Thursday, 13 March 2014

Why. Because I'm worried this chap is negotiating £800 million that should be for the community and local economy down to £200 milion.

Below is an e-mail exchange between myself and Keith Baker complete with spelling mistakes starting at the bottom on the 17th of July. Best to work your way up.

Why have I posted this. Well yesterday the Wokingham Times removed a comment referring to this situation and Keith, as dishonest as usual, ties to give the public impression that he has not idea why he has been singled out as dishonest. I hope this and other posts evidence the history that he started when he first decided to block the filming of the South Wokingham Public forum I had requested to film after I found the comment "I am here to facilitate this development, not solve your traffic problems" was not in the minutes.

I then started looking for why such secretive people were 'volunteering' to represent the public so aggressively.


I am so surprised you would not post my comment on your blog! Clearly you do not want to publicise my comments in the interest of transparency. 

You say you blogged my lie. If that is the case then you should be transparent and add my side to your accusation. But you absolutely refuse to do this. I wonder why?

Your wild accusations are completely baseless and get more and more ludicrous each response. 

It is absolutely clear that you will never be prepared to provide evidence of your accusations and to be prepared to allow me to state my side of the argument. 

Therefore I am going to leave you with your fantasy world and I'll take my chances with residents. 

Best wishes


Sent from my iPhone

On 22 Jun 2013, at 03:23 PM, Kazek Lokuciewski  wrote:

I would like to but you appear to be trying to have your cake and eat it. None of your public consultayions have been suitably advertised and there is no honest accointable recordbof whatbis said. This was your choice. Every week I get an e-mail from the school with the events coming up this month. I have a loggin for school places. To have an input in negotiations over the who gets what of around of £1.3 billion of planning profit...nothing.

Speaking at tge school Fete today. Nopne knows anything and guess what. It is your job to hold a 'public' consultation and onvite the public in duvh a way that the majority may be awaire. And if you deligate it to a strategic partner then it is their responsibility.

As yet this has not been dpne and I've yet to speak to a real memeber of the public who feels it has.

But I guess you don't care abput that and will continue not to right this wrong.

So. Lets get this straight. I do not wish to blog. I blogged your lie. I did not sell your excuses

But people like me are needed to expose people like you seem to be. The Wokingham Times left out my condemnatoon how tge public is made aware abd my call to arms.

It would appear that investigative reporting is off limits and therefore I can only assume you have control of that too.

I may be wrong. But only your actions can proove it.

Regarding the point. You know the puublic are nit filmed yet continue to labour the same point. Never try to quard the concerns of the person you have invented. Thus you flag yourself as acting as one corrup would once more.

I go away when you do your civic duty.

On 22 Jun 2013 11:36, "KJ Baker"  wrote:
So you agree to publish in full on your blog then. 

Sent from my iPhone

On 22 Jun 2013, at 10:51 AM, Kazek Lokuciewski  wrote:

Yes. I have nothing to hide. Share it all.

On 22 Jun 2013 09:37, "Keith Baker"  wrote:
I had always believed you were basically an honest person and actually believed in total transparency in this whole scenario. After all this is the whole thrust of your argument. Whilst we have differing views about the rights of the individuals attending any of these meetings I have never personally objected to anyone filming.  However, your action on your BLOG when I posted a comment has significantly changed my opinion.
That posting was totally factual, did not contain any insults or implied criticism of you but you decided to ignore the posting totally and extract a sentence, out of context, in to your own commentary. Where is the openness or transparency in this? In not publishing this in your BLOG you are doing precisely what you have constantly accused me of. You are shielding your readers from facts that are counter to your argument. I think you call it evidence.
In contrast I have a track record of doing precisely what I have always said I would do. If everyone in attendance was in agreement then filming was allowed otherwise it would not.  As you acknowledge the last North Wokingham Forum was filmed which cuts right across your accusations on me. If what you accuse me of doing then why would I allow this one to be filmed, after all as you have previously accused me of I could have arranged for a simple plant to say no.
You say below:
All communication between you I and your friends will be public as your character is very much in the public interest
Which is very interesting as you declined to put my full posting on your blog. So I guess this means that “all communication between you and I will be public – unless it is counter to my conspiracy argument!”
Best wishes
From: Kazek Lokuciewski 
Sent: 18 June 2013 19:18
To: KJ Baker
Subject: Re: Filming of public meetings and council.
If you cared about Democratic legitimacy we would not be in this situation where evidence of lies is stopped from being gathered to protect the electorate from self interest.

I now understand why you are so anti recording it. Evidence. You do not wan't evidence of you saying what ever it takes to get the public off the scent, and then not act upon what was said.

If that is not the case then you would respect that it is important to gather the material and share it with video.

On 18 Jun 2013 11:36, "KJ Baker"  wrote:
I ask you again to provide me with your address so that my solicitor can contact you over the slander you have written on me copied the press. 
You have called me a liar which is a slander. 
I have nothing to hide and my character is totally out in open. In contrast yours is not. Furthermore I at least have a democratic legitimacy since I was elected. You have not. 
So I ask you again for your address for my solicitors to write to you. 
Or you can issue a unreserved apology for calling me a liar. 
Sorry but you simply cannot go around calling people liars without any consequence. 

Sent from my iPhone

On 18 Jun 2013, at 10:14 AM, Kazek Lokuciewski  wrote:

Oh contrair. I never lie and live my life as openly as possible.

All comminication between you I and your friends will be public as your character is cery much in the public interest.

Ill take out your personal e-mail as it is the decent thing to do.

On 18 Jun 2013 10:07, "KJ Baker"  wrote:
I think you have now stepped over the mark by accusing me personally of lying. 
Therefore I will be consulting my solicitor on a personal basis with a view  to taking legal action Against you. 
Can you please provide an address that any communications from my solicitor to you can be sent. 
As you copied the press into this email I will be using them as the evidence that you have done so. I have already spoken to them on this matter. 
Alternatively you can apologise unreservedly and I will take no further action. 

Sent from my iPhone

On 18 Jun 2013, at 09:39 AM, Kazek Lokuciewski  wrote:

You seem very confident. I hope you would not make any costly tax payer decisions with this level of confidence since I have proof you are either lying or mistaken.

Anyway. You don't 'Make up the rules' any more. Someone higher up than you has seen fit to close yet another route for officials to act with less accountability than they should.

The sad thing is how active you have been in oposition to something those who elected you would welcome, but profiteers would hate.

The North Wokingham Film shows how non intrusive the process of filming is.

We can either keep my filming to full unedited shared copyright as same as is the decent thing or publishing just the juicy bits as is my right.

Which way I go on decency depend if you are willing to join me on that pedistall. Notifying attendees of events with posters outside supermarkets and thatbthey will be filmed for online duscussion.

Not those are the rules. I know becuase I made them up. And sure, even though there is undisputable evidence Im wrong.

On 18 Jun 2013 09:24, "KJ Baker"  wrote:
As the person who set the rules I know what I set. This was communicated to you but you dispute this. 
We have a fundamental difference of opinion here. I regard the views of the attendees as important. After all they took the time to attend. You regard their views as of no relevance against your own personal opinion. I think you had an example of my view being more relevant at the S Wokingham Forum where you were politely told to be quiet so that the meeting could start. 
I respect your personal opinion, even though I disagree with it. I wish you would do the same curtesy to me. 
So as I said nothing has changed and the established rules will continue. 

Sent from my iPhone

On 18 Jun 2013, at 08:57 AM, Kazek Lokuciewski wrote:

Keith. How sure are you that the Northern one required a unanimous vote in the rules you made up?

Which you did not loose. The fair and decent thing was allowed. This is about decency. Nothing more.

Much as I like you your wild accusations are getting ridiculous. You constantly throw out things like you have below without any shred of evidence. 
I am glad you copied the Times on your email as it allows me to challenge you head on on unsubstantiated accusations. If you have any evidence, no matter how small, please pass it onto the press. I have repeated this challenge many many times. 
As I expected and continually expect you will not provide any evidence because there is none. 
I will be taking legal advice on your constant allegations as you request. 
So as I said before the rules on this will remain the same. If a single attendee or presenter does not wish to be filmed then filming will not be allowed. We have had 3 votes on this and you have won one unanimously, lost one unanimously and lost one by one vote. 
Again I repeat my request for details of this government action!

Sent from my iPhone

On 17 Jun 2013, at 10:50 PM, Kazek Lokuciewski  wrote:

As far as I can see, regarding the blocking of filming, your abuse of authority and inappropriate behavior given your close relationship with the developers has been stopped by the government. They obviously are concerned as I am about the risks.
getwokingham. I would be grateful if the professionals could give both Keith and I guidance on this.

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:06 PM, KJ Baker  wrote:
I am sorry to be a bit slow but what is the legal basis of you saying you have the legal right to film?
Until you can provide this then nothing has changed. 

Sent from my iPhone

On 17 Jun 2013, at 09:41 PM, Kazek Lokuciewski  wrote:

Google filming council meetings. Telegraph sums it up nicely.

On 17 Jun 2013 20:38, "KJ Baker" > wrote:
Can you please explain why you think this?

Sent from my iPhone

On 17 Jun 2013, at 07:37 PM, Kazek Lokuciewski wrote:

Hi David / Keith
As you may have noticed the public have just been given the right to film all meetings the public can attend and use as they see fit.
There are several coming up and I intend to film what I can.
Please let me know if there is going to be any attempt by the council to restrict the filming.
I have also had no feedback on the publishing of this film.
After the shoot I gave a verbal agreement to allowing WokinghamBC share the content. Since then I have had no feedback, the Wokingham times had become facebook only so there is still no open platform for public engagement.
It is now my intention to share the video on my WokinghamVoice channel.
If you have any objections please explain them in a reply e-mail.


  1. Not sure what sort of heroic Jane Jacobs you're hoping to be hailed as by laboriously detailing this exchange (not that anyone reads this site except a tiny number of nerds like me anyway)- the councillor sounds pretty reasonable and you hysterical

  2. No so much heroic. I try to share everything that might be considered evidence.

    Try to read past the one person trying to make valid points in between various child member of family requests and a very well written person abusing their position of authority, and lying (or having one hell of a short memory).

    The council is again blocking the filming of, and not providing filming of South Wokingham Community Forum to be held at 7pm on Tuesday March 25 at Wokingham Methodist Church (main church), Rose Street, Wokingham Borough Council.