The absolute pointlessness of what have to be small public meetings to discuss issues of interest to the whole of a population is illustrated, yet again, by the Staines Guardian front page report of January 31.
More than 200 people attended a meeting in Staines, but of those a number were apparently people from the area north of Heathrow, who are threatened with the loss of their homes if the insane proposal to extend the airport proceeds.
Few of them could have had any opportunity to make their particular contribution to what appears to have been a boisterous event.
A further article on the inside pages records, yet again, the enthusiastic support of the MP for Spelthorne for the airport expansion.
The MP refers, yet again, to his "questionnaire". The original claim I saw was for only 40,000 questionnaires.
This has escalated, yet again, and now stands at over 100,000. Details of the response the MP received to the "questionnaire" remains as elusive as ever.
In a letter of mine published in the January 3 edition, I asked what had caused the uncharacteristic behaviour of the MP on this issue. In the past, it appears to me, he has, like many politicians, avoided declaring his support or opposition to any contentious issue until the outcome was settled.
No response to that letter was, of course, forthcoming.
Another letter of mine published in the Staines Guardian drew attention to the fact that the MP for Spelthorne was one among about only 50 of our nearly 650 MPs who did not have a published email address or a website.
Readers may have overlooked the footnote to the "MP dismisses Heathrow noise" report in the January 31 issue. It was his website spelthorneconservatives.com.
It brings to mind the quotation about wanting to "talk to the organ-grinder not the monkey".
Perhaps our MP will "get with it", before he is elevated to the House of Peers, and gets an email address to which his constituents can send their views, instead of having to read claims that "40,000" but now going on "over 100,000" of them have made their views known.
Geoffrey Virr, Sunbury on Thames
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article