Australian film-maker banned from talking to Screen Australia

An Australian film-maker who has been conducting a one man crusade against the management of government funding body Screen Australia says the organisation has now banned him from talking to it.

James Ricketson has been conducting a lengthy campaign complaining that the organisation has unfairly declined to fund his documentary project Chanti’s World. Screen Australia rejects this claim.   

james ricketson blogRicketson writes an outspoken blog in which he rails against Screen Australia – and at times Encore magazine.

He has published on the blog a letter from Screen Australia CEO Ruth Harley telling him that the organisation will no longer deal with him because of “harassment and intimidation” of staff.  The letter said:

“After giving the matter serious and careful consideration, Screen Australia has taken the decision that it will not accept further funding applications from you, or engage in correspondence with you about funding applications. I appreciate that this is an unusual step and one which we do not take lightly. However, we believe that your conduct towards Screen Australia is unreasonable, and that your correspondence places our staff at risk.

“We are under a legal obligation to protect our staff from harassment and intimidation. Staff who have dealt with your correspondence have found it stressful and their well-being has been affected. Your public statements in relation to our staff have also caused distress, and appear to be calculated to damage the reputation of individuals and this organization. We reserve our rights in relation to those statements, and we sincerely ask you to reflect on, and refrain from, such conduct going forward.”

The agency said that in the future it may review the decision to ban Ricketson for applying for funding if staff  felt at risk.

Screen Australia declined to comment on the issue but confirmed it is the first time in the agency’s history a film-maker has been banned from applying for funding.

Ricketson last year applied for script funding through Screen NSW under a pseudonym. He was unsuccessful.

In 1993 Ricketson won an AFI for Best Adapted Screenplay for his film Blackfellas, and nominated for Best Direction for the same film.

Comments


  1. Marixu
    11 May 12
    3:40 pm

  2. Which part of Screen Australia’s charter enables it to refuse to talk to or accept applications from a filmmaker on the grounds that his correspondence places Screen Australia staff at risk? This is not an a rhetorical question. I have searched through the Screen Australia website and cannot find the relevant section. Can anyone direct me to it please?

  3. Anonymous
    11 May 12
    6:34 pm

  4. Hi marixu – all organizations are required to provide and safe and healthy environment for their staff by law.

    it is not specific to Screen Australia and so would likely not be on the website. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply.

    In terms of Mr Ricketson, it sounds as if he has a grievance against Screen Australia and its decision/s in relation to him.

    There are avenues available to appeal decision of most government bodies. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal does merit review of a lot of decision of government bodies

    “The role of the Tribunal is to provide independent merits review of administrative decisions. The Tribunal aims to provide a review mechanism that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick.”

    Give them a call and they will be able to tell you if they can help.

    http://www.aat.gov.au/Applying.....ATHelp.htm

  5. Anonymous
    11 May 12
    6:37 pm

  6. Hi marixu – all organizations are required to provide and safe and healthy environment for their staff by law.

    it is not specific to Screen Australia and so would likely not be on the website. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply.

    In terms of Mr Ricketson, it sounds as if he has a grievance against Screen Australia and its decision/s in relation to him.

    There are avenues available to appeal decision of most government bodies. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal does merit review of a lot of decision of government bodies

    “The role of the Tribunal is to provide independent merits review of administrative decisions. The Tribunal aims to provide a review mechanism that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick.”

    http://www.aat.gov.au/Applying.....ATHelp.htm

    I see from the letter on his blog that the Ombudsman has already ruled against him, so he may be out of luck.

  7. Anonymous
    11 May 12
    7:38 pm

  8. Screen Australia is just a boys club they do not represent Australian film makers and never have , don’t deal with them.

  9. Aloysia
    11 May 12
    7:49 pm

  10. How ridiculous. Is Screen Australia serious? You can’t apply for funding because we don’t like you? But then hey, they have been doing that for years anyway. It seems that any activity that questions something the comeback is you were intimidating us.It’s a pretty standard commeback these days and is designed to discredit the one who questions and it is hard to defend. If anything should distress Screen Australia staff it should be the dross they largely fund. Solution? Import the right people to assess projects. Take it out of their hands and while at it not have anyone deciding on funding decisions who has an affiliation with a production company. Viva James Ricketson.

    ny ramifications on

  11. JB
    11 May 12
    10:46 pm

  12. I just read a bunch of posts on the guys blog and he is clearly a whacko – his language is rambling and you just wouldn’t want to deal with him – one favorite was when he complains to the ombudsmuns office – with earnest indignation – that it has been three weeks since a previous letter and he has not received a reply – WTF – three weeks – who would have thunk it :) the guy thinks the world revolves around him and I applaud the boss of screen Australia for protecting her staff from him

  13. Pure Independent Pictures
    12 May 12
    10:57 am

  14. Another reason why it’s better to remain independent. But good luck to him.

  15. Doug
    12 May 12
    11:53 am

  16. Oh my..it really is a strange little industry we’ve created. Best decision I ever made, was to stop applying for funding. Find your niche audience, make content that appeals to them, you’ll be surprised at what begins to happen to your career. I’ve been following this saga for a while. It really is sad its gotten to this. Best of luck James. Hopefully all concerned can work it out and keep playing in the sandpit.

  17. Hindley Street
    12 May 12
    2:49 pm

  18. Ricketson’s still going on about this?

    ZZZZZ…

  19. James Ricketson
    12 May 12
    5:57 pm

  20. Doug

    Yes, sad for the industry that small mindedness such as evidenced by Ruth Harley’s ban on me can prevail – my skills or lack thereof being of secondary importance to whether or not I am ‘nice’ to Screen Australia bureaucrats. At lease my being persona non grata is official and I need no longer delude myself that there is any point in making applications to Screen Australia. I will continue to play in the sandpit, however, as I have done for 4 decades now. I started out making films for no budget at all and it looks like I will finish my career doing the same – at least no money from Screen Australia. My plan now is to make a feature film with no budget at all – a feature set almost entirely inside a taxi. Am excited by the prospect.

  21. WWIP.
    13 May 12
    8:12 am

  22. @ JR.
    Concerned where are this is leading?
    Instead of cruising down the creative highway your spinning wheels in a bureaucratic bog. Consider Doug’s advice & leave these pretend filmakers alone.

    @ Doug.

    You lodge that application for top SQ gig?

  23. James Ricketson
    13 May 12
    11:35 am

  24. @ Hindley Street

    Agree with you about the zzzzzzz part of your post. Believe me this is as tiresome to me as it is to you. However, allegations about me have been made which I claim to be untrue and which Screen Australia could, so easily, prove to be true if it so wished. If I have been harassing, intimidating or in any way placing members of Screen Australia staff at risk I am fully deserving of whatever punishment is appropriate. Until such evidence is presented I will continue to fight. My latest:

    http://jamesricketson.blogspot.....ralia.html

    Yes, I ramble a bit. My apologies. I try to spend as little of my time as possible on this. I have other more import5ant things to do

  25. Wade
    14 May 12
    10:11 am

  26. “If I have been harassing, intimidating or in any way placing members of Screen Australia staff at risk I am fully deserving of whatever punishment is appropriate.”

    You said it James, now rest your case.

  27. James Ricketson
    14 May 12
    10:39 am

  28. @Wade

    If I am guilty of these crimes I deserve the appropriate punishment. If I am not guilty of them I deserve, at the very least, an apology. It is not enough for Ruth Harley to make allegations. She must back them up with evidence. She has not done so. She refuses to do so – leaving me with no choice but to seek redress through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. AAT hearings are public so in the fullness of time the truth or otherwise of Ruth’s allegations will be known. Until such time…

  29. Suse
    14 May 12
    3:02 pm

  30. James is delusional and although some Australian films haven’t been too bad, his outcry and ideas for films are not required. Never hear of him in 30 years of movie watching, a blessing it seems, good on you Screen Australia for weeding him out.

  31. Doug
    14 May 12
    4:12 pm

  32. I suppose James at the end of the day its about risk versus reward, there’s no reward for anybody in this outcome and the risk being the whole thing just consumes more of your time away from being a filmmaker. I think the problems the industry faces are obvious to most and those problems will only really be resolved via people making better films. With regard to film funding bodies, they have a government mandate and I suppose they try and execute that mandate to the best of their abilities with the available funds. Yes we’ve all seen, heard and experienced a myriad of injustices at the hands of funding decisions that didn’t go our way or we looked on with shock and horror as yet another suspect career was given yet another cash injection or an obviously lame concept was given cash. None of this will stop, maybe it might lessen to some degree..as long as we’re all open to listening and trying to do the best job we can..thats all you can hope for, that and the hope that talent gets discovered and nurtured. What we don’t need is tired old ideas getting recycled as entertainment or even innovation…I’ve seen enough of that thanks very much and its getting really boring.

  33. James Ricketson
    14 May 12
    5:52 pm

  34. Doug

    Francois Truffaut once said something along the lines of “To be a filmmaker you must be an artist in the morning and a businessman in the afternoon.” In Australia, perhaps, we need to add “and a politician in the evening.” In fact very little of my time is spent doing battle with Screen Australia. I do so only after I have finished my creative work for the day.

  35. Wade
    14 May 12
    6:34 pm

  36. @James

    A cursory look at your letters reveal harassing and defamatory language appears to be standard procedure for you; it’s a matter of subjectivity (from the point of view of the Screen Australia staff) as to whether this has also been intimidating or made them feel at risk.

    Such things often come down to feelings and experience as opposed to cut and dry documents and any employer worth its salt would take the concerns of staff very seriously. While I don’t always agree with Screen Australia I admire them for taking this step, particularly given the flack they must have known they would cop.

    I think you should at least follow one bit of Screen Australia’s advice and seek legal counsel as a savvy (and objective) lawyer would help in this situation.

  37. Trevor
    14 May 12
    7:47 pm

  38. @Doug, I agree that the best form of revenge for James is to make a good film but right now he’s in a position where Screen Australia would not even read and assess a screenplay of his regardless of how good it might be. Their rejection of his application would be based purely and simply on the proposition that he has intimidated Screen Australia staff and placed them at some kind of risk. No evidence has been provided by Screen Australia in support of this proposition to date and James denies it so the jury must remain out – for the time being. If James has not placed Screen Australia staff at risk he is being discriminated against for other reasons – perhaps because he has been a very vocal critic of Screen Australia policy. If I were him I would fight also. What other choice does he have?

  39. Jeff McMahon
    14 May 12
    10:57 pm

  40. About time Australian ‘film-makers’ gave the bureaucrats a miss for good. Let’s stop pretending that the business of film has anything to do with bureaucrats (or perhaps that’s vice versa) and concentrate on what the market wants and what the market is prepared to fund. It’s hard work but as has been said many a time by many wiser than I, ‘it’s 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.” Otherwise take up painting and hope for the best.

  41. Febe
    15 May 12
    10:51 am

  42. Suze (#15 above)

    Weeding people out of the film industry because you believe they are delusional and because you haven’t heard of them in 30 years, is a pretty scary proposition!

  43. James Ricketson
    15 May 12
    11:44 am

  44. Wade, using your real name, you have been sending me correspondence that is intimidatory and harassing and which I feel places me at risk. (This is fiction, incidentally, Encore moderator!) What is your response, Wade? Might you ask me to please identify which correspondence I am referring to? Backtrack 17 months. I send you a letter in which I claim that you have placed correspondence on file which not only makes you appear a fool but which implicates you in behaving in a totally inappropriate and unprofessional manner in your dealings with the organization I represent. You know that you have not written such correspondence. What is your response? Might you feel inclined to ask me to produce the correspondence to which I refer? And if I didn’t produce the correspondence but told you instead that I had no intention of communicating with you any further, what would your response be? This is not a rhetorical question, Wade.

  45. Belder
    15 May 12
    2:17 pm

  46. It is defamatory to call someone a liar in a public forum if they are telling the truth. If the person being accused of being a liar, has told a lie, the epithet is a statement of fact and not defamatory – as out Prime Minster is reminded every day by members of the media and the public.

  47. Doug
    15 May 12
    3:41 pm

  48. It is a cause for concern that somebody can be banned from a Government funded body and obviously there is a need for some kind of third party mediation here. I’m not saying don’t pursue this further James but in any given situation empathy is the key and maybe the threat they felt was to their reputation and of course you have to protect your own as well. But the whole thing seems to have gotten to a roadblock and where do you go from here, when one party refuses to talk to another..thats hard.
    @Suse…how do you even reply to such a moronic comment? ” Haven’t heard of him..His ideas aren’t required..weeding him out” Wow..fascinating.
    How do you reply? You don’t..you just live in hope that you never meet your particular breed of social climbing sociopath in person and if you do, you quickly try and work out a way to not require their ideas and weed them out of your life and be all the better for it. You might care to know Suse..that some of the world most talented artist’s spent large chapters of their professional lives, neglected, unnoticed, undiscovered and poverty stricken until that groundbreaking work came along and changed their lives for the better, a minor artist like “Vincent Van Gough” springs to mind, the list is long. Being “Known” doesn’t exactly translate into talent.

  49. James Ricketson
    15 May 12
    4:57 pm

  50. Doug, how right you are! This is just plain silly. A (relatively) minor cockup that could so easily have resulted in ,”Whoops, sorry James, we should have watched your ‘promo’” has become (quite unecessariloy) bigger than Ben Hur. At any one of a number of stages this past 17 months a filmic Henry Kissinger could have stepped in and said, “Hey, James, lets have a cup of coffee and sort this out.” But no, the Screen Australia style, alas, is to dig in its heels and,somewhat foolishly, place on file statements that I allege are not true. Right, any independent observor might well (and shoulde) say, “Why should we believe you, James?” To which I would reply, “If I have done or said the things I have been accused of why have I, in vietually every letter written to Screen Australia, invited it to reveal/release documents that would make me look like a fool – especially given how rignorously I have denied that the documents exist. I extend that invitation again to Screen Australia – relewase just one document that contains evidence of the crimes for which I have been accused.

    Yes, I could have just copped it sweet but ,alas again, I do have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about transparency and accountability and did not wish tgo give up without a fight. I now find myself in the somewhat bizarre situation of having to make an FOI request for documents that don’t exist. Or, to be fair, that I ALLEGE do not exist. I mighrt be playing fast and loose with the truth here! This has gone beyond Kafka to Monty Python, with a dash of Alice in Wonderland.!

  51. BP
    16 May 12
    11:49 am

  52. If a big, public organisation such as Screen Australia (who has apparently never taken this kind of action against anyone before) decides to ban Ricketson, you’ve got to imagine that he has been more than just a nuisance to its staff. They must have a swathe of angry filmmakers in communication with them all the time  and yet this guy is the only one they ban…

  53. Richard Moss
    16 May 12
    3:22 pm

  54. @BP

    Yes! and if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. Right?
    If the cap fits wear it, birds of a feather flock together, leopards never change their spots, one bad apple in the barrel, Where there is smoke……………

    Boy, I hope I never need to rely upon a jury of which someone called BP is a member.

    My opinion? James Ricketson may “still be going on about this,” but when it comes to film making and the arts in general, people who are prepared to “go on” are just what the doctor ordered.

  55. James Ricketson
    16 May 12
    3:43 pm

  56. BP, Richard, perhaps there’s some legal reason why my last comment to Encore cannot be published. It can be found at:

    http://jamesricketson.blogspot…..-2010.html

  57. Wade
    16 May 12
    4:59 pm

  58. After puzzling over your ‘real name’ comment for a while I finally realised you think that me and another commenter are the same person, which is very amusing. No, James, we are just two people with a similar opinion, one which disagrees with yours. But sure, if it feels better to roll us into one, why not – maybe Screen Australia can join us in the pigeonhole too!

    Just read the new letter on your blog which promises yet another huge paper trail. You say in the blog that it was your first complaint letter to Screen Australia re your CW application, and that was back in Oct 2010, but in that letter you admit to sending 10 letters to another staff member between May and August that year. And you also admit to sending an email the previous day directly to that staff member. A clearer picture is beginning to emerge of the barrage which Screen Australia has received for at least two years from you, all in relation to this project. I don’t envy them.

  59. James Ricketson
    17 May 12
    11:32 am

  60. Wade

    It would be pointless and a waste of time to debate with you the difference between writing 10 letters to which you receive no response and making a formal complaint, as I did when I wrote to Ross Mathews on 15th Oct 2010. Regardless of when my dispute with Screen Australia began, it is clear, 17 months later, that it has not been resolved. I think that you and I would agree that it should be resolved. Where we would disagree is in how it should be resolved. (You did not, incidentally, say how you would deal with the situation if it was you who had been accused as I have been.) Any resolution must be made on the basis of verifiable facts – of which there are plenty. If I have written the correspondence that Fiona Cameron insisted I had in Nov 2010, this is a fact that makes me look a fool (and worse) for insisting that I have not written such correspondence. If I have written the correspondence that Ruth Harley claims I have written, again, this is a fact and I will look a fool if Ruth releases the correspondence or even selected excerpts from it. Natural justice necessitates that accusations as serious as the ones made against me by Screen Australia are backed up by facts and not merely by untested assertions. My latest blog entry, for anyone interested, is:

    http://jamesricketson.blogspot.....results=21

  61. Wade
    17 May 12
    12:56 pm

  62. James, I would have talked to my lawyer. If I had subsequently written a letter I would have addressed Screen Australia not individual staff members, and been careful to avoid defamatory, accusatory and inflammatory language.

    I think, for clarity, you should publish all correspondence between yourself and Screen Australia over the last three years, including the letter from Ms Cameron and all your letters preceding it.

  63. James Ricketson
    17 May 12
    5:39 pm

  64. Wade, I have consulted a lawyer. I think it highly unlikely that Screen Australia will sue but half wish it would so that it would be obliged to produce the correspondence it claims I have written and which I claim I have not. As for who to write to with a complaint, there are procedures that I have followed – starting with my letter to Ross Mathews and then, when he did not respond, to Fiona Cameron, who responded as I have indicated. And thence to Ruth Harley and Glen Boreham. This is the correct sequence. As for posting all of my correspondence I think that a far more economical way of going about it would be for Screen Australia to release the documents it is referring to or to let me know the dates on which I wrote them so that I can post them.

  65. Box office woowoo
    17 May 12
    10:10 pm

  66. Jesus. Everyone knows how to make a great film. And they can do it better than others can too , didn’t you know? Why can’t film makers spend more time complaining about only being able to raise 5 million of privately instead of 10? Ask for state money? No one owes you an explanation, or a living. Honestly, I emplore that James is taking it to the office, but would anyone spend this amount of time taking it to any other government department? I can’t even stomach fighting a parking fine with local council, albeit with a valid parking voucher. Just go make films anyway you can. Listen to this ” I didn’t get funding for my film from screen Australia, *insert obligatory* There is no industry here”. F$%K I would hate to see you with real problems.

    Box office attendant

  67. Box office woowoo
    17 May 12
    10:13 pm

  68. Ps Wade you should hear yourself. I would not think twice about slapping the cat out of you.

  69. Bobby Galinsky
    18 May 12
    7:28 am

  70. I think there’s a good sitcom in here somewhere… kind of like THE SLAP with comedy and without all the multiculturalism… :)

  71. Wade
    18 May 12
    9:34 am

  72. Hilarious. I am gainfully employed in the TV sector, through doing exactly as I recommend to James, behaving professionally, with tact. You guys all sound like sanctimonious government funding leeches. I have never needed funding but over 10 years in the industry have taught me it pays to treat with respect those who dole it out – as you might find yourself working with them in five years after they have left whatever role they are doing now.

  73. James Ricketson
    18 May 12
    10:39 am

  74. Box office woowoo

    Agree, a dreadful waste of time and energy on the part of too many people. However, making a feature film without any Screen Australia support (which is kinda implicit in being banned from even talking to SA staff) is a little difficult. There is an easy solution, however – not just to my problem but to the problem any other filmmaker might have in his or her dealings with Screen Australia. To find out more, just visit:

    http://jamesricketson.blogspot.....ution.html

    PS, its probably a generational thing but where does the expression slapping the cat’ come from. have never heard it before!

  75. James Ricketson
    18 May 12
    11:42 am

  76. @ Bobby Galinsky

    Yes, a sitcom – THE OFFICE with a dash of Kafka

    @ Wade

    Wade, I can only speak for one “sanctimonious government funding leeches” – myself – but I earn close to 100% of my income doing non-film jobs. Amortized over the past five years my “sanctimonious government funding leech” income amounts to around $65 a week. Liberal and Labor governments over the past 35 years have thought it to be a good idea to encourage and support Australian film as both an art form and as an industry. Governments of both persuasions have recognized the difficulties faced by an Australian film industry and have provided a variety of different incentives to film producers, directors, writers and other filmmakers. All of those who work very hard (and, as you know, there are not many wealthy filmmakers in this country) in the development and production of Australia films are, by your definition “sanctimonious government funding leeches”. This is just plain silly, Wade.

  77. Doug
    18 May 12
    11:52 am

  78. Wade…I’m not sure where you’re going with this. You seem to be hell bent on pointing the finger of blame just at James, obviously this is a complicated matter and I’m sure SA’s decision wasn’t made in the blink of an eye and done with a heavy heart. What I find strange is that you seem focused on justifying your perspective, either you have some inside information and your just baiting this dialogue to prove an already established point, or you simply take glee in the disappointment felt by a rejected filmmaker, either way, your point being? This is a first, a filmmaker being black banned from a Government agency ( we’ve all heard rumours here and there about others, but this is a public ruling), obviously everybody is disappointed it has come to this, SA included, I mean they aren’t uncaring sociopaths (unlike some), you don’t work in this funding arena without some passion for the craft. So maybe back off on the “I told you so James” stance Wade..its kind of futile, don’t you agree? Its like jamming in the knife after somebody has been hit by a cannonball.
    Regardless of their perceived short comings they are a government agency and have a mandate. That mandate can pretty cruel at times, I mean when you put personal hope, alongside money..somebody is going to lose an eye, there just isn’t enough money to go around. I’ve been on the receiving end of this numerous times, after a while it just becomes comical to the point you just see how impossible the funding system is, you realise that you’re really better off not casting your hopes on funding deadlines ( a large chunk of the cash is already earmarked anyway, at best you’re applying for crumbs) and approvals and just focus on making content that can find an audience..get the audience..maybe then go and have chat about funding to enhance what’ you’ve built. I think thats the biggest problem filmmakers in this country have..putting their hand out without very little in the way of audience building. These are amazing times to be making films, sure there’s a lot of crap out there that gets the nod, but if you’re shrewd and have some cunning, you can self broadcast and build an audience over time and fund your own career. There’s always going to be nepotism, there’s always going to be better networkers and there’s always going to be a lack of cash, resign yourself to that and focus on making films that people can engage with.
    If you can’t do that or you think people don’t get your true artistic vision, well the blame is at your feet. Took me a long time to realise this and when I did I saw nothing but opportunity. Get out there and have a crack.

  79. LW
    18 May 12
    1:14 pm

  80. Forget the feature film set in a taxi, James – your film is RIGHT HERE! Aussie battler takes on heartless corporation run by a New Zealander! (Disclosure, I know Ruth Harley). It’s the vibe, dude – it’s Mabo!

  81. Box office woowoo
    18 May 12
    3:02 pm

  82. Wade, I do apologize, I am an adult and do not assault people. Not because I worry about offending industry nobles, I’ll tell anyone to what for. More indicative of my lack smarts or the energy to think of something sharper. Quite apart from that folks, I enjoy the company of Cats.

  83. ronnie B
    18 May 12
    5:51 pm

  84. Could someone please tell James that at least a dozen features are made here every year without Screen Australia ( or state agency) funding….. ??

    Get over yourself man.

  85. James Ricketson
    20 May 12
    3:44 pm

  86. Ronnie B, I am well aware of features made without Screen Australia involvement what does this have to do with my being banned? CHANTI’S WORLD is a documentary project, not fiction, that I have funded with my own resources for 17 years now. I would have preferred to keep self-funding when I made my first application to Screen Australia but ran out of money. I needed a relatively small amount to keep going and prepare my material to take into the marketplace – hence my application. I have never complained about not getting money from Screen Australia for CHANTI’S WORLD. I have never once in my entire career complained about not getting money for a funding application. My original complaint had to do with due process. This was a small and easy to solve problem that has grown to proportions much greater than warranted. I think (or at least hope) you will agree that being banned for supposedly placing Screen Australia staff at risk is not something that one simply ‘gets over’. Being banned I could live with if the punishment was proportionate to the alleged crime. If I have placed anyone at Screen Australia at risk, if I have harassed or intimidated anyone at Screen Australia, the onus is on Screen Australia to demonstrate this – not, as Wade suggests, for me to prove that I did not write the correspondence. The justice system does not work this way and essentially my dispute now boils down to whether or not Screen Australia’s banning of me is just or unjust. Screen Australia can prove its case with ease by releasing the correspondence, or even extracts of the correspondence, it claims to have in its possession.

    Unfortunately, my response to Doug (above) could not be published by Encore for what I presume must be legal reasons. If interested, go to

    http://jamesricketson.blogspot.....ncore.html

  87. Treat
    21 May 12
    1:08 pm

  88. If Ricketson has written the correspondence he has been accused of writing he deserves to be banned. If he has not, this should be of concern to all of us in the industry who may at some time find ourselves at loggerheads with Screen Australia.

  89. James Ricketson
    21 May 12
    3:58 pm

  90. I agree with you, Treat. If I am guilty, Harley’s ban is not unreasonable. Indeed, perhaps an AVO should be taken out to prevent me from entering any Screen Australia premises! But what if I am not guilty?

    I have written to the Hon Simon Crean in hopes that perhaps he might ask Harley to produce the correspondence. My letter to Crean:

    http://jamesricketson.blogspot.....-2012.html

  91. Trevor
    22 May 12
    4:41 pm

  92. James, you really are going to wind up with a lot of egg on your face if Screen Australia produces the correspondence. Sorry, mate, but couldn’t help but think of you when I saw Craig Thompson’s performance yesterday. Hope you don’t crash and burn as Thompson obviously will eventually – defending the indefensible

  93. James Ricketson
    22 May 12
    5:56 pm

  94. For those interested in this slow moving soap opera: My suggestion that we call in a Conciliator has met with zero response. The latest entry in my blog:

    http://jamesricketson.blogspot.....8967295387

  95. James Ricketson
    23 May 12
    4:47 pm

  96. mumbrella
    23 May 12
    5:32 pm

  97. I feel that this thread is beginning to cover old ground. Not least because we suspect that several comments purporting to come from different people are in fact from the same source. (For clarity, I’m not suggesting that source is James Ricketson.) Others which we have not published are potentially libelous.
    As a result, I’ve taken the relatively rare decision to close this comment thread. To head off any Screen Australia conspiracy theories, this is not the result of any sort of contact with Screen Australia – official or otherwise – there haven’t been any.
    For those that do want to continue the conversation – you’ll see that James has provided several links to his blog.

    Tim Burrowes – Mumbrella/ Encore