Whatever happened to Les Reid (3 Viewers)

[duffer]

I would have thought so too, but I haven't found him writing further on the subject apart from one possible unattributed piece in a local free paper more recently, which of course may not have had anything to do with him. Can't recall any smoking gun being exposed though.

He certainly liked to come across as a man of conviction, particularly in the extensive correspondence that I received at the time. It would sadden me to think he kept quiet for money and then allowed friends and associates to imply that he had been subjected to a gagging order.

Would it really make you sad though, or are you just implying something under the pretence of sadness.

Get over the fact that you got your feelings hurt by having to take down a few cheap insults, and open your mind to the possiblity that there might actually have been something unpleasant going on at the CET - and maybe, just maybe Reid has got a case here. Or not.

It makes me genuinely sad though that someone that I had a bit of respect for has to hide behind fakery in order to get a few more cheap digs in. One thing's for sure, if this is the level you're stooping to it hardly makes you look like a great seeker for truth and justice either.

Edit: Having read SBS's reply below - I think I've perhaps got it wrong here. But I won't delete it, better to admit error in public than try to hide I guess! Politicians reading won't get this.

 

---

[Skybluesquirrel]

Hi SBS. I sense a bit of sarcasm here, which is a pity. I liked your blogs a lot, but if you're going to go into the realms of unnecessary personal slights then you can't grumble too much if someone takes offence.

Like other people here, instead of taking issue with the message you decided to challenge the motives of the messenger. You could have used your intelligence (and you're clearly a clever bloke and a good writer) to pull apart what JS and TF were saying - but instead you went for a insulting pun and then downhill from there. You say that you 'fucked up' and offered an apology - but it sounds an awful lot like you begrudge having to do it.

Don't get me wrong - I hate the use of defamation laws to shut anyone up, but if your job depends on your reputation, then people are going to try to defend their reputation.

The pity of it is that if you'd written a criticism of the article that was a bit less personal, and then maybe invited Reid to comment on it, then perhaps we could all have really drawn something useful out of it.

Anyway, moving on, if you've got time have a read of this:

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/conte...ter-axed-coventry-telegraph-joins-rival-title

And note these two (non-contiguous) paragraphs...

But once suspended, I understand Reid launched a formal grievance alleging “bullying”, leaving one senior Canary Wharf boss so exasperated at the delays and counter-claims that I’m told he said – and I paraphrase – “just get it sorted, whatever the cost”.

"Regardless of the rights or wrongs, the quarrel has been damaging to the Telegraph, which currently has no editor, a demoralised staff, and the prospect of its washing being laundered in public at industrial tribunal – with Reid said to be uninterested in any pay-off to buy his silence."

Does that sound like someone who has kept quiet because they wanted a pay-off in their own self-interest, or does it sound like a person who wants the truth to come out regardless of personal costs?

Is it possible that just maybe, clever bloke that you are (and I mean that genuinely and without sarcasm), you've read this situation incorrectly?

Thanks Duffer. I agree about the personal insults - as I said earlier it was, on the whole, one rather clumsy and ill thought through paragraph that really let me down, which I was happy to apologise for at the time. I also published his right to reply, in full.

I have grown rather weary of the whole saga and haven't followed it in as much detail, so was interested to read the link you posted which contradicted the rumours of the gagging order that were part of this thread.

This bit definitely stands out - 'with Reid said to be uninterested in any pay-off to buy his silence'.

That was reassuring to read.

 

[Skybluesquirrel]

Duffer - the Telegraph has had to refute claims of being gagged too, according to this from the same site.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/coven...uggestions-paper-has-been-gagged-and-censored

Sounds very messy indeed!

 

[duffer]

Thanks Duffer. I agree about the personal insults - as I said earlier it was, on the whole, one rather clumsy and ill thought through paragraph that really let me down, which I was happy to apologise for at the time. I also published his right to reply, in full.

I have grown rather weary of the whole saga and haven't followed it in as much detail, so was interested to read the link you posted which contradicted the rumours of the gagging order that were part of this thread.

This bit definitely stands out - 'with Reid said to be uninterested in any pay-off to buy his silence'.

That was reassuring to read.

Fair enough SBS, in the same vein I apologise if I've been unfairly harsh here.

For what it's worth I think you and Reid both did some really incisive work around all this. I came more from your standpoint than Les's at the time, and we've had our rows on twitter etc. too. For all that though, I think he's been unjustly treated here and I can't help but to point that out.

For what it's worth I'd defend you just as strongly is someone accused you, say, of working for the council or Weber Shandwick. From where I sit, those sort of things are just pointless and spiteful. I can't begin to know why you write what you write, but what I can do is point out what I might see as factual inaccuracies or logical fallacies. And that's really I guess what I'd ask others to do.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that SBS - appreciate what you're saying. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the Wasps thing if you're still blogging. I'm not sure that's there's much more to be said about SISU that hasn't already been said!

 

[John_Silletts_Nose]

Interesting reading SBS & Duffer, we will learn his side when his book is released and may find out both sides should a tribunal occur. We will also discover if it was a gag or a self imposed silence.
Unless we know the facts then it is impossible to know who is at fault.

If there was some evidence of wrong doing related to the council or SISU or other parties involved with CCFC/Ricoh Arena then I suspect that rumours would have surfaced with evidence to substantiate the claims. These would have been presented in the Higgs v SISU case or in the JR.

 

[duffer]

Interesting reading SBS & Duffer, we will learn his side when his book is released and may find out both sides should a tribunal occur. We will also discover if it was a gag or a self imposed silence.
Unless we know the facts then it is impossible to know who is at fault.

If there was some evidence of wrong doing related to the council or SISU or other parties involved with CCFC/Ricoh Arena then I suspect that rumours would have surfaced with evidence to substantiate the claims. These would have been presented in the Higgs v SISU case or in the JR.

It would seem odd that Reid didn't seem able to comment or write about the Ricoh until he resigned from the Telegraph. Given the amount written about it by him up until then, it seems to strange to think that he'd suddenly shut up if there hadn't been some pressure to bear. Also, clearly he's writing about it again now he's working for someone else. Regardless, I guess we'll know at some point.

However, I think the tribunal will look at the stuff primarily relating to the CET. Part of that seems to be to do with how Reid was reporting (or trying to report) on the council, so there might be some stuff that comes out in that regard that wouldn't necessarily be of interest in the JR but would still relate to the council's handling of the situation. I wouldn't claim to know any more than that, like everyone else I hope that the truth comes out in the tribunal.

 

[torchomatic]

For those who can't be arsed to follow links:

There's been a fascinating personnel development in a mini newspaper war raging away in the West Midlands.

The multiple award-winning journalist Les Reid, who controversially left Trinity Mirror’s Coventry Telegraph last month, is now working for the competing Coventry Observer, owned by the independent Bullivant Media group.

Nearly a year ago I described Reid, then the Telegraph’s political reporter, as “unsackable” in my list of ‘Regional heroes of 2013’, noting how he’d bounced back from threatened redundancy by arguing for and keeping his job, and then won a hat-trick of awards.

What I didn’t know back then was that Reid was soon suspended by the Telegraph, a fact that came out when he resigned this October after nine months of confused delays.

I say "confused" after speaking to senior figures and sources on both sides of this dispute and finding out that while there are normally two sides to every story this saga has at least five.

Reid himself is angry that he was suspended for what he felt was simply doing his job – relentlessly challenging Coventry City Council for what he claims is its ongoing secretive role in the controversial Ricoh Arena dispute.

Commenting via his @lesreidpolitics Twitter account, Reid cited his case as an example of the “decline of public interest journalism”, announcing he would sue his employers at industrial tribunal and would include his experiences in a book.

From what I’m told, his case has been strengthened by the “prejudiced” content of emails sent by various Trinity Mirror bosses about his case, which the company was forced to disclose to Reid via subject access requests made by him under the Data Protection Act.
On the other hand, according to my sources, Alun Thorne, the then editor at the Telegraph, felt that Reid was correctly suspended for being “too obstinate and arguably insubordinate” in how he went about his Ricoh investigations.

But once suspended, I understand Reid launched a formal grievance alleging “bullying”, leaving one senior Canary Wharf boss so exasperated at the delays and counter-claims that I’m told he said – and I paraphrase – “just get it sorted, whatever the cost”.

The row has even split colleagues: Reid is being represented in his dispute by Chris Morley, the full-time regional organiser of the NUJ, while members of the Telegraph’s own NUJ chapel have been fully supportive of ex-editor Thorne, even issuing a public statement to that effect.
Perhaps coincidentally, Thorne also resigned his editor’s chair last month, within days of Reid’s departure, moving to a new job as a senior spin-doctor at Barques, a Birmingham-based PR agency.

Now I know both Thorne and Reid and, while they are very different people, they each to my mind care very much about what they do.
I’ve regularly read Reid’s work, and can see how he might have come across as too much of a dog-with-a-bone about Ricoh to the point of unhealthy obsession – although I’m sure he’d say this is how any committed investigative journalist should be.

Meanwhile, some argue that when Thorne was the Telegraph’s editor the paper became too cosy with Coventry City Council bosses who were opposed to Reid’s investigative line – although others believe Thorne’s stance with the council and Reid was absolutely correct.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs, the quarrel has been damaging to the Telegraph, which currently has no editor, a demoralised staff, and the prospect of its washing being laundered in public at industrial tribunal – with Reid said to be uninterested in any pay-off to buy his silence.

Whoever’s eventually sent to Coventry as the new Telegraph editor, will still have to contend with an unwavering Reid continuing his scrutiny of local politics and public affairs for the Coventry Observer, which has been biting at the heels of the Telegraph since it was launched in 2002.

Reid’s first splash for his new paper on 30 October was headlined: "Sky Blues set to bid for Ricoh", reminding his former title that he’s still very much following the Coventry stadium dispute, which is becoming even more entangled than his own quarrels.

One thing’s for sure: if this case ever gets to industrial tribunal, it’s going to get very messy.

 

[chiefdave]

Think he fell into the trap of believing his own hype. Lets face it when your a politics reporter for a local rag very few people know who you are. When he started reporting on the Ricoh shambles he became a 'name' among fans and seem to revel in it. Look at the phrasing of his articles, he often refers to himself rather than the publication he is working for, on twitter he's even worse for that.

For whatever reason he's never been keen on the council, look back to his older articles before he started reporting on the Ricoh and that's clear. Not in itself a problem but I would have though made him more suited to a publication that shared his stance than a local paper that would look to be, at least appear to be, fair and neutral. His reporting on the Ricoh initially wasn't bad, it wasn't ground breaking either think it was just a case a having a big local story with some depth that made it stand out. Of course there was the time he appeared to pretty much copy and paste a post of here and then stated that it was all his own work and was something he'd been working on for a while, not sure how many people believed that when the article came right after the post and covered exactly the same points bringing nothing new to the table.

Then it all went downhill rapidly, there was the opinion piece which didn't go down well with a lot of people. My biggest problem was the way it was written presented it as a factual report rather than an opinion piece. And then of course the infamous interview with Sepalla which was a huge anti climax and could have been written by SISU's PR company. Of course if the other sides aren't talking you can't feature them but there were several glaringly obvious issues and follow up questions to her responses that she should have been pushed on. I would like to think it was just poor journalism rather than Reid having been bought off, I really don't think that's happened. Of course maybe SISU spotted his anti-council tendencies and used him as their message across, although I may be giving them too much credit. My opinion is that Sepalla told him what he wanted to hear given his own stance regarding the council and therefore he didn't challenge it. He was also among those intimating that he knew more and if we all just waited for the court case we'd see the smoking gun, we all know how that turned out. And as has been said in this day and age if he did have knowledge of a smoking gun there's plenty of ways to get that out there.

Of course then when people called him out on twitter he went into meltdown. This is the point at which he seemed to have some sort of breakdown. Its hard to say what happened after that. The CT could make an argument that he was off the story for poor journalism or the way he was communicating on twitter (didn't the previous CT editor get fired for having a pop at someone on twitter?). I'm sure Reid could also make an argument that he was suppressed, or 'gagged' as seems to be the phrase of the day.

Hopefully he can get his career back on track, he seems like a decent chap and just because his political ideals are not to everyone's liking is not any reason his career should be a write off. Nobody is going to think that working for the Observor is a move upwards or even sideways, maybe he'd be better off drawing a line under the whole thing rather that talking about writing a 'tell all' book. Whatever its contents how many people are actually going to be interested by the time it comes out?

 

[Grendel]

Think he fell into the trap of believing his own hype. Lets face it when your a politics reporter for a local rag very few people know who you are. When he started reporting on the Ricoh shambles he became a 'name' among fans and seem to revel in it. Look at the phrasing of his articles, he often refers to himself rather than the publication he is working for, on twitter he's even worse for that.

For whatever reason he's never been keen on the council, look back to his older articles before he started reporting on the Ricoh and that's clear.

Hopefully he can get his career back on track, he seems like a decent chap and just because his political ideals are not to everyone's liking is not any reason his career should be a write off.

Most if that post was the biggest load of ill informed tripe i have read on here so I will focus on just a couple of things

You do know I assume he has written numerous articles since. 2008 for the guardian? If so why do think he suddenly believed he was a big celebrity due to the Ricoh?

You I assume realise John mutton was very supportive publically of him and his stance for local politics? So are you saying he was anti council when the conservatives were in power?

I do t see how supporting the labour movement is so bad politically. I assume this is what you are referring to as when threatened with redundancy in 2013 Jim Cunningham and Robinson raised concerns in parliament and mutton also made supportive statements in public.

 

[lewys33]

I didn't have an issue with his opinion differing mine. It was his antics on twitter, and accusing David Conn of lying which put me off him. As it goes I do think he is a good journalist. I think this part of the above link sums it up well:

"I’ve regularly read Reid’s work, and can see how he might have come across as too much of a dog-with-a-bone about Ricoh to the point of unhealthy obsession – although I’m sure he’d say this is how any committed investigative journalist should be."

I have heard sneaky rumours suggesting other reasons which contributed to his suspension though. I have asked people involved about these and was told "I can't comment on that". Of course this is not the place to discuss those rumours though.

 

[duffer]

Think he fell into the trap of believing his own hype. Lets face it when your a politics reporter for a local rag very few people know who you are. When he started reporting on the Ricoh shambles he became a 'name' among fans and seem to revel in it. Look at the phrasing of his articles, he often refers to himself rather than the publication he is working for, on twitter he's even worse for that.

For whatever reason he's never been keen on the council, look back to his older articles before he started reporting on the Ricoh and that's clear. Not in itself a problem but I would have though made him more suited to a publication that shared his stance than a local paper that would look to be, at least appear to be, fair and neutral. His reporting on the Ricoh initially wasn't bad, it wasn't ground breaking either think it was just a case a having a big local story with some depth that made it stand out. Of course there was the time he appeared to pretty much copy and paste a post of here and then stated that it was all his own work and was something he'd been working on for a while, not sure how many people believed that when the article came right after the post and covered exactly the same points bringing nothing new to the table.

Then it all went downhill rapidly, there was the opinion piece which didn't go down well with a lot of people. My biggest problem was the way it was written presented it as a factual report rather than an opinion piece. And then of course the infamous interview with Sepalla which was a huge anti climax and could have been written by SISU's PR company. Of course if the other sides aren't talking you can't feature them but there were several glaringly obvious issues and follow up questions to her responses that she should have been pushed on. I would like to think it was just poor journalism rather than Reid having been bought off, I really don't think that's happened. Of course maybe SISU spotted his anti-council tendencies and used him as their message across, although I may be giving them too much credit. My opinion is that Sepalla told him what he wanted to hear given his own stance regarding the council and therefore he didn't challenge it. He was also among those intimating that he knew more and if we all just waited for the court case we'd see the smoking gun, we all know how that turned out. And as has been said in this day and age if he did have knowledge of a smoking gun there's plenty of ways to get that out there.

Of course then when people called him out on twitter he went into meltdown. This is the point at which he seemed to have some sort of breakdown. Its hard to say what happened after that. The CT could make an argument that he was off the story for poor journalism or the way he was communicating on twitter (didn't the previous CT editor get fired for having a pop at someone on twitter?). I'm sure Reid could also make an argument that he was suppressed, or 'gagged' as seems to be the phrase of the day.

Hopefully he can get his career back on track, he seems like a decent chap and just because his political ideals are not to everyone's liking is not any reason his career should be a write off. Nobody is going to think that working for the Observor is a move upwards or even sideways, maybe he'd be better off drawing a line under the whole thing rather that talking about writing a 'tell all' book. Whatever its contents how many people are actually going to be interested by the time it comes out?

I think that the mistake that you're replicating here, politely, is thinking that because he writes articles critical about the council or individual councillors, that he's somehow anti local government or that his politics are different to those he criticises and that's why he does it. I just don't think that's borne out.

If you're a journalist reporting on local politics, then inevitably you're going to focus on contentious issues and the failings of the council or councillors regarding them. That doesn't mean that you're against local democracy, what it means is that you'd like the local democracy to work better (or more honestly) perhaps.

Again, there's that suggestion of bias here, but no one has yet shown where the bias is in the interview with Seppalla - and his opinion piece was clearly his opinion.

And the gagging thing - when did Reid stop writing about the Ricoh, and when did he start writing about it? It's very hard to see it as anything other than gagging if you just look at the evidence.

As for drawing a line under it, this is a man who clearly feels he's been wronged, and seemingly also that there's stuff that needs to come out. Rather than taking a payoff and shutting up it seems he'd like to get it out there. Personally, I think that says something about the man - anyone who wants to know the whole story would want this I'd have thought.

Finally the twitter rows. Unless you've spent a bit of time on there, it's hard to express how unpleasant it can get. Trying to explain something in 140 characters is bloody impossible in my mind, so I'm not surprised that it turns into personal rather than rational argument. And when it turns personal, it gets personal. A lot of people are leaving twitter for this reason it seems.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Tell you what, duffer, you've moved on to my approved posters list.

 

[duffer]

Tell you what, duffer, you've moved on to my approved posters list.

Cheers mate - that probably means I'm on a whole load of other people's sh*t list though.

Joking aside, these things don't worry me. We're all bound to differ on stuff from time to time, my opinion's certainly no better than anyone else's, except to me.

 

[skybluedan]

Les Reid seemed to suddenly disappear from the Telegraph and I don't think it was ever explained (or did I miss it?)

So my question is what happened to cause him to leave and what is he doing now?

I am sure some people on here know and, understandably, Simon Gilbert will probably have to avoid commenting.

I heard he now shares a flat with Nicki sinclaire???????

 

[skybluetony176]

I heard he now shares a flat with Nicki sinclaire???????

I cant wait to read about that bit in the book.

 

[skybluedan]

I cant wait to read about that bit in the book.

Haha yeah

 

[chiefdave]

You do know I assume he has written numerous articles since. 2008 for the guardian? If so why do think he suddenly believed he was a big celebrity due to the Ricoh?

Numerous might be pushing it a bit! Happy to accept I could be wrong on his profile in the city prior to the ramping up of the Ricoh row. Personally I only became aware of him at that point but admittedly I don't live in the city so will take your word on that. Although I would point out I didn't at any point claim him to be a celebrity more that he seemed to enjoy the attention that came his way and that may have contributed to his downfall.

You I assume realise John mutton was very supportive publically of him and his stance for local politics? So are you saying he was anti council when the conservatives were in power?

I do t see how supporting the labour movement is so bad politically. I assume this is what you are referring to as when threatened with redundancy in 2013 Jim Cunningham and Robinson raised concerns in parliament and mutton also made supportive statements in public.

Seems I've not put my point across properly, I don't think he's anti everyone and everything to do with the council, I just think he leans to a labour socialist stance and that comes across in his reporting. Not even saying that's a bad thing but some of his reporting, particular before he disappeared, seemed determined to lay the all the blame firmly at Lucas's door. Again that may just be my interpretation and totally wide of the mark. Thing is Grendal we can all have opinions and just because someone doesn't agree with yours doesn't mean they are automatically wrong!

I think that the mistake that you're replicating here, politely, is thinking that because he writes articles critical about the council or individual councillors, that he's somehow anti local government or that his politics are different to those he criticises and that's why he does it. I just don't think that's borne out.

I agree with you duffer, maybe I haven't put my point across clearly, must be why I'm not a journalist! I don't think he's anti local government but I do think he has is own stance, as we all do, which bleeds through into his reporting. Of course that could just be my interpretation of his reporting.

Again, there's that suggestion of bias here, but no one has yet shown where the bias is in the interview with Seppalla - and his opinion piece was clearly his opinion.

I was a fan, for lack of a better word, of his reporting up until the two articles I mentioned. I don't think either of them, particularly the Sepalla interview, were great journalism but that's not to say there was a bias there. I don't think there is, I certainly wouldn't like to think he's been paid off that seems to be moving into tin foil hat territory.

As for drawing a line under it, this is man who clearly feels he's been wronged, and seemingly also that there's stuff that needs to come out. Rather than taking a payoff and shutting up it seems he'd like to get it out there.

Maybe, but if it was me I would have got the truth out there at the first available opportunity and learned my name so I could progress my career. If he's in the right I don't think he's done himself any favours the last few months and moving to the Observer can't really be seen as career advancement. We seem to be back in smocking gun territory and we know how that turned out last time!

Finally the twitter rows. Unless you've spent a bit of time on there, it's hard to express how unpleasant it can get.

Reid could have ignored the criticism, justified his piece or even held his hands up to it but instead seemed to have a toys out of the pram moment, probably not his best idea. We've all had our moments on twitter I'm sure but this seemed less a moment and over a period of time he got fairly aggressive towards people who didn't agree with him. I would have thought, given his career choice, he would have had social media training and would know better than to act in that manner. In an ideal world he would have responded to the criticism by letting his work stand for itself and digging for the answers we all wanted from Sepalla, maybe he was denied that chance, who knows.

 

[duffer]

Numerous might be pushing it a bit! Happy to accept I could be wrong on his profile in the city prior to the ramping up of the Ricoh row. Personally I only became aware of him at that point but admittedly I don't live in the city so will take your word on that. Although I would point out I didn't at any point claim him to be a celebrity more that he seemed to enjoy the attention that came his way and that may have contributed to his downfall.

Seems I've not put my point across properly, I don't think he's anti everyone and everything to do with the council, I just think he leans to a labour socialist stance and that comes across in his reporting. Not even saying that's a bad thing but some of his reporting, particular before he disappeared, seemed determined to lay the all the blame firmly at Lucas's door. Again that may just be my interpretation and totally wide of the mark. Thing is Grendal we can all have opinions and just because someone doesn't agree with yours doesn't mean they are automatically wrong!

I agree with you duffer, maybe I haven't put my point across clearly, must be why I'm not a journalist! I don't think he's anti local government but I do think he has is own stance, as we all do, which bleeds through into his reporting. Of course that could just be my interpretation of his reporting.

I was a fan, for lack of a better word, of his reporting up until the two articles I mentioned. I don't think either of them, particularly the Sepalla interview, were great journalism but that's not to say there was a bias there. I don't think there is, I certainly wouldn't like to think he's been paid off that seems to be moving into tin foil hat territory.

Maybe, but if it was me I would have got the truth out there at the first available opportunity and learned my name so I could progress my career. If he's in the right I don't think he's done himself any favours the last few months and moving to the Observer can't really be seen as career advancement. We seem to be back in smocking gun territory and we know how that turned out last time!

Reid could have ignored the criticism, justified his piece or even held his hands up to it but instead seemed to have a toys out of the pram moment, probably not his best idea. We've all had our moments on twitter I'm sure but this seemed less a moment and over a period of time he got fairly aggressive towards people who didn't agree with him. I would have thought, given his career choice, he would have had social media training and would know better than to act in that manner. In an ideal world he would have responded to the criticism by letting his work stand for itself and digging for the answers we all wanted from Sepalla, maybe he was denied that chance, who knows.

Chief, wouldn't agree with all of this necessarily, but elegantly put as ever. I think you'd be a half-decent journalist - but can you make a good cup of tea, that's the question?!

As for tin-foil hats, what's wrong with them. Keeps the heat in and the voices out. I've hardly set a single fire since I started wearing mine. Mother approves, or at least I think she approves. She doesn't say much these days, or move out of her chair for the last couple of years now that I think about it. But I'm sure she's fine. I wish she'd let me talk to girls though.

Have a good weekend mate.

 

[chiefdave]

Chief, wouldn't agree with all of this necessarily, but elegantly put as ever. I think you'd be a half-decent journalist - but can you make a good cup of tea, that's the question?!

Nah, I get too impatient waiting for my cuppa and don't let it brew properly, would never make a journalist!

 

[Skybluesquirrel]

Again, there's that suggestion of bias here, but no one has yet shown where the bias is in the interview with Seppalla - and his opinion piece was clearly his opinion.

And the gagging thing - when did Reid stop writing about the Ricoh, and when did he start writing about it? It's very hard to see it as anything other than gagging if you just look at the evidence.

As for drawing a line under it, this is a man who clearly feels he's been wronged, and seemingly also that there's stuff that needs to come out. Rather than taking a payoff and shutting up it seems he'd like to get it out there. Personally, I think that says something about the man - anyone who wants to know the whole story would want this I'd have thought.

Finally the twitter rows. Unless you've spent a bit of time on there, it's hard to express how unpleasant it can get. Trying to explain something in 140 characters is bloody impossible in my mind, so I'm not surprised that it turns into personal rather than rational argument. And when it turns personal, it gets personal. A lot of people are leaving twitter for this reason it seems.

More than happy to be corrected, but I was under the impression he was sent on gardening leave, a term that suggests full pay with no work/ability to publish through his employer. Without seeing the contracts/agreements, we obviously can only infer what conditions were attached. Not much, if anything was published, as far as I can tell from the discussion on here, so not sure if I agree with you him wanting to get the story out at all costs. However, none of us really know what happened and probably never will.

Re bias in the Seppala interview. The biggest problem I had was the hype before. I seem to remember it being previewed as a Paxmanesque style grilling, and I think Paxman, if he gave a shit, which I don't imagine for a moment he did, would see that as close to libel. On CWR, officials from the club have been interviewed in a very different way to those from ACL for example. Strikingly so. I don't think Ive ever heard anyone from the council so can't comment on that. Its not necessarily what was asked but what wasn't, or at best wasn't reported on. So I don't think there was any need to find or prove 'bias' - you should be able to simply point out glaring omissions and points where follow up questions could, and should have been asked, in a way that Paxman would. As ChiefDave has pointed out.

'The twitter row'. I objected mostly to the publishing in the CT (with presumably the support of his 'bullying' editor) only those which supported his stance, ignoring the large volume of dissenters. I couldn't actually find much of the offensive abuse that was alleged to have been sent to him, although to be fair I have never really got my head around how to use twitter properly. I found dissenting voices, but nothing I would describe as offensive. Maybe I'm thick skinned! However, judging by what happens when people do speak out (such as Jessica Ennis-Hill last week) it doesn't surprise me what some idiots will write.

Its also quite interesting that the editor now works for a PR company. Just goes to show that whenever a journalist is seeking out a story, there's always going to be an element of spin in there, even if in their heart they believe they are reporting 'facts'. There are no facts, only understandings.

 

[Intheknow]

His tweets throughout the breadth of the Ricoh transaction were informative to a degree. They showed he knew nothing that was not public information and they showed that he was not "independent".

 

[Nick]

His tweets throughout the breadth of the Ricoh transaction were informative to a degree. They showed he knew nothing that was not public information and they showed that he was not "independent".

You have just signed up to post that? Not fishy in the slightest.....

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

You have just signed up to post that? Not fishy in the slightest.....

Even I have to agree with you there,

 

[Intheknow]

Even I have to agree with you there,

A good spot!

I suspect I will become a watcher of rugby games at the RA so my colours are nailed openly the mast.

But, Les Reid, thought he knew it all, said he did, but knew nothing

 

[martcov]

A good spot!

I suspect I will become a watcher of rugby games at the RA so my colours are nailed openly the mast.

But, Les Reid, thought he knew it all, said he did, but knew nothing

ok, but you call yourself "intheknow". Is there any significance - I.e. do you know more than, say, Les Reid? Or did you just choose the wrong name?

 

[skybluetony176]

To be fare he is at least half right. I don't recall reading anything on Les's twitter that i didn't read on here first.

 

[Nick]

A good spot!

I suspect I will become a watcher of rugby games at the RA so my colours are nailed openly the mast.

But, Les Reid, thought he knew it all, said he did, but knew nothing

Safe to say you are involved somehow then. Also guessing the acl / wasps / ccc side?

 

[Danceswithhorses]

Safe to say you are involved somehow then. Also guessing the acl / wasps / ccc side?

You're not interrogating a new poster because he doesn't hold your view, are you Nick ?

 

[Nick]

You're not interrogating a new poster because he doesn't hold your view, are you Nick ?

No, it's because they signed up with a clear agenda

 

[Bennets Afro]

Some people are so obvious.

 

[henry the wasp]

ok, but you call yourself "intheknow". Is there any significance - I.e. do you know more than, say, Les Reid? Or did you just choose the wrong name?

Maybe he chose the wrong name. It does happen.:facepalm:

 

[Skyblueweeman]

Hmmm....Henry the Wasp eh? Joined in Dec 2012 eh? Potentially an insider eh?

 

[Danceswithhorses]

No, it's because they signed up with a clear agenda

That's cool then.
And just to show balance, I look forward to you doing the same with a new poster with a clear agenda, on the sisu, otium side (as you mentioned sides)

 

[Nick]

That's cool then.
And just to show balance, I look forward to you doing the same with a new poster with a clear agenda, on the sisu, otium side (as you mentioned sides)

Sure, point one out to me

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Sure, point one out to me

Why you know who they are, we all know who they are.....:thinking about: