We quote:
“The following is an account by one member, …...., of what has been going on at the Balham Wednesday 8pm meeting:
Several months ago, an AA member of long-standing started encouraging young female newcomers who were single mothers, to come with their children to the Balham 8-9pm Wednesday meeting. Some of these young mums brought babies, which wasn’t a problem, even though they were noisy, but some brought children of school age, nine or ten or older and some of the other old-time members voiced unease about the sort of material that was being shared and whether this was a wise thing for AA to be encouraging.
This was a night time meeting after all, and the children looked a bit shocked by some of the explicit content and the swearing. There was also an issue with the owners of the room, who might be cross if they found out that school age children were present in a community centre at night at what was surely presumed an adult event.
When several members voiced concern, they were told by the AA member calling for the women to be admitted with their kids - let’s call this woman Member A– that all that was needed to convert the meeting into a child friendly meeting from that evening onwards was a show of hands. The show of hands was then held and as no one apart from two older members wanted to exclude the poor girl who had been told to come with her kids that evening, the motion was passed.
The next week a member of long standing who had not been there protested that this was not on, and attempted to call a proper group conscience. ‘No no!’ Member A shouted, very forcefully. ‘We held a group conscience last week. This has all been sorted. The conscience was unanimous in favour of children.’
The other member pointed out that a quick show of hands was not a group conscience. No notice had been given, and no one had read out the traditions. If the meeting were to be changed to child friendly, with all the implications that entailed, including the agreement of the management of the building, then the proper procedures should be followed or AA’s name would be dragged into controversy. A group conscience must be called. The secretary then went about suggesting a date but when two weeks from then was settled upon, member A’s husband, let’s call him Member B, an old-timer, suddenly erupted and very angrily shouted that he would not have it because ‘it doesn’t suit me!’
After more wrangling, the secretary managed to get a group conscience arranged for three week’s time, which Member B very grudgingly agreed to.
When the evening of the conscience came, members arrived to find the secretary of the meeting had been switched, for that night only, to a sponsee of Member B.
Member
B, moreover, was ensconced at the front table next to him, poised to
do the chair that week. Member A was sitting at the side of the room,
flanked by all her sponsees, while Member B’s sponsees sat in the
front. The meeting was packed to the rafters with people regular
members had never seen before.
There followed a very joysy chair by Member B in which he openly questioned the traditions, saying ‘personalities not principles got me sober’.
Member A and B’s sponsees all shared back what an inspiration he was.
The meeting concluded and the group conscience began…with Member A getting out a pad on which she had evidently prepared notes.
The temporary secretary, looking to her for guidance, and with her prompting him, then announced that the question of whether to admit children would now be dealt with by proposing a formal motion for and against and having a vote. He summarised ‘the issues’, as he saw them, briefly. And then proceeded to start taking the vote.
Several members objected, pointing out that no one had been called to speak. People who wanted to speak must be heard. Member A shouted that this wasn’t right. No one was allowed to speak. It had been agreed to do it this way. But three long time members insisted that that wasn’t how group consciences worked. Anyone who wanted to speak could speak. And they would have their say otherwise this wasn’t a group conscience. Reluctantly Member A conceded.
Three members spoke against turning the meeting child friendly. When one of them said he thought that if many more kids came we might have to have a room set aside and a childcare person to sit with them who was CRB checked, Member A exploded and screamed at him that he was wrong and to shut up. This member, a very courteous, well liked elderly man, was left visibly shaken and upset.
Those who spoke in favour of admitting children all made very emotive speeches about how if the vote went against kids, single mothers would drink and probably die. And so on. Those voicing caution were made to feel like they were literally pouring drink down the throats of alcoholic single mums.
The most powerful contribution was from a young guy who said he had been a child of an alcoholic who took him to meetings and it had scarred him for life.
In the end, a meaningless sounding compromise motion ‘to admit children on a case by case basis, unless someone objects on the night’ was carried by a huge margin with only three against.
What a palaver to make the situation about the same as what operates now anyway! What was it all about? Power. That’s what. And perhaps Member A attempting to recruit more and more young female potential followers to come to that meeting?
After the vote, Member A – who held no official position in the group – announced that several vacant service positions must now be filled and reeled off the names of her sponsees, proposing them for every single one. Secretary, GSR, greeting – all were filled with her sponsees on show of hands unanimously in favour.
The message was clear: the meeting was now under new management.
Six months on, it is a very strange affair. He sits at the front, flanked by his sponsees. She sits at the side flanked by hers. She shares first, always bigging up the meeting and its superiority to other meetings; advertising the fact that there is real cafetierie coffee, and people are friendlier there, and it’s ‘stronger recovery’ than other meetings.
Her sponsees, meanwhile, share some very extreme stuff like ‘my sponsor tells me that if I don’t adopt this way of life I’ll die.’
The atmosphere is utterly cloying. This was always a wonderful, friendly, open meeting full of the usual AA chaos and the full range of sharing. Now there is no doubt that it is tightly organised and that the emphasis is on sharing ‘positively’. When you arrive it is like everyone is in on some clever private joke. If they speak to you it is with a haughty tone of being utterly superior. The vibe is very much that you are a poor little ordinary AA-er down there, scrabbling around in the mire while they are up on some wonderful plateau of super-serenity.
Worse, they are attempting the same coup at several other meetings, including Tooting ones, notably Monday night. Here again, they and their sponsees are bit by bit taking over the service positions. When a member offered to do tea the other week, she was gratefully applauded in but the next week told, to her utter humiliation, that Member B did not agree and so she would not be allowed to do it. Their aim is for total control.
When their sponsees are secretary, they even tell them not to worry about getting chairs because they will get them. They’ve asked the same people to do chairs so many times that those meetings will probably die of boredom if they don’t die of cultdom.
They attempted a coup at Springfield Sunday night but the local members resisted with vigour and won the day. She had proposed one of her sponsees for secretary, as usual, and the group just wouldn’t have it. There was a huge row and she never went again and instructed all her sponsees to boycott it – which of course normal members are delighted about.
A final point: A former sponsee of Member A’s recently contacted the author of this account. She had broken away from Member A and was so upset at the type of sponsorship she had received that she wanted to raise the alarm but didn’t know how to do it. She said she had been subject to a lot of very controlling behaviour including being told not to wear make-up or high heels, intrusive questions about her finances, and her marriage. She said Member A came to her house a lot, which doesn’t sound like your average sponsor, who tends to demand you make the running. The girl said she always had the impression she was poking around. She was angry and worried she had been pulled into a cult of some kind. She said she had been told by Member B ‘you’re in my gang now’, which she found scary. She had been told what to share, what to wear, not to talk to men, to ‘behave yourself’ - the whole lot. Luckily, this girl now has another sponsor and is delighted to find that normal AA is not like that. Let’s hope everyone else works it out too...”
(edits to preserve anonymity)
Comment: None needed other than to say this represents typical cult behaviour
Cheers
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
PS Our thanks to the member who sent this info to us
See also:
Plymouth (cult) Intergroup corruption
For AA Minority Report 2013 click here
There followed a very joysy chair by Member B in which he openly questioned the traditions, saying ‘personalities not principles got me sober’.
Member A and B’s sponsees all shared back what an inspiration he was.
The meeting concluded and the group conscience began…with Member A getting out a pad on which she had evidently prepared notes.
The temporary secretary, looking to her for guidance, and with her prompting him, then announced that the question of whether to admit children would now be dealt with by proposing a formal motion for and against and having a vote. He summarised ‘the issues’, as he saw them, briefly. And then proceeded to start taking the vote.
Several members objected, pointing out that no one had been called to speak. People who wanted to speak must be heard. Member A shouted that this wasn’t right. No one was allowed to speak. It had been agreed to do it this way. But three long time members insisted that that wasn’t how group consciences worked. Anyone who wanted to speak could speak. And they would have their say otherwise this wasn’t a group conscience. Reluctantly Member A conceded.
Three members spoke against turning the meeting child friendly. When one of them said he thought that if many more kids came we might have to have a room set aside and a childcare person to sit with them who was CRB checked, Member A exploded and screamed at him that he was wrong and to shut up. This member, a very courteous, well liked elderly man, was left visibly shaken and upset.
Those who spoke in favour of admitting children all made very emotive speeches about how if the vote went against kids, single mothers would drink and probably die. And so on. Those voicing caution were made to feel like they were literally pouring drink down the throats of alcoholic single mums.
The most powerful contribution was from a young guy who said he had been a child of an alcoholic who took him to meetings and it had scarred him for life.
In the end, a meaningless sounding compromise motion ‘to admit children on a case by case basis, unless someone objects on the night’ was carried by a huge margin with only three against.
What a palaver to make the situation about the same as what operates now anyway! What was it all about? Power. That’s what. And perhaps Member A attempting to recruit more and more young female potential followers to come to that meeting?
After the vote, Member A – who held no official position in the group – announced that several vacant service positions must now be filled and reeled off the names of her sponsees, proposing them for every single one. Secretary, GSR, greeting – all were filled with her sponsees on show of hands unanimously in favour.
The message was clear: the meeting was now under new management.
Six months on, it is a very strange affair. He sits at the front, flanked by his sponsees. She sits at the side flanked by hers. She shares first, always bigging up the meeting and its superiority to other meetings; advertising the fact that there is real cafetierie coffee, and people are friendlier there, and it’s ‘stronger recovery’ than other meetings.
Her sponsees, meanwhile, share some very extreme stuff like ‘my sponsor tells me that if I don’t adopt this way of life I’ll die.’
The atmosphere is utterly cloying. This was always a wonderful, friendly, open meeting full of the usual AA chaos and the full range of sharing. Now there is no doubt that it is tightly organised and that the emphasis is on sharing ‘positively’. When you arrive it is like everyone is in on some clever private joke. If they speak to you it is with a haughty tone of being utterly superior. The vibe is very much that you are a poor little ordinary AA-er down there, scrabbling around in the mire while they are up on some wonderful plateau of super-serenity.
Worse, they are attempting the same coup at several other meetings, including Tooting ones, notably Monday night. Here again, they and their sponsees are bit by bit taking over the service positions. When a member offered to do tea the other week, she was gratefully applauded in but the next week told, to her utter humiliation, that Member B did not agree and so she would not be allowed to do it. Their aim is for total control.
When their sponsees are secretary, they even tell them not to worry about getting chairs because they will get them. They’ve asked the same people to do chairs so many times that those meetings will probably die of boredom if they don’t die of cultdom.
They attempted a coup at Springfield Sunday night but the local members resisted with vigour and won the day. She had proposed one of her sponsees for secretary, as usual, and the group just wouldn’t have it. There was a huge row and she never went again and instructed all her sponsees to boycott it – which of course normal members are delighted about.
A final point: A former sponsee of Member A’s recently contacted the author of this account. She had broken away from Member A and was so upset at the type of sponsorship she had received that she wanted to raise the alarm but didn’t know how to do it. She said she had been subject to a lot of very controlling behaviour including being told not to wear make-up or high heels, intrusive questions about her finances, and her marriage. She said Member A came to her house a lot, which doesn’t sound like your average sponsor, who tends to demand you make the running. The girl said she always had the impression she was poking around. She was angry and worried she had been pulled into a cult of some kind. She said she had been told by Member B ‘you’re in my gang now’, which she found scary. She had been told what to share, what to wear, not to talk to men, to ‘behave yourself’ - the whole lot. Luckily, this girl now has another sponsor and is delighted to find that normal AA is not like that. Let’s hope everyone else works it out too...”
(edits to preserve anonymity)
Comment: None needed other than to say this represents typical cult behaviour
Cheers
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
PS Our thanks to the member who sent this info to us
See also:
Plymouth (cult) Intergroup corruption
For AA Minority Report 2013 click here
The arrogance and prurience would suggest this bunch of goons are connected to "Professor" David C ? Or are they a new band of self-righteous narcissists? I would have thought children at a meeting was a child protection issue and beyond the scope of an AA group conscience. Is AA part of the real world or is the real world subservient to AA ? Inform the owners of the building. I suspect there is a legal issue here.
ReplyDelete