April 2026
The first topic concerned mental health support for young people. It was occasioned by one of the participants who had experienced stress and PTSD after a serious motor accident and found the mental health support to be almost non-existent. He was asked if he was contemplating suicide or was he a threat to others. If the answer was no then nothing was available. He thought this shocking.
Although not young himself and was able to acquire the help he needed privately, it did make him think about young people suffering mental health problems and what help could they achieve?
This lack it was suggested was part of how society was today which was not supportive and even more unkind. There was reference to previous times when church going was more common, community support was more evident and people took part in sports like football and cricket more than today. One way or another people were able to interact with others which often led to help in some form.
It was a ‘massive problem’ someone suggested. It had got worse since the ’80s. The record numbers claiming Universal Credit was a symptom of the problem. However, we needed to be a little cautious as greater recognition and a readiness to come forward may account for what seemed like a growing problem. It may always have always been there but unrecognised.
For those experiencing acute stress and contemplating suicide then the Samaritans was all that was available for most it was claimed.
A different viewpoint – especially as far as young people were concerned – were the circumstances of life today. The decay in infrastructure (closure of thousands of youth clubs for example), unaffordable housing and a lack of jobs, was putting great stress on many young people. It was a matter of cause and effect. It was the much higher pressure of life for the young led to mental health issues.
There was a related problem of displacement. That is, pushing the problem onto young people and leaving them to get themselves ‘cured’ when it was the breakdown in society which was the actual cause. There was a hint of an age thing as well with some older people being critical of the young as though the problems were of their own making.
The problem, it was suggested, went beyond just mental health but a reduction in young people having children because of these problems. It was also suggested that there was an exodus of young leaving the country. Significant numbers of under 35s were leaving with one report showing 195,000 having left in 2025. [It is interesting in passing that enormous fuss is made by politicians of several parties, in particular Reform and the Conservatives, concerning the numbers arriving here, but almost a complete silence about this astonishing number of young people choosing to leave these shores].
One contribution from a professional involved in the field confirmed that there was a huge gap in provision. Gloucestershire had one person. Government was reluctant to spend when they thought the likelihood of success was deemed to be small. However, it had been pointed out that not helping it might lead to a young person costing a lot more in lack of earnings and other dependencies so it may well be a false economy.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs was mentioned the bottom two of which were physiological and safety – precisely the points about insecurity and lack of basic opportunities made above. The analogy of a table was mentioned that if one leg wasn’t present, the entire thing would collapse.
It seemed as though the consequences of not funding has been overlooked. This was especially so for young people who for the most part would not have the means for seeking help privately. What about youth clubs someone asked? Most have closed for want of funding. The Salisbury Home Start charity (which helped families with at least one child under 5) closed last month for lack of funding. Sure Starts largely folded two decades ago during austerity.
It was suggested that GPs received little training in these issues. There was a tendency to be too quick to medicate. The overuse of Valium (Diazepam) was mentioned. This was set against the huge increase in counselling techniques and things like CBT for example.
The risks of being too quick to ‘label’ someone as schizophrenic for example was mentioned which, even if they were cured or the condition successfully managed, would travel with them making finding work difficult.
There probably wasn’t a specific conclusion that wasn’t implicit in the question: namely the need for greater support and its lack was very much to be regretted.
Our second topic was why are the rules of war not being enforced? This was prompted by the bombing campaign of Iran by the US and Israel, now in its sixth week, and the bombing and invasion of ground troops into southern Lebanon by the IDF. It was the bombing of civilian targets which was the main point and the large numbers of civilians including children who have been killed in the recent conflicts.
‘There seemed to be no rules in Gaza because there were no rules anywhere else’ was how the proposer expressed it.
We quickly got to the point that there was no organisation able to enforce any such rules of war (however they are defined). There were treaties and agreements but no realistic enforcement. The UN’s blue helmets were mentioned but they were there in a peace keeping capacity not to enforce the rules.
We were reminded of the post-war settlement when the victorious powers mapped out what became known as the ‘New World Order’. A key point we were reminded was that they did not want a policing function given to the newly created UN. America with its Jim Crow laws, the UK and France with their violent colonial activities and the Soviet Union with a range of brutal actions against Jews, Ukrainians and other minorities, did not want some kind of force capable of policing them. We were reminded that the post-war powers retained the veto in the UN which has been a continuous strain on progress.
Even if just such a body was created, who would be on it? One of the Ayatollahs? Kim Jong Il?
It was suggested that it would need to be larger militarily than the US to be able to enforce its will.
President Trump’s creation of the Board of Peace was it was claimed, designed to further weaken the UN.
What we needed was another Gandhi it was suggested. True he led India towards independence but the aftermath was horrific when Hindus and Moslems started killing each other leading to partition. Estimates vary between 200,000 and 2 million killed and a massive displacement involving many millions. A charismatic leader does not always lead to peace and harmony.
But a small beacon of hope was the campaign to ban the use of landmines. These scattered small bombs which did not always explode and were later picked up by children with devastating consequences. Lobbying by arms companies tried to prevent controls but Lady Diana’s walk in a supposed mine field in Angola, changed people’s minds and controls were introduced.
What about North Korea? This was a state run by a tyrant who violated almost every norm of civilised behaviour. Who was going to remove him from power?
It was pointed out that after the war, the Nuremburg trials attempted some kind of justice but the problem was that the crimes of the Nazis had not been defined. Genocide had only been agreed as a crime in 1944. [We might have noted that no Italian Nazis were tried after the war].
An historical perspective was offered. Wars in the past had mostly involved pitched battles carried out between armies [indeed tours were organised to watch them]. In recent times they had involved civilians – the Spanish Civil War for example – was the first. However, the 100 years war did involve large numbers of civilian deaths.
There was a kind of belief – evident in the formation of the New World Order and also in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights agreed in 1948 – that if only people around the world would replace their leaders and install a (western style) democratic system, all would be well. But, if you spoke to people in China or Russia for example, many would not agree with that. There were many around the world who agreed with the notion of a strong leader. Democracy was not automatically accepted as a ‘good thing’ around the world.
It was also suggested that criticising the likes of Trump, the Ayatollahs and Netanyahu, was a distraction and a way of avoiding facing problems nearer to home.
This topic has defied the world so it is not surprising we came up with few conclusions. The New World Order ushered in after the war is now over. The lack of an international ‘police force’ means countries are free to act as they see fit with few consequences of note. The last word almost summed up the situation by saying that countries acted in their own best interests with little concern on the effects on other nations.
Two interesting debates.
Next meeting on May 8th at 10:00 as usual.
Thanks as ever to Salisbury Library for allowing us the use of their room.
Peter Curbishley
Salisbury Democracy Alliance 