Dear Shadow Minister,

You write;

“The action by JCU to silence PR was an action that not only violated the academic freedom of the university, but also trashed its reputation. The case will cost JCU far more than the $1.2m it has had to pay out to PR.”

Well no, it violated the enterprise bargaining agreement put in place by a union which cares about these things a little more than the university did.

But in the end I'm not sure that asking for disputes to be considered in a collegiate manner rather than on Sky News was entirely unreasonable. Whether it was a sacking offence is where the debate has ended up. I'm not sure that we or indeed science is served well by having every scientific dispute egged on and championed by our capricious media.

I will admit to being a bit disappointed in Ridd that he has chosen the money over reinstatement. I hope it isn't because of a better offer to be a commentator and a cause celeb for our right wing media.

SR,

Considering the clause in the EBA was about academic freedom, this does not detract from my statement either about academic freedom or JCU trashing its reputation.

That JCU violated the clause in the EBA essentially made this case a slam dunk for Peter Ridd, however, if this clause was not in the contract, the arguments would probably have been more focused on the aspect of unfair dismissal and I believe that PR would have still prevailed.

Secondly, I don't believe that the university offered to take PR back, in either case, the working relationship had clearly broken down and as you have pointed out PR now has a viable career shredding the bogus "research" that left whinge "researchers" churn out to support their agendas.

Finally, As these bogus research reports had been released to the media and been reported on world wide, PR had every right after raising his concerns to make them public.

I wrote previously;

“I will admit to being a bit disappointed in Ridd that he has chosen the money over reinstatement. I hope it isn't because of a better offer to be a commentator and a cause celeb for our right wing media.”

A vain hope it turns out.

“Senator Susan McDonald has had to reschedule a planned appearance with Dr Peter Ridd and the Green Shirts Movement at an event intending to lobby against the Queensland Labor government’s environmental regulations, which they claim are “anti-farming”.
McDonald and James McGrath have a Senate motion attempting to set up an inquiry into the issue – and it looks like the LNP senators are seeking to find support for Ridd’s controversial claim that farmland pollution does not significantly damage the Great Barrier Reef.
Ridd has been on a speaking tour, supported by rightwing commentators and sugarcane industry managers, campaigning against proposed state regulations limiting sediment and chemical runoff on the reef coast.
An expert panel led by the former chief scientist, Ian Chubb, has warned that Ridd is misrepresenting robust science about the plight of the Great Barrier Reef.”
Guardian Australia

SR,

beware of the "he said, she said" factor.
We plebs are in no position to judge as we are not scientists, and especially not in their particular chosen field of expertise.
I would caution anyone to take sides, because as you have pointed out in other topics, where is the proof?
Although that is the conundrum, if they are all EXPERTS, then who do we believe?
You may want to not believe Ridd because of his alleged association and financing by the relevant farmers accused of damaging the reef.
I might suggest, until more studies and research are done on this matter that we remain cautiously aware and not get drawn into an unwinnable argument.

SR,

I also regret that JCU didn't offer to reinstate Peter Ridd, but I am heartened to hear that Peter is able to assist the farmers challenge Labor's dodgy laws based on bogus research by amoral researchers.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Well to be fair Ridd didn't seek reinstatement either.

"I should let you all know that we are no longer seeking reinstatement because JCU’s response since the decision indicates that if I went back, I would have a very troubled existence that would also threaten all my colleagues in the Physics Department."