"David B [one of the founders of the cult movement within AA] a number of years ago wanted to be elected to the GSB [General Service Board]. They had other ideas and was refused - he sulked - the following year ( 1995 or thereabouts) the GSB were involved in forming a new constitution relating to the application of the concepts in this country. They made some errors and subsequently rectified them and apologised (Step 10). David B's gang seized upon this and started a campaign down in the South West to try and get a vote of no confidence in the GSB. They wanted the Board to be removed. People in the area were resistant to the notion and refused to back the campaign. Their region refused the proposal and in fact made a vote of confidence in the board. This movement was led by the Chelsea intergroup (David B's patch). Then followed a dirty tricks campaign which involved people's anonymity being broken (eg letters being sent to members' homes with the AA logo on the outside of the envelope). They still had no impact. I believe that these events are the impetus behind the current Taliban campaign. They failed to achieve their ends and so they are seeking to subvert AA via the current methods. This could further show that there is a deliberate strategy to take over AA by these thugs....."
....which brings us back to Little Wayne. The word is that he's discovered IT'S COLD OUT THERE - and is panicking about his and the cult's move to form a separate Intergroup. Apparently a reconciliation is in the offing and noises are being made about the cult rejoining (ie taking over) Plymouth Intergroup again. Our prediction is that Tradition One will be much bandied about, the cult will go into all out "victim mode" and play the part for all its worth, and AA will repeat the same old mistakes (remember the AA definition of insanity!!) and allow them back into the fold, where they will continue to inflict as much damage on AA as they can in pursuit of their own agenda (some groups - and members - never learn). But IT IS worth remembering that the cult groups have identifiable connections with non-AA organisations (in breach of the Traditions) - much of their literature is derived from these sources (as is their programme), some have connections to commercial interests (in some instances advertising their wares on their websites)(in breach of the Traditions), none of them even have a nodding acquaintance with the recovery programme of Alcoholics Anonymous (ie. the one in the Big Book) and they are run by a core group of individuals whose primary interests certainly are not those of AA but rather their own self aggrandisement (sponsorship idolatry, circuit speakers ("big fish in little ponds"), local gurus etc) (in breach of the Traditions). Still at least one good thing will come out of all of this - we'll be able to say "WE TOLD YOU SO!!" - Every cloud has a....
Over to you
Cheerio
The Fellas
Monday, 17 August 2009
Thursday, 13 August 2009
Intolerance & Disunity
One of the aacultwatch team came across this little gem recently - and we've taken the title straight off the cult website which published the article in question. It could almost become the cult "motto" - they are, after all, its most active proponents.
It is truly fascinating, and indeed never fails to take our breath away, the sheer arrogance and obtuseness of a cult member in full flight. Apparently this particular individual is feeling rather peeved because he's been on the receiving end of some somewhat impolitic behaviour on the part of a few AA members. This conduct might even be construed as abuse, but then abuse comes in many forms, doesn't it? For example, the widespread and systematic manipulation, brainwashing and outright intimidation of newcomers by members of the cult groups might be regarded in some quarters as a form of abuse - but we're not going to go into that here - the remainder of site contains ample evidence on this theme.
You'll no doubt be relieved to hear we're not going to give you a blow-by-blow account of the article; the original is easily viewed - but we suggest only by those with a strong stomach.
We should commence by saying that one of the favoured tactics of a cult member, when the pressure is starting to tell, is to go into "victim" mode. By playing the "underdog" - the "poor misunderstood fellow with only the best of intentions" - he may then go on to play the "wronged party" and thus move neatly into depicting everyone else at fault, "not working the programme" etc. Does this sound at all familiar to you? We think so.
So this particular plaint starts off with a lecture on the AA logo, the legacies it depicts, and an explanation of how the Traditions evolved. Now the favourite tradition of the cult is Tradition One, and our "poor innocent" goes on to quote this:
'Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon AA unity.'
Now there's no question that it's an important tradition but for the cult it serves another quite distinct purpose. It is frequently brandished by them as a means of stifling any dissenting voice, for this might "threaten" AA unity. It should be noted that this particular concern does not seem to worry the cult unduly when they happen to be that dissenting voice - Alexis K (cult member - Road to Recovery, Plymouth - and famous abuser of the General Secretary of Alcoholics Anonymous - see here) has expounded in detail on this one, and his verbal dexterity would be impressive, that is if one were easily impressed - and we're not. So any sign that AA members might dislike the way the cult conducts its business, or worse, dare to express that, shall we say, revulsion, then this tradition is immediately cited, and thus order (cult order) is restored. But the tradition that you rarely hear mentioned by the pointed headed ones is Tradition Four - see Big Book - because that really does cramp their style. Yet again an attempt has been made on their website to reinvent this Tradition - but yet again we're not easily impressed. But usually it's simpler to either misquote the tradition or ignore it completely - and the cult do both - it really doesn't serve their purposes.
The plaintiff then moves onto to describe in glowing terms his endeavours to go forth into heathen lands (ie AA meetings) to spread the "wonderful message of recovery that was so freely given to me". Now we're sure you're all thinking: "Well! He can't be such a bad lad, not with such fine intentions, and we do think you (aaccultwatch) are being a bit harsh on him". And you know what? We think you're right. In fact we'd go even further and say we KNOW you're right. And how do we know? Why! The fellow tells us so himself. We quote: "I believe that I am by nature a well-mannered, friendly, kind and gentle young man". Well there you go! How could such a fine fellow be subjected to such gross impoliteness as displayed by these nasty, nasty AA members. You should hang your heads in shame! Apparently some of these villains (a "small minority") would refuse "to shake my hand and even swear at me sometimes in a disgusting manner". Furthermore, the fellow goes on to explain - and we can even now see the look of innocent bewilderment spreading over his saintly face: "I was mortified by this as I had done nothing to harm these people by either word or deed". Well this is shocking stuff! We then discover that the reason for this hostile welcome is down to the home group attended by our budding martyr - the local cult group. Now the fellow becomes "baffled" for this is the very group which "showed me exactly what I needed to do to recover from alcoholism quickly and easily with loving kindness." (our emphasis – part of cult propaganda) He then goes on to describe in "clone speak" his recovery and the fact that he did not respond to these attacks in like fashion but instead would still offer "my hand to shake in fellowship, smile saying hello" etc ad nauseam. A little bit of reality kicks in at this point and the fellow admits to "curs[ing] them behind their back as I have got feelings you know, and we are a sensitive lot us alcoholics after all. But face to face I treat them with loving kindness in the hope that one day they will see me as the good-hearted man and alcoholic that I am...". Well, by now we've clearly identified who the goody is, and who the baddies are, haven't we! And we've discovered one of his priorities - image is all!
And now the denouement: "Sadly the day finally came when I felt unwelcome in an AA meeting for the first time because of the growing attacks against myself and my home group". A confrontation occurs and he claims that "most of the members there apologised and joined me in solidarity". Subsequently it seems that other members - presumably that ubiquitous "minority" (cult speak for the rest of AA) - join in the attack - and the "minority" view has its day, and our "good-hearted" fellow walks out of the meeting in disgust. The source of contention seems to be the cult group's "policy" on medication, which, like everything else it is involved in, is grossly intrusive. Apparently this group has its very own policy on the subject. Now please let us break the news to you - AA already has guidelines on the matter - and they've been around some time now. We don't really need any more. (The problem for the cult is that it has such a well proven track record of saying one thing in public and practising quite another in private (particularly with regard to the prescribed medication issue) that its primary mode of expression has become "the lie"; and the bigger the better. So it really is rather disingenuous to play the innocent when it comes to matters of fact and record)
To continue: it would seem that so devastated was this fellow by what had taken place, and even with his own reactions, that he rang up a "highly respected old-timer that was at that meeting" who in turn conveniently provided the "victim" with the justification and rationalisation that he so desperately needed. It turns out that our "well-mannered, friendly, kind and gentle young man" had retained his reputation and it was in fact the fault of all the others, those nasty, unkind, "off the programme" members at the meeting. He was told that he had "done nothing wrong" and that moreover he ("the highly respected old-timer") was surprised that it had taken me so long to react to all the attacks against me over the previous two years" - thus our almost flawless friend is rendered "reputation intacta".
So shaken was he that he even considered: "I felt that I couldn't go to any other meetings again apart from my home group". This is presented as some dreadful punishment inflicted upon this hapless and entirely blameless victim by the wicked AA members. But the fact is that most cult members are actively encouraged not to attend AA meetings for fear that they might be contaminated by the diluted and erroneous programme practised there. They only venture forth either in little bands on poaching missions, or on "missionary work" amongst the benighted heathen ie. AA. Unfortunately for us he has decided to continue with his selfless endeavours amongst us poor lost souls, and will continue to "do as much service as I can in line with the 12 traditions of AA" (that is except for Tradition Four) The "victim" concludes with this little insight - and we do mean "little": "Coincidentally I have found that the small minority [there it is again] causing so much damage to unity within AA are often the ones that say that they don’t read the Big Book, bad-mouth the 12 Steps and have no interest or regard for the 12 Traditions. Bill W. was right when he said that if AA doesn’t survive it will be because it was destroyed from within."
So there you have it. The reason why we have gone into some length upon this particular individual is that he most clearly illustrates the mind set of the average cult member (those who are suitably on-message). He clearly establishes his credentials as the aggrieved party in the whole matter, and not once does it cross his mind that there might be some reason behind this antagonistic response to his presence in an AA meeting (we refer you to the Big Book - pp. 61-62). His image must be maintained at all times and and he wants to be thought of only in his own terms. Failure to comply with this particular perspective can only be because everyone else is "wrong" and he must be "right". Finally, anyone who fails to share this viewpoint is, of course, part of a "small minority", who are entirely bent upon damaging AA unity, who know nothing of the the Big Book blah blah blah... Well, we can't speak for AA (since no one does) but we can speak for ourselves, and here's a little insight from us. The members of the aacultwatch team ARE well acquainted with the Big Book, DON'T bad-mouth the 12 Steps, and HAVE A CONSIDERABLE INTEREST AND REGARD for the 12 Traditions. The problem is that we have to deal with a "minority" of cult members, posing as AA members, whose ignorance of these areas is literally stupefying, and quite probably irremediable.
Finally might we suggest, and of course in all humility - a virtue seemingly lacking in our "victim" - that the next time he attends an AA meeting perhaps he would be well advised to keep the orifice beneath his nose tightly zipped, and the holes on either side of his head wide open - he might actually become acquainted with the recovery programme of Alcoholics Anonymous rather than the perversion put about by the cult.
And finally finally - if that fails to do the trick then might we suggest that he follow the advice of Little Wayne (Plymouth Road to Recovery cult group):
"....just walk on by because there is nothing here for you"
Cheerio
The Fellas
It is truly fascinating, and indeed never fails to take our breath away, the sheer arrogance and obtuseness of a cult member in full flight. Apparently this particular individual is feeling rather peeved because he's been on the receiving end of some somewhat impolitic behaviour on the part of a few AA members. This conduct might even be construed as abuse, but then abuse comes in many forms, doesn't it? For example, the widespread and systematic manipulation, brainwashing and outright intimidation of newcomers by members of the cult groups might be regarded in some quarters as a form of abuse - but we're not going to go into that here - the remainder of site contains ample evidence on this theme.
You'll no doubt be relieved to hear we're not going to give you a blow-by-blow account of the article; the original is easily viewed - but we suggest only by those with a strong stomach.
We should commence by saying that one of the favoured tactics of a cult member, when the pressure is starting to tell, is to go into "victim" mode. By playing the "underdog" - the "poor misunderstood fellow with only the best of intentions" - he may then go on to play the "wronged party" and thus move neatly into depicting everyone else at fault, "not working the programme" etc. Does this sound at all familiar to you? We think so.
So this particular plaint starts off with a lecture on the AA logo, the legacies it depicts, and an explanation of how the Traditions evolved. Now the favourite tradition of the cult is Tradition One, and our "poor innocent" goes on to quote this:
'Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon AA unity.'
Now there's no question that it's an important tradition but for the cult it serves another quite distinct purpose. It is frequently brandished by them as a means of stifling any dissenting voice, for this might "threaten" AA unity. It should be noted that this particular concern does not seem to worry the cult unduly when they happen to be that dissenting voice - Alexis K (cult member - Road to Recovery, Plymouth - and famous abuser of the General Secretary of Alcoholics Anonymous - see here) has expounded in detail on this one, and his verbal dexterity would be impressive, that is if one were easily impressed - and we're not. So any sign that AA members might dislike the way the cult conducts its business, or worse, dare to express that, shall we say, revulsion, then this tradition is immediately cited, and thus order (cult order) is restored. But the tradition that you rarely hear mentioned by the pointed headed ones is Tradition Four - see Big Book - because that really does cramp their style. Yet again an attempt has been made on their website to reinvent this Tradition - but yet again we're not easily impressed. But usually it's simpler to either misquote the tradition or ignore it completely - and the cult do both - it really doesn't serve their purposes.
The plaintiff then moves onto to describe in glowing terms his endeavours to go forth into heathen lands (ie AA meetings) to spread the "wonderful message of recovery that was so freely given to me". Now we're sure you're all thinking: "Well! He can't be such a bad lad, not with such fine intentions, and we do think you (aaccultwatch) are being a bit harsh on him". And you know what? We think you're right. In fact we'd go even further and say we KNOW you're right. And how do we know? Why! The fellow tells us so himself. We quote: "I believe that I am by nature a well-mannered, friendly, kind and gentle young man". Well there you go! How could such a fine fellow be subjected to such gross impoliteness as displayed by these nasty, nasty AA members. You should hang your heads in shame! Apparently some of these villains (a "small minority") would refuse "to shake my hand and even swear at me sometimes in a disgusting manner". Furthermore, the fellow goes on to explain - and we can even now see the look of innocent bewilderment spreading over his saintly face: "I was mortified by this as I had done nothing to harm these people by either word or deed". Well this is shocking stuff! We then discover that the reason for this hostile welcome is down to the home group attended by our budding martyr - the local cult group. Now the fellow becomes "baffled" for this is the very group which "showed me exactly what I needed to do to recover from alcoholism quickly and easily with loving kindness." (our emphasis – part of cult propaganda) He then goes on to describe in "clone speak" his recovery and the fact that he did not respond to these attacks in like fashion but instead would still offer "my hand to shake in fellowship, smile saying hello" etc ad nauseam. A little bit of reality kicks in at this point and the fellow admits to "curs[ing] them behind their back as I have got feelings you know, and we are a sensitive lot us alcoholics after all. But face to face I treat them with loving kindness in the hope that one day they will see me as the good-hearted man and alcoholic that I am...". Well, by now we've clearly identified who the goody is, and who the baddies are, haven't we! And we've discovered one of his priorities - image is all!
And now the denouement: "Sadly the day finally came when I felt unwelcome in an AA meeting for the first time because of the growing attacks against myself and my home group". A confrontation occurs and he claims that "most of the members there apologised and joined me in solidarity". Subsequently it seems that other members - presumably that ubiquitous "minority" (cult speak for the rest of AA) - join in the attack - and the "minority" view has its day, and our "good-hearted" fellow walks out of the meeting in disgust. The source of contention seems to be the cult group's "policy" on medication, which, like everything else it is involved in, is grossly intrusive. Apparently this group has its very own policy on the subject. Now please let us break the news to you - AA already has guidelines on the matter - and they've been around some time now. We don't really need any more. (The problem for the cult is that it has such a well proven track record of saying one thing in public and practising quite another in private (particularly with regard to the prescribed medication issue) that its primary mode of expression has become "the lie"; and the bigger the better. So it really is rather disingenuous to play the innocent when it comes to matters of fact and record)
To continue: it would seem that so devastated was this fellow by what had taken place, and even with his own reactions, that he rang up a "highly respected old-timer that was at that meeting" who in turn conveniently provided the "victim" with the justification and rationalisation that he so desperately needed. It turns out that our "well-mannered, friendly, kind and gentle young man" had retained his reputation and it was in fact the fault of all the others, those nasty, unkind, "off the programme" members at the meeting. He was told that he had "done nothing wrong" and that moreover he ("the highly respected old-timer") was surprised that it had taken me so long to react to all the attacks against me over the previous two years" - thus our almost flawless friend is rendered "reputation intacta".
So shaken was he that he even considered: "I felt that I couldn't go to any other meetings again apart from my home group". This is presented as some dreadful punishment inflicted upon this hapless and entirely blameless victim by the wicked AA members. But the fact is that most cult members are actively encouraged not to attend AA meetings for fear that they might be contaminated by the diluted and erroneous programme practised there. They only venture forth either in little bands on poaching missions, or on "missionary work" amongst the benighted heathen ie. AA. Unfortunately for us he has decided to continue with his selfless endeavours amongst us poor lost souls, and will continue to "do as much service as I can in line with the 12 traditions of AA" (that is except for Tradition Four) The "victim" concludes with this little insight - and we do mean "little": "Coincidentally I have found that the small minority [there it is again] causing so much damage to unity within AA are often the ones that say that they don’t read the Big Book, bad-mouth the 12 Steps and have no interest or regard for the 12 Traditions. Bill W. was right when he said that if AA doesn’t survive it will be because it was destroyed from within."
So there you have it. The reason why we have gone into some length upon this particular individual is that he most clearly illustrates the mind set of the average cult member (those who are suitably on-message). He clearly establishes his credentials as the aggrieved party in the whole matter, and not once does it cross his mind that there might be some reason behind this antagonistic response to his presence in an AA meeting (we refer you to the Big Book - pp. 61-62). His image must be maintained at all times and and he wants to be thought of only in his own terms. Failure to comply with this particular perspective can only be because everyone else is "wrong" and he must be "right". Finally, anyone who fails to share this viewpoint is, of course, part of a "small minority", who are entirely bent upon damaging AA unity, who know nothing of the the Big Book blah blah blah... Well, we can't speak for AA (since no one does) but we can speak for ourselves, and here's a little insight from us. The members of the aacultwatch team ARE well acquainted with the Big Book, DON'T bad-mouth the 12 Steps, and HAVE A CONSIDERABLE INTEREST AND REGARD for the 12 Traditions. The problem is that we have to deal with a "minority" of cult members, posing as AA members, whose ignorance of these areas is literally stupefying, and quite probably irremediable.
Finally might we suggest, and of course in all humility - a virtue seemingly lacking in our "victim" - that the next time he attends an AA meeting perhaps he would be well advised to keep the orifice beneath his nose tightly zipped, and the holes on either side of his head wide open - he might actually become acquainted with the recovery programme of Alcoholics Anonymous rather than the perversion put about by the cult.
And finally finally - if that fails to do the trick then might we suggest that he follow the advice of Little Wayne (Plymouth Road to Recovery cult group):
"....just walk on by because there is nothing here for you"
Cheerio
The Fellas
Tuesday, 11 August 2009
North London Region - Who says the cult is a threat!
A contribution from an AA member interested in shaking the "apathy of London members who shrug when told that the Visionaries are taking over their Fellowship" (dates should be adjusted by about two years to account for delay in publication)
"They've [variously known as the "cult", "Visions", "Taliban", "Step Nazis" etc] got a tenuous hold of the whole of London Region (North), the biggest Region in the country, via a simple and clever manoeuvre disguised as "democracy" -- they got Region to vote 3 years ago for an annual combined meeting of GSRs in all eleven intergroups, to take place on the first Sunday in November and "confirm" Region officers and Conference Delegates. The second year this "Region Assembly" voted itself the power to declare Region policies... last year they voted for their intergroups to send their money to region rather than GSO... and next month they've got resolutions about taking over the London Where To Find and filling it with their literature. There are 450 meetings in these eleven intergroups and about half of them have GSRs, but of course most of the active ones attend their intergroups for Service matters, thus only 40-50 die-hards show up at this Assembly. Guess how many Visionary GSRs are three-line-whipped into going and voting as a bloc? About 30. This is the Fellowship of AA in a nutshell. You only have to organise between five and ten percent of members at any level to control that level.... which is OK if you're picking a tea maker for your group, but dangerous when the decision is whether a meetings-list for newcomers should include instructions to drunken members of the public to get down on their knees."
Any further information on developments in North London (or any other part of the country) would be welcome (and published subsequent to our corroboration procedures)
PS Update on Our Little Twitterer: The poor fellow is still tweeting away - and still providing us with more publicity - but he's getting quite desperate by the sounds of it - abuse levels rising with each successive Tweet - a sure sign of a lost argument - ah bless!
"They've [variously known as the "cult", "Visions", "Taliban", "Step Nazis" etc] got a tenuous hold of the whole of London Region (North), the biggest Region in the country, via a simple and clever manoeuvre disguised as "democracy" -- they got Region to vote 3 years ago for an annual combined meeting of GSRs in all eleven intergroups, to take place on the first Sunday in November and "confirm" Region officers and Conference Delegates. The second year this "Region Assembly" voted itself the power to declare Region policies... last year they voted for their intergroups to send their money to region rather than GSO... and next month they've got resolutions about taking over the London Where To Find and filling it with their literature. There are 450 meetings in these eleven intergroups and about half of them have GSRs, but of course most of the active ones attend their intergroups for Service matters, thus only 40-50 die-hards show up at this Assembly. Guess how many Visionary GSRs are three-line-whipped into going and voting as a bloc? About 30. This is the Fellowship of AA in a nutshell. You only have to organise between five and ten percent of members at any level to control that level.... which is OK if you're picking a tea maker for your group, but dangerous when the decision is whether a meetings-list for newcomers should include instructions to drunken members of the public to get down on their knees."
Any further information on developments in North London (or any other part of the country) would be welcome (and published subsequent to our corroboration procedures)
PS Update on Our Little Twitterer: The poor fellow is still tweeting away - and still providing us with more publicity - but he's getting quite desperate by the sounds of it - abuse levels rising with each successive Tweet - a sure sign of a lost argument - ah bless!
Saturday, 8 August 2009
How the cult proliferates
"The Wednesday Eaton Square "Visions for You" meeting transmuted into a Thursday Cardinal Hume Centre Westminster meeting about two years ago [2006]. Food was even served after the meeting where newcomers were 'made at home' though men and women were strictly segregated. This meeting then folded about 6 months ago [2007] supposedly on the grounds that there was insufficient interest but actually due to a nasty power struggle."
The above (sent in by a member) is an example of how the cult proliferates - not by consensus, but by power struggles within its own ranks, each faction seeking to outdo the others in terms of its "purity" of message. It is in this manner that it proceeds towards the ever more extreme poles of fanaticism and dogmatism, driven not by a desire to help the still suffering alcoholic but impelled only by ego-dominated power struggles - or as it puts it so simply in the Big Book - "self will run riot".
The above (sent in by a member) is an example of how the cult proliferates - not by consensus, but by power struggles within its own ranks, each faction seeking to outdo the others in terms of its "purity" of message. It is in this manner that it proceeds towards the ever more extreme poles of fanaticism and dogmatism, driven not by a desire to help the still suffering alcoholic but impelled only by ego-dominated power struggles - or as it puts it so simply in the Big Book - "self will run riot".
Wednesday, 5 August 2009
A member's eye view
"Greetings
Nice to see a movement against these rather empty evil people - the Joys and their other manifestations. I was aware of them and their practices for many years in London...there was a period when myself and 2 or 3 friends used to visit the Joys meeting on Ifield Road on Sunday evening, hoping that our sharing might intrude on the psychological closed shop they were then. I also tried to get intergroup to do something about them..perhaps 15 years ago...It worried me greatly that a journalist might infiltrate one of their groups and it would not take long to recognise all the signs of a cult therein...lovebombing, cutting off from friends, staying within the circle, etc etc. (As happened in Washington about 12 months back - made a big article in Newsweek or perhaps Time magazine (not sure which, one of them no longer functions).
I got sober with David B [one of the originators of the cult movement in Great Britain] - we were both members of the Milman's Street meeting, in Worlds End Chelsea...he came in 2 years before me...to hear him talk you would think he had 12 stepped Bill W - I always actively opposed most things he proposed..because they were daft...I remember him turning up once at a Regional Meeting in Central London and his contribution was so daft that it was ignored and we moved on the the next issue. He never came again..couldn't hack working with grown-ups."
Nice to see a movement against these rather empty evil people - the Joys and their other manifestations. I was aware of them and their practices for many years in London...there was a period when myself and 2 or 3 friends used to visit the Joys meeting on Ifield Road on Sunday evening, hoping that our sharing might intrude on the psychological closed shop they were then. I also tried to get intergroup to do something about them..perhaps 15 years ago...It worried me greatly that a journalist might infiltrate one of their groups and it would not take long to recognise all the signs of a cult therein...lovebombing, cutting off from friends, staying within the circle, etc etc. (As happened in Washington about 12 months back - made a big article in Newsweek or perhaps Time magazine (not sure which, one of them no longer functions).
I got sober with David B [one of the originators of the cult movement in Great Britain] - we were both members of the Milman's Street meeting, in Worlds End Chelsea...he came in 2 years before me...to hear him talk you would think he had 12 stepped Bill W - I always actively opposed most things he proposed..because they were daft...I remember him turning up once at a Regional Meeting in Central London and his contribution was so daft that it was ignored and we moved on the the next issue. He never came again..couldn't hack working with grown-ups."
Monday, 3 August 2009
Welcome
Finally we've got round to getting this blog moving. Additionally we now have a Twitter account: twitter.com/aacultwatch which will indicate updates via the net and by mobile.
Readers may subscribe to automatic downloads of the latest information to the blog via the feed system (see Subscribe to: Posts (Atom) at bottom of blog page). Additionally there is a facility for sending copies of the latest entries via email to a friend (see email icon)
Readers may subscribe to automatic downloads of the latest information to the blog via the feed system (see Subscribe to: Posts (Atom) at bottom of blog page). Additionally there is a facility for sending copies of the latest entries via email to a friend (see email icon)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)