He was visited by some astonishing bouts of poor judgment in my view, that could have been interpreted as him having a leaning. Let me give you a clear example; and by means of background here, he's speaking in terms of The Trust receiving a letter with regards the Guardian article. Which we mostly think is 'heavy handed' at best, something much more sinister at worst. Anyway....
On December 10th, he tweets:
@TheSkyBlueTrust's now published
#CCFC letter. Seems to advise removing
@guardian article link IF
#CCFC takes action
Now, the above is clearly a misinterpretation of the letter. The advice to remove the link to The Guardian's article is not conditional on action, it's a per se 'take it down' advice letter from a very, very top law firm. Les' use of 'IF', and especially it's capitalisation does not reflect the flavour or ambition of the letter.
So, what happens thereafter?
The Sky Blue Trust says: 'Read it again Les'
Supporters Direct are also astonished by the misinterpretation and tweet: 'V selective interpretation of letter
@Lesreidpolitics Plenty will be surprised by your view'
In another tweet to Les: 'Surely it advises taking it down irrespective of any legal action, not IF?'
Now, he doesn't revisit his interpretation - which does appear fundamentally flawed, and misleading. But....
... he then re-tweets:
@Gaytski Cheers Sam. Out-of-towner from
@SuppDirect is incredibly one-sided too & not always armed with the facts or sense of
#CCFC history
So, what's the above? A refusal to revisit something that appears to mislead? To refuse to admit he was wrong? What?
