# 14 My response to Scott Neeson's online Cambodia 440 response to my letter to Heather Graham

Dear Scott

Your comment about me thriving on the limelight brought a smile to my face, coming as it did from someone whose website is replete with photos of himself.

Question # 1

In your response to my letter to Heather Graham you write:

“Fact: I have never lied. “

Let’s test this statement, this ‘fact’, in a real-world context.

You claim, in the Australian Story piece directed by your bother, that you own nothing. Is this true? All that is required is a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, Scott. I am concerned here with your capacity to be honest in your dealings with sponsors, donors and others who provide CCF with massive amounts of financial support.

Do you in fact, through a Cambodian partner, own a significant amount of property in Stung Meachey?

Your observations about “child protection practices”, which preclude men such as myself making contact with families such as Chuan and Sokayn’s had me not only smiling but shaking my head in wonder. How could you write this in all seriousness, Scott, when the Cambodian Children’s Fund has, as its head of the Child Protection Unit, a convicted criminal?

In virtually no country in the world (other than corrupt 3^rd world ones) would a convicted criminal, a former policeman, be allowed to head up a Child Protection Unit. I find it extraordinary that donors and sponsors worldwide find your employment of James Mc Cabe acceptable!

Question # 2

Does CCF insist on employees signing contracts that contain stringent non-disclosure clauses? If so, why are such clauses necessary? If you are committed to transparency and accountability, surely former employees of CCF should be free to express their opinions and share their experiences working for CCF with members of the media. Why the need for such secrecy?

***

“Mr Ricketson has unquestionably defamed CCF and me.”

If I have defamed you, Scott, sue me for defamation. Not in Cambodia, but in Australia – a country in which facts, evidence and truth count for something; a country in which you would be required, under oath, to tell the truth.

That you even refer to my being found guilty of defamation in Cambodia is both ludicrous and provides an insight into your character. Are you suggesting that a sentence passed by a Cambodian court results from due legal process!?  I have been found guilty of “threatening to dishonor Citipoitne church,” for heaven’s sake. This is the stuff of high face! You have been in Cambodia long enough to know that the person with the fattest wallet and/or the best political connections obtains the legal result they want. You are well connected, Scott, flush with money and in a position to buy the legal outcome that suits you. The problem, as you will be well aware, is that having me jailed in Cambodia would become ‘news’ -  story that would focus attention on you in a way that you do not want. My being jailed would result in questions of the kind I am asking here, and have been asking for some time now.

Question # 3

Have any donations been made to the Cambodian Children’s Fund (or gifts, shares in the stock market, say) that CCF has not publicly acknowledged?

***

I will not bother to respond to your Cambodia 440 open letter in detail. At least not just now. A few observations are in order, however:

“Mr Ricketson first came to our attention when he showed up at one of our all-girls facilities, demanding to see one of our pre-teen girls.”

Sorry, Scott,  to call you a liar again but the truth is that you are a dreadful liar. (A very clever one, however, from a marketing point of view!) I ‘demanded’ nothing. I was merely doing what I had done several times before – visiting Sokayn in the CCF centre.

Your observations about my motivation being to “interview Sokayn’s family” are not borne out by the correspondence between us, as would be apparent to anyone who bothered to read it. I wanted to make contact with the family in order to fulfill the promise I made to it regarding buying land. I also had in the back of my mind the thought that I would film some footage relating to the good work being done by CCF in caring for children from the Phnom Penh dump.

At the time of my contentious visit I had no reason to believe that CCF was doing anything other than a wonderful job in caring for Sokayn and Sokourn. Despite the many years I have been coming to Cambodia, I was naive enough to believe all of the hype you have generated about CCF with your undoubted skills in marketing. In Hollywood even a ‘turkey’ can, with clever marketing, be made to appear for a gullible audience, a ‘must-see- film. The same applies for NGOs. It is your job to ‘sell’ CCF in such a way as to maximize the inflow of donations. It is my job, and that of the media in general, to look behind this marketing façade and to ask questions.

Question # 4

What was your actual job in Hollywood? I don’t mean your job description but the work you did day to day.

The impression you have gone to great lengths to create (the myth of Scott Neeson!) is that you were a major player, friend to the stars, a mover and shaker. It seems to me (and please correct me if I am wrong) that your job in Hollywood was simply to market films that had already been produced. Photos of yourself with Mel and other stars, along with clips from Hollywood blockbusters, tell us nothing about your actual job!

Your job now is to market CCF. There is nothing wrong with marketing per se but, I would argue, a greater degree of honesty is required marketing CCF than is required in selling Hollywood movies. Somaly Mam did a great job marketing the Somaly Mam Foundation but it could be argued that her lies have damaged the credibility (and hence the money raising capacity) of all NGOs that do not rely on lies to lure sponsors and donors to their humanitarian cause.

I should make clear here that I have no reason to doubt that CCF has done (and is doing) good and necessary work. The same could be said for Somaly Mam. However, it is possible for an NGO to good work and also, at the same time, misrepresent that work to donors and sponsors; to tell them what they want to hear; to tell them whatever is going to get the tears and the dollars flowing into the NGO’s coffers. There is a point at which good marketing becomes outright deception.

Given that you are, in your response to my letter to Heather Graham, trying to ‘sell’ me to a small Cambodia 440 audience as someone whose motives are suspect, lets place a few indisputable facts on record.

I had been to the CCF centre several times prior to the commencement of our dispute and had experienced no problems at all having brief meetings with Sokayn in the courtyard – surrounded by other girls and staff members. On this occasion, however, a problem arose. CCF had changed its procedures regarding visits. Fair enough. The caution on the part of the staff was, in light of the new directives, understandable. I might have been a pedophile who was ‘grooming’ Sokayn, and had offered to buy the family land as part of the grooming process. Your staff had no knowledge of my promise to buy land. All they knew was that I wanted to say hello to Sokayn and give her some photos of herself and her family. Given the new procedures they quite rightly suggested that I make contact with Patrick, who was, at the time, in Thailand. That I “became irate and was eventually asked to leave” is a lie. You clearly, Scott, have no respect for the truth – a fact that should be troubling to sponsors and donors alike.

Question # 5

You claim that there is no nepotism within CCF. Do you have a Cambodian national in a senior management position who has employed several members of her own family? If so, how many members? And is it true that the members of this family are paid more than other CCF employees for doing the same job?

My lack of knowledge of the changes that had been made to CCF’s visiting procedures could best be described as an understandable misunderstanding – one that  could have been easily resolved (see the correspondence) if you had not adopted the paternalistic response you did – acting as if Chuan and Ka, the parents, were not able to make a decision themselves about whether they wished to see me, talk with me. And if you had not presumed (despite your never having met me) that I was a ’voyeur’!

“He is insisting that we put him in touch with the girl’s parents. Our policies’ and child protection practices, and those of any worthy children’s, forbid this. The parents are usually the first stop in the child grooming process. “

At the risk of belabouring the point, Scott, your employment of James Mc Cabe to run your child protection unit leaves you with zero credibility when it comes to commenting on ‘child protection practices’. I am amazed, incredulous actually, that CCF is able to receive tax-deductible Australian charity donations with no-one within the Global Development Group (a CCF funding partner), ACFID or the DFAT raising questions about the appropriateness of having a corrupt former policeman in this position!

It may well be true that there are some (perhaps many) pedophiles who ‘groom’ the parents of girls residing in a CCF institution in order to gain access to their daughters. And NGOs such as CCF must be careful to vet those who wish to make contact with parents. However, you should not presume that any and every man who wishes to make contact with a family has evil intentions in mind. The same applies, of course, to NGOs such as yourself. There are some NGO pedophiles (as has been borne out time and again in Cambodia) but it would be a mistake to presume that all NGOs working with children are pedophiles.

You could have approached my wishing to make contact with the family in a completely different way. You could have said to me, “James, we mean no offence but we have a duty of care and need to be sure that you do not present any danger to this family. We have made contact with Chuan and Ka and they would be happy to meet up with you. We suggest that you come to our centre at XXX on YYY and discuss the filming you have done and your offer to help the family. We would like to be present for this initial meeting and I am sure you will understand the cautiousness we bring to your request.”

If I had received something along these lines from you I would have responded accordingly – quite understanding your position as being a perfectly reasonable one. Unfortunately, you adopted an adversarial position (see the correspondence) and before we knew it were involved in a dispute; a dispute that led me to ask questions which, because you refused to answer them, led me to have doubts about your honesty and integrity. This led me to ask questions of others you have had dealings with and, more recently, to wonder why it is that you play your cards so close to your chest; why it is that you are so terrified of public scrutiny; why it is that you put so much effort (and money) into marketing yourself and CCF.

Question # 6

Have you ever removed children from their families before going through the appropriate bureaucratic channels?

All my questions are legitimate ones for anyone in the media to ask given your position, given the amount of money that flows through CCF coffers and given how much time and effort you put into marketing yourself.

Again, let me take this opportunity to invite you, Scott, to be interviewed for my film. I would be quite happy for any other members of the media with an interest in CCF to be present, including your brother.

Your use of the word “demanding”  to see Sokan is intended cast me in a bad light. The word “requesting” would not have the desired effect –which is to subtly (and not so subtly) make it appear that I was being unreasonable and had an ulterior motive. And the gift that you refer to was merely photos of the family. “Photos of the family” does not, however, support the narrative that you wish to present to your Cambodia 440 audience. Your experience in marketing has served you well. The truth, the facts, are of little consequence. What is important is how you ‘sell’ me to your audience in a way that deflects attention away from your refusal to answer questions and onto the person asking them. This is the job of spin doctors and you are a master of spin.

Throw in the words “demanding” and “grooming” and refer to photos as “gifts” and you can sell the 440 audience the idea (or attempt to) that I am an unsavoury character with evil intent. Judging by some of the comments on 440 it would seem that you have succeeded to a certain extent. And given that the 440 comments are censored it seems that whoever runs 440 is a CCF fan or a friend of yours and will use the site as a propaganda tool for CCF.

“CCF did support the parents as I stated above. We provided funds and good in order for them to return to their homeland. We have signed receipts from the family.”

If this is true, Scott, why were Ka and Chuan still working in the Phnom Penh dump? If the family has misinformed me regarding help provided by CCF, then I am clearly mistaken on this point. I acknowledged in my correspondence with you at the time that Ka and Chuan may have misinformed me. I do not automatically and unquestioningly believe everything I am told – including pronouncements made by yourself.

Please do send me copies of the receipts – the dates of which will make it apparent whether CCF’s acquisition of land for the family pre- or post-dates my interview with Chuan and Ka regarding land. I need to correct this last statement. You have not said you bought land for the family. What CCF has done is “provided the parents with a new life back in their homeland.” Providing the family with this new life has, by your own admission, cost CCF $500. Is $500 sufficient to start a new life? Clearly not since Ka and Chuan were still working in the dump.

Let’s just say, for argument’s sake, that a sponsor had come along and said s/he wanted to buy a block of land for a particular family? Would you have treated him/her in the way you did me? No, of course not. You would have taken their money, bought the land for the family and, it seems, taken all the credit for yourself. The difference between this hypothetical sponsor/donor and myself is that I knew the family and had made a promise to its mother and father. You wished to control the circumstances under which I bought the family land and I wished to do it in a person manner befitting the sort of relationship I had entered into with the family. The same applies today.  Do not want or need you to act as an intermediary. You are not a 19^th C potentate, Scott, and should not act as one. Your desire for total control, based on the presumption that you know what is best for Cambodian families all of the time, infantilizes the Cambodian people. Yes, be cautious when someone such as myself turns up but allow the parents to make the decision as to whether or not to accept my help (promised) or not.

I will repeat here, the request I have made  – namely that you pass on to Chuan and Ka my wish to see them whilst I am in Cambodia and fulfill my promise to them. The decision is theirs, not yours.

cheers

James