Publius Ovidius
Well-known member
there is a link above to an MP3 someone made
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
The Norman Baker Phone In thread
- Thread starter El Presidente
- Start date
Lammy
Registered Abuser
Got it. thanks.
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
ROSM said:
Are you going to post your full Baker nit-picking, as I'm interested to hear it?
BensGrandad
New member
A fellow who I go to the games with, told me on Saturday, that being a Lib Dem supporter he received a mailshot type letter saying how impressed the Lib Dem leadership were with the demonstration etc at their conference and have ordered Baker to back off for fear of losing votes in this area.
Dont know the exact contents of the letter but that was how it was transposed to me. Anybody else either received it or read it?
Dont know the exact contents of the letter but that was how it was transposed to me. Anybody else either received it or read it?
ROSM
Well-known member
Curious Orange said:
will do - have been snowed under with work!
Superseagull
Well-known member
- Jul 8, 2003
- 2,122
Mellor 3 Ward 4 said:
I think that it is no coincidence that since the Lib Dem conference....
1. Baker is doing everything he can to distance himself from LDC.
2. LDC dropped the High Court case & now seem to be ready to accept Ruth Kellys decision.
I wonder whether a few senior Lib Dems were not too impressed to see what Baker & his LDC friends were up to and have put pressure on them to stop the anti Falmer actions.
Good work Falmer for all team!
BensGrandad
New member
Superseagull said:
See my post above, this is exactly what I was told.
Gilliver's Travels
Peripatetic
If that's what happened, it's absolute gold dust. Obvious questions: who sent the letter out, and how widely was it circulated?BensGrandad said:
Can't you go back to your friend, BG, get hold of a copy, and post it here?
ROSM
Well-known member
Here are the Norman Baker errors, inconsistencies and generally being disingenuous list from Saturday in the order he said it. I'll leave you to work out what he didn't know, what he's forgotten and what he deliberately misrepresented!
Some of these were picked up during the phone in but the logistics of getting callers on and also the way that you got to ask a question, got and answer then asked another question before getting an answer meant that some didn't get challenged.
His statement followed by response in CAPS
He claimed he thinks it is the majority view in his constituency to oppose the stadium
WRONG - HE HAS NEVER ASKED! IT IS LIKELY THAT MOST NEITHER SUPPORT OR OBJECT AND THAT IS WHERE HE HAS GAMBLED INCORRECTLY ON THIS. THE REAL QUESTION IS HOW MANY SUPPORT THE OBJECTION OF LDC - AND THAT MAY EXPLAIN HIS STANCE ON SATURDAy OF DISTANCING HIMSELF FROM THE LDC DECISION
was he a close ally of David Bellotti?
HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY ANSWER THIS BUT GAVE A LONG RESPONSE ABOUT BEING A FELLOW COUNTY COUNCILLOR AND WORKING FOR HIM AS A CASE WORKER WHEN HE WAS LIB DEM MP - I WOULD THINK THAT TAKING THE KINGS SHILLING AND WORKING FOR SOMEONE SURELY MAKES YOU AN ALLY. I'LL LEAVE YOU TO WORK OUT HOW MUCH THIS HAS AFFECTED HIS VIEW OF ALBION FANS!
he said he though that bellotti was wrong and that this was the root of our problems
DESPITE BEING A SENIOR COUNTY COUNCILLOR FOR ESCC WHO WERE AT THE TIME IN CHARGE OF A NUMBER OF BRIGHTON AND HOVE ISSUES AND BEING PART OF LEWES DISTRIcT COUNCIL HE SAID NOTHING AT THE TIME TO CRITICISE BELLOTTI. HE ALSO IN THE PAST HAS CLAIMED THAT THIS BOARD HAS BROUGHT THE SITUATION ON OURSELVES RATHER THAN ACCEPT THEY INHERITED IT.
he was questioned why he told the lib dem conference that only a couple of hundred albion fans campaigned outside on the Sunday instead of the 1500 official figure
HE CLAIMED THAT THE POLICE TOLD HIM 500. HOWEVER THE BBC QUOTE CLEARLY STATES HE SAID A COUPLE OF HUNDRED. WHY DID HE DOWNSCALE 500 TO 200? WHY WOULD THE POLICE SAY THAT THERE WERE 500 INSTEAD OF THEIR OFFICIAL FIGURE OF 1500? SURELY AN MP WHO KNEW THAT PEOPLE WERE CAMPAIGNING GAINST HIM WOULD CHECK HIS FACTS? ALSO, THERE WERE ONLY A HANDFUL OF POLICE WHO WERE COVERING THE CONFERENCE AND THEY KNEW THERE WERE AT LEAST 1500.
ALL IN ALL, HE DELIBERATELY DOWNSIZED OUR NUMBER EVEN BY HIS OWN ADMISSION!
He answered a question of his votes and that his majority stood at 8500 when he said people had told him he would lose
HE ANSWERED A QUESTION THAT WASN'T ASKED! HE ALSO FAILED TO MENTION THAT HIS VOTE REDUCED BY 4% WHEN THE LIB DEM AVERAGE IN BRITAIN WENT UP BY 4%.
He said that the hotel report was only just before the second public inquiry and that the club selected the sites to look at in effect the cub were seeking sheepcote
THE HOTEL CONSULTANTS REPORT WAS COMMISSIONED 2 MONTHS AFTER THE LETTER FROM THE ODPM ASKING TO REOPEN THE INQUIRY AND 4 MONTHS BEFORE IT REOPENED. THE SITES IN QUESTION WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE ODPM LETTER AND WERE THE SITES MOST PUT FORWARD BY LDC AND FALMER PARISH COUNCIL
He said the report identified sheepcote valley as the best site for a stadium and hotel
THE REPORT LISTED A NUMBER OF CONSTRAINTS AS TO WHY SHEEPCOTE WOULD FAIL AND STATED THAT ONLY IF THESE COULD BE OVERCOME COULD IT BE THE BEST SITE FOR A HOTEL AND STADIUM. THIS LIST OF 'IFs' ARE VERY RESTRICTIVE AND INVOLVE EAST BRIGHTON PARK BEING TURNED INTO A HUGE LEISURE COMPLEX ALMOST AS BIG AS THE MARINA AND FOR TRANSPORT AND ACCESS TO BE RADICALLY OVERHAULED WHICH THE SECOND INQUIRY CLEARLY STATED WAS NOT POSSIBLE. THIS WOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN TOTALLY AGAINST THE BRIGHTON AND HOVE LOCAL PLAN AND THE CPRE CAMPAIGN TO PROTECT SHEEPCOTE.
he said the club has been dishonest to say falmer or die when in fact they were looking at falmer or sheepcote
THE CLUB'S STANCE WAS BORNE OUT WHEN THE SECOND PUBLIC INQUIRY WHICH RULED THAT THERE WERE NO ALTERNATIVES TO FALMER WHICH WOULD GET PLANNING PERMISSION. ALSO IT WAS OPPONENTS WHO NAMED SHEEPCOTE AND THE CLUB WERE UNDERTAKING THE WORK TO TEST THE VIABILITY AS REQUESTED BY THE ODPM.
he says the data wasn't used
NOT CORRECT - AT THE INQUIRY THE CLUB STATED THAT IN TERMS OF CONTSTRUCTION AND INCOME, SHEEPCOTE WAS VIABLE. IN MY OPINION WITHOUT THE WORK INTO ALTERNATIVE ADDITIONAL FUNDING THEY COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THIS CASE. HOWEVER SHEEPCOTE WAS RULED OUT BY THE INSPECTOR ON TRANSPORT AND ACCESS GROUNDS AS THE CLUB ALWAY SAID IT WOULD BE
he said two inspectors said falmer was completely wrong
INCORRECT - ONE RULED ON THE LOCAL PLAN AND THE OTHER ON THE APPLICATION (CONCURRENTLY) NEITHER SAID IT WAS COMPLETELY WRONG AND THE ONE ON THE APPLICATION RULED REFUSAL ON THE GROUNDS THAT HE FELT THERE WERE ALTERNATIVES (NOW PROVED INCORRECT) AND THAT IT WAS NOT IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST (NOW OVERRULED BY ODPM). THEY BOTH ACCEPTED LARGE CHUNKS OF THE EVIDENCE AS VALID AND THIS RULES AGAINST THE PHRASE USED BY BAKER OF 'COMPLETELY WRONG'.
he says the third inspector only 'grudgingly agreed'
WRONG - YOU CANNOT SAY THAT IT WAS GRUDGING AS THE WRITTEN WORD IS CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL- THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVES
he says the club brought sheepcote into the debate
WRONG - THE CLUB HAD RULED IT OUT IN THE SEQUENTIAL TESTS OF 1999 AND 2001 AND 2003. IT CAME BACK INTO THE DEBATE AS LDC AND FPC HAD RAISED IT IN THE FIRST PUBLIC INQUIRY AND THE ODPM INCLUDED IT IN THE TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE REOPENED ONE IN 2004.
he says he would drive and walk to sheepcote
THE DEFENDER OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND PARAGON OF GREENNESS CANNOT THINK OF A WAY TO GET TO SHEEPCOTE WITHOUT USING NON SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT!
he claims based on evidence by the hotel consultants that the station at falmer cannot cope
THE HOTEL CONSULTANTS (NOT TRANSPORT CONSULTANTS) BASED THIS ON ALL SPECTATORS (17000 AVERAGE) USING TRAINS - WRONG! THE SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT MODEL IS BASED ON A SPLIT OF CAR, BUS, PARK AND RIDE, CYCLE, WALK AND RAIL TRANSPORT. WITH OVER 3000 EXISTING SPACES AT JUST UNDER 3 A CAR AND THE PARK AND RIDE PLUS STAGGERED DEPARTURE, THERE WILL BE ONLY A SMALL PROPORTION 17000 USING THE STATION AT ANY ONE TIME. PERHAPS HE SHOULD COUNT THEM JUDGING BY HIS ACCURACY ON PEOPLE IN CROWDS! (SEE LIB DEM CONFERENCE ANSWER)
he claims he wouldn't have known of the club inviting him to meet them
WRONG - HE EMPLOYS A MEDIA MONITORING COMPANY WHO COVER EVERY RADIO SOUNDBITE AND PAPER CUTTING THAT MENTIONS HIS NAME, HE WOULD BE AWARE OF THE CLUB REQUESTS VIA THE BBC!
finally he , when backed into a corner, claimed that people were 'ascribing ill motives' to him and that he was suffering personal abuse and being denigrated.
WRONG - THE PHONE IN WAS POLITE AND INFORMED. HE FELT HEMMED IN AND TRIED TO PLAY THE INJURED PARTY. IF HE WANTS TO SEE INJURED, JUST ASK DEREK CHAPMAN!
Some of these were picked up during the phone in but the logistics of getting callers on and also the way that you got to ask a question, got and answer then asked another question before getting an answer meant that some didn't get challenged.
His statement followed by response in CAPS
He claimed he thinks it is the majority view in his constituency to oppose the stadium
WRONG - HE HAS NEVER ASKED! IT IS LIKELY THAT MOST NEITHER SUPPORT OR OBJECT AND THAT IS WHERE HE HAS GAMBLED INCORRECTLY ON THIS. THE REAL QUESTION IS HOW MANY SUPPORT THE OBJECTION OF LDC - AND THAT MAY EXPLAIN HIS STANCE ON SATURDAy OF DISTANCING HIMSELF FROM THE LDC DECISION
was he a close ally of David Bellotti?
HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY ANSWER THIS BUT GAVE A LONG RESPONSE ABOUT BEING A FELLOW COUNTY COUNCILLOR AND WORKING FOR HIM AS A CASE WORKER WHEN HE WAS LIB DEM MP - I WOULD THINK THAT TAKING THE KINGS SHILLING AND WORKING FOR SOMEONE SURELY MAKES YOU AN ALLY. I'LL LEAVE YOU TO WORK OUT HOW MUCH THIS HAS AFFECTED HIS VIEW OF ALBION FANS!
he said he though that bellotti was wrong and that this was the root of our problems
DESPITE BEING A SENIOR COUNTY COUNCILLOR FOR ESCC WHO WERE AT THE TIME IN CHARGE OF A NUMBER OF BRIGHTON AND HOVE ISSUES AND BEING PART OF LEWES DISTRIcT COUNCIL HE SAID NOTHING AT THE TIME TO CRITICISE BELLOTTI. HE ALSO IN THE PAST HAS CLAIMED THAT THIS BOARD HAS BROUGHT THE SITUATION ON OURSELVES RATHER THAN ACCEPT THEY INHERITED IT.
he was questioned why he told the lib dem conference that only a couple of hundred albion fans campaigned outside on the Sunday instead of the 1500 official figure
HE CLAIMED THAT THE POLICE TOLD HIM 500. HOWEVER THE BBC QUOTE CLEARLY STATES HE SAID A COUPLE OF HUNDRED. WHY DID HE DOWNSCALE 500 TO 200? WHY WOULD THE POLICE SAY THAT THERE WERE 500 INSTEAD OF THEIR OFFICIAL FIGURE OF 1500? SURELY AN MP WHO KNEW THAT PEOPLE WERE CAMPAIGNING GAINST HIM WOULD CHECK HIS FACTS? ALSO, THERE WERE ONLY A HANDFUL OF POLICE WHO WERE COVERING THE CONFERENCE AND THEY KNEW THERE WERE AT LEAST 1500.
ALL IN ALL, HE DELIBERATELY DOWNSIZED OUR NUMBER EVEN BY HIS OWN ADMISSION!
He answered a question of his votes and that his majority stood at 8500 when he said people had told him he would lose
HE ANSWERED A QUESTION THAT WASN'T ASKED! HE ALSO FAILED TO MENTION THAT HIS VOTE REDUCED BY 4% WHEN THE LIB DEM AVERAGE IN BRITAIN WENT UP BY 4%.
He said that the hotel report was only just before the second public inquiry and that the club selected the sites to look at in effect the cub were seeking sheepcote
THE HOTEL CONSULTANTS REPORT WAS COMMISSIONED 2 MONTHS AFTER THE LETTER FROM THE ODPM ASKING TO REOPEN THE INQUIRY AND 4 MONTHS BEFORE IT REOPENED. THE SITES IN QUESTION WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE ODPM LETTER AND WERE THE SITES MOST PUT FORWARD BY LDC AND FALMER PARISH COUNCIL
He said the report identified sheepcote valley as the best site for a stadium and hotel
THE REPORT LISTED A NUMBER OF CONSTRAINTS AS TO WHY SHEEPCOTE WOULD FAIL AND STATED THAT ONLY IF THESE COULD BE OVERCOME COULD IT BE THE BEST SITE FOR A HOTEL AND STADIUM. THIS LIST OF 'IFs' ARE VERY RESTRICTIVE AND INVOLVE EAST BRIGHTON PARK BEING TURNED INTO A HUGE LEISURE COMPLEX ALMOST AS BIG AS THE MARINA AND FOR TRANSPORT AND ACCESS TO BE RADICALLY OVERHAULED WHICH THE SECOND INQUIRY CLEARLY STATED WAS NOT POSSIBLE. THIS WOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN TOTALLY AGAINST THE BRIGHTON AND HOVE LOCAL PLAN AND THE CPRE CAMPAIGN TO PROTECT SHEEPCOTE.
he said the club has been dishonest to say falmer or die when in fact they were looking at falmer or sheepcote
THE CLUB'S STANCE WAS BORNE OUT WHEN THE SECOND PUBLIC INQUIRY WHICH RULED THAT THERE WERE NO ALTERNATIVES TO FALMER WHICH WOULD GET PLANNING PERMISSION. ALSO IT WAS OPPONENTS WHO NAMED SHEEPCOTE AND THE CLUB WERE UNDERTAKING THE WORK TO TEST THE VIABILITY AS REQUESTED BY THE ODPM.
he says the data wasn't used
NOT CORRECT - AT THE INQUIRY THE CLUB STATED THAT IN TERMS OF CONTSTRUCTION AND INCOME, SHEEPCOTE WAS VIABLE. IN MY OPINION WITHOUT THE WORK INTO ALTERNATIVE ADDITIONAL FUNDING THEY COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THIS CASE. HOWEVER SHEEPCOTE WAS RULED OUT BY THE INSPECTOR ON TRANSPORT AND ACCESS GROUNDS AS THE CLUB ALWAY SAID IT WOULD BE
he said two inspectors said falmer was completely wrong
INCORRECT - ONE RULED ON THE LOCAL PLAN AND THE OTHER ON THE APPLICATION (CONCURRENTLY) NEITHER SAID IT WAS COMPLETELY WRONG AND THE ONE ON THE APPLICATION RULED REFUSAL ON THE GROUNDS THAT HE FELT THERE WERE ALTERNATIVES (NOW PROVED INCORRECT) AND THAT IT WAS NOT IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST (NOW OVERRULED BY ODPM). THEY BOTH ACCEPTED LARGE CHUNKS OF THE EVIDENCE AS VALID AND THIS RULES AGAINST THE PHRASE USED BY BAKER OF 'COMPLETELY WRONG'.
he says the third inspector only 'grudgingly agreed'
WRONG - YOU CANNOT SAY THAT IT WAS GRUDGING AS THE WRITTEN WORD IS CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL- THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVES
he says the club brought sheepcote into the debate
WRONG - THE CLUB HAD RULED IT OUT IN THE SEQUENTIAL TESTS OF 1999 AND 2001 AND 2003. IT CAME BACK INTO THE DEBATE AS LDC AND FPC HAD RAISED IT IN THE FIRST PUBLIC INQUIRY AND THE ODPM INCLUDED IT IN THE TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE REOPENED ONE IN 2004.
he says he would drive and walk to sheepcote
THE DEFENDER OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND PARAGON OF GREENNESS CANNOT THINK OF A WAY TO GET TO SHEEPCOTE WITHOUT USING NON SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT!
he claims based on evidence by the hotel consultants that the station at falmer cannot cope
THE HOTEL CONSULTANTS (NOT TRANSPORT CONSULTANTS) BASED THIS ON ALL SPECTATORS (17000 AVERAGE) USING TRAINS - WRONG! THE SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT MODEL IS BASED ON A SPLIT OF CAR, BUS, PARK AND RIDE, CYCLE, WALK AND RAIL TRANSPORT. WITH OVER 3000 EXISTING SPACES AT JUST UNDER 3 A CAR AND THE PARK AND RIDE PLUS STAGGERED DEPARTURE, THERE WILL BE ONLY A SMALL PROPORTION 17000 USING THE STATION AT ANY ONE TIME. PERHAPS HE SHOULD COUNT THEM JUDGING BY HIS ACCURACY ON PEOPLE IN CROWDS! (SEE LIB DEM CONFERENCE ANSWER)
he claims he wouldn't have known of the club inviting him to meet them
WRONG - HE EMPLOYS A MEDIA MONITORING COMPANY WHO COVER EVERY RADIO SOUNDBITE AND PAPER CUTTING THAT MENTIONS HIS NAME, HE WOULD BE AWARE OF THE CLUB REQUESTS VIA THE BBC!
finally he , when backed into a corner, claimed that people were 'ascribing ill motives' to him and that he was suffering personal abuse and being denigrated.
WRONG - THE PHONE IN WAS POLITE AND INFORMED. HE FELT HEMMED IN AND TRIED TO PLAY THE INJURED PARTY. IF HE WANTS TO SEE INJURED, JUST ASK DEREK CHAPMAN!
Last edited:
BensGrandad
New member
Gilliver's Travels said:
I will get back to him to see if he still has it, he said Saturday that he didnt think to bring it to show me and had he known Baker was on SCR he have done so and phoned in. There is a possibility that he may have it still.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
Excellent stuff, ROSM.
I'm not one to promote the writings of Baker, but if anyone wants to check out the consultants' report in full, it can be found on Baker's website (together with his press release):-
http://www.normanbaker.org.uk/press_releases/2006/060210_Falmer.htm
People can draw their own conclusions about the general expertise of the hotel consultancy from statements like this one - "At best [Falmer] station can accommodate 20-30 people on the platform" - a bizarre piece of analysis that is disproved every day of the week. These hotel consultants are the ONLY people who seem to be under the impression that a wave of a magic wand is all that is needed to overcome transport problems at Sheepcote Valley.
I'm not one to promote the writings of Baker, but if anyone wants to check out the consultants' report in full, it can be found on Baker's website (together with his press release):-
http://www.normanbaker.org.uk/press_releases/2006/060210_Falmer.htm
People can draw their own conclusions about the general expertise of the hotel consultancy from statements like this one - "At best [Falmer] station can accommodate 20-30 people on the platform" - a bizarre piece of analysis that is disproved every day of the week. These hotel consultants are the ONLY people who seem to be under the impression that a wave of a magic wand is all that is needed to overcome transport problems at Sheepcote Valley.
ROSM
Well-known member
Lord Bracknell said:
what also need to be remembered is that this entry on his website is dated 2 oct which is 5 days after he briefed meridian with only apects of the data and 3 days after the argus pointed out the missing quotes. he placed this full info on his website after the articles were broadcast and published to give himself an air of being clean. Despite the fact he had misled one and tried to mislead another news organisation.
Screaming J
He'll put a spell on you
ROSM said:
Aye, and he'll suffer a whole lot more if he keeps coming out with the sort of lying bollocks that he did on Saturday!
ROSM
Well-known member
it's worth listening to mp3 of the phone in again.Particularly the bit where Baker lies about the number at the rally - claiming he said 500 on police info, when in fact he said 200 (and I doubt the police told him 500 anyway).
it goes to show just how he doesn't even flinch when he tells one. It kind of makes you doubt every thing else he says - like not being involved in the decision to challenge!
it goes to show just how he doesn't even flinch when he tells one. It kind of makes you doubt every thing else he says - like not being involved in the decision to challenge!
London Irish
Well-known member
BensGrandad said:
Do your best BG, if it was posted to just Lib Dem supporters, obviously its circulation might be quite limited
London Irish
Well-known member
Having listened to the phone-in recording again today, I'm surprised that a few on here have said the outcome was a score-draw. While I accept that no huge knock-out blow was struck on Baker, for me it was more him suffering a death by a thousand cuts.
All the points raised by callers had him on the defensive most of the time, and to be fair to Harty, some of his introductory questions did too - that is a real acheivement given the guest (Baker) has a great opportunity to set the agenda of the debate because he has so many bites at the cherry in terms of speaking.
Baker went on with a clear agenda of trying to soft-peddle his own opposition to Falmer and instead create divisions between fans and board over the hotel report, yet that agenda was clearly exposed by the initial callers and the role of the board defended marvellously, and the true context of the hotel consultants' report explained fully.
In between, several telling blows were struck on him, his relationship with Belotti, his mischaracterisation of the demo numbers, his inability to describe a sustainable travel route to Sheepcote and his very sectional kow-towing to a small number of voters in his constituency rather than addressing the wider interests of all Sussex residents.
Baker was clearly knocked out of his stride by the relentless parries and thrusts of the callers. For example, at one point you hear Baker say he would address the transport difficulties (in fact, disaster) of Sheepcote, yet he never returned to the subject, leaving the club's position on this key question completely unchallenged and hence vindicated.
It was a sign of his desperation that he made the appeal near the end of the phone-in for people not to "impute ill motives" to his opposition to the stadium.
This was perhaps our only missed opportunity of the phone-in, but there was simply little time left for someone to point out that imputing ill motives to supporters of the stadium has been his ONLY media tactic since Prescott gave the thumbs-up - whether that be the Hull home game (imputing ill motives to Prescott and the board), the Prescott visit to Adenstar (imputing ill motives to Chapman and Prescott) and the hotel report (imputing ill motives to the board).
All the points raised by callers had him on the defensive most of the time, and to be fair to Harty, some of his introductory questions did too - that is a real acheivement given the guest (Baker) has a great opportunity to set the agenda of the debate because he has so many bites at the cherry in terms of speaking.
Baker went on with a clear agenda of trying to soft-peddle his own opposition to Falmer and instead create divisions between fans and board over the hotel report, yet that agenda was clearly exposed by the initial callers and the role of the board defended marvellously, and the true context of the hotel consultants' report explained fully.
In between, several telling blows were struck on him, his relationship with Belotti, his mischaracterisation of the demo numbers, his inability to describe a sustainable travel route to Sheepcote and his very sectional kow-towing to a small number of voters in his constituency rather than addressing the wider interests of all Sussex residents.
Baker was clearly knocked out of his stride by the relentless parries and thrusts of the callers. For example, at one point you hear Baker say he would address the transport difficulties (in fact, disaster) of Sheepcote, yet he never returned to the subject, leaving the club's position on this key question completely unchallenged and hence vindicated.
It was a sign of his desperation that he made the appeal near the end of the phone-in for people not to "impute ill motives" to his opposition to the stadium.
This was perhaps our only missed opportunity of the phone-in, but there was simply little time left for someone to point out that imputing ill motives to supporters of the stadium has been his ONLY media tactic since Prescott gave the thumbs-up - whether that be the Hull home game (imputing ill motives to Prescott and the board), the Prescott visit to Adenstar (imputing ill motives to Chapman and Prescott) and the hotel report (imputing ill motives to the board).