West Kent - no – we haven't forgotten you!

Business as usual in cult land. The Gravesend Tuesday Beginners meeting (cult) is now turning away drunks and telling them to get a detox before they come back. We have to admit this at least might be a step in the right direction for the cult - not the bit about turning away drunks we hasten to add … Now what is the name of the fellowship? Ah yes! Alcoholics Anonymous. Goodness gracious! We shouldn't be letting in drunks at all!! What are things coming to? People like that!! (that was irony by the way for any cult members reading this – and we know you are!!). No. It's rather that they seem to have abandoned handing out medical advice and are leaving this to the professionals for a change!! Maybe Gavin the Plumber wasn't on duty that night! (it's an in-joke in West Kent.... or maybe Gavin is the in-joke in West Kent– who knows!! ..... But we digress....).... Never fear though - old habits die hard.....(as do newcomers in the cult's grip!) …. they are still being advised to stay away from AA meetings by members of the Tuesday cult group (Note: Gravesend Thursday is the ONLY genuine AA meeting in that locality). And now....

…..there's a rumour going round (as they do tend to do in AA) that word of cult activities is even starting to percolate into the rarefied realms of AA Southern Region (the dreaded “c” word has even appeared in the Conference questions discussion forum on the official AA website: http://www.aa-conference.org.uk/conforum/). Denial of course is a powerful obstacle to the truth (as most AA members have discovered from long and painful experience). However this particular set of blinkers does not apply solely to the disease with which we all have to deal. It is also a significant barrier when it comes to facing up to the reality of cult activities here in Great Britain as well as in other parts of the world. For those of us who have survived the cult's depredations it is blindingly obvious what their agenda is. However for other members of AA who do not possess the corresponding experience it is a difficult matter indeed to recognise, let alone acknowledge, that there exists in the midst of our society a relatively small - though not insignificant in terms of their destructive impact - group of individuals who are hell-bent on undermining the hard won inclusive values of Alcoholics Anonymous, and whose primary purpose is to replace these with their own dogma-driven, personality-obsessed and entirely exclusive interpretation of that noble and generous philosophy which has sustained Alcoholics Anonymous for so long and so effectively across the world. Despite its frequent claims to the contrary the cult has no interest whatsoever in sustaining AA unity, has little or no respect for the traditions and other guidelines that inform our fellowship, and is even less concerned for the welfare of those newly arrived at our doors. After all an authoritarian code can take no account of the individual and brooks no opposition; the cult “sponsor” MUST rule supreme in all matters within this form of dictatorship - their word is LAW! Remember – and these are not our words but straight from cult central command:

“It is suggested that you phone your sponsor and do exactly what he tells you. If you don’t have a sponsor try each day to do something about finding one”.

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS. It might be wise to remember when using the Meeting Finder facility on the Great Britain AA website (or the national printed versions) that inclusion does not guarantee that the listing is a genuine AA meeting. Pretty well any one can set up a meeting, call it AA, and there exists no means of establishing whether it is in fact the 'real deal'. It is better to rely on local Where to Finds (produced by the corresponding intergroup (except of course where these too have been compromised by cult participation)). Finally the best way to verify if a meeting adheres to AA principles is to ask around. Those members that insist that you must only go to a certain group (or set of groups) and not others in the area are almost certainly cult members, and their recommendations are pointing in the direction of cult meetings. On the other hand AA members can go to whatever meetings they like – it's called freedom of choice!

So where is the 7th Cavalry!!

We recently received a most disturbing communication from a member concerning Alcoholics Anonymous in the Los Angeles area (US). A whole catalogue of incidents were detailed (in some cases including dates and locations) which in some way related to the conduct of AA members, and most of which would fall into the category of serious criminal acts (including murder and rape). Evidently such cases should always be reported to the appropriate authorities in the first instance so that an investigation might ensue, arrests be made, and, where the evidence allows, prosecutions follow. From our point of view, and where this conduct is proven, such behaviour is utterly repugnant in any context, but when it is associated with AA it has the further impact of bringing us into disrepute thereby undermining our reputation as being a place of security for those who come to us for assistance. Our reporter identified the measures they and others had taken to tackle these serious issues which included notifying the General Service Office in New York as well as the local service structures. It would seem that the responses they received were less than satisfactory. To their credit they have themselves been active in seeking to raise the profile of this situation as well as taking practical steps to ensure that newcomers to our fellowship are protected. Clearly this chimes with aacultwatch's own efforts in this area (although to date we have no evidence that this degree of criminality is associated with any particular cult group in Great Britain). However we would take this opportunity to remind you of the Midtown groups (again the US – and which present an unmistakeable cult profile) where the local service structure failed largely to deal with the problem (and as far as we are aware continue to remain inactive when dealing with these rogue elements). Our reporter identifies a number of factors contributing to this state of affairs which we paraphrase below:

1) A poorly co-ordinated local service structure with insufficient GSR representation to ensure that such anti-social conduct is reported, exposed and then dealt with ie. a lack of transparency and accountability.
2) The court referral system where – and especially in the US – individuals are required to attend AA meetings as part of their sentencing. This results, in some instances, in completely inappropriate referrals being made (ie. individuals who are not alcoholics at all (using any generally accepted definition of the condition)) and/or are unwilling participants and therefore entirely hostile towards AA and engage thereafter in anti-social behaviour causing disruption to AA meetings ie. AA is being used as an inexpensive “dumping ground” by the court system. We have argued elsewhere that the “chit” system leaves itself wide open to abuse and moreover our participation in this form of sentencing is a breach of our own traditions.
3) The failure of the AA collectively - nationally and internationally – and through its respective conferences – to address these issues. The GB conference has issued a set of guidelines in relation to “bullying” within meetings but these are only effective insofar as members and groups are willing to enforce them.
4) Sexual predation specifically is widely reported in the above communication (or 13 stepping as it is referred to within the fellowship). We are not talking here about “boy meets girl and falls in love” (and other variations on this) or even – more commonly - “boy meets girl and falls in lust” but rather a deliberate and serial targetting of vulnerable AA members by “predators” (of both sexes). Even the term “13 Stepping” has in our view the effect of trivialising what in some instances might otherwise be termed “constructive rape”.

We would argue that with reference to the above the single common factor which determines whether this conduct continues or is eliminated (or at least minimised) is whether AA members, acting singly or in groups, are willing to take responsibility for ensuring that every new person coming to our fellowship is not subjected to any form of abuse whatsoever. Too frequently we hear people complaining “Why doesn't York do something?” (in the case of Great Britain), or “Why doesn't intergroup do something?” The fact is that these elements of the service structure can do no more than offer guidance; they have absolutely no powers of enforcement. We would emphasise here that the AA pledge should not be taken as a mere form of words; it means what it says: “I am responsible” - it does NOT say: “Someone else is responsible”. We would urge members to act where any such abuse is going on. In the case of criminal activity this should ALWAYS be reported to the police and as soon as possible (incidentally there exists a legal obligation to do so). In other situations of a non-criminal nature sexual predators, bullies (cult or otherwise) etc may simply be outed. Expose them for what they are. Do NOT collude with them or give them space to continue with their abuse both of members and of the fellowship. Their actions are depriving newcomers of the right to recover and to live free of this deadly disease. Finally: there is NO 7th Cavalry to come to the rescue at the last minute – only you!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

And so we return to Happy Clappy Land – The Heart of Darkness

In our previous piece (somewhat ironic) we focussed our attention rather on the bizarre nature of this particular conclave. Now we come to the seamier and more sinister side of events currently unfolding in Happy Clappy Land (aka Ealing - West London), these conducted under the direction of its very own “Pied Piper” (aka Happy Dennis), a fellow who seems determined to break the record for launching as many meetings as possible (and in the shortest space of time) in order to spread the “word”. Of course we might commend his efforts if “the word” happened to coincide in some way with the AA message, but unfortunately the antecedents of this particular version derive rather from cult sources than anything to do with Alcoholics Anonymous. Like so many other cult groups (Design for Living - Wimbledon/Newbury, Road to Recovery - Plymouth, Dallas Primary Purpose and other so-called Back to Basics inventions etc) it has produced its very own literature including a booklet which contains large numbers of quotes from the Big Book. Whole sections of this publication have been lifted from the original and transplanted into the 'revised' version, and to such an extent that we believe that this would constitute a breach of copyright if derived from any other edition of the book “Alcoholics Anonymous” than the first. Moreover reference is made in this tome to a website set up by David “The Icon” C, (a former sponsee of David B, the initiator of the whole Road to Recovery movement and its various incarnations). Dennis himself is a sponsee of the aforementioned “Icon” and thus the lineage - and the corruption it propagates – proceeds; but we will come back to this a little later. As is customary the usual misquotes are included within the “Preface” to the “Little Yellow Book” (as we shall refer to it), and most specifically with regard to AA recovery rates. However this is only to be expected because the misrepresentation itself serves largely as the basis for the whole cult movement, and thereafter supports its fabricated claims to present the 'true' and 'unsullied' version of both the programme and fellowship of AA. With much wringing of hands, gnashing of teeth, rending of clothes and other dramatic expressions of doom the cult have prophesied the imminent demise of AA for a number of years now, the end being declared well and truly “nigh” repeatedly, and for a variety of reasons (including the above). These include the unwelcome intrusion of “treatment centre” referrals (who apparently have been responsible for turning AA meetings into “therapy groups” - who would think it!), addicts who are not “true” or “real” alcoholics ie. drunks who turn out not to be “proper” drunks (according to the self-appointed committee who decide on these matters), those who fail to shape their recovery according to Oxford Groups' principles (the Four Absolutes, praying etc (on knees – and using Christian prayers), and finally a widespread unwillingness to “behave” just like they did in the good old days when alcoholics were alcoholics and all was right with the world! Unfortunately for these prophets of doom AA has not only failed to collapse under the weight of this mass of apostasy but has instead thrived, sustaining its initial – and documented - recovery rates (see here for article), and has become even more inclusive and liberal than ever before, largely abandoning moreover the ill-judged experiments of the past. Our predecessors may well be excused some of their excesses on the grounds that they were the pioneers, and trod an unknown territory (at this stage our own traditions had not been formulated as a response to these early 'failed experiments'). However, as AA itself has evolved and flourished, the programme (as outlined in the Big Book) remains the same as when it was first formulated (presented in the 1st edition with prior drafts being abandoned, these being adjudged (quite rightly) as either inaccurate and/or unsuited to our purpose). However the cult can offer no such plea of mitigation for their obscene conduct, and moreover their obtuse insistence that AA should return to this supposed “golden age” - and thereby repeat the same mistakes - can only be regarded as a form of madness (remember that old definition of insanity!) derived mainly from the corruption laying deeply embedded within their own twisted psyches (or untreated alcoholism as it is termed within our society). Certainly when you come to examine the "make-up" of a lot of their 'leaders” it quickly becomes evident that these are badly damaged individuals who remain quite unwilling to attend to their own deficiencies, and would much rather focus on the supposed defects of others (hence the general tendency towards 'control freakery' within their sponsorship system - or as we term it “sponsorship idolatry”). This brings us back to our original theme: Happy Dennis and his perhaps not-so-happy cohorts. We have received reports that an “anti-medication” policy has been adopted by this group. We quote: “ [they] may as well drink again than take anti-depressants". This, of course, is the kind of irresponsible advice that has already led to a number of AA members being hospitalised (and in some instances committing suicide), and is completely contrary to the guidelines circulated so widely within our fellowship. We have also been informed that the now quite infamous and appalling guidance in relation to Step Four has been circulating within the Ealing meetings. Again we quote: “In the inventory we should be prepared to include sex with: men, women, children, animals.... and bottles. Sometimes the exact nature of the sexual act (particular positions indulged in, for example) should go down if the motive in indulging in it is primarily selfish gratification rather than an expression of love.” This section can really only be described as a voyeur's charter (with paedophile tendencies!) and is indeed a complete perversion of the AA message, and then at every level! The website which used to carry this information (now deleted) was produced by David “The Icon” C, and is alluded to in the aforementioned cult literature. Moreover it has been suggested that the initial financing of the Ealing groups derives mainly from one source – Happy Dennis himself – remember - he who pays the piper calls the tune! Finally “The Little Yellow Book” contains a listing of his meetings (contrary to the wishes of the local intergroup) and is clearly intended to promote his, and only his interests. All of these events seem to be centred around premises located at Bayham Rd (the same address as for the Ealing Centre for Independent Living, 1 Bayham Road, West Ealing, W13 0TQ]. We wonder if they know about any of this?

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

The Myth of the Yellow Card

Here we discuss the yellow card which is frequently on display at AA meetings (if not actually read out either at the beginning or the end of the meeting). It goes as follows:

Who you see here
What you hear here
When you leave here
LET IT STAY HERE!

In practice this injunction is demonstrably both unenforceable and ineffective. Moreover in principle it is quite contrary to the whole purpose of Alcoholics Anonymous ie. to communicate recovery. We understand fully the good intent behind this guideline but would argue that it creates more problems than it solves and that it places members at greater jeopardy than would be the case if it was not on display at all. Additionally it is frequently cited as a means of camouflaging the activities of the cult within AA (although for these same reasons this tactic has proven to be less than effective).

Firstly it is completely unenforceable. It is a guideline and not a rule and there exists no authority (nor accompanying sanction) that can ensure compliance. Its effectiveness rests entirely on the voluntary assent of every member who attends the meeting (not to mention guests if it is an open AA meeting). It takes only one breach to render it useless. Its intent is to prevent gossip (usually malicious). Those who do not indulge in this habit will abstain from it whether the card is present or not. Those who do will carry on regardless! Even those who support the principle find themselves frequently in a position where they feel constrained to breach it. If we had a penny for every time we've heard the expression: “I know it's a yellow card matter but....” we would have amassed a considerable fortune by now. One of our members recalls an occasion when they were a newcomer having a conversation with another member who was helping them out at the time. The latter quite innocently asked our friend if 'so and so' was still secretary at a certain meeting. Being a newcomer, and therefore probably more scrupulous about observing the “rules” than the 'regulars', they hesitated to reply for taken literally the yellow card would restrict even this quite innocent communication. The fact that the respective members had probably known each other for years did not mitigate this fact. Moreover Tradition Four itself implies that there has to be some communication between groups (and the conduct of their meetings) which will of necessity require from time to time a “breach” of this confidentiality. In this connection it is worth pointing out here that there exists no circumstance of “privileged communication” in (or out of) meetings between members. To cite another example an interesting exchange took place between two attendees at another meeting. One was ex-CID and the other had - shall we say - a colourful past which included the occasional misconstruction on his part as to what constituted his property and what did not. The latter put the hypothetical situation to the former that if he were, for example, to share in a meeting that he had carried out a burglary how would the former (in his capacity as Old Bill) feel obliged to respond? The ex-officer replied that he would listen respectfully to the admission and then “nick” the guy at the end of the meeting! From this it can be seen that practically (as well as legally) the application of the yellow card principle is mostly a non-starter. We would argue that it would be better for the card to be abandoned (although this is not to say that gossip should be encouraged) but it is better to recognise the realities of life in the fellowship rather than promote an ideal which is rarely adhered to. The presence of the card gives an entirely false impression and leads people to discuss things in a public forum which would be better reviewed in more secure surroundings. Indeed it might be rather more useful to follow the guidelines indicated in the Big Book – to share only in “a general way”, and reserve any more sensitive material for the ears of a “close mouthed acquaintance” (but bearing in mind the legal position). Most members learn this lesson anyway - but usually the hard way! Finally it ensures also that some of the abuses that go on (most notably in cult meetings and groups) cannot be defended or concealed by resorting to the “yellow card defence”. (We shall be reviewing in some detail some extreme instances of these in a forthcoming article)

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Road to Recovery (cult) group Plymouth – the BIG LIE!

It would seem that this cult group has finally abandoned any effort to feign even a passing resemblance to an AA group. Their website now carries (and has done so for some time) adverts for the "circuit speaker" brigade. As mentioned elsewhere on our own website this is a relatively novel, and we would say entirely unwelcome development in Great Britain with "personalities" (if such a term can be applied to those whose output - and 'insights' - consist mostly of anodyne commentary and "wow" factor marketing) drawn both from Great Britain and from overseas (most notably the US), these experts (largely self-appointed) 'qualified' apparently to belabour us with the latest 'on-message' propaganda, this all in an attempt to educate the poor heathen (ie. AA members) and show us the error of our ways! Of course the Road to Recovery cult group - as with all such - seeks to gain legitimacy for its message by garbing itself in AA colours, and by appropriating the AA name to lend authenticity to its otherwise counterfeit product. This mongrel production manages to steer a fine line between fact and fiction, claiming adherence to the traditions of the fellowship whilst simultaneously taking every opportunity to pervert them, and in this respect their website is no exception to the rule. Here you will find an entire section devoted to the above-mentioned objective with an array of 'personalities' and 'gurus' busily flogging their dubious wares at various locations around the country, and this effort aimed mostly at what can only be described as an unsuspecting and therefore undiscriminating audience (ie. newcomers). Of course the group will no doubt point to their disclaimer that the site is in no way affiliated to Alcoholics Anonymous whilst at the same time their banner proclaims precisely the opposite. However we have to admit this group is entirely consistent in both its approach and ideology - image is all, and the truth?.... Well that's mostly an inconvenient accessory!

But they are not alone in their “economic-with-the-truth” approach to propagandising their third or even fourth rate “take” on the recovery programme. We would point here to such groups as the Primary Purpose/Back to Basics etc gang who also have a particular penchant for propagating their spurious message via the internet. Frequently such groups will use the AA name quite overtly (most notably the Primary Purpose group Dallas - the 'mother ship' of the Primary Purpose movement) the sites themselves knowingly carry misleading information relating to AA (specifically its recovery rates in the last instance) whilst simultaneously promoting the 'cult of personality' which is the hallmark of their activities. Their websites moreover will generally carry a disclaimer of non-affiliation with AA and by this means they endeavour to side-step the traditions whilst riding on the back of the AA 'brand” to maximise their credibility. But what else would you expect from a movement that is essentially flawed and rationalises its message on the back of a GREAT BIG LIE!!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)