Letter: I Can’t Believe Public Money Is Being Spent On This Twinning Proposal

Published on: 28 Sep, 2017
Updated on: 28 Sep, 2017

From Fiona Samuel-Holmes

In response to: Senior Council Delegation to Sign New Twinning Agreement in China

I am in absolute disbelief that public money is being spent on a trip by local councillors to discuss a twinning agreement with China.

Of all the countries in the world why would Guildford want to be twinned with a country renowned for its appalling human rights record, it’s complete disregard for pollution and global warming, a country that fuels the ivory and rhino horn trades, a country that massacres millions of sharks and manta-rays each year just to make a soup supposedly to give them sexual potency!

A comprehensive study carried out in 2013 estimated 100 million sharks are killed every year with fins from up to 73 million used for shark fin soup, primarily to supply the market in mainland China.

Come on Guildford Borough Council let’s find a different country to get into bed with and not waste public money sending Paul Spooner and Matt Furniss on a jolly to China. Especially in light of the fact that both these councillors seem to be following their own agenda and not working for the good of their constituents.

Surely the public should be consulted regarding matters like this?

As Hon Alderman Bernard Parke commented: “It is interesting to learn that Guildford Borough Council aims to strengthen international relationships.

“I remember when the twinning was being considered with Freiburg back in the 1970s. It took place after considerable public consultation and then it was put to a meeting of the full council for confirmation.”

Responses to Letter: I Can’t Believe Public Money Is Being Spent On This Twinning Proposal

John Perkins Reply

September 28, 2017 at 4:57 pm

It wouldn’t be a waste of public money to send these two to China if they would only promise to stay there.
Neville Bryan Reply

September 28, 2017 at 10:55 pm

I was wondering what we had in common with this far off city. Thank you, now I know:

“Appalling human rights” – haven’t Guildford just ignored 7,000 residents with its laocal plan consutations?

“Disregard for air pollution” – trying to insert 25, 000 new cars and failing to take and record Air Quality properly sound familiar?

And which town increases global warming with its stationary traffic? Oh yes, Guildford.

I see the light.
Fiona Curtis Reply

September 28, 2017 at 11:21 pm

I agree wholeheartedly with the writer for all the reasons stated. I can see no business case or indeed any details justifying this excursion. There have been consultations on everything from bus schedules to colours of taxis so why not on this?
Jim Allen Reply

September 29, 2017 at 8:13 am

I doubt very much the stated reasons for this trip and if it is necessary then perhaps it should be the aldermen who make the journey, as they have the wider experience.
K White Reply

September 29, 2017 at 11:20 am

From what I understand, this “twinning” or link is all about the university and its science park. The towns appear to have nothing in common. If so, let the university fund the visits, not the Guildford council tax payers.