Paul Samrah's reference to my views on the proposed football stadium at Falmer (Letters, April 1) was not, presumably, an April Fool's joke, although it was far from accurate.

Apart from the general misrepresentation of my views, I take strong exception to his use of speech marks, thereby implying he was quoting directly my words from the inquiry. He was not.

It is ludicrous to suggest I said either I would rather die or would rather the club die in preference to Falmer being built upon.

One might also ask why, if I did make such a sensationalist statement, The Argus did not feature it as the headline to the story published the next day.

The answer, of course, is that the reporter from The Argus who was present throughout is a professional journalist who reports the facts, unlike those responsible for the Albion's web site, who, sadly, seem to want to twist matters to suit their cause.

Those who wish to know what I actually said can read the accurate report in The Argus or ask me for a copy of the statement I read out.

I certainly told the public inquiry I oppose a stadium at Falmer for the many reasons I set out at length on that day.

I value Brighton and Hove Albion and want them to survive and prosper but I have every confidence they will do so even if a Falmer stadium does not go ahead.

As I told the inquiry, there are many other options, including staying at Withdean.

The club's barrister, when he cross-examined me, chose to construct this house of cards that it was all or nothing - Falmer or the extinction of the club.

That is a ridiculous hypothesis, as I made clear. But then he knows the case for Falmer is much weaker if he admits there may be other solutions.

It is not a choice of the Albion or Falmer. I firmly want both and firmly believe we can have both.

I gave my answers in that context.

The club's barrister also argued that the club will go out of business if Falmer is rejected. Really? How can a club which is apparently able to finance a huge stadium at Falmer suddenly be bankrupt if they don't spend it?

I readily accept there are arguments both for and against Falmer. I, too, value and admire the club.

I also, however, have to consider the damage such a stadium will cause the local environment and, particularly, the effect it will have on my constituents in Falmer village.

I accept many have concluded the Falmer proposal should be supported. Having thought about the matter very carefully over a long time, I cannot agree with them but I respect their honestly held views.

Is it too much to ask the same courtesy will be afforded to others who take a contrary view?

In particular, I would ask that those who wish to criticise me do so on the basis of the position I honestly hold rather than the inaccurate and sensationalist words ascribed to me by others.

-Norman Baker MP House of Commons, London SW1