Baker won the radio showdown IMHO

[Rich Suvner]

As I now live outside Sussex I didn't hear the post-match phone-in but listened on the club site today and I'm sorry guys but I think it was more a victory for Norman Baker than the pro-Falmer lobby, and I really do NOT wish to be saying this.

I had heard so much about if this were a boxing match the towell would have been thrown in from Baker's corner and can only presume that you heard this through rose-tinted glasses.

Ian Hart (who I have respected immensely from the first day I got involved with his Gullseye-led anti-board protests in 95 and in all personal meetings since) in my opinion did not give the neutral listener a reason to believe that Baker was being anything but bullied into supporting Falmer.

Repeated references were made to "destroying political careers". Unfortunately, whether this is truth or not, that is not our argument in support of Falmer. It is supposed to be because the ground is the suitable location. Telling Baker to "ask your mate David Belotti about political suicide" and fear the loss of the Lewes vote, IMHO made our argument sound weaker, not stronger, because the strength of the actual application was not being discussed.

Furthermore, whilst I am not disagreeing with Martin Perry's criticism's of Baker's attack against the planning process, Perry sounded in a nervy (weak, broken voice) and defensive mood from the outset and nowhere near as confident and clear a speaker as Baker. Presentation does make a difference. To pass the MP off as "anti-Albion Norman Baker" may strike a chord with Albion fans like myself, but I am not convinced it would have washed with neutral listeners who had just heard Baker, in polished politician style, stress his unhappiness at the situation but his desire to ensure a positive outcome for both his constituents and the club.

Baker's reference to the lack of a "plan B" and the leading question in the referendum (ie only based upon Falmer), were in my opinion not adequately countered from the coverage I heard, partially because Perry could only provide an 'our word against yours' dimension to the debate but also because these issues may appear strange to the uninformed listener.

I do infact totally agree with Baker's sentiment when he (quite possibly hypocritically) states that he does not agree with politicians "who blow with the wind" and that planning processes should be decided upon merit and not because of political pressure or affiliation to the club. That strength of argument is exactly what we should have proved we had. Unfortunately, IMHO these comments admidst the more aggressive and biased stance against him made him sound the more reasonable party in the debate. Again in part I would attribute this to him having considerably more time to talk than Perry, and I'm sure that was just an unfortunate occurance.

No doubt I'll be accused of being anti-Falmer (UTTERLY STUPID cos it's Falmer or bust). The fact is, if I divorce my emotions when listening to this I don't think we used the opportunity that well.

Sorry Ian. Sorry Martin. Sorry Guys. Having logged in to hear the resounding radio victory, I am now actually more depressed about this all.

Peter Thompson

 

[southstandandy]

I've just heard the broadcast myself - and I can't help but agree with much of the above.

The one thing that worried me was when he stated that only 15% of the time the views of the planning inspectorate are overturned. - Is this a true statistic or just hot air ?

But to say the site is not big enough is rubbish in my view. I studied the case closely attending over 15 days at the town hall last year and I still feel the legitimacy for Falmer is very strong.

I sincerely hope that JP will listen to the overwhelming support this application has and won't base his decision on one blokes view.

Falmer For All !!!!

 

[Rich Suvner]

The one thing that worried me was when he stated that only 15% of the time the views of the planning inspectorate are overturned. - Is this a true statistic or just hot air ?

Very worrying statistic. Even if doubled to 30%!!!

 

[London Irish]

Well, I have to disagree. I thought Baker came off quite poorly when put on the spot about where he thought the stadium should go. Baker does deserve some small credit for coming on a pro-Falmer football show where he knew he would get slaughtered by Perry and Harty, but in the grand scheme of things, that hardly compares to his lamentable lack of concern for the club's plight.

Like you, Rich Suvner, I don't think Baker is the anti-Christ, in fact his record as an MP is very good indeed apart from this issue, he is a consitent supporter of state education and the NHS, has a good record on civil liberties issues, has been an enlightened critic of the government, backbencher of the year, etc - and I say all this as a Labour party member.

But I disagree that he is pursuing a principled course on Falmer. In fact, he has just caved in to NIMBY pressures. It is true that if he supported the club, his career would be finished because the Tories would stand an anti-Falmer candidate against him and he would be annihilated. Sadly I couldn't speak with total confidence that Labour wouldn't do the same thing.

So he is between a rock and a hard place but the decision he has made is to f*** up our club rather than his career. I'm afraid that doesn't earn him a lot of credit in my book.

 

[The Famous Grouse]

i disagree I feal he smashed NB, but like you said, I have a heavily biast view

 

[London Irish]

Very worrying statistic. Even if doubled to 30%!!!

These statistic are meaningless. The mass of these stats relate to housing and shopping developments. Falmer is a very unusual type of planning application because it relates to a community leisure scheme with mass support. Let's dig up the stats on those.

 

[Tony Le Mesmer]

Listening to the recording as objectively as possible Baker comes across quite well and does not seem flustered at all considering Harty kept interupting him. Martin Perry was raising his tone somewhat but sadly, if it was a boxing contest, with a less biased umpire, Baker would get it on points.
Can't see why the club are putting a link to it on their website as it paints a rather bleak desperate picture

 

[Harty]

Tony, I've listened to it three times since the weekend and I freely admit that when I first started back in 1998 I used to have tendency to interupt callers, not in a rude way it was more excitement and enthusiasm, but I feel I was more than fair to Norman Baker on Saturday. I felt I interjected only to clarify points and to ask for specific answers.
I feel I gave both parties a fair crack of the whip, if anything the person I did have to interupt was Martin Perry who I politely had to tell to be quiet and let Norman Baker answer the questions.

 

[dwayne]

agreed Harty but it was a tad unproffesional to keep re-iterating the point about political careers being wrecked on the back of harshness to a footie club IMHO, you're no Jeremy Paxman but you're good value I reckon.

On a side note, any sign of Father Paul recently?

 

[perseus]

As far as I have been able to work out (educated guess as I was involved in a scheme in the past) is that Council backed schemes on this scale have a 75% chance of success.

This would be without another Council or so much opposition.

However, the reason they fail (an this was in the past) is because the developers give up because of insurmountable difficulties.

These difficulties are more often

1) Land owners not wishing to sell
2) The scheme is a bit dodgy to begin with and the operators pull out (usually the developers and operators are different groups, so the operator, the Albion in this case, does not lose out with failures).

Planning Permission is the least of the developers problems.

NIMBYs simply don't count for much. Even objectors to a scheme often find them more of nuisance than an asset.

Objectors never stop a good scheme. the best they can do is to delay it (which is not recommended as a policy), get small insignificant concessions, point out flaws in schemes (for the benefit of everybody), or persuade the developer (or rival) that there is a better alternative.

These schemes will have their own specially engaged Planning Consultant to make sure all the legal stuff gets done properly.

My conclusion is that good well thought schemes always get through even with objections.

Without objections, even obviously flawed schemes like Teville Gate Worthing will get passed.

 

[fataddick]

Listening to the audio file from the Albion website I personally think the various parties came out with varying degrees of respect thus:
1st) The fans at Wycombe chanting in the background.
2=) Martin Wotnot and Norman Bates (or wotever their names are)
4) The lairy host. Living in Brighton I thank Jesus I don't own a TV or radio if this man does local stuff on either (I assume he does) -he made my skin crawl, though I'm sure his heart's in the right place.
In summary Fans+2, Host-1, Politicos EVENS.

 

[b.w.2.]

NB didn't answer the questions... e.g. OK, please provide a valid alternative site to Falmer...

NB couldn't justify his statements, e.g. BHA rushed in to selecting Falmer (just wrong - selected very carefully)...

In summary, he lost, and lost badly IMHO... and I don't think that is biased...

This is why it is on the official site...

 

[Harty]

Fat Addick that's your opinion and your entitled to it, I am passionate about this football club and sometimes, just sometimes, I might wear my blue and white heart on my sleeve a bit too much.
If people think I did go over the top on Saturday then I apologise, it was a very emotional time, the support this club has is second to none and the post match scenes at Wycombe made me not for the first time very proud to be an Albion fan.
I was then faced with a local politician, and a close friend of one of the assest strippers who destroyed the Goldstone, telling me Falmer wasn't the answer and making statments about 'rushing into things', maybe I was emotionally involved but I have been with this club for nearly 31 years and will be till the day I die.
That's the way it was, and in the cold light of day, or tonight on the phone-in I will do it all again. Maybe not as emotional but as I said Saturday was one of those 'red letter days' with the Albion support.

 

[GUNTER]

I thought Harty conducted the interview fairly and it was well-balanced. He let Baker have his say.

Baker did not put across a strong enough case against and I thought Perry came out on top.

 

[tedebear]

There was one very obvious thing that came out of the phone in for me - and that is we are passionate about this.

Harty I think you did a fantastic job of keeping your own emotions in tack as well as holding Martin Perry back a couple of times to let Baker talk. Norman Baker should have known he was "walking in" to a proverbial hornets nest. Yes he did sound calmer and yes he nonchatanly avoided the question of where he though the stadium should go....but to me he sounded like he didn't really care to be honest....

There is a lot of blood running high at the moment and that was obvious from this conversation. And to be honest with you - if blood wasn't running high amongst our camp at the moment - then I'd be seriously worried...

Well done Harty and Perry....Baker doesn't realize how much this club is worth to us....

 

[trueblue]

Unfortunately, I think Baker did rather well. Like Bellotti was, he is skilled at keeping cool and making a very implausible argument sound plausible to those who don't know much about the story. The worst part is, those people are exactly the ones we want to win over.

 

[Southy]

I thought Baker did well even though I disagreed with him. The point he made about the fact that Prescott cannot make his decision on political grounds, but has to do it only on planning terms worried me. He seemed to be implying that the antis would have a very good case for taking him to court if he went against the planning decision. However didn't he go against the inspectors reccomendation on Arsenals Ashburton Grove site?

 

[Insider]

I do infact totally agree with Baker's sentiment when he (quite possibly hypocritically) states that he does not agree with politicians "who blow with the wind" and that planning processes should be decided upon merit and not because of political pressure or affiliation to the club. That strength of argument is exactly what we should have proved we had. Unfortunately, IMHO these comments admidst the more aggressive and biased stance against him made him sound the more reasonable party in the debate. Again in part I would attribute this to him having considerably more time to talk than Perry, and I'm sure that was just an unfortunate occurance.


Peter Thompson [/B]

Have you read the planning application? I suspect the answer is no seeing the above. You be aware that the council's planning officers recommended the council's planning committee approve it - which they duly did by 11 to one!

What we're talking about here is one man's opinion - which is unchangeable. Even if the club said right if you think the site is too small, we'll build a 10,000-seat stadium at Falmer, do you think he would back it? I don't think so.

Also, Baker as a politician will know how important the electorate are - in Brighton & Hove the public have consitently backed the stadium. Public Opinion is another important factor.

Personally, I don't think you're aware of this support for the issue.

 

[Ex Shelton Seagull]

For those who don't think that Prescott makes planning decisions on political grounds, take a look at the (now abandoned) animal research centre in Cambridge.
Cambridge City Council opposed it.
Cambridgeshire Council opposed it.
Local residents opposed it.
The planning inspector at the public inquiry opposed it.
Prescott gave it the go ahead.
I know a research centre is a different kettle of fish but that case shows that if the political pressure is on then politicians will most certainly "blow with the wind".
And I doubt that Baker gives a toss about people from Brighton & Hove as he's the MP for Lewes district. His only concern is for the people in his area. The rest of us can take a running jump.

 

[Bwian]

I thought that Baker came across as a typical greasy politician whereas Martin Perry was very emotional (I thought he was going to cry on a couple of occassions).

Can't decide if anybody actually 'won' the debate other than the constant barage of noise coming from us, the fans.

Baker is a slime ball Lib Dem who hedged his bets (qu'elle surprise) by saying that if Prescott says Yes he'll accept that decision. So why the f*** can't he accept the referendum result and the wishes of over 60,000 on the pro-Falmer petition. His actions (with support from Lewes DC) have cost The Albion dearly and I'll forever despise Baker and his cohorts.

This application shouldn't be going through this bullshit but it is and we're 3 years or more behind schedule.

When Falmer is built the club should issue life bans for all of those maggots that have opposed the plans.