Big Book fetishism

Every now and then we get an email from a so-called “hard core” Big Book fan. It's usually someone from the Primary Purpose gang (which makes claim to being conversant with this tome) although there are rumours going around that one of the Visions mob (and we mean mob!) actually read almost a whole sentence from the book last year! But you know what it's like in AA – there are rumours and then there are …. more rumours! …...
 
….....It might be useful to indicate here that although we lump them all together there are some differences between these two extremist/fundamentalist camps (although the similarities are much greater and getting worse all the time!). The Primary Purpose 'axis' (derived from the US) is not quite as obsessive as the Visions (our very own home grown freaks!) when it comes to sponsorship (ie. “do exactly what your sponsor tells you” etc) but they do glory in 'fast-tracking' newcomers through the programme (regardless of their aptitude, state of mind, physical well-being and other quite minor details). Both lay claim to the authentic programme of AA (usually by indulging in a 'revisionist' analysis of AA back in the pre-tradition era) and glorying in the days when only “real” alcoholics were allowed into meetings (after they had been properly screened and authenticated by the appropriate authorities ….. self-appointed of course!) In those halcyon times you had none of your treatment centre riff-raff or troublesome “addicts”, or even those annoying “depressives” and such like cluttering up the fellowship. Even the agnostics and atheists did as they were told and got down on their knees and prayed like they believed! No sirree! Only pure blood, 'real deal' alkies were admitted into our select society! Ah good times indeed …. when men were men and women were women and sheep roamed the green pastures quite unafraid! But now – well it's anarchy! They'll let ANYBODY in! No vetting, no bleeding deacon to cast his/her expert eye over the new prospect. Nope! Anyone and his brother can just wander into a meeting (maybe there's nothing on TV), plonk their backsides on a seat, drink a cup of tea, nibble on a biscuit (well at one of those fancy meetings at least!) and waffle on about their precious washing machine breaking down – but then they didn't pick up a drink! Who'd have thought it? Our exclusive fellowship being taken over by these ne'er do wells! Well something should be done! This cannot be allowed to go on........someone should ring up …..... York! (frothing at the mouth and eyes bulging wildly.....)........

Wow! That was SOME digression... anyway.... to get back to our main theme. So every now and then we get an EXPERT mailing us and putting us straight on some points of OUR PROGRAMME. Seems we got it all wrong! Well of course we got it wrong. But then everyone has the RIGHT to be WRONG haven't they? Or maybe that only works if you're a cult group? So we goes and extricates our copy of the aforementioned work (it is of course mostly employed in its traditional capacity – as a door STOP), dusts it off and pulls open the musty and mildewed cover. Turning to the apposite sections we duly send our response back to the EXPERT. Oh dear oh dear! Now we're told we've got it all out of CONTEXT!! (even if we quote an entire page and then the relevant chapter). Nope it seems that we've still got it wrong... So we turns again to another section and quote that (and including context this time because now we've learnt our lesson good and proper!). Nope that still doesn't do the trick. It turns out that we're TWISTING the words to suit our own agenda!! Well who would have thought it?? How could that EVER happen? But now our EXPERT is getting very hot under the collar and resorts at last to profanity! We refer immediately to our very own - almost disintegrating - volume and look for the part of the AA message which includes the use of foul language. Nope! Can't find anything there. Maybe it's in the Just for Today card.. “Talk low”...mmmm! So we hold a conscience meeting to debate this vexing question: Is swearing QUIETLY OK then?? Well who can say!

Talking of profanity whatever happened to Wayne's latest address to the R2R (cult group) Plymouth brethren? Not a bleep out of him for almost NINE months and then an audio file appears out of the ether only to disappear almost immediately. Mind you we did give it a bit of a mauling! Still one shouldn't be afraid of unfavourable reviews? It's all part of the 'growing in sobriety' process – ain't it? Anyhoo … that's about it on the Big Book (and Wayne of course). For our part we quite like the text because if the cult (Primary Purpose/Back to Basics/Visions etc) ever managed to read (and inwardly digest!) a copy it would very rapidly put paid to their own brand of dogma. But then we think that's pretty unlikely … don't you?

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Oh yeah! What IS going on in WESSEX? And where is it anyway?

Big Book Sponsorship – so-called?

And so we return to Joe of “Joe and Charlie” fame. This particular duet were particularly noted for their workshops on the Big Book (and trend-setters for the current craze of “circuit speakers” in Great Britain) turning in a number of guest appearances at a range of venues over the years including the Bristol Reunion (Remember! Always place “personalities before principles”!)

Our renewed interest in the pair was sparked by some extracts from a book produced by the former on the subject of “Big Book Sponsorship”, and which we perused eagerly for any insight they might afford us. What was more revealing, however, was not so much the content of this particular function but rather the author's attitude to the nature of the relationship between “sponsor” and “sponsee”.

[Note: We should point out here that the basic text (“Alcoholics Anonymous”) itself does not use the terms “sponsor”, “sponsee” or “sponsorship” even once - nor for that matter does the word “sponsee” appear in any dictionary! However it does give some pointers on how an AA member might communicate the programme of recovery with someone relatively new to the fellowship (most notably in the Chapter “Working With Others”)].

Joe begins his discussion reasonably enough. He argues that the sponsor should “find out about the person through conversation” and that while…. “It's true we all have some important things in common – our inability to drink normally, for instance – [….] everybody is different in other ways. I think we should work with each person in the way that best suits him or her.” Unfortunately this principle is as quickly dismissed as it is introduced. Now we discover that it is also Joe's view that “.....some guidelines (?) do have to be established because we are working with an undisciplined person”, and he goes on to exemplify this practice (including the allocation of assignments with a timetable attached). His basic premise would seem to be that one must assume (and regardless of the specific characteristics of the person with whom he is dealing) the sponsee is “undisciplined” and therefore needs to be treated accordingly ie. “disciplined”. “Discipline” does indeed seem to feature prominently in Joe's interpretation of the AA programme. Later on in the work he cites the book “Alcoholics Anonymous” to support this contention:

“We alcoholics are undisciplined, so we let God discipline us in the simple way we have just outlined.” (AA, p. 88)

On examining this quote it is evident both directly and in context that there is no suggestion whatsoever that this disciplining process should be administered by anyone other than God (Higher Power) or the individual themselves ie. that they should practise SELF-discipline. There is no indication that this regime ought – or must – be applied by another human power eg. a sponsor or indeed anyone else.

Nevertheless, and according to Joe:

“Assignments should be given, and the sponsor should make it clear to the person that assignments have to be done by a specific time. In my experience, this is the best way to work with an alcoholic”.

Now it is unclear here at what point these “guidelines” were translated into “... have to be done...”. A guideline surely is a suggestion and no more, and therefore one is under no obligation to abide by it? (Note: this is a defence frequently raised by the cult when they are themselves seeking to evade the traditions, but only on those occasions where it suits their own egocentric ambitions and not because a more judicious interpretation would lend itself better to the particular and prevailing circumstances). Moreover it is declared not only is this the way to proceed with sponsees but, in “[Joe's] experience, this is the best way to work with an alcoholic”. [Note the use of the indefinite article before the word “alcoholic”. This principle would seemingly apply not to some alcoholics, nor even a majority of alcoholics, but to alcoholics in general].

So which is it? If it is the case that everybody is different then how does it make sense to assume that everyone must be “disciplined” (if at all) in the same way? (ie. “this is the best way to work with an alcoholic”) Or - if everybody is in fact similarly constituted then why bother getting to know them as individuals? Why not just 'process' them 'assembly line' style and have done with it! (this conducted with or without discipline – but probably the former, for after all assembly lines require a set and imposed structure!). On the contrary we would assert that most alcoholics do in fact sustain (or retain) a remarkable level of self-discipline. This may frequently be motivated by rather negative considerations but nevertheless they do manage (often) to indulge in an extremely destructive drinking habit whilst pursuing careers, raising families etc. It may well be in the latter stages of the progression of the disease this tends to disintegrate but that is not to suggest that they are intrinsically incapable of exercising some degree of self control once the drink has finally been put down. We would argue that the relative stability and consistency offered by AA meetings is quite sufficient in itself to restore some level of equilibrium within their lives, and that they can by these means quite easily adjust to a less chaotic and more ordered life style. None of this suggests that they need to be “disciplined” by anybody else. Finally if someone does demonstrate such a level of incapacity we would propose that the better tactic to employ would be to afford them encouragement (and NOT direction or manipulation!), and thereafter progressively greater levels of responsibility (but at their own discretion) within AA eg. via group service positions, which would allow them to acquire sufficient self-confidence and self-respect to bring their own lives back into some order. What they quite categorically do not need is someone telling them “what to do”!

However (and to continue the theme) we present a few more illustrations of the kind of 'guidance' that Joe proposes:

"As sponsors, we know there are certain things we require of a sponsee: he has to be willing to go to any lengths to get sober, and if he expects you to work with him, he has to carry out his assignments and do the things you ask him to do"

"It is also important to work the Steps in sequence and not to draw the work out over too long a time. I have heard of people taking a week or even a month on each Step. That is not an effective approach. This process works better when we work one Step and then immediately work the next. Keep your sponsee moving!"

He gives here an example of Dr Bob taking someone through the first three steps in seconds flat (concluding with a "Get down on our knees" to pray!). He does not indicate whether this particular prospect remained sober thereafter! (This is usually an important factor when considering the efficacy of a method – something which the cult so far have failed miserably to demonstrate with regard to their own 'techniques')

And then:

“Many people don't understand about working with alcoholics [except of course for Joe]. They may say, "Well, alcoholics are so new and unaccustomed to the way we do things that I don't think you can get them to do it". But an alcoholic can do just about anything you make her do. If you insist that she do certain things, she'll get them done. She has to go from undisciplined to very disciplined, and the sponsor is the one who helps her build the bridge between the two".

He then goes on to expand on a treatment centre approach with which he is involved, and the methods applied therein. Discipline and more discipline are the watchwords here. Extraordinarily a minutia of sanity fleetingly returns at this point with at least a passing recognition that this approach may not suit all. However this notion is again brushed aside in favour of..... more "discipline"!

Additionally he believes that the same sponsor should take the sponsee through Step 5. He asserts that this will determine whether in fact they have done the first three steps adequately. Playing God perhaps!?

Moreover it would seem even the choice of sponsor is not left to the candidate. Guess who? - It's the sponsor's choice!

And so to the next 'axiom':

"An undisciplined person may fight discipline but it has to be enforced to help the person. If he had had that discipline, he wouldn't be in the shape he's in." (Ah! So that's the problem is it? Lack of discipline or as it's otherwise known - willpower). We don't have enough willpower ourselves so we have to rely on ….. whose willpower? Our sponsor's of course! Now what was that bit in the Big Book about human power? Surely Joe must know about it? He is after all something of an expert – isn't he? Ah yes! We remember now. It's the second pertinent point in Chapter Five just before the outline of Step Three: “b) That probably no human power could have relieved our alcoholism”. Maybe that's not in Joe's version of the book? Never mind.....

However Joe relents somewhat at this point recognising that sometimes these undisciplined people might not do "everything we ask them to do". But never mind -onward and upward – and even if you don't like it!

And so he continues (and largely in this vein) through the remainder of the programme (although he does make the point that sponsoring too many people is not a good idea - ie. this demonstrates "ego on the sponsor's part" – now who would have thought it!)

In the last part of the extract there is the usual descent into reminiscences about the good old days etc. Apparently then everybody (or at least in his particular little corner of the fellowship) worked the steps in six weeks. Moreover "Everybody was required to do them." But of course now AA has been infiltrated by backsliders it's all gone to pot! In fact some of them are "not really alcoholics...... [they're] "hard drinkers". ..... They aren't really alcoholic"

(all our emphases)

To conclude - an extract from an article submitted to Share magazine (July 2007 and with the author's permission):

"Are all changes for the better?"

"... in the late 1980s 'authorities' on the Big Book began arriving from America like missionaries. Their 'disciples' were indoctrinated at Big Book weekends and study groups. Some, ablaze with zeal, went around meetings telling oldtimers who were already 'happily and usefully whole' how it should be done! ... I believe these zealots are like religious fundamentalists who insist that the Bible or Koran is the literal, inviolable, revealed word of God. But the spirit blows where it will - not necessarily where a Big Book 'expert' says it should. Some members tell me their recovery has been enhanced by attending a Big Book study; but these extramural courses have also been a source of conflict, tension and division, setting member against member. At meetings I hear new members say, 'I haven't done the Book study yet.' They seem to think it is expected of them. Are these classes in Big Book dogma an example of 'the good as the enemy of the best' in Bill W’s phrase? Certainly, any group insisting that a member study the Book could not call itself an AA group, since 'the only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop drinking'. There is no requirement on anyone to even read the Book, let alone to study it. Bill W said, 'In AA great suffering and great love are our only disciplinarians - we need no others.' I have no need of a self-endorsed teacher to 'take me through the Book'. We each have to work out our own salvation. The Big Book speaks for itself; anything else is commentary.

 I then quoted from the Service News reprint of the Box 459 article emphasising, "...it is preferable that the individual member or prospect interpret the literature according to his/her own point of view..."; which echoes Bill W's observation, "... every AA has the privilege of interpreting the program as he likes..." (Letter dated 1949, quoted in "As Bill Sees It"); and, "There are few absolutes inherent in the 12 Steps. Most Steps are open to interpretation, based on the experience and outlook of the individual. Consequently, the individual is free to start the Steps at whatever point he can or will..." (Letter, 1966, "ABSI").”

So there you have it!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Some suggested readings on sponsorship - the AA way!

• “Living Sober” chapter 11, - Availing yourself of a sponsor, pages 26-30
• “As Bill sees it” (pages listed for reading in the discussion reading guide, under “Sponsorship; see Twelfth- stepping”).
• The “Big Book”, Chapter 7, working with others.
• Questions and answers on sponsorship pamphlet, (not available in the GB literature anymore but can be viewed online at the USA GSO website, http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-15_Q&AonSpon.pdf
• Sponsorship your questions answered (GB pamphlet)
• Concept IX, last paragraph.-The AA Service Handbook for Great Britain, section 18-32, or The AA Service Manual combined with the Twelve Concepts for World Service
• “Blind trust?” – As Bill sees it, page 144. (something to avoid)
• “Newcomer problems”- As Bill sees it page 14.
• A.A. at a glance pamphlet, What A.A. does not do.
• A brief guide to Alcoholic Anonymous pamphlet, What A.A. does not do.
• Members of the Clergy ask about A.A. pamphlet, What does A.A. not do?
• Traditions One and Five. - the Twelve steps and Twelve Traditions
• “Tradition One”- Language of the Heart pages 76-77
• AA Tradition How it developed pamphlet
The following passages in inverted commas are composites of sentences taken from the above AA literature:

“In A.A., sponsor and sponsored meet as equals, just as Bill W. and Dr. Bob did.
It is the whole A.A. program,--not the individual’s sponsor that maintains the newcomer’s sobriety. We are always free to select another sponsor with whom we feel more comfortable, particularly if we believe this member will be more helpful to our growth in A.A. There is no superior class or caste of sponsors in A.A. First of all, we can relax and remember that sponsorship does not involve forcing any specific interpretation of A.A. upon newcomers”.

“An A.A. sponsor is not a professional caseworker or counselor of any sort. A sponsor is not someone to borrow money from, nor get clothes, jobs, or food from, A sponsor is not a medical expert, nor qualified to give religious, legal, domestic, or psychiatric advice, although a good sponsor is usually willing to discuss such matters confidentially and can often suggest where the appropriate professional assistance can be obtained. A sponsor is simply a sober alcoholic who can help solve only one problem: how to stay sober. And the sponsor has only one tool to use — personal experience, not scientific wisdom. A good sponsor never tries to impose personal views on a newcomer, nor gives advice on medical, legal or work matters. We help the newcomer find an appropriate source of information”.

“A good sponsor who is an atheist does not try to persuade a religious newcomer to abandon faith, nor does a religious sponsor argue theological matters with an agnostic newcomer. Does not pretend to know all the answers and does not keep up a pretense of being right all the time. Encourages and helps the newcomer to attend a variety of A.A. meetings—to get a number of view points and interpretations of the A.A. program. Never takes the newcomers inventory, except when asked. Never tries to impose personal views on the newcomer. Does not hesitate to help the newcomer obtain professional help (such as medical, legal, vocational) if assistance outside the scope of A.A. is needed”.

"In all work with the newcomer, the sponsor underscores the fact that it is the A.A. program—not the sponsors personality or position—that is important. Thus, the newcomer learns to lean on the program, not the sponsor. A sponsor who has truly been putting the program first will not take it as a personal insult if the newcomer decides to change sponsors or to go to other A.A.s for additional guidance. You are under no obligation ever to repay your sponsor in any way for helping you. He or she does so because helping others helps us to maintain our own sobriety”.

Note: The responsibility of any commitment and obligation falls on the A.A. sponsor and the AA group, not on the newcomer. As stated by Bill W.in 1946 (AA Tradition how it developed pamphlet page 12) “That is why we all judge the newcomer less and less. If alcohol is an uncontrollable problem to him and he wishes to do anything about it, that is enough for us. Our AA door stands wide open, and if he passes through it and commences to do anything at all about his problem, he is considered a member of Alcoholics Anonymous. He signs nothing, agrees to nothing, promises nothing. We demand nothing. He joins us on his own say-so. Nowadays in most groups he doesn’t even have to admit he is an alcoholic.”

“We do suggest, but we don’t discipline.” (Bill W. Language of the Heart page 76)

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS It is interesting to observe that the cult method of sponsorship is the virtual antithesis of the above. We wonder why!

A new addition to the site - our "Cult: Where to Find (US)"

Here are groups currently included on the Primary Purpose (Dallas) cult website. Although they represent but a small fraction (ie. compared with the numbers of genuine AA groups in the US) we believe that they should not be ignored! Or only at our own peril!

A newcomer's tale (Richmond Tuesday: Ormond Road)

“Hi fellas,

My name is S. and I am an alcoholic. A month ago I went to my first AA meeting in 18 months. I didn't touch a drop of alcohol in that time. The reason I hadn't been to a meeting for 18 months? Because of the cult - but in that 18 months I was struggling daily and eventually I felt the need to give AA another go. My friend R says he wrote to you recently and he told me all about your website and having looked at some of the accounts I thought I’d share mine.

I first came to AA in September 2009 and I was wrecked. I live in Twickenham and went to my first ever meeting at Richmond Bridge friendship club on a Monday evening. After the meeting I swapped numbers with a very young man (who at the time I felt was too young to be an alky but that's not for me to judge) and he insisted I went to the Tuesday night meeting at Ormond Road in Richmond the following evening. I was still very new to AA and was keen to try more meetings. I think he was just trying to be friendly and get me involved but he insisted I went to THIS meeting on a Tuesday. I went along anyway and got a cup of tea and many people asked me for my number. One of them was called B and he said 'can I take your number? My sponsor tells me to take newcomers numbers and call them'. He seemed to be the ringleader even though he had a sponsor at the meeting. Everyone at that meeting shared about how they had a sponsor and I didn't have one but I wasn't ready. I told them I wasn't ready and I was asked if I wanted to stay sick. It wasn't B who asked me that but it was a guy called R who was a sponsee of his. I've seen R at meetings recently and he seems to think nobody else in AA has ever heard of the steps, the Big Book or a higher power concept. Apparently their sponsor/sponsee relationship ended in a near punch up a while back. B gave me the "six suggestions" and told me I should also go to meetings on Kingston hill and Tolworth and what seemed like a hundred different meetings in Ealing (and guess what he said? 'Look out for happy Dennis because he's good) and he said they carry a stronger message there. I was taking anti depressants at the time (and still am) and B told me I should go to my doctor and ask him to 'unprescribe' me my medication. After the meeting we all went to Pizza express across the road from the meeting, and one evening as I was leaving the café B told me I'd been elected to do the washing up after the meeting and that it was now my home group. I wasn't comfortable about it because I wasn't sure if AA was right for me and I couldn't even go next week anyway, so I missed the next meeting and was phoned by B and he told me I needed to put my "home group" first. I continued to go to the meeting for the next three weeks and it all went okay until I was quizzed in pizza express afterwards as to whether or not I was doing the six suggestions and I said I wasn't as the idea didn't appeal to me and B and his mate who everyone seemed to refer to as S were telling me I was half measures and I was not well by AA's standards and B was even shouting across the table at me: 'IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO THIS YOU ARE GOING TO DRINK AND STAY F-ING SICK', which is odd as he always shared about being spiritual. He later 'apologised' but then continued to shout at me as if I were a schoolboy and he were a demon headmaster. This all upset me very much but I felt insulted when S told me that I didn't have to do any of those things, even though he'd gone to town on me over how 'lazy' and selfish I was...all just to say that I didn't have to do any of that stuff...some 'suggestions' those are. Afterwards I decided I was through with AA and didn't go back to ANY meetings for 18 months. I was so upset that I wanted to go back to the church and tell the vicar what was going on in his church hall. I also had to change my number as I was getting many phone calls every day from the same few people asking me where I was and they often said my life depended on that particular meeting.

After I came back to AA I was still broken even though I was dry and physically better, but simply not drinking was a struggle and I decided to try again and hope I didn't see B or R or S. I turned up at another meeting and I met someone who I met at my first meeting, he was my friend who wrote to you before, and he told me all about a Vision for You and the big meeting in Eton Square and aacultwatch and I thought I'd write. I remember B talking a lot about what he referred to as 'the vision meeting'.

Before I was so angry and hurt that I wouldn't have given two hoots if it destroyed AA but I found there was more to AA than this cult...a lot more. I'm still very angry now which is why I remember it like it was yesterday but I think your cause is worthy. Also, they know about aacultwatch at the Ormond Rd meeting and they look at it with a great deal of contempt and speak derisively of its 'unspiritual ways' - because they know what spiritual is!!!! I think they feel that way because deep down they know the score. I'm no Big Book buff but they remind me of the boy whistling in the dark to keep up his spirits. I do hope you publish this on your website as people need to know what goes on at that meeting. I've been to a lot of meetings around Richmond and Twickenham since I've been back and I have not seen B or S at any of them because they don't go to any other meetings round here. In fact there were loads of people who only turn up at that meeting even though there's a meeting every day in Richmond and some of them don't live in Richmond and if I remember correctly B lived miles away from the meeting. there are a few leaflets advertising a convention in Canterbury floating round meetings here. my current sponsor tells me its an unofficial convention and the guys at the Tuesday meeting are the ones who distribute them round here and some leaflets got dropped off at my home group (which is not a cult meeting) but we put them straight into the recycling box.

I think I was lucky as anyone else might have been too hurt to come back to AA. I never wish to go back to that meeting and I would advise any newcomers to think twice before they go. I suggest (forgive me for using that word) that you add the meeting to your cult where to find page. It's a real shame as a lot of the people I saw there were genuinely nice and had been around for years.

Keep up the good work

S”

Comment: Unfortunately this is a pretty typical account of those who have the misfortune to fall into the hands of the cult (with the usual mix of “love bombing “ and coercion in order to gain compliance!) This is NOT what carrying the AA message is about!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

(our particular thanks to this member for their courage in speaking out)

PS Contact details for the venue are included below (for complaints):

Richmond & Putney Unitarian Church
Ormond Road
Richmond
Surrey
TW10 6TH

Rev Linda Hart: revlahart@gmail.com
Vestry phone number (Rev Linda Hart): 0208 332 9675

Update: Warneford Hospital (Thurs) meeting

Oxford: Warneford Hospital
Thursday 19.30 McKinnes Room, Warneford Hospital, Old Rd, Headington

We have been informed as follows:

“Links to the Primary Purpose Groups at the meeting below have been severed

The Oxford Thursday night meeting at The Warneford Hospital has through the Group Conscience requested new service officers, and the current secretary has chosen to step down; the general feeling being that the AA message was NOT being carried in the way that the group wished . . .”

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

The Canterbury AA convention which is … not an AA convention!

Yep the cult is busily “running the show” again at Canterbury University. In July, or so it appears, we can all look forward to “A weekend of open AA meetings and fellowship” - but then it's not entirely clear which AA we might be talking about here! Would that be the AA that adheres to its principles, observes the Traditions and doesn't encourage the abuse of newcomers, or would that be the cult which does precisely the reverse? We suspect the latter in this instance. The flier 'promoting' this event (in Word document format) came to us from a source well distanced from the convention's Kent location which suggests that it is being widely 'touted' throughout the region (if not nationally). When we passed the information on to our various contacts in East Kent they seemed entirely ignorant of the forthcoming 'gig' (which would suggest that East Kent Intergroup too is none the wiser). But if you look carefully at the small print at the bottom of the flier there is that soooo telling statement:

“This is not an official AA Conference Approved Event”

Now if you refer to Guideline No. 15 “Conventions” (Revised April 2002) in the handbook for 2010 you will find the following:

“ORGANISATION

The decision to hold a convention ought to be made by the group conscience of the appropriate Intergroup or Region (the Sponsoring Body).

A committee should be elected for the purpose of planning, organising and running the event. The convention committee should have overall responsibility and be accountable to the Sponsoring Body for financial and all other matters. They should bear in mind the need for conventions to be self-supporting.”

ie. this is effectively NOT an AA convention. Moreover its financing is quite unclear. There is no mention on the flier of a registration fee or “voluntary contributions” although there are references to accommodation costs, and an “optional” dinner dance at £20.00 per head. Ah well they do say “misery is optional” so we'll be giving that a miss! Well actually we'll be giving the whole thing a miss. If we want to go to an AA convention then we'll go to an actual AA convention and not some fraudulent copy.

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)