into gnawing worries. It feels to me as though there is another Somaly Mam scandal brewing. If so I hope that it does not take another five years before CCF is exposed for whatever misdeeds it is guilty of. The more Mr Neeson refuses to answer questions the more I wonder what other questions are not even being asked and which should be!!!!!?????

  12. James your on the money, yes Scott owns land while telling the world he has nothing , yes he received 1 million in shares from Twiggy that does not show on CCF records and yes he is collects children without any paperwork
    Scott your rotten and your board members are just as guilty, its funny that your so big on self promotion, yet so shy when being questioned.
    Volunteers and staff have remained publicly silent until now .

  13. Neeson has been fooling people for years. I don't want to use this forum to make accusations about Neeson but I have to say I have never felt good about Neeson and the way he interacts with children at his center. I have visited the centers twice and it was all very creepy for me.

    I see the Khmer440 crowd are protecting Neeson with their favourable comments. Its not surprising really. But the laughable part of Khmer440 is that there is not one credible person on it. Most of them are miserable individuals working as $1000 a month school teachers or buzzing around the scraps of low paying jobs in Cambodia just hoping to scratch up enough money to get through each day. The pinnacle is the owner of Khmer440 Peter Hogan (aka keeping it riel). You only have to ask around town and dig through his history to see why he continually speaks badly about NGO's that work to stop pedophiles and the like and does all he can to defend the likes of Neeson and crew.

    As for the statement that McCabe is no longer working for Neeson - well that is a straight out lie. McCabe is running the rescue section of CCF and he is receiving a monthly salary plus has a company car paid for by CCF. How on earth could anyone support Neeson when they know that he has hired a convicted criminal. Not only a criminal but a police officer who got caught drug trafficking and robbing people. And now he is supposedly the best ethical person in country to work with children. If Neeson was so righteous about McCabe, why isn't he mentioned anywhere on the website and why isn't Neeson proudly showing McCabe's face on any of the media - only one reason why!.

    But it doesn't just stop at McCabe, take a look at CCF's so called Australian chapter and look at who is on the Board. There is one Australian Judge on the Board who has so many corruption allegations against his name its not funny. Perhaps I am wrong but something not adding up with CCF. Keep up the great work James - Neeson needs to answer these questions!

    1. The judge's name is Pascoe. John Pascoe. Check him out here.

      Then there is Alan Lemon, another former Australian Federal Police officer. Neeson loves to work with cops. I wonder why? The guy he has bought $1 million worth of real estate with is a cop too. A Cambodian cop. Watch your back, Mr Ricketson. There's big money here and you will be seen as a problem asking all these qurestions

  14. I agree Khmer 440 is filled with creepy expat school teachers , how funny is it they make remarks on peoples writing quality , fucking jerks
    James keep up the good work on your question asking of Neeson.
    Just how much money has he received since the start of operation and compare the results todate . I will guarantee it's very far from money well spent. Millions of donors dollars to build Scott his very own fantasy land filled with children he buys from poor families. His community centre is filled with children who compete for his attendtion yelling his name SCOTT Pa Pa . Only a selected few are given the nod which means a 5 cent bowl of hot noodles , the rest have to wait their chance for maybe next time . If the mood is right for Neeson he will handout 20 cent barbie dolls from the trunk of his SUV . Then out comes the big camera for his number one fans . Before heading home to share another heart pounding story via social media

    1. I have just watched the Australian Story advertorial about Scott Neeson directed by his brother Norman. I thought that the Australian Broadcasting Commission didn't allow advertising! Scott makes out that all the kids he rescues from the dump don't have parents! I don't get it. So these kids just go to the dump to work because they have no mum and dad and then along comes Scott on his white horse to rescue them! From what I have heard the kids are in the dump because their parents are working there. So what happens to the parents when Scott takes their kids?

    2. The dump he so often refers too has been shut for years. All the children have families. but for marketing $$$ he prefers to add some Hollywood horror story on how he saved them. parents live in limbo while the pied piper reaps in millions. his latest prop is some poor girl who lost limbs from a landmine. why the need to take endless photos of her and splash it across social media ?

  15. When I worked at the Australian Embassy on a short term contract everyone there knew about the NGO orphanage scams run by Australian NGos but no one seemed to give a shit. I dont know anything about the Camodian Childrens Fund except what I read here and it seems to me to be just another orphanage but with no orphans it it. WTF

    1. The Australian Embassy has no interest in whether or not Australian NGOs behave in an ethical manner or if they obey Cambodian. The Embassy has no concern at all whether or not the human rights of Cambodians are being breached by Australian NGOs. The best that anyone asking questions about such matters is a letter from a spin doctor that answers no questions at all. The same applies with the Australian Ministry for Foreign Affairs and has done for the last four Foreign Ministers I have written to you. As far as they re concerned, anyone asking questions about NGOs is a nuisance - to be stone-walled by a spin doctor. The same applies with the Australian Council for International Development Code of Conduct committee (ACDID). In theory this committee's job is to oversee Australian NGOs that are in receipt of either AusAID funding or funding from an NGO that is a signitory to the ACFID Code of Conduct. ACFID also treats people such as myself asking questions as a nuisance - to be dealt with by a spin doctor. WTF indeed! I will, below, publish my latest missive to ACFID. It will result in either no response at all (the usual) or, if I am lucky, yet another note from a spin doctor.

  16. My latest note to the Australian Council for International Development:

    Dear Ms Sam Mostyn
    Dr Sue-Anne Wallace
    ACFID Code of Conduct Committee
    ACFID Exectuive Committee

    Clearly, the illegal removal of children from their families by Citipointe church's 'SHE Rescue Home' is not a matter of any concern to ACFID at any level at all! Australian NGOs working in Cambodia and, one way or another, taking advantage of Australian tax laws regarding charities, are free to act as they please - to break Cambodian law, to breach the ACFID Code of Conduct, without ACFID having even the will to as of an NGO that it has removed children legally.

    Self monitoring is an abject failure, as I am sure you must all be aware. it is akin to the police conducting investigations into the police. In the absence of any form of regulation Cambodia is the Wild West of South East Asia and substantial amounts of money are being stolen from Australian tax-payers and other generous donors and sponsors to enable unscrupulous NGOs to exploit the poverty of the Cambodian people.

    Everywhere I look, everywhere that anyone with their eyes half open looks, a new scam is to be found. These people are laughing their way to the bank whilst ACFID, DFAT generally, buries its head in the sand and pretends not to notice the blindingly obvious.

    Here ia another NGO, in receipt of substantial amounts of Austalian tax-payer money to which many questions should be put - the Cambodian Children's fund:

    If any of you is interested in facts (as opposed to the hype generated by Scott Neeson) ask this one question:

    "Why, Mr Neeson, do you have as the head of your Child Protection Unit, a former Australian Federal Police officer - James Mc Cabe - who is a convicted criminal?"

    If you have any proficiency with the use of Google sand were prepared to ask just a few questions you would also discover that another Australian-funded (though not AusAID funded) NGO wring with children is run by a man who also runs 'girlie' bars in which underage women service the sexual needs of men.

    A thorough investigation of the way in which aid monies are distributed in Cambodia, and by whom, should take place but is never going to take place if no-one within DFAT/ACFID is even prepared to ask Citipointe and the Global Development Group to produce copies of MOUs.

    There is a 'stolen generation' in the making in Cambodia and you are all, through your silence, complicit in it.

    best wishes

  17. Scott Neeson earns $10,000 a month
    CCF teacher earns $120 a month
    Enough said!