The Norman Baker Phone In thread

[malcolm prescott]

well done all those who phoned in good arguments from the fans side and hopless defence from Baker, all the callers were fantastic

 

[ROSM]

Well what a day and night. I got to see Scott McGleish for 90 mins and the hear Norman Baker! Well for once, I think McGleish came second!

It was me that was first on and I have to say that it is a very difficult thing to do when you are dealing with an experienced, paid politician!

So to summarise and respond to some of the points I've read:

- This was a battle that before it took place we could only reasonably have expected a score draw from. Baker (as I mentioned based on the opinion of other Lib Dems) is trying to get us to see Perry as we saw Bellotti hence he is misquoting and being very selective in order that we turn on the board and therefore cause Falmer to fail.

I could have taken up the whole hour yesterday by picking the holes and errors of facts in his responses, but that is not possible. The best (we thought) we could do yesterday was to land some body blows. However having spoken to some non football fans who heard the phone in, they felt as neutrals that the fans won.

- In his initial answer to me, Baker made 3 errors of fact. In his subsequent answer he made 2 more (you can decide is they errors in understanding, errors because he either didn;t know or had forgotten or were they deliberately made!). However, I'm sure that Ian couldn't have allowed me to keep picking him up and taking the whole session.

- we have some huge admissions from him about his lack of support for LDC (if we can of course believe him) and that despite he wouldn't accept the word 'ally' he was very close to David Bellotti. Finally, even Baker the paragon of public transport cannot think of a way to get to Sheepcote without using his car.

- Some people have said that they felt he came across well. Indeed he would as that is what he does for a living. However, if you listen to the whole thing again you will see that he never answers the exact question asked. Again it will never be possible on a phone in to keep challenging someone on that, but he will now know that he is in a battle.

- I have read some of the comments about Martin Perry on this thread and I have to say that the person who would rather trust Baker (polished presentation but twisted facts) to Perry (maybe not so polished but at least has integrity) actually shows how this whole phone in charade was always going to be difficult and the only real winner would be Baker as realistically there are no falmer antis listening to win over but plenty of fans who could be swayed. Luckily, I dont think that has happened.

- Finally, the points that I know many people wanted to get across but perhaps couldn't get through will still stand. Baker knows they are still out there and we must challenge him.

I could if anybody is interested list the whole raft of his half truths and misinformation.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

actually shows how this whole phone in charade was always going to be difficult and the only real winner would be Baker as realistically

What do you mean Charade?

Ian asked NB to come on the phone in after MP appeared a few weeks ago following the Meridian report basically calling NB some namesr and someone intent on destroying the club. Fair play to NB for actually doing that.

Fair play also to Ian for getting MP to come on the show when it had been agreed before hand that NB would answer questions from " fans". This was following NB's comment that he has been in contact 3 times to the club who had ignored him.

Talking with some people at the ground yesterday ( not the Falmer for all people I might add) they were surprised that the phone in was a debate from people very close to the situation as opposed to the "fans". In that the callers who were on had already spoken at length and were involved with NB and the whole legal process.

In fact it was suggested that it was a shame this was not a hour long program one evening on SCR ...the bizzare cutting into the debate half way through to give Dean Wilkins inteview as an example that the show is a fans football phone in, not a political points scoring forum.

Unfortunately from where I was stood with hawsey, you could not hear the callers ( Jim was the last one) but I thought Ade and Jim came over very well as they should and Baker I got the impression was trying desparately to distance himself from LDC.

 

[BensGrandad]

I thought that you came across very well ROSM. I wish that could be said of MP who came across as a bag of wind with no idea or conviction, very poor performance from our Chief Executive. Why did he not try to nail Baker about the hotel report which he spent ages trying to convince everybody that it was totally irrelevant, but when given the opportunity to tell Baker, did not do so.

As a friend who is not a supporter said to me last night' I wouldnt be so sure of getting Falmer if that Martin whats his name is anything to go by'.

 

[ROSM]

What do you mean Charade?

Ian asked NB to come on the phone in after MP appeared a few weeks ago following the Meridian report basically calling NB some namesr and someone intent on destroying the club. Fair play to NB for actually doing that.

Fair play also to Ian for getting MP to come on the show when it had been agreed before hand that NB would answer questions from " fans". This was following NB's comment that he has been in contact 3 times to the club who had ignored him.

Talking with some people at the ground yesterday ( not the Falmer for all people I might add) they were surprised that the phone in was a debate from people very close to the situation as opposed to the "fans". In that the callers who were on had already spoken at length and were involved with NB and the whole legal process.

In fact it was suggested that it was a shame this was not a hour long program one evening on SCR ...the bizzare cutting into the debate half way through to give Dean Wilkins inteview as an example that the show is a fans football phone in, not a political points scoring forum.

Unfortunately from where I was stood with hawsey, you could not hear the callers ( Jim was the last one) but I thought Ade and Jim came over very well as they should and Baker I got the impression was trying desparately to distance himself from LDC.

Dave,

what I mean by charade is that it some cases it is far easier for someone to go somewhere where everybody is expected to be against him. You cannot lose, you can only gain. If baker convinced one Albion waverer yesterday then it is a victory for him.Also a phone in will never gve the length of debate required to really be incisive against a politician.

There were many on here before it happened questioning the wisdom of it taking place for the reasons given above. But take place it did and we did as well as could be expected in the circumstances.

And that is not a dig at SCR, harty or anybody. That is just a fact.

Also, just to be clear, I like all the callers had to ring in and book my call. I rang at 4.30 from the ground. Also it needs to be said that Paul Samrah didn;t get on despite calling in.

 

[ROSM]

I thought that you came across very well ROSM. I wish that could be said of MP who came across as a bag of wind with no idea or conviction, very poor performance from our Chief Executive. Why did he not try to nail Baker about the hotel report which he spent ages trying to convince everybody that it was totally irrelevant, but when given the opportunity to tell Baker, did not do so.

As a friend who is not a supporter said to me last night' I wouldnt be so sure of getting Falmer if that Martin whats his name is anything to go by'.

I personally think the hotel report had been done to death - it was proved that baker had selectively quoted and missed the whole conclusion. It was also proven that it was pre the second public inquiry and was part of the info required to fulfil the request from the ODPM. Baker was never going to say anything other than what he had an Jim had nailed him on it as had Bill and I.

Also, just question how fans are so informed about a legal process like planning to be able to challenge an MP? It is because of the work Perry has been doing for the last 7 years. You ask Southen fans what they know about the planning process and it will be less than your average albion fan.

Also, interestingly, Perry is obviously doing a sound job otherwise he would never have got us planning consent in the first place! And he will again.

 

[Screaming J]

- Finally, the points that I know many people wanted to get across but perhaps couldn't get through will still stand. Baker knows they are still out there and we must challenge him.

I could if anybody is interested list the whole raft of his half truths and misinformation.

Yes please!

 

[DIFFBROOK]

Martin Perry is our Chief Executive, the guy in charge of seeing Falmer through and we are in with a very decent chance of obtaining it. I think he has done a fantastic job.

What he is not (and he would be the first to admit), is a debater. I think it a bit harsh to expect a sparkling performance, when the guy was dragged from Withdean without preparation.

Norman Baker is an MP, well rehearsed in the art of debate. He would have been briefed to the high end by his researcher.

Its a testement to all that rang in, that despite his research, half truths were picked at. It showed up the weakness of his argument

 

[ROSM]

Yes please!

will post tomorrow as just logging off now

 

[Jim in the West]

Talking with some people at the ground yesterday ( not the Falmer for all people I might add) they were surprised that the phone in was a debate from people very close to the situation as opposed to the "fans". In that the callers who were on had already spoken at length and were involved with NB and the whole legal process.

In fact it was suggested that it was a shame this was not a hour long program one evening on SCR ...the bizzare cutting into the debate half way through to give Dean Wilkins inteview as an example that the show is a fans football phone in, not a political points scoring forum.

Unfortunately from where I was stood with hawsey, you could not hear the callers ( Jim was the last one) but I thought Ade and Jim came over very well as they should and Baker I got the impression was trying desparately to distance himself from LDC.

Dave, I'm sure you don't mean it this way, but you shouldn't be separating "fan" from someone who's informed about Falmer. There are plenty of fans who don't have the time or inclination to understand the whole planning thing, but a minority who follow it very closely. I guess I fall into this latter category. The last thing I wanted to do recently was spend hours trying to get to the bottom of this "secret" hotel report thing, generated quite scurrelously by Baker. However, once you start delving into it, you realise how shameless Baker is in his desire to misrepresent the truth. It's important issues like this are debated on the air, and elsewhere. Unfortunately, I think if the phone-in had simply been a selection of "ordinary" fans, Baker would have made mince-meat out of them. And I agree that the subject matter deserved a far longer debate. Anyway, as Adrian has said, we now have some decent ammunition to throw back in Baker's face.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

Jim.

I was just statng what people had been saying around me.

As I said, because Perry had come on the show, I couldnt hear what had been said from you onwards.

Personally I thought you and Ade came over very well...

...and Baker came over as all politicians, ie good at arguing and manouvering the concersations around to make his point. His opening gambit I though spoke volumes.

But as I said, at least it got over the Seagull Party views to a wider audience that just a Lewes audience and now peopel do realise that we have very capable articulate people on our side.

Your point about ordinary fans brings me back to my original point....it is the fans phone in primerily about the game just witnessed.

I would have preferred a debate on air on SCR on an evening that allowed time ( not having the DW interview intervene)

That is a personal opinion and I know something that would probably not have happened

But you ae right...from what people have said afterwards, you guys got your point over extremely well

 

[BensGrandad]

I personally think the hotel report had been done to death - it was proved that baker had selectively quoted and missed the whole conclusion. It was also proven that it was pre the second public inquiry and was part of the info required to fulfil the request from the ODPM. Baker was never going to say anything other than what he had an Jim had nailed him on it as had Bill and I.

Also, just question how fans are so informed about a legal process like planning to be able to challenge an MP? It is because of the work Perry has been doing for the last 7 years. You ask Southen fans what they know about the planning process and it will be less than your average albion fan.

Also, interestingly, Perry is obviously doing a sound job otherwise he would never have got us planning consent in the first place! And he will again.

I am not disputing the amount of work , time and technical know how that MP has put into Falmer, what I am concerned about is the way that he perceived by people outside of the club and its supporters.

The 2 points that Baker made were:
1. He was not responsible for the legal challenge and would have accepted the decision by JP. The legal challenge was entirely down to LDC.

2. That the board were acting dishonestly about the hotel consultation. Also that he couldnt arrange to meet the board to discuss issues.

Whether or not this was designed to try to create a divide between the supporters and the board only Baker knows, but at least MP could have won some points by tackling him on the issue and putting the records straight. It was on this front that I feel that he failed. He made a feeble attempt to discredit Baker about not being able to arrange a meeting but was not very convincing.

To a total outsider, like my 87 year old mother, Baker won on points.

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

I am not disputing the amount of work , time and technical know how that MP has put into Falmer, what I am concerned about is the way that he perceived by people outside of the club and its supporters.

The 2 points that Baker made were:
1. He was not responsible for the legal challenge and would have accepted the decision by JP. The legal challenge was entirely down to LDC.

2. That the board were acting dishonestly about the hotel consultation. Also that he couldnt arrange to meet the board to discuss issues.

Whether or not this was designed to try to create a divide between the supporters and the board only Baker knows, but at least MP could have won some points by tackling him on the issue and putting the records straight. It was on this front that I feel that he failed. He made a feeble attempt to discredit Baker about not being able to arrange a meeting but was not very convincing.

To a total outsider, like my 87 year old mother, Baker won on points.

To be fair to Martin Perry, I suspect he is absolutely frustrated and fed up to the back teeth about having to keep repeating the clubs position. No matter how often he does this, some people, either deliberately or not, continue to bring up all sorts of different comments, some valid but many not.

I know I would be extremely frustrated in his position, and would be longing to shout at the top of my voice "DON'T YOU PEOPLE EVER F***ING LISTEN?!

Its hardly surprising that occasionally he sounds a bit pissed off with everything.

Hang on in there Martin, it will be OK. Trust me, I'm a salesman

 

[British Bulldog]

The 2 points that Baker made were:
1. He was not responsible for the legal challenge and would have accepted the decision by JP. The legal challenge was entirely down to LDC.

2. That the board were acting dishonestly about the hotel consultation. Also that he couldnt arrange to meet the board to discuss issues.

If (1.) Baker has had nothing to do with LDC's legal challenge to the decision then why (2.) Is Baker fishing around trying to find thing's to discredit the board? Baker is nothing but a lieing politician who will say or do anything to make himself look good when it suits him! Make no mistake Baker is just interested in self preservation and nothing else!

 

[Lord Bracknell]

...

2. That the board were acting dishonestly about the hotel consultation. Also that he couldnt arrange to meet the board to discuss issues.

Whether or not this was designed to try to create a divide between the supporters and the board only Baker knows, but at least MP could have won some points by tackling him on the issue and putting the records straight. It was on this front that I feel that he failed.

Given that Jim in the West had already completely demolished Baker's "disingenuous" stance on the hotel issue, it was surely better for Martin Perry to tackle Baker on the other issues where his position is weak. For the Club to keep banging on about the hotel thing would run the risk of suggesting that Baker had a point.

 

[BensGrandad]

Tis a matter of personal opinion and how am I an ex publican expected to know the best way to tackle a professional politician/liar,as they are alleged to be. Hence I wouldnt phone in and left it to 'the experts' who I must say generally did a good job. Baker would have torn me to pieces with my limited knowledge. That is what has slightly impaired my view of the phone in that MP is one of those expertsand as the school reports used to say ' could have done better'.

 

[The Large One]

At the end of the day, Martin Perry will 'win his points' where it matters - in the Public Inquiries, in the High Court and with the Government.

The points-scoring to the public and electorate is in reality the preserve of the FFA team as a whole (and that does include Perry obviously), the Albion fans generally, and the people who have the balls to stand as Seagulls Party candidates in Lewes next Spring which will feature an election campaign that will doubtless be quite spiteful - at least from the Lib Dem side it will.

 

[jakes right boot]

Tis a matter of personal opinion and how am I an ex publican expected to know the best way to tackle a professional politician/liar,as they are alleged to be. Hence I wouldnt phone in and left it to 'the experts' who I must say generally did a good job. Baker would have torn me to pieces with my limited knowledge. That is what has slightly impaired my view of the phone in that MP is one of those expertsand as the school reports used to say ' could have done better'.

How do you know if you have limited knowledge?

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Are there any plans to advertise the fact in the Lewes District (Sussex Express?) that LDC are now being hung out to dry by their local MP?

Since he says that he didn't support the Legal challenge LDC are now on their own.

Methinks he knows he's backed a loser and is now quickly tring to distance himself from LDC.

Tosser

 

[Lammy]

Is this available as a podcast anywhere? I've taken a quick peek at the SCR sight but I couldn't find one