The email below, sent eight days
ago, has been presented to me
by Elizabeth Grinston, SA's General Cousel, as an example of the kind
of correspondence from me that has led to my being banned by the Screen
Australia Board.
The email, to Liz Crosby, was copied to all in the Screen Australia
Documentary Section in a position to either confirm or deny my version of
events. Liz did not respond, as has been the case for more than 20 months.
This email to Liz Crosby was also copied to Rachel Perkins in the hope that she
might, as a Board member, ask Liz Crosby and others whether they saw my
'Chanti's World' promo before knocking back my application. It is this
'initiating incident' (were this a screenplay) that kickstarted this
dispute. If
Liz, Ross, Claire and Julia maintain that the conversations I have referred
to never occurred, I am clearly deluded or a liar. If the conversations did
occur, my email to Liz is an appropriate way in which to move towards a
resolution of my dispute with SA based on facts and not spin.
I wish that I did not need to publish this. I do not wish to cause Liz Crosby
distress. However, neither am I going to simply give up my fight to have
justice prevail.
Dear Liz Crosby
Not only is my dispute with Screen Australia going to wind up in the
Supreme Court of NSW but it is highly likely (indeed, almost certain)
that the pre-sale I have been offered for 'Chanti's World' will be
withdrawn when it becomes apparent to the broadcaster that regardless
of the pre-sale, regardless of my having ticks in all the right boxes,
Screen Australia will not invest in the film because I have, Ruth
Harley claims, written intimidating correspondence to you, or Claire
or Ross or to all three of you. I don't know what I wrote or when
because Screen Australia will not provide me with any information at
all regarding what I have supposedly written and when that bears
witness to my propensity for intimidation. You know full well that I
have never sought to intimidate you in any way and it would be really
very handy, Liz, if you were to come out and say so. Or,
alternatively, produce some evidence that I have intimidated you.
As you know, because you have been a witness to much here, this
dispute need never have occurred. If Claire Jager and Ross Mathews had
actually viewed my 'promo' for 'Chanti's World' in mid 2009 we would
have been in a position to discuss it in the teleconference that you
sat in on with Ross, Claire and myself. Instead, the conversation
descended into an argument about other factually incorrect statements
Claire had made in her assessment; about such nonsense as her
suggestion that I had alienated the church that had 'stolen' Chanti's
children and so was not likely to get funding from them!. And, in Oct
2010, you were present when Ross and Julia Overton admitted that they
had not seen the 'Chanti's World' promo. You were present when Ross
declared that my 'Chanti's World' application was 'appropriate' and so
know that Julia's declaration some weeks later that it was not was in
contravention of what Ross had said. And you know, because you were in
the crucial final part of the meeting, that I did not leave it
believing that 'Chanti's World' had been 'greenlit'. You knew, in Nov
2010, that Fiona Cameron's assertion that I had left the meeting
believing 'Chanti's World' had been greenlit was a lie. Did you stand
up for me? Did you support my version of events? Did you dispute it
it? No, you have maintained your silence on many matters now where, if
you were to speak, if you were to have told the truth this dispute
would have been resolved very quickly and both I and 'Chantt's World'
would have been treated fairly.
You have chosen with your silence, Liz, to align yourself with the
Documentary Section of SA, with Fiona Cameron, with Ruth Harley,
regardless of the facts, regardless of the truth and have, in the
process, contributed to placing me in a position in which I am banned
as a filmmaker - my own career sacrificed on the altar of yours. I
have worked now for 17 on 'Chanti's World' with not one cent of
funding from any source and now, having acquired a pre-sale, I will
almost certainly lose it in the next week or two as a result of
Claire's incompetence (not viewing my 'promo'), your silence and
Fiona's dismissal of my legitimate complaints with her shifting of the
blame to myself for believing that 'Chanti's World' had been greenlit.
Whilst you are only one of the players in this drama, Liz, you are a
significant one because you have been in a position since Nov 2010 to
tell the truth as you know it and have chosen not to do so. As a
consequence my pre-sale will almost certainly be withdrawn and my
filmmaking career looks to be at an end. Thanks Liz! My latest blog
entry:
http://jamesricketson.
I will, of course, fight to the bitter end to prevent Screen Australia
from terminating my career on the basis of allegations that you, along
with all of your co-workers in the Documentary Section and members of
the Screen Australia Board (along with Ruth Harley and Fiona Cameron,
of course) know to be false.
cheers
Elizabeth Grinston's response, on behalf of Liz Crosby, speaks for itself:
Dear Mr Ricketson
You have this morning written to Ms Harlock of the Office of the Information
Commissioner, copying (among others) Screen Australia. In that correspondence
you have once again raised the issue of whether Screen Australia has complied
with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act in its response to your
latest requests under that Act. The purpose of this note is not to debate that issue
with you, or to pre-empt Ms Harlock’s response. This note is prompted by your
further correspondence this morning, in the form of an email to Ms Liz Crosby,
a Screen Australia staff member. For the benefit of Ms Harlock, whom you did
not copy on the email, I have set out the email to Ms Crosby below.
You have repeatedly asked Screen Australia to mark up documents released to you
under the Freedom of Information Act to indicate passages which we consider to
be intimidating, and we have expressed the view to you that this is outside of the
scope of our obligations under the Act. This remains our view. However your email
of today to Ms Crosby provides a further, and clear, example of thecorrespondence
to which we have taken objection.
We regard your email to Ms Crosby as aggressive and intimidating. Ms Crosby is
distressed by your email. I must ask you to cease to write such correspondence to
Ms Crosby or any other of our staff.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Grinston
General Counsel
My response to Elizabeth was copied to Rachel Perkins - again in the hope that
she might ask some questions of that bear on the appropriateness or inappropriateness
the Screen Australia's banning of me.
Dear Elizabeth
Thank you for finally making it somewhat clearer in your email yesterday, after
4 months of my asking, just what Screen Australia considers to be ‘intimidating’
in my correspondence – namely that which causes ‘distress’ to the recipient. In
Screen Australia’s view, the verbs ‘to intimidate’ and ‘to distress’ are synonymous!
I am sorry that Liz, whom I have known for close to 40 years, was distressed by
my email yesterday. As I am sure Liz will appreciate I am more than a little distressed
at being banned by the Screen Australia Board, at the behest of Ruth Harley – for
reasons that go back to mid 2009 when, as Liz knows Ross Mathews and Claire
Jager, in the process of assessing my first ‘Chanti’s World’ application, did not view
the ‘promo’ that was the centrepiece of my application. It was also very distressing
to me when Julia Overton declared that my second application with ‘Chanti’s World’
was ‘inappropriate’ after Ross had said it was appropriate. And, as you can imagine,
the fact that I will not be able to use the broadcaster pre-sale that has been offered to
me for ‘Chanti’s World’, and that this will almost certainly be withdrawn in the next
week given Screen Australia’s ban, is distressing to me – a ban that probably spells
the end of my film career. Indeed, the way in which Screen Australia has dealt with
‘Chanti’s World’ this past three years has been very very distressing to me. However,
being distressed is not the same as being intimidated. Ruth Harley’s re-defining of ‘to
be intimidated’ to mean ‘being distressed by’ is the kind of verbal sleight of hand that
has enabled her to get the Screen Australia Board to ban me – a subject that I will
return to a little further on....
To be continued...
by Elizabeth Grinston, SA's General Cousel, as an example of the kind
of correspondence from me that has led to my being banned by the Screen
Australia Board.
The email, to Liz Crosby, was copied to all in the Screen Australia
Documentary Section in a position to either confirm or deny my version of
events. Liz did not respond, as has been the case for more than 20 months.
This email to Liz Crosby was also copied to Rachel Perkins in the hope that she
might, as a Board member, ask Liz Crosby and others whether they saw my
'Chanti's World' promo before knocking back my application. It is this
'initiating incident' (were this a screenplay) that kickstarted this
dispute. If
Liz, Ross, Claire and Julia maintain that the conversations I have referred
to never occurred, I am clearly deluded or a liar. If the conversations did
occur, my email to Liz is an appropriate way in which to move towards a
resolution of my dispute with SA based on facts and not spin.
I wish that I did not need to publish this. I do not wish to cause Liz Crosby
distress. However, neither am I going to simply give up my fight to have
justice prevail.
Dear Liz Crosby
Not only is my dispute with Screen Australia going to wind up in the
Supreme Court of NSW but it is highly likely (indeed, almost certain)
that the pre-sale I have been offered for 'Chanti's World' will be
withdrawn when it becomes apparent to the broadcaster that regardless
of the pre-sale, regardless of my having ticks in all the right boxes,
Screen Australia will not invest in the film because I have, Ruth
Harley claims, written intimidating correspondence to you, or Claire
or Ross or to all three of you. I don't know what I wrote or when
because Screen Australia will not provide me with any information at
all regarding what I have supposedly written and when that bears
witness to my propensity for intimidation. You know full well that I
have never sought to intimidate you in any way and it would be really
very handy, Liz, if you were to come out and say so. Or,
alternatively, produce some evidence that I have intimidated you.
As you know, because you have been a witness to much here, this
dispute need never have occurred. If Claire Jager and Ross Mathews had
actually viewed my 'promo' for 'Chanti's World' in mid 2009 we would
have been in a position to discuss it in the teleconference that you
sat in on with Ross, Claire and myself. Instead, the conversation
descended into an argument about other factually incorrect statements
Claire had made in her assessment; about such nonsense as her
suggestion that I had alienated the church that had 'stolen' Chanti's
children and so was not likely to get funding from them!. And, in Oct
2010, you were present when Ross and Julia Overton admitted that they
had not seen the 'Chanti's World' promo. You were present when Ross
declared that my 'Chanti's World' application was 'appropriate' and so
know that Julia's declaration some weeks later that it was not was in
contravention of what Ross had said. And you know, because you were in
the crucial final part of the meeting, that I did not leave it
believing that 'Chanti's World' had been 'greenlit'. You knew, in Nov
2010, that Fiona Cameron's assertion that I had left the meeting
believing 'Chanti's World' had been greenlit was a lie. Did you stand
up for me? Did you support my version of events? Did you dispute it
it? No, you have maintained your silence on many matters now where, if
you were to speak, if you were to have told the truth this dispute
would have been resolved very quickly and both I and 'Chantt's World'
would have been treated fairly.
You have chosen with your silence, Liz, to align yourself with the
Documentary Section of SA, with Fiona Cameron, with Ruth Harley,
regardless of the facts, regardless of the truth and have, in the
process, contributed to placing me in a position in which I am banned
as a filmmaker - my own career sacrificed on the altar of yours. I
have worked now for 17 on 'Chanti's World' with not one cent of
funding from any source and now, having acquired a pre-sale, I will
almost certainly lose it in the next week or two as a result of
Claire's incompetence (not viewing my 'promo'), your silence and
Fiona's dismissal of my legitimate complaints with her shifting of the
blame to myself for believing that 'Chanti's World' had been greenlit.
Whilst you are only one of the players in this drama, Liz, you are a
significant one because you have been in a position since Nov 2010 to
tell the truth as you know it and have chosen not to do so. As a
consequence my pre-sale will almost certainly be withdrawn and my
filmmaking career looks to be at an end. Thanks Liz! My latest blog
entry:
http://jamesricketson.
I will, of course, fight to the bitter end to prevent Screen Australia
from terminating my career on the basis of allegations that you, along
with all of your co-workers in the Documentary Section and members of
the Screen Australia Board (along with Ruth Harley and Fiona Cameron,
of course) know to be false.
cheers
Elizabeth Grinston's response, on behalf of Liz Crosby, speaks for itself:
Dear Mr Ricketson
You have this morning written to Ms Harlock of the Office of the Information
Commissioner, copying (among others) Screen Australia. In that correspondence
you have once again raised the issue of whether Screen Australia has complied
with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act in its response to your
latest requests under that Act. The purpose of this note is not to debate that issue
with you, or to pre-empt Ms Harlock’s response. This note is prompted by your
further correspondence this morning, in the form of an email to Ms Liz Crosby,
a Screen Australia staff member. For the benefit of Ms Harlock, whom you did
not copy on the email, I have set out the email to Ms Crosby below.
You have repeatedly asked Screen Australia to mark up documents released to you
under the Freedom of Information Act to indicate passages which we consider to
be intimidating, and we have expressed the view to you that this is outside of the
scope of our obligations under the Act. This remains our view. However your email
of today to Ms Crosby provides a further, and clear, example of thecorrespondence
to which we have taken objection.
We regard your email to Ms Crosby as aggressive and intimidating. Ms Crosby is
distressed by your email. I must ask you to cease to write such correspondence to
Ms Crosby or any other of our staff.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Grinston
General Counsel
My response to Elizabeth was copied to Rachel Perkins - again in the hope that
she might ask some questions of that bear on the appropriateness or inappropriateness
the Screen Australia's banning of me.
Dear Elizabeth
Thank you for finally making it somewhat clearer in your email yesterday, after
4 months of my asking, just what Screen Australia considers to be ‘intimidating’
in my correspondence – namely that which causes ‘distress’ to the recipient. In
Screen Australia’s view, the verbs ‘to intimidate’ and ‘to distress’ are synonymous!
I am sorry that Liz, whom I have known for close to 40 years, was distressed by
my email yesterday. As I am sure Liz will appreciate I am more than a little distressed
at being banned by the Screen Australia Board, at the behest of Ruth Harley – for
reasons that go back to mid 2009 when, as Liz knows Ross Mathews and Claire
Jager, in the process of assessing my first ‘Chanti’s World’ application, did not view
the ‘promo’ that was the centrepiece of my application. It was also very distressing
to me when Julia Overton declared that my second application with ‘Chanti’s World’
was ‘inappropriate’ after Ross had said it was appropriate. And, as you can imagine,
the fact that I will not be able to use the broadcaster pre-sale that has been offered to
me for ‘Chanti’s World’, and that this will almost certainly be withdrawn in the next
week given Screen Australia’s ban, is distressing to me – a ban that probably spells
the end of my film career. Indeed, the way in which Screen Australia has dealt with
‘Chanti’s World’ this past three years has been very very distressing to me. However,
being distressed is not the same as being intimidated. Ruth Harley’s re-defining of ‘to
be intimidated’ to mean ‘being distressed by’ is the kind of verbal sleight of hand that
has enabled her to get the Screen Australia Board to ban me – a subject that I will
return to a little further on....
To be continued...
Can't read this, James. Not sure if it's my computer or your blog!I think the latter
ReplyDeleteIf you highlight it, it can be read.
DeleteYou don't seem to understand, James, that the 21st C femocrat reserves the right to both play hardball like a man and reach for a box of Kleenex tissues when she feels put upon and distressed.
I am not sure what is causing the problem and have not, as yet, been able to fix it. Nor do I have any idea at present of how to fix it, Luddite that I am! Will keep trying...
DeleteFixed, more or less, though the formatting has changed in the process!
DeleteAnother thing you don't uderstand, James, is that while Crean will
Deletealmost certainly cut Dr Harley loose he wont touch Fiona Cameron. She
is a clever aparatchik very well connected to both sides of politics
and will probably take over from Harley when she leaves.
Ricketson's problems have nothing at all to do with whether or not he
ReplyDeletehas intimidated or distressed members of Screen Australia staff and
everything to do with Harley wanting to stop him from saying what
everyone in the industry says privately but dares not say publicly –
that Screen Australia is a incompetently run organization run for the benefit of
the few and that both the Board and Mr Crean know this but choose to
turn a blind eye.
It is blindingly obvious, even to a blind person, that Screen
ReplyDeleteAustralia's eligibity criteria right across the board are flexible.
This is both good and bad. Good, because flexibility should be applied
to 'guidelines' and bad because the flexibility in SA only applies to
friends, (CENSORED) and other close associates of ther power brokers
within Screeen Australia. For filmmakers who are not members of the
inside circle the guidelines are inflexible. What has happened to
Ricketson is an object lesson of what happens to those who question
the status quo. He caused distress to a member of Screen Australia's
staff! Really! Poor darling. So lets end his career, cries Dr Harley
and the Board replies 'Yes, yes, yes, we can't have people like
Ricketson upsetting our valued staff'! Pathetic. Off with her head, I
say, to quote the Red Queen. Harley's head, that is.