A row over protests, investment links and councillor conduct has left Guildford Borough Council facing fresh questions from campaigners, months after a silent demonstration in the council chamber.

Four members of the West Surrey Palestine Solidarity Campaign say they are still waiting for a “proper apology” after being described as “stupid people who support Hamas” during a meeting in October 2025.

The council’s monitoring officer has since ruled the comments were “inappropriate and disrespectful” and based on an unverified claim, but decided the complaint could be closed after the councillor issued an apology.

The dispute stems from a wider campaign urging the council to cut financial ties with Barclays Bank. Activists argue the bank’s role as a primary dealer of Israeli government bonds links it indirectly to the war in Gaza, citing a UN report which says such bonds help fund Israel’s state budget.

At a council meeting in July 2025, campaigner Simon Higgins presented research calling for divestment. During the debate, Cllr Richard Lucas said he shared the campaigners’ revulsion at events in Gaza.

However, he added the campaign had not made a sufficient case against Barclays. He said the council was “not in a position to make a detailed judgement”, pointing to existing responsible investment guidelines and ongoing plans to reduce investments as part of funding requirements.

Tensions escalated on October 23, when four campaigners stood silently in the chamber holding a banner reading “Don’t Fund Genocide” before leaving after two minutes. They later lodged a formal complaint after Conservative Cllr Bob Hughes allegedly made the remarks during the meeting.

In February 2026, the monitoring officer concluded the comments breached expected standards, citing both the language used and the unsupported allegation. Cllr Hughes was asked to apologise.

In a written response sent in March, Hughes said calling the protest “stupid” was “a poor choice of words” and apologised. He also said he accepted the group’s assurance that they do not support Hamas, but described the protest as “disruptive” and suggested links between parts of the Palestine solidarity movement and Hamas are “complex”.

Campaigners rejected the apology as “wholly inadequate”, saying it offered “no apology for personal insults” and failed to address what they called serious false claims. They said the allegation of links to Hamas was “deeply offensive” and unsupported by evidence.

The group also disputed claims they had made an “improper recording”, noting council meetings are routinely webcast and open to public recording.

In a final response on April 2, the monitoring officer said the councillor had “essentially complied” with the request to apologise, acknowledging it could have been “fuller” but concluding the complaint should be closed.

Campaigners have challenged that decision, arguing the apology “avoids the substance of the misconduct” and fails to properly address what they describe as a serious and defamatory claim. They have asked for the complaint to be reconsidered and escalated.

Cllr Hughes has not commented beyond formal correspondence, stating there is “no more to say on the matter.”

In a statement, the council said its treasury management is governed by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Code of Practice. The authority is required to approve a treasury management strategy before the start of each financial year. A review and update of the strategy has been completed and approved for 2026/2027.

The council added that its investment approach prioritises security and liquidity over returns, while also considering environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors.

Addressing the protest, it said: “The webcast of the Council meeting from Thursday 23 October 2025 is available online as usual. The meeting was adjourned briefly while a protest took place in the chamber. We do not webcast during adjournments.”

On the complaint, a spokesperson said: “Our monitoring officer has reviewed the complaint and concluded that the councillor in question has complied with the requirement to apologise to the complainants, and the complaint has been closed.

“We take all complaints seriously and have handled this process in line with our published arrangements.”