Councillor’s Apology for Bringing GBC into Disrepute Rejected by Complainants

Published on: 13 Apr, 2026
Updated on: 14 Apr, 2026

Simon Higgins, one of the four complainants, speaking at the full council meeting in November. Cllr Bob Hughes can be seen bottom left with his back to the camera.

By Martin Giles

Four Guildford residents, who were criticised during a GBC debate, are appealing to the ombudsman about the outcome of a complaint made about a borough councillor.

In the debate, Simon Higgins, a member of the West Surrey Palestine Solidarity Campaign, asked the council to withdraw its investments from Barclays Bank because of the bank’s connections with Israel.

The group lodged a complaint in November 2025 saying Cllr Bob Hughes (Con, Tillingbourne) had made defamatory remarks about them during a public council meeting. They said the statements were “false and personally damaging”.

Cllr Hughes says the comments in question were made when campaigners “invaded” the council chamber and approached the dais. The meeting was temporarily suspended and the webcast paused.

See: Borough Council Hears Plea To Take a Moral Stand Over Gaza

The monitoring officer Susan Sale oversaw the response to the complainants and the matter is understood to have been referred to one of GBC’s Independent Persons. Reviews examined video footage of the meeting, written correspondence and witness statements from those involved.

It was concluded that Cllr Hughes had brought the authority into disrepute, the response decribing his remarks as “both inappropriate and disrespectful” and warning that such conduct reflects badly not only on elected members but also on “the reputation of local democracy in the district”.

Susan Sale, offered Cllr Hughes the chance to resolve the matter informally by apologising to the four residents.

The councillor did susequently issue an apology but, according to the complainants, it contained further inaccuracies and insinuations — and crucially, no apology for the original comments.

Cllr Hughes’ apology.

The four complainants say the statement only deepened the distress they have experienced and is raising fresh questions about standards of conduct and accountability in local government in Guildford.

On March 8, the four residents formally told the council that the response was “wholly inadequate” and asked for the complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the council’s formal process.

Subsequently, Monitoring Officer Susan Sale wrote to Mr Higgins: “I am satisfied that Cllr Hughes has essentially complied with the requirement to apologise to you on both of these points.

“Whilst it can be argued that the apology may have been fuller and Cllr Hughes may have expressed wider views which may be disputed, and noting he was copied into your response, this is not a matter I am in a position to arbitrate and I am satisfied that the complaint can now be closed.”

Cllr Bob Hughes

Invited to comment, Cllr Hughes told The Dragon: “The demonstrators from Palestine Solidarity who invaded the council chamber recorded my comments as they went past me.

“I apologised for the words I used, and they have received that.

“There is no more to say on the matter.”

The complainants have said they are now referring the matter to the ombudsman.

Responses to Councillor’s Apology for Bringing GBC into Disrepute Rejected by Complainants

Angela Richardson Reply

April 13, 2026 at 1:26 pm

Seriously? If an apology for hurty words causes further distress, perhaps the complainants might like to rethink or redirect their activism as this smacks more of a personal vendetta against Cllr Hughes, who has a long history of standing up against antisemitism, without the need to be so publicly performative as interrupting council proceedings. Get a grip!

Angela Richardson is the former Conservative MP for Guildford.
- Simon Higgins Reply
  
  April 13, 2026 at 11:34 pm
  
  Calling this a “personal vendetta” is a convenient way to dismiss legitimate concerns without actually engaging with them. Objecting to defamatory or harmful remarks isn’t about “hurty words” or performance — it’s about accountability and standards, especially in a public office.
  
  An apology doesn’t automatically resolve the issue if it’s insufficient, insincere, or if the underlying behaviour hasn’t been properly addressed. People are entitled to question both the content of what was said and the response to it.
  
  Framing this as activism gone too far ignores the core issue: public figures have a responsibility to communicate responsibly, and members of the public have every right to challenge them when they fall short. That’s not a vendetta—that’s basic civic engagement.
  
  Angela Richardson has experienced this directly – she refused to engage responsibly and be accountable to the Guildford electorate and suffered the consequences.
  
  Simon Higgins is a member of the West Surrey Palestine Solidarity Campaign
  - Angela Richardson Reply
    
    April 16, 2026 at 1:08 pm
    
    Local Councils should not operate their own foreign policy positions separate to the UK Government’s position. The aim of those, such as Mr Higgins, is to promote a boycott, divestment and sanctions policy. Anyone interested can look at the Economic Activities of Public Bodies (overseas matters) Bill that was debated in the Parliament of 2019-2024.
    
    Councils should focus their efforts on delivering cost effective services for local people. I have said before that it is more appropriate to deal with foreign policy matters in Westminster.
    
    Publicity of the non-acceptance of an apology is the continuation of a campaign against an individual on a matter that doesn’t belong in a council.
    
    However, Mr Higgins will recall that he and others of his group did receive responses from me, even if he did not agree with them. He was a regular correspondent.
    
    People should keep in mind what they are actually voting for in May. Protest voting on national and international issues doesn’t fix council housing, adult social care or special educational needs. It doesn’t fill potholes or collect bins.
    
    We have our own deep economic uncertainties and difficulties to deal with here at home. We need to elect people focused on delivering locally. We also need volunteers who will help the vulnerable right on our own doorstep.
    
    Angela Richardson is the former Conservative MP for Guildford.
    - Simon Higgins Reply
      
      April 16, 2026 at 5:19 pm
      
      Angela Richardson’s argument doesn’t hold up.
      
      Councils don’t get a free pass on ethics just because Ms Richardson chooses to label something as “foreign policy.” Where public money goes is a local decision. If that spending risks supporting violence or human rights abuses, it is absolutely the council’s responsibility to act. We can deliver cost-effective services without funding death and genocide — the two are not mutually exclusive.
      
      We’ve seen this before. Boycotts, divestment and sanctions helped bring down apartheid in South Africa. Back then, some people made the same claims: “not our role,” “focus locally,” “too complicated.” History proved otherwise.
      
      On the apology — let’s be clear. The refusal to accept it isn’t some ongoing campaign. It’s about accountability. The issue started with misconduct by a councillor, whose comments were ‘inappropriate, disrespectful and brought the council into disrepute’. Trust hasn’t been restored and that matters.
      
      And the idea that residents must choose between fixing potholes and having ethical standards is a false choice. Councils are capable of doing both. In fact, they should be expected to.
      
      Local government isn’t just about bins and budgets. It’s about how we use public money and what we stand for. Delivering services at any cost isn’t good governance — it’s a failure of it.
      - Angela Richardson
        
        April 23, 2026 at 2:46 pm
        
        Mr Higgins and I will continue to have to agree to disagree. He has the freedom to be an activist for a singular cause and people. In my former role, I had to explore the risk of unintended consequences and seek to prevent actions like boycott, divestment and sanctions being used against the very people he seeks to support, by another local authority not so friendly to his cause.
        
        I believe that he, and others, have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Barclays operates in this sphere and a misunderstanding of the opportunity cost of divestment.
        
        The majority of articles in this online newspaper are discussing the financial arrangements and burdens that the new West Surrey Council will be taking on. He may genuinely want to add to that cost for the sake of his argument, but many people in Guildford cannot afford it.
        
        I hope he could better make his arguments through his elected representative to Westminster than the continuation of a graceless disagreement at local level where in reality, very little will be achieved.
        
        Angela Richardson is the former Conservative MP for Guildford
- Martyn Turner Reply
  
  April 25, 2026 at 7:04 pm
  
  It’s no secret that trust in politics has taken a battering — too many people feel that politicians simply can’t be trusted to tell the truth or act with integrity.
  
  So when councillor Cllr Bob Hughes smears someone and refuses to apologise, and former MP Angela Richardson rushes to defend him, it sends a clear message: the Conservatives have learned absolutely nothing.
Rebecca Cullen Reply

April 13, 2026 at 5:18 pm

“There is no more to say on the matter.”

How shocking to read of such ignorance from Cllr Hughes. I suggest he reads Edward W Said’s “A Question of Palestine” c. 1979 and then come back with a synopsis and an understanding of why Mr Higgins et al would be baffled and offended by his ignorant comments.

There is an ongoing genocide in Gaza and the WestBank (No HAMAS) and the biggest threat to Judaism is Zionism.

Accountability please.
Madeleine Wincey Reply

April 13, 2026 at 6:10 pm

I can’t see an apology but a pathetic excuse.

It seems that Cllr Hughes isn’t sorry and has ignored the fact that these upstanding people are bringing the plight of the Palestinian people to the attention of GBC.

The council is in solidarity with Ukraine, rightly so, but things are urgent for Palestinians who are going through a genocide.

There is acknowledgement and statistics on antisemitism which should be addressed and we should also address Islamophobia. But there is no comment on the suffering of Palestinians. This is not a time to be silent.

All citizens should stand up against racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia. The Palestinian Solidarity campaign have a code of conduct and do not tolerate racism and antisemitism but there was no acknowledgement of the Palestinians from Cllr Hughes. The Palestinians are going through genocide and the UK Government and Israel are breaking international law.

Cllr Hughes was one sided on the matter [only] mentioning antisemitism which was beside the point.
Nick Georges Reply

April 13, 2026 at 6:37 pm

Guildford Borough Council is investing our money, despite it’s so called “Ethical investments policy”, in Barclays. A company that invests over £8.1 billion in Israeli arms companies and is also the only British bank authorised to sell Israeli bonds, both of which go towards funding Israel’s illegal war against almost the entire Middle East.

A group of Guildford residents care deeply about the suffering of others incurred in the genocide of the Palestinians and the bombing of Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Qatar, Iraq and Iran.

Despite the fact that “our” government is deeply invested in crushing all support for Palestine, this group has bravely stood up on the side of justice and asked “our” council to drop it’s investments in Barclays.

For Bob Hughes, a Guildford Borough councillor, to accuse this group of being “Hamas supporters” (Hamas is a terrorist group), and “stupid”, demonstrates a level of ignorance and immaturity that does not befit a representative of Guildford residents.

To further go on in his “apology” to attempt to muddy the waters and indirectly smear them by weaponising antisemitism is deeply insulting, inciteful and totally uncalled for.

Nick George is one of the four who complained about Cllr Hughes.
Jim Allen Reply

April 14, 2026 at 9:58 am

The core challenge lies in determining the appropriate governmental venue to debate such matters.

My position is that no council, irrespective of its level, should dedicate resources to addressing the challenges of other nations. We face a substantial number of domestic issues that require our focus, and the available time is insufficient to resolve global concerns.

It is imperative to recognize that inflammatory language can escalate discussions unnecessarily. We must collectively endeavor to prevent a simple conversation from devolving into a contentious debate on broader principles within a local forum.
- Simon Higgins Reply
  
  April 16, 2026 at 10:39 am
  
  A neat boundary can’t be drawn around “appropriate venues” when the issue in question involves mass suffering and loss of life. When something rises to the level of genocide, it stops being a distant, abstract “foreign issue” and becomes a moral question that implicates anyone connected to it —including, potentially, our own institutions.
  
  The claim that councils should only focus on domestic matters ignores a key point: if council funds, investments, or procurement decisions are in any way linked to or benefiting such actions, then this is no longer about “other nations”, it is directly about how public money is being used and whether that aligns with the values we claim to uphold. You cannot separate financial responsibility from moral responsibility.
  
  Saying there isn’t enough time to address global concerns also misses the mark. This is not about solving every international issue —it’s about responding appropriately when a specific, grave situation intersects with our own governance and spending. Choosing not to engage is, in itself, a decision with consequences.
  
  As for tone, calling out the severity of a situation isn’t “inflammatory” if it reflects reality. Avoiding strong language may make discussions more comfortable, but it risks downplaying the seriousness of what’s happening. Civility matters, but so does clarity, and sometimes clarity requires acknowledging hard truths.
  
  Ultimately, responsibility doesn’t disappear just because the issue is inconvenient or geographically distant. If there is even a possibility that council resources are contributing to harm, then it is not only appropriate but necessary for that to be examined and corrected — locally.
  
  Simon Higgins is a member of the West Surrey Palestine Solidarity Campaign
  - Jim Allen Reply
    
    April 17, 2026 at 10:09 am
    
    It appears that Mr Higgins is deeply committed to the Palestinian cause. However, I note that he does not address other significant global issues such as the Yazidis, the situation of Muslims in China, child slavery in relation to blood diamonds in Africa, the killings of Nigerian Christians, or the plight of the Kurds.
    
    His dedication evokes a comparison to Isaac Asimov’s 1958 science fiction short story, “All the Troubles of the World.”
    
    In this narrative, the supercomputer Multivac, burdened by the immense scope of human problems it is tasked with managing—including predicting and preventing crimes, overseeing the global economy, and diagnosing illnesses—reaches a point of despair, ultimately expressing a desire to cease to exist due to the overwhelming weight of humanity’s issues.
    
    I am not persuaded that parish, borough, or county councils are the appropriate venues for determining the destinies of populations worldwide. It is my belief that displaying foreign flag discussions in the council chambers in the UK will not effectively resolve these very serious international challenges.
N Gardiner Reply

April 14, 2026 at 10:16 pm

The monitoring officer found Cllr Bob Hughes had brought Guildford Borough Council into disrepute: his remarks described as “both inappropriate and disrespectful.” Yet when his apology arrived, it contained fresh insinuations and no regret for the original slurs. The monitoring officer then closed the matter anyway. This is not accountability. It is contempt for the people they serve.

Angela Richardson [former MP], in her comment, says this is about “hurty words”. People are not angry because their feelings are hurt. They are angry because over 50,000 Palestinians are dead, including more than 15,000 children, while their council tax sits in Barclays, a bank linked to companies supplying weapons to Israel. People are legitimately horrified at the ongoing atrocities and indisputable war crimes committed by Israel.

Cllr Bob Hughes and Angela Richardson’s own Conservative colleague, Kit Malthouse, former Conservative minister, has described Israel’s conduct in Gaza as “a shooting gallery, an abattoir, where starving people are lured out through combat zones to be shot at”. Whilst fellow Tory MPs Mark Pritchard and Sir Jeremy Wright, a former Attorney General, have both publicly condemned Israel’s actions. Would Hughes and Richardson dare to level the same accusations at them?

Good on the complainants for taking this to the ombudsman. People expect better from those in public office and they’re right to demand it. May 7th is three weeks away. Guildford residents will have their say.
Jasmine Adelaide Reply

April 15, 2026 at 10:05 am

This is absolutely appalling behaviour from Cllr Bob Hughes and shows an intention to malign Palestine Solidarity groups as Hamas supporters, which is patently untrue and an intentional smear to distract from Israel’s very real Genocide in Gaza (and now the West Bank too). Israel is breaking international law and being supported by Western governments and institutions.

GBC is being asked to divest its pension funds from Barclays, which funds Israeli war crimes, and the response is to smear campaigners and then falsely malign them as Hamas supporters when they complain? How absolutely pathetic.

Once again antisemitism is being used as a smear against anti-war campaigners, ignoring the validity of the argument and also doing a massive disservice to Jews in the country and the very real increase in antisemitism they are facing as a result of the rise of the far right.
Sara Tokunaga Reply

April 15, 2026 at 12:44 pm

Sadly, that was not an apology, but says a lot about Cllr Hughes and also Angela Richardson.

Showing support for the Palestinian people does not mean you are a Hamas supporter. You are a human being who is appalled by the genocide being perpetrated by Israel.

It is easy to play the antisemitism card but, in this case, completely wrong. Cllr Hughes should be ashamed of himself. Bring on the election on 7th May!
RWL Davies Reply

April 16, 2026 at 2:33 pm

Angela Richardson is entirely correct. GBC should focus 100 per cent on local matters and its pension fund investments are its own business.

It’s an appalling war but its not genocide by any stretch. 6,000,000 in WW2 was genocide.
Mike Davis Reply

April 17, 2026 at 9:52 am

There is more than one player in this debate. There is one group talking from the point of view of Israel and the other from the Palestinian perspective.

Personally I’d rather have peace. But do we need to start behaving aggressively in our own councils? Councillors are elected to put into effect what we want collectively for Guildford.