ITA Banned from Playhouse

From ITA Link Editorial:


ITA Banned from Playhouse

That's the report I received about our enquiry into the availability of the venue we have hired so many times for our Annual Awards night.

I was reminded of the time in New Zealand when a group I belonged to was presenting Gorky's The Lower Depths in the Concert Chamber, a venue they regularly hired. After the dress rehearsal the director complained that the set was too clean for a Russian dos house so the enthusiastic stagemanager showered the whole with a powder paint called lamp black. It was late on Sunday night so he didn't bother to sweep up - he'd do that tomorrow. Woefully, the morrow was the occasion for an inspection of the Chamber by the council's team of investigators, who communicated to the theatre's president that, while they wouldn't ban the current show as the mess had already been made, the council would not accept any further bookings from the theatre.

Well to cut it short, the theatre, pointing out that lamp black was a water soluble, vegetable dye which required the addition of glue size to cause it to adhere to anything, proceeded to sue the council at law for defamation.

About nine months later the matter was settled out of court and the council offered the theatre a year's free hire but the theatre never used the Concert Chamber again.

So when they told me about the Playhouse, I thought, "Here we go again!"

I rang Playhouse Manager, Gary Snowden, to ask "Why?" He explained that the last time we had used the Playhouse there had been some criticism of staff and facilities published in the Link, not in an Editorial I was relieved to learn, and he and the staff felt we might be better suited elsewhere. He was at pains to assure me that there was no ban. They felt they had offered a service above and beyond the call of duty and the comments from members were ungrateful. He felt he had to protect his staff. I explained that we were reluctant to censor letters and he agreed that it wouldn't be appropriate but it raises the compelling question "Should we publish letters to the editor which are likely to be detrimental to the organisation?"

A similar dilemma has been exercising contributors to the web site over posting of negative reviews by "critics", with dubious credentialsand often anonymous, which may have the effect of turning audiences away. Grant Malcolm told me that he is often requested to take down an email but will not do so except for legal reason. I feel the same about the Link but I wonder if we are serving the right customer by providing a forum for Secret Smartarse to massage his ego at the expense of some club's profit or our good relations with the administration of performance venues in Perth.

Perhaps those about to write could think of the damage their contribution might cause.

Careless talk costs.