Saturday, October 6, 2012
A strange Kafkaesque state of affairs!
Whilst this dispute with Screen Australia is costing me dearly in more ways than one I can see the comic side of it – the latest chapter in the farce being the office of the Ombudsman recommending that I make an application for development funds despite having been told quite unequivocally by Ruth Harley that I cannot make an application for development funds!
Dear Script Development
This application for script development is one that Ruth Harley and the Screen Australia Board has informed me I am not allowed to make on the grounds that I have intimidated and placed at risk members of Screen Australia’s staff. Ruth and the Board have provided no evidence that I have done so (after five months of asking) but then facts and truth are of no consequence to Screen Australia when the narrative that has been decided on is one that seeks to silence a critic of Screen Australia such as myself.
Despite Screen Australia’s ban, Stephen Nowicki, Senior Investigator with the Office of the Ombudsman, has informed me that in order for him to investigate Screen Australia’s ban on me further it is necessary that I make a new application with a project and see what happens. I guess the logic here is that if this application is accepted then my ban has been lifted (at least officially) without anyone actually acknowledging that the ban was based on a lie in the first place. What a strange Kafkaesque state of affairs.
So, here it is, an application for Script Development funds for HONOUR.
Jasmin, an 18-year-old gay Muslim comedienne trying, with the help of her 19-year-old Jewish lover, Hannah, to prevent the forced marriage of 16-year-old Afghani-Australian, Fatima, is being stalked by a man intent on performing an honour killing for the shame she has brought upon her devoutly religious family.
Dear Mr Ricketson,
Screen Australia has received an application from you for script development for the project Honour. As you are aware from my letter to you of 10 May 2012, the Screen Australia Board has taken the decision that Screen Australia will not accept further funding applications from you at this time, nor engage in correspondence with you about funding applications.
Over time, Screen Australia may be willing to review the decision which it has taken in relation to you. However, before doing so, we would need to be certain that our staff were no longer placed at risk in dealing with you.
This matter will be raised at the next Screen Australia Board meeting on 9 November 2012. I will advise the Screen Australia Board of your application and the Ombudsman’s comments as published on your website.
Chief Executive Officer
Yet again I wonder: ‘At risk of what?’ And what does ‘over time’ mean? Are we talking weeks, months or years here? And what must I do convince Screen Australia that I am no longer a risk when no evidence has yet been presented to me of the kind of risk I pose or when and how I posed it?
Tune in for the next instalment of a farce that is leading deep into territory that even Kafka dared not venture:
- Will the Board lift the ban in time for Ricketson to take advantage of the pre-sale on offer for ‘CHANTI’S WORLD?
- Will the Screen Australia Board ratify its ban on 9th Nov? And if it does, will it do so on the basis of evidence (intimidating correspondence) or a Ruth Harley whim?
- If the Board’s decision is evidence-based, will Ricketson be provided with copies of the evidence, his ‘intimidating correspondence’?
- Will Stephen Nowicki’s ‘concerns’ about Ricketson’s being denied the opportunity to make applications translate into action of any kind now that his HONOUR application has been knocked back?
- How much money did Screen Australia spend on legal costs defending Ruth Harley’s right not to present Ricketson with copies of correspondence that bears witness to his crimes?
- In the absence of a just resolution based on facts rather than spin will Ricketson make good his promise to turn up at Screen Australia’s Sydney offices and refuse to leave until either the ban on him is lifted by the Board or he is provided with evidence to support the charges of intimidation and placing Screen Australia staff at risk that are the ostensible reason for the ban?