Peter Checksfield. He has stated he is in favour of the new Tesco superstore proposed at Arlington, Margate. He also has said several times on both the No and Yes Facebook pages relating to that development that people should be civil and that insults are not a good way to debate differing viewpoints. I certainly agree with the latter – making unfounded, insulting and potentially libellous accusations against people only results in making the writer of such comments appear weak and lacking in intellectual substance.
Which is why I find it highly curious that Peter’s protestations against rudeness and bad language only extend to those openly stating opposition to the proposed Tesco superstore development; he quite rightly mentioned and criticised a comment by someone on the No page which likened Eric Pickles to a Dr Who monster and implied he was ugly, merely because of his weight, but then he Likes and responds to (without any caveats or reservations) comments made by the Yes page’s admins and John Hamilton, which variously describe people as “senile”, “delusional”, “village idiots”, “gobby northerners” (a term Peter himself uses), “dumb bitch”, “clueless dullard”, “clueless busybodies”, “worthless” and let’s not forget, the highly disparaging term “nimbys”.
It is this last characterisation that Peter seems to have embraced wholeheartedly. Peter states his belief on John Hamilton’s blog that Toby Pengelly implied that Peter “was being paid by Tesco”:
in spite of the fact that not only did Toby Pengelly immediately write a second post on Facebook, qualifying that his prior comment did not implicate Peter at all, but that Peter saw and Liked that comment:
As you can see by the timestamps on both John Hamilton’s blog and Facebook, Peter Checksfield was most definitely aware of Toby Pengelly’s qualification of his remark, yet still chose to comment that it was implied that Peter was somehow a corporate shill and to decry that implicit statement, along with making his own implication that as a non-resident of Thanet Toby Pengelly cannot possibly have any valid input on the matter at all. Disingenuous behaviour at best.
Also, quite how a non-resident can be a “nimby” as well, I’m not quite sure – ‘Not In My Back-Yard’ by its very definition relates to locality, so if someone is belittled for not having that apocryphal back-yard, I don’t see how the derogation applies.
Finally, Peter compounds all of these above ‘errors in judgement’ on the Yes Facebook page, when after complaining that it was implied that he was a Tesco shill (despite him having seen and acknowledged a response that that wasn’t the point of the prior comment), he then feels it acceptable to state that anyone who questions the Tesco superstore proposal at Arlington in any way does not wish Margate to succeed:
So anyone who has quite legitimate questions about any of this development – whether it concerns traffic, the size of the store, the legitimacy of the actions by Freshwater and the council, or indeed anything else – as far as Peter would have it are people who do not want Margate to succeed. The implication made by Peter there is that individuals should not dare to question or even apply any thought to any kind of proposals – from business (big or small), from private individuals, from the council, from central government – or to investigate whether activities are being carried out in the best interests of the residents. If you have any concerns – they are not legitimate and you do not wish success for Margate.
Peter Checksfield – sycophant to John Hamilton, who says he agrees that people should be free to not be insulted and that such puerile behaviour is not acceptable:
Unless, of course, the victims happen to support the No page – in which case they’re completely fair game and he won’t even bat an eyelid as vicious, unfounded accusations are bandied about.
Glad you’re a man of principle, Peter.