Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: Trump

  • Democracy Café: April

    Two topics discussed of current political interest

    April 2025

    The Café took place days following Donald Trump’s announcement of a range of tariffs which has caused ructions in world markets and threaten to destroy the way the international economic system has worked since WWII.

    But the winning topic was of a domestic nature and concerned a government bill which aim to introduce a system of reports which in their wording: ‘[…] is to prevent potential differential treatment arising from the Sentencing Council’s Imposition guidelines, reinforce equal access to pre-sentence reports and support consistency in application across all demographic groups‘. The worry was that there is not currently a ‘level playing field’ and that certain groups – ethnic minorities, people from religious minorities, and women – suffer differentially in the justice system.

    This had become politically sensitive with some politicians claiming that white people would suffer from this treatment if it became law. It would create a two tier system they maintained and white people would accordingly suffer. It was argued that courts needed to take everyone’s circumstances into account in relation to sentencing. The book The Devil You Know was mentioned in this connection, written by a psychiatrist who interviewed people who committed serious crimes to try and understand their stories and motivations. She gave this year’s Reith Lecture series.

    Objectors said that it risked introducing a two-tier system and one politician said it was ‘blatant bias against Christians’ and ‘straight white men’. It was noted however that there was already a two-tier system with a disproportionate number of black men in prison. It was also noted that since the ending of legal aid, there were many who could not obtain justice at all. Another change which has taken place in recent years was victim statements. These were introduced to remind the courts that there were people who had suffered greatly from a criminal act.

    A case was mentioned of someone who had entered the country illegally, held for 7 years without charge [I could not find a reference to this]. How can the legal system justify this?

    It was argued that the legal system has arisen from a power structure which was essentially Christian in nature. Not everyone agreed with this: many of our laws were based on common law going back centuries. We were also reminded that early Christians were extremely violent in the promotion of their beliefs.

    Digression

    At this point we digressed from the topic in hand and the case of Livia Tossici-Bolt was mentioned. She was the lady arrested and eventually found guilty by the court in Bournemouth for breaching the Public Spaces Protection Order by standing outside an abortion clinic in Bournemouth holding a sign saying ‘Here to talk if you want to’. She was fined £20,000 and given a conditional discharge. These are the bald facts of the case as widely reported. It was suggested however, that this was an attack on the freedom of expression. It was also suggested that Tossici-Bolt was on the other hand a ‘front’ for American evangelicals. The US funded organisation Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) did indeed help fund the case but I could find no evidence that she acted for them. Readers would need to refer to their website to understand the nature and activities of this organisation. [They also have an extensive Wikipedia entry].

    It was questioned whether she had been warned before her arrest? She had indeed been asked to move by the police but refused. She had also been offered a fixed penalty notice but she declined it, hence her arrest. The Americans had commented on the case as an example of the lack of free speech in the UK. She is free to speak and campaign but to do it outside the PSPO.

    There was discussion about the extent of Christian influence on our laws. It was noted that historically, people believed they would go to hell (in the literal sense) if they lied in court for example. Christianity has strongly influenced our culture and beliefs it was argued and it was noted that in the US, God and religious beliefs were a powerful influence. It has driven their views on abortion for example [see the reference to ADF above who funded the overturning of Roe v, Wade] The benign nature of early Christianity was questioned however as they were extremely violent in promoting their beliefs in the early centuries.

    We were reminded of Lord Acton’s quote ‘Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’.

    On the struggle for power, Magna Carta was mentioned which concerned a very narrow group of people namely the King, the Barons and some property owners. The word ‘woman’ only appears once in the document. This prompted the comment concerning the present day and the farmer’s protests (being property owners I think was the link though not all farmers own their land). Despite causing disruption in London concerning their protest about the capital gains tax changes introduced last year, none had been arrested. This was contrasted with the arrest of women in a Quaker meeting house in Westminster who were planning a protest.

    But back to the question and it was said surely, it is better to be informed about people (during the judicial process) than simply to continue with the policy of locking people up? Someone who had been a social worker said he was often asked to produce reports by the courts but he did not think this was for everyone. We have too many in prison and this contrasted with the Nordic countries and the Netherlands who were reducing their prison populations. However, the role of the media and its allegations towards any politician advocating such ideas was that they were guilty of being ‘soft on crime’.

    Overall, there was probably agreement that it was better for courts to be informed about defendants and their circumstances rather than just rely on punishment.

    For our second debate, we looked at the proposition: was what has happened in the US [Trump and the tariffs etc] a blessing in disguise? We had a somewhat Hollywood view of America and some of the realities of life there did not always reach our screens. The health service for example: we have seen several TV series showing heroic doctors – Dr Kildare and ER for example – whereas around 20 million Americans had no access to health care. Someone who had lived in America said that she had received excellent service in the US whereas she has been waiting months for treatment here. Someone else who had worked in the US said he knew of someone involved in a motorcycle accident which damaged his leg, but who did not have Medicaid, was taken to a hospital where they simply amputated it, no attempt was made, it was suggested, to save it which might have happened if he did have medical insurance.

    The economic effects of Trump’s actions were mentioned and how there had been some ‘bragging’ about the economic effects especially from those who had profited from the stock market gyrations. One suggested it was a ‘clever business deal’.

    Brexit was mentioned and the idea that we could stand on our own since leaving and this looked a little fragile now in view of Trump’s actions and tariffs. We should form closer links with Canada and the EU. We should also be supporting the UN and the ideas of accountability and the rule of law. Gordon Brown had suggested using the IMF and the World Bank in the process of building a new world order. The problem however is that both institutions are American controlled. Removing the dollar as a reserve currency was another suggestion which is something China and a clutch of other countries like Brazil and South Africa is trying to do. It was noted that Iraq, then the largest oil producer, wanted to tie its production to the Euro and this might have been part of the motive for the Iraq war. Since the stated reasons for the war (Iraq’s alleged programme to produce weapons of mass destruction and links to AL Qaeda were both wrong) this theory is not altogether outlandish.

    How feasible was detaching ourselves from the US it was asked? The US has cut aid to WHO and its own US aid programmes but other countries had not stepped forward to fix the breach. We were closely linked militarily with bases around the country. We had very close links between the intelligence services particularly the NSA and GCHQ. We also made components for American aircraft such as the F35. Detaching ourselves from these relationships would be both difficult and unwise. We were reminded of the Five Eyes programme.

    History goes in cycles it was noted. The US has a constitution (which the UK hasn’t) and Trump was facing many legal challenges. The Washington Post was mentioned but we were reminded that it had been acquired by Jeff Bezos who had prevented it from endorsing the Democrats at the election. We must be aware of US firms seeking investments in key areas such as Palantir. They were looking to acquire NHS data and the worry was the government would sell this off cheaply for short-term gain and to the detriment of the long-term health of the country. Allowing such firms to have access to the NHS’s data is a huge risk. The other concern was tax and major US firms like Amazon make massive profits in the UK yet managed (quite legally) to pay next to no tax since the transactions take place in a tax haven.

    How will it all end? Even if Congress decides to stand up to him, the results could be violent since many Americans feel he speaks for them. We were reminded of the massive gun ownership in the States. Attention was drawn to the film Civil War which was a kind of imagined scenario of what an insurrection could look like in the States.

    It was noted that two US Supreme Court justices were reported to be quite angry over recent events and ignoring established government protocols. It has centred around the Court’s demand that Kilmar Abrego Garcia be retrieved from El Salvador. It showed that Trump can be resisted.

    The gradual decline in international law prompted the thought of what happened in the 1930’s in Germany where the Nazis gradually built their power by denigrating the law and gradually reducing rights along the path to power. Was there a risk of similar things happening in the UK?

    Did we debate the question? Not really. Perhaps we are too close to it and the events too raw for notion that it might be for the long term benefit of the UK to forge closer links with like minded nations. We were warned that the idea of forming a closer link with China had serious risks.

    Books mentioned:

    The Devil You Know, 2022, Dr Gwen Adshead, Faber & Faber Ltd

    The Darkening Age: Christian Destruction of the Classical World, 2017, Catherine Nixey, Macmillan

    Next meeting on May 10th. The next People’s Assembly takes place on June 1st at the Football Club starting at 2pm. Booking is done by contacting mapotts53@gmail.com. It is free but a small contribution can be made if you wish. [UPDATE: 15 April] We’ve just held our second on 13th and a write up is now posted. There is a report of the first here.

    Rating: 1 out of 5.

    Have you thought of joining us? We are trying to improve the standard of democracy and governance in the area and would welcome anyone with similar interests to join us.

    1748786400

      days

      hours  minutes  seconds

    until

    People’s Assembly

  • Democracy Café: March

    Café took place following tumultuous events in USA

    March 2025

    The Café started with a short introduction by the facilitator reporting back on the People’s Assembly which had been run the previous week. Around 40 attended, 50 all told, and the event secured good coverage in the local media. The next event is on 13 April and to secure a place contact mapotts53@gmail.com. We were also delighted to welcome a visitor from Horsham in E Sussex who is thinking of setting up a café in that town.

    We are grateful to Salisbury Library for their generous offer to use their space for our meetings.

    The Café took place in the week following the unseemly meeting in the White House between President Zelensky of Ukraine and President Trump and his team.

    The first question which won the vote was would we agree to a return of conscription? Conscription ended in the UK in 1963. Some saw it as having benefits for our youth: imbuing discipline in young people although it was noted that politicians were keen for it for other people’s children not their own. What was the difference between national service and conscription someone asked: there probably isn’t in reality. Were we desperate enough yet for this someone asked?

    The previous government had talked about a form of national service for school leavers. The problem was a hotchpotch of programmes for young people with little coherence for those who did not go to university, the less able and those with special needs. Someone felt that education had failed young people. Many parents don’t like their children going to school it was suggested and there had been a rise in home schooling. Echoing a discussion last time, there was little attention paid to the teaching of values they thought.

    A Quaker insisted that there was a right to object. He felt there was something of an obsession with military matters. In this context, it was noted that the nation faced threats which were not of a military nature eg cyber attacks, financial and bacteriological threats. We should be alive to these just as much as recruiting for the armed services. It wasn’t all boots on the ground. Someone who was a conscientious objector spoke of his service in an ambulance unit. Should we not aim for societies to live in a world without wars? It didn’t matter how you killed: what was the difference between a soldier in the field and someone sitting in front of a screen thousands of miles away pressing a button? Both had effects on the individual. Julian Assange and Wikileaks had revealed the extent of killing at a distance mainly by the US.

    The Quaker approach was questioned: what do they do to defend themselves? They did have a right to react (in reference to the Ukraine invasion) was the answer. The example of Einstein was mentioned who was in the US when Hitler came to power and decided not to go back to Germany. At that point he renounced his pacifism. After Hiroshima (which his discoveries in physics helped bring about) he became a pacifist again. The point being that people can change their minds.

    The government’s change of focus was introduced (the decision to reduce overseas aid funding to put more money into defence to reach 2.5% of GDP). We were never asked about this it was noted. It was suggested that it was a debate our leaders wanted us to have, to create enemies, even suggesting it was our leaders were the real enemies. The thinker and writer Prof. Mearsheimer was mentioned in the context of Ukraine (by now we had drifted away somewhat from conscription) and a lengthy essay on his thinking is available here. You will note that many do not agree with his views. Jeffrey Sachs was mentioned and his views about the eastward push of NATO and the idea that Americans had taken over the role the British Empire had in earlier times. His speech to the EU is a recommended read. Both suggested a need for our own foreign policy (divorced from the US was implied). The impetus behind the creation of the EEC, which was partly to end the centuries of wars which had taken place between European nations, has been forgotten it was said.

    It was suggested that every war since Vietnam has been a war of choice. This related to the references in the previous paragraph about America’s role in the world.

    Back to the plot and the problems within the armed services needed addressing. Issues of bullying and sexual harassment were common. This touched on the problem of retention of people within the services. The process in the Nordic nations and Switzerland where all able bodied men and women are required to do some kind of military service, Militärdienst (Switzerland). A recent referendum there voted 73% in favour of maintaining conscription.

    In relation to Ukraine, why weren’t we talking the language of diplomacy someone asked? The democratic process had been undermined at speed by the actions of Donald Trump someone said. There had been no time for the parliamentary process to have its say. The speed was deliberate it was suggested, the process of ‘flooding the zone’ (©Steve Bannon). It was a question of getting used to uncertainty.

    Well, we didn’t really answer the question! Conscription arose in times of war and that is unlikely as far as the UK is concerned. It might arise in connection with troops being sent to Ukraine a matter we did not directly discuss. Since the armed services have seen funding fall to seriously low levels and the standing army was at a very low ebb, maybe conscription might be needed. The debate circled around events in Ukraine which led us to part two …

    The second half kicked off with the question is the Trump approach to Ukraine the only practical one? There was a review of the current situation. Biden’s leadership saw no prospect of an end to the fighting; Putin has too much as stake to give up now especially after recent events; Trump is providing a solution which is not what Ukrainians want; he is forcing – or trying to force – Zelensky to concede. Debate.

    The similarities to the ’30s was mentioned and the policy of appeasement. A lot depends on Putin’s intentions someone thought: will he be satisfied with what he’s got (the implication being he won’t be)? Thousands have died but Trump’s way is giving Putin all the cards. We returned to some of the points in the first half debate. We were led to believe ‘Russia bad’ ‘America good’ but both had imperial ambitions as the above references will attest. The eastward push of NATO was a factor in recent events although it was noted that these new members wanted to join for their protection.

    Trump’s approach was purely transactional it was noted with an eye on securing mineral deals in Ukraine – no doubt at favourable prices – for American mining companies.

    Putin was fundamentally different someone noted, he was a liar and did not stick to agreements. The Minsk agreement was referred to which demanded nothing of Russia and was a precursor to the 2022 invasion. Remember the Novichok attack in Salisbury. At this point, Craig Murray’s take on the Skripal’s and Navalny was brought up, essentially disbelieving the received narrative of Putin ordering assassinations. We were reminded of the Katyn massacre of Polish soldiers carried out by the NKVD in WWII.

    It felt wrong it was said, that is to allow Russia to get away with invading which might lead to further actions in places like Moldova and the Baltic states.

    A bit of Russian history was mentioned namely that they were late to democracy. Attempts in the late nineteenth centuries to install a democratic system failed until the eventual October revolution took place. They had a sense of inferiority and this, it was suggested, was a factor in their thinking. They had been frequently invaded by Napoleon, Hitler and by western ‘White’ forces after the revolution. Ukraine had its own history and previous domination under the Tsars led to the policy of attempted Russification, suppression of the language and deportations of thousands of members of the intelligentsia.

    There was discussion, frankly difficult to summarise, around the eastward push of NATO being a factor, the role of the CIA and a quote by Kissinger ‘to be a enemy of the USA is dangerous, to be a friend, fatal’.

    The two debates circled around the same topic really and that was Ukraine. But we did discuss the changing perceptions of the USA brought into stark focus with the recent statements and actions from the White House. The USA was effectively an empire and had carried out a range of activities around the world to destabilise nations or leaders who tried to resist their power (see the books mentioned below). This power was used for the benefit of American firms, a factor plainly evident in Trump’s approach to Ukraine. So there is nothing new in his attitudes. This was forcing an urgent rethink of policy on defence and ultimately much else in Europe. Perhaps people were beginning to recast their view of America? Maybe we will see conscription …

    Next meeting on 12 April.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    The Racket: a rogue reporter vs the American Empire, 2024, Matt Kennard

    The New Rulers of the World, 2016, John Pilger

    Would you like to join us? We are a small team and would welcome anyone interested in democracy and people having their say. Next café is on 12th April and that would be a good moment to have a word.

  • Democracy Café

    November 2024

    Post amended 23 November

    A lively and well attended session on the Saturday following the wonderful/disastrous (please delete as appropriate) election of Donald Trump to be the next president of the USA. You may not be surprised to know that eight of the 10 topics people proposed were, in some way or another, connected to this event. The one actually chosen was Why did the Democrats lose the election?

    It was suggested that many – a bit like the UK election – didn’t like either candidate, so ‘held their noses’ and voted for Trump partly because he fitted their views. It was suggested that Donald Trump focused on the economy (mostly) whereas Kamala Harris by contrast spent time on things like women’s issues and seldom discussed the economy. It was noted that in fact the economy was doing quite well with 2.2% growth and inflation at 3% but the Democrats failed to get the message across.

    The elephant in the room someone said was the middle east and Gaza in particular. Democrats were put off by Harris’s attitude and silence and many Moslem’s did not vote.

    Another factor it was noted was the late entry by Harris and the lack of a primary. She had little time to establish herself. She was a poor candidate someone thought. Would there have been a different result if the Democrats had had a better candidate it was suggested? I was asked, after the meeting, to include this link to a Guardian article from someone who worked for the Democrat team over the pond. It is an interesting perspective.

    A different view concerned people’s lack of understanding of economics. The discussion moved to the UK at this point and it was noted that it is not taught in schools below A level. It is seen as a specialist subject and is a small part of the curriculum even where it is taught. Bill Clinton’s ‘it’s the economy stupid’ was quoted to express how important the subject was to people. In this connection, it was said that whereas the economy might be performing well but for many Americans, life was a struggle. Someone who’s son was in Texas said they don’t feel well off.

    Back to the USA and the Democrats had a credibility problem it was said. Her focus on gender identity issues; women’s rights combined with Jo Biden’s very visible decline contributed to their loss of credibility. Someone did ask: ‘did Harris achieved anything?’ (as VP) which was left unanswered. But then it was noted that vice presidents seldom did achieve much – it was the nature of the post. We were reminded that if Trump should be unable to carry on as president for some reason, JD Vance will assume power … We swiftly moved on.

    At this point it was noted that the word ‘populist’ has not been used. It was a pity we didn’t discuss this further.

    A different perspective emerged when someone reported on some comments made by Bony Greer on the last edition of BBC’s Question Time. She is reported to have said the US was a completely different country sitting as it was between two oceans. It was populated almost entirely by immigrants yet most saw themselves as ‘post immigrants’. Immigration was a hot topic in the election and a weakness for the Democrats. Rather like the boat people in the UK, immigrants coming across the border from Mexico were not popular. Trump had tuned into these feelings. It was noted that home produced goods will be more expensive than imports and how will Americans cope with that? Wages were not keeping pace with inflation.

    America had prospered after the war and had many manufacturers of cars, domestic goods, clothes and much else. Many of these jobs had gone overseas and had left vast swathes of middle America with few jobs. Detroit was an example. Although the country might be prosperous, large areas weren’t and there was much poverty. As someone noted ‘it was easy to be a liberal when you’re better off’.

    It was easy to be a liberal if you are better off

    It seemed to suggest America was becoming more isolationist. The proposal to impose tariffs on import with China likely to attract 60% was perhaps evidence of this. On the other hand it was noted that America has a history of involvement around the world. It had intervened in many South American countries fomenting coups and other activities.

    In the second half we felt sufficient time had been given to the American election and decided on the topic of the Intimidation of media in the UK. The proposer mentioned the Electronic Intifada site and the arrest on terrorist charges of one of its journalists. Craig Murray was also mentioned who was sacked from his diplomatic post after exposing human rights abuses by the Karimov regime. The contention was that journalists were being arrested for carrying out honest journalism. [Amendment 23 November. It was clear that few had heard of the arrest mentioned at the start of this paragraph which in a way, reinforces the point that it is not just mis and disinformation but the denial of information by the media. In December’s Byline Times, Peter Oborne has written a short piece which is relevant and of interest].

    IMG_0001Download

    SLAPPs were mentioned as another pressure to limit press freedom. [There is no single definition of what is a SLAPP – Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation – but they consist of a range of legal measures to make exposing wrongdoing extremely expensive and act to prevent publication of such wrongdoings because the costs are too great. It is generally agreed that SLAPPs act against the public interest and free speech]. It was noted that London is regarded as the ‘libel capital of the world’ and venue of choice for those wishing to silence criticism.

    We were urged to read publications such as Declassified UK which publishes stories the mainstream media is reluctant to. There was also the D Notice system and that we are not allowed to know that such a notice is in existence. The current conflict in the Middle East was mentioned and how journalists were muzzled, although it has to be noted that they are not allowed into Gaza. In this context, Haaretz was mentioned, which despite being based in Israel itself, was a surprising source of information which does not see the light of day in British media.

    The debate hovered around independent views in the context of the media and someone wondered if there was much demand for this? In the context of the US it was suggested that, to quote, ‘they couldn’t give a monkey’s’ (for independent views). People read material which reflected their opinions. Byline Times was mentioned (and recommended) by a few as providing some kind of spotlight on media activity. Others suggested Tortoise Media and Middle East Eye. This suggested the importance of critical thinking – a topic we have discussed in previous DCs – and the ability to analyse critically what we are being told. The distinction (in the media) between fact and opinion was important it was stressed and indeed, some media did make this distinction clear.

    An ex Open University tutor stressed the importance language and the meaning in words. Students were encouraged to carefully appraise what they were reading to establish its reliability. We were invited to look up Harry Frankfurt, the author of several books on the subject of ‘bullshit’ which he has carefully analysed (these Americans, whatever will they think of next?). You may wish to follow this link which is a sea of text I’m afraid but nevertheless, does give you a good insight into this topic.

    Facts someone said, were all very well, but they did depend on your perceptions. I think the point being made here was that fact was difficult to discern and it did depend on the recipient’s interpretation of them hence, could anything be a fact? What a pity Wittgenstein could not come to our discussions and help us out. That, come to think of it, is a fact. Someone noted the idea of ‘evidence based medicine’.

    Back to the original topic and problems of free speech. The Southport riots saw many people arrested and imprisoned as a result of the violence. The problem was free speech and the distinction between ‘inciting’ and ‘challenging’. Who decides? The first amendment in the US guaranteed free speech (an issue which may be tested if Donald Trump’s threats are to be believed) which we do not have in the UK. It was noted that ‘one person’s rioter is another person’s freedom fighter’ (Gerald Seymour, 1976). There was a link between ‘fact’ and ‘values’ a comment which seemed to echo the issue of perception.

    No platforming a slippery slope towards totalitarianism

    Concern was expressed about the notion of ‘hate speech’. It led to things like no platforming in universities where those who’s views are deemed unacceptable are not allowed to speak. This was a slippery road that led to totalitarianism it was suggested.

    The internet and the world wide web were seen as hugely beneficial when they first appeared around three decades ago. They have a huge influence over our lives but no one voted for them. We are now on the verge of an AI revolution but again, no one has voted for it.

    Comment

    Two really interesting debates and although we have oft debated the media in these meetings, we somehow broke new ground this time. Perhaps the war in the Middle East and Gaza has exposed the weaknesses of the mainstream channels. The alternative sources mentioned above together with al Jazeera and – somewhat surprisingly, Haaretz – provide more insight into the terrible events taking place there. The threat side of things is something we have not touched on before and it will be interesting to see if some of the restrictive legislation passed by the last government will be repealed by the new. Perhaps it would be inadvisable to hold one’s breath.

    Peter Curbishley

    Next meeting on 14th December at 10:00 in the Salisbury Library. People seemed to like the table less format so we will repeat that. It’s only the scribe who loses out …

  • Democracy Café: March

    March 2024

    A dozen members of the group attended this meeting and, after a slightly faltering start, two topics were, as usual, chosen for discussion.

    The most popular choice was consideration of the implications of a Trump win in the American presidential election in November. Concerns were expressed about his possible foreign policy (with regard to Ukraine, trade and Taiwan among other issues) and domestically, particularly his hostility to green matters, and the question of his willingness to leave office.

    The fossil fuels issue was brought up more than once, as was Trump’s attitude to women and worries about how his policies on immigration might turn out. On the other side, it was pointed out that Trump had ejected fewer people than Obama, presided over the lowest inflation for 45 years and the highest employment levels ever. Insofar as there was a debate on his merits or demerits, the prevailing view was that his unpredictability was a problem (a surprising link to Jeremy Corbyn). There was discussion of the polarisation of U.S. society that Trump embodied, notably the weaponisation of general disaffection (that Biden had not managed to utilise) and the fear of the white population of becoming a minority. Observations were made about the possible causes of Trump’s behaviour, as well as disappointment that he had not controlled big business when in power.

    The second topic of the day was “What are British values?” It was generally agreed that there was no answer to the question that would be meaningful, but rather there was an implication that our values are by definition better than anyone else’s. This could be attributed to having had an empire (or mere snobbishness). Our island history meant that we were less affected by neighbours (though it was noted that we were “perfidious Albion”) and more likely to want to be different. It was suggested that one of our virtues was an ability to fix things (notably when in Europe) and a pragmatic approach. We take the emotion out of things. This led on, though, to a debate on the post-imperial development of the UK as a financial centre (with questionable activities) – secrecy became a value along with duplicity. We were brought back to a consideration of the Enlightenment ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity as a code of values, if not specifically British.

    Andrew Hemming

    The next meeting is on Saturday 13th April starting at 10:00 in Salisbury Library. We are grateful to the Library for allowing us to use the space for our meetings.