Stories

"The primary purpose of this site is to speak for those who don’t have a voice, and those too intimidated to speak, and also those poor souls who don’t even realise they been abused, believing their experience to be the AA message.

Here are just a few. We have changed the names to protect them, but if anyone doubts what follows contact us and we will, where appropriate arrange one to ones to validate. This particularly applies to those trusted servants now coerced into the "trash the messenger" tactic of stay on the fence with head firmly in sand approach. Meet these refugees and call them liars to their face. What follows is not hearsay, gossip or rumour. Its real stories from real people. I repeat only the names have been changed to protect the damaged and the innocent.

1) Henry had to miss meeting and service job as a relative was seriously ill and hospitalised. Henry got a sub for service but next day cult sponsor told him he was "self centred" Henry explained family crisis, sponsor said his first loyalty was to group!!! Henry said bye bye!!! (He was strong enough, some aren’t)

2) Lucy is a single mum, she was told to put minimum of ten pounds in pot at each meeting. (Look at your treasurers report on group donations, cults will look impressive, they are supposed to) Lucy said bye bye!! Did you check those figures yet ! Big bucks eh. How do they get so much in the pot, ask Lucy she knows.

3) George. Told to leave his eleven-year-old daughter home alone to attend meeting. George protested and pointed out that this was actually illegal. (14 is legal age for home alone) Cult sponsor said go or you will drink. George said bye bye.

4) Steven .14 years sober, told he wasn’t really sober because he takes medication. Steven was and is still a tad angry, he said bye bye.

5) Jennifer. 8 years sober had serious problems of personal nature and attempted suicide. She survived. Her cult sponsor told her not to share her experience in the meeting because "We don’t want to hear negative stuff" Jenny said bye bye.

6) Michael. Turned up at meeting having had a couple of drinks. He wasn’t drunk, or disruptive, but was told to "sit at the back and keep quiet" - oops bye bye.

7) Another Michael, Shared for five minutes then admitted he'd had a drink that day. Promptly told to be quiet as he was "Spreading the Illness". He left meeting immediately never to be seen again. Could be bye bye - maybe amen.

There are many more like these, but the only reason their stories became known is because these folks either found or returned to mainstream AA. God only knows how many more went out into the night and left what they thought was AA. History shows that it is the story of survivors that eventually nailed the culprits.

Do we continue to allow this in our name? Well if we do then we justify it and condone it. We are only autonomous when it doesn’t affect other groups or the fellowship. We are responsible. Our pledge says that.

So this site is really for Jenny, Michael, Lucy, Steven, Michael, George, Henry, and all those yet to come.

Most of the above stories had a good outcome. We have others that are truly tragic. So tragic that we could not witness them if challenged, you can probably work out why.

If you don’t feel strong enough to tell your story about this insanity don’t fret we know how you feel and you know that something is being done so take comfort in that.

The true AA message will survive, battered and bruised, dazed and confused but still standing."

Hi Guys,

Four years ago my sobriety took a knock when my marriage broke down, as well as moving to another area I picked up and struggled to put the plug back the jug. On a Sunday morning I went to Road to Recovery in Deptford …  sober I add, I tried to share about my marriage break-up, but was firmly told by the secretary to keep my sharing to the ‘’the programme’’ and what was relevant to my alcoholism! I have never been back since then in autumn 2003.

In 2004 I asked a member to sponsor me, he (V) was a regular at the Sidcup Primary Purpose meeting, during my short time with him he tried to control what meetings I went to, naming my regular meetings as not ‘’strong enough, and sick’’. He also wanted me to join him in searching out and pursuing alkies on the streets and estates to 12 step them. I was taken through the steps (up to step 9) in a very short time then to be told that ‘’you are now recovered, go and spread the message’.

’I would like to say that I have no axe to grind personally with these people, but I once met a newcomer who had been terrified at his first meeting (again Sidcup) by being preached to and controlled by a swarm of people all eager to find a new sponsee. This is the main crux of my concerns, that AA is being tainted as a cult or religious zealots frightening away newcomers and giving us bad press. I want to be sure that the fellowship is still around for people, including my kids who may need come after me. When I went to my first meeting 11 years ago I was shown love, tolerance, understanding, and I was told to keep coming back.

As mentioned I do stick to the meetings that I feel comfortable with in and around North Kent/South East London, but I do know that the Sidcup Primary Purpose, the Downham Primary Purpose meetings sell non-conference approved literature and DVD’s….where will that end? Perhaps meetings being franchised out to Waterstones and Blockbusters!

Keep it Simple

Kind Regards

B.

My name is J, today is the 30th anniversary of my first AA meeting. I sat in a room in Dartford Kent on Sept 13th 1977. I came in young and for a while I was a novelty.

Most of the folks were middle aged, like I am now! They said how great it was to come in so young and that I could maybe have 50 years without a drink! Oh joy what a comfort, but they meant well and told me I could do it one day at a time. I did ninety in ninety then got drunk. Stopped in June 78 and went on to stay sober for 18 years one day at a time. I acquired a beautiful wife, a business, a daughter, big house, Mercedes and a cabin in Canada.

I had arrived. But for all my success there was still that unease, restlessness, and melancholy that makes up the "ism". My business got in trouble, my partner and I started to drift apart and worst of all I stopped going to meetings.

Then the nightmare really began. I drank. I stopped after six weeks and went back to meetings for another two years. The business failed and lost the house, the money, the family, and then me. Four years of hell followed with brief periods of sobriety followed by horrendous relapses. One bender took me to Mexico where I nearly died. I had dumped my higher power, but he didn’t dump me.

During this awful time I had my first experience with the "visions cult". They had started a meeting in Medway, but the "mother ship" was in Eaton Square London.

I fell for the presentation facade hook line and sinker. I really thought that they had the true path and I had been doing it wrong for all those years. I was very sick and vulnerable and desperate for help.

I have researched what constitutes a cult and these groups tick most of the boxes, as such I use the word unreservedly.

The meeting at Medway was still young much dependant on the Eaton Square set up. So much so that I was told to go to London to get a sponsor because all the meetings in Kent (apart from theirs) were sick. (Other Kent members told same)

I thought this harsh to say the least, having been in the fellowship for 23 years at that time, but followed the path they told me to.

At the London meeting I was "allocated " a sponsor. From the start it was unlike any previous sponsorship I had encountered. Quite simply it was a control system. I knew this wasn’t the AA way but was so very sick I followed the rules.

One day my sponsor began to talk about medication, I had been taking a Prozac derivative called Lustral.

My sponsor said I had to stop this treatment, I told him a shrink had told me it was important, as I was suicidal. When you lose your family, your house and your business in three months it tends to take the sunshine out of your day.

I refused, thank god as I realised, at that moment that these people were wrong. My doctor was highly regarded in treating mental illness and this sponsor was not qualified to give that level of advice.

What followed was truly terrible, the sponsor said that whilst on medication he could not sponsor me and that I was "Unsponsorable".

I walked away devastated, even AA could not help me, i wanted to die. But remember I had been fortunate enough to have all those years in what we now call "mainstream" AA and decided these people were not just different, they were dangerous. Can you imagine the effect that statement would have on a newcomer? No one is unsponsorable, and no person has the right to tell a member such dangerous nonsense.

I went back to mainsteam AA and eventually sobered up in 2004, today I look back on my time with the cult as a lucky escape.

Sadly the groups have grown and years later the madness continues, in my area they now have three meetings with a fourth close to being taken over.

They have their own format for meetings which is their right, but below the surface of a well run performance, (yes I do mean performance) lurks the true agenda. You will find at the start of this site a very accurate description of their strategy so I need not repeat that here.

Suffice to say they are on a mission to change, and subvert AA and so far they have done very well.

Apart from group growth they have several officers at intergroup and region. Old timers with control issues support them, and they do appear to get people sober. However that says more for the AA message than theirs in that even when twisted and spun its power shines through. Attendance is impressive, but false as many come from similar groups up to 70 miles away. We could all do that and get 50 at a meeting.

My story is not unique there are hundreds more that I know of, and probably thousands that I don’t.

Recently one of my sponsees was told his depression was self-pity. At the time of this diagnosis my friend was in a locked ward. This will continue until we as a fellowship stand up and say "Not in our name", our wonderful laid back constitution has been used against us.

The good news is that throughout the country people are waking up in droves.

Two intergroups have refused to allow their entry and inclusion in the Where To Find.

At time of writing 12 (twelve) groups in the Medway towns have voted, some unanimously to remove them from intergroup and the local directory of meetings. This is serious stuff, as we are blessed with a tradition of inclusion. However our common welfare comes first and the fellowship that saved me twice is under threat. Like the great man said "evil only succeeds when good men do nothing" They may not be evil, but dangerously misguided has the same effect.

I can verify at least six traditions broken, some constantly.

I know the common feeling is to say "don’t go there then" well newcomers have no choice sometimes.

In this area out of 26 on the twelve step list 11 are from this group!!

Some of their tactics are subtle some not so fairly crude. For example find a copy of last Octobers share if you can. Out of 13 articles 5 were from one of these groups, hardly proportional and of course exploiting Share’s lack of material.

An important message here, apathy in AA is not just undesirable it’s a real threat. Nature abhors a vacuum and these people are more than happy to fill it. Hmmmm so fill them jobs folks or sleepwalk into the Stepford wives.

If you haven't been to one of these meetings, go, you will find a warm welcome and hot food, positive sharing (groomed sharing actually) free big books and all posts filled. Wow all seems ideal, if you have been around awhile they won’t try the control stuff on you, but older members will get the charm offensive involving requests for advice, chairs etc this kicks in with oodles of flattery to get you onside. Newcomers and relapsers get different deal. They are allocated a sponsor then the control starts. Steps are taken at light speed, step 4 in three weeks is not uncommon. I could not tie my shoe laces three weeks of booze, so what damage is this doing?

After thirty years around I learned you can’t microwave alcoholics we all have to work the progression through the program according to our condition.

Anyway to repeat the good news is the great lumbering giant that is AA is awakening, most powerful in recent conscience meetings is the testimony of those recently abused. My story is dated, I’m fully aware of that, but it’s still going on. If you have had mistreatment at these cults please let us know.

AA cannot and should not act on rumour and hearsay. This movement will only fail when facts are used.

This has been the story to date and will not change. Like the tv tec said, stick to the facts.

I hate this disunity and the damage to the fellowship I love, but I want it to be here for my kid if she ever needs it.

God bless you all take care, the Whistleblower

______________________________________

The content of the article reflects the personal experiences and views of the author; no more and no less

My Encounter with the Joys of Recovery

The purpose of this article is to give a personal account of my encounter with the Joys of Recovery which is one of the original groups that gave rise to a network of groups in existence today variously referred to as “Visions” groups, "Beginners’ Meetings", "The Road to Recovery" and other local labels employed by neighbouring groups.

(It should be pointed out that not all groups that use these names are part of this movement or cult, as I regard them, so caution should be applied before making any assumptions about these)

I hope that my account will give some insight into the psychology of the membership of these groups the vast majority of whom have little awareness of the implications of the corrupted AA message that is being promulgated by a small core of individuals within their ranks. These members claim that their version of the programme is a purer form of the original AA message and believe it to be superior to that carried by the rest of AA. It is my conviction that these groups form a cult within AA that is quite systematically seeking to subvert the AA message and replace it with their own brand of recovery and that it is their intention to gradually displace mainstream groups throughout the country and gain control of our Fellowship.

My name is P and I am a recovered alcoholic. Up to today I had my last drink on the 16th November 1986. I am a member of AA.

I suffered from alcoholism for more than long enough and finally I gave up trying to stop drinking and just waited to die. Circumstances impelled me into AA such that it would be fairer to say that the drink gave me up rather than the other way round. My experiences in AA have been varied but mostly good and it would be accurate to say that everything I have encountered in AA has helped my recovery, whether it has been pleasant or unpleasant. I have been drink free since my arrival and I have no doubt that that had absolutely nothing to do with me and everything to do with a Power greater than myself – my track record speaks for itself – solo drunk, AA member - sober.

I had been in AA for 18 months before I encountered the Joys of Recovery. I had a fairly typical honeymoon period where life seemed so incredibly easy minus booze. I had friends - which was an almost frightening experience - and I was surrounded by people who knew how I ticked. However that glow wore off very rapidly and the demons that drink had kept at bay returned to party. The fears resurfaced, the insecurities and anxieties mounted, and my deep-seated self-loathing reappeared with the dawning realisation that I had no idea how to live with myself becoming ever more intrusive. For most of that 18-month period I was attending 10 meetings a week. I had a sponsor and a home group. I was literature secretary at one group and secretary at another. I shared at meetings, gave generously into the pot. I had read the Big Book (of which I was somewhat dismissive given my immense intellectual capabilities), somewhat more accepting of the 12 and 12 since this seemed to be more aimed at someone with my incredible insight and sundry other books and pamphlets. I had arrived, according to my own estimation, in the region of Step 11 and it was only my own natural modesty that prevented me from declaring grandly that I had done Step 12. Unfortunately my emotional and spiritual condition had steadily deteriorated over that time and I was waking up in the morning in pretty much the same state as I had when I was a drunk except for the physical symptoms. It is very disturbing for a non-drinking alcoholic to feel in a worse condition that when a drunk but that was my experience. What added to my misery was the constant repetition at meetings that “things get better” when I knew that they did not. My desperation mounted and about the only two things I got right was that I didn’t pick up a drink and that I was sharing this stuff at meetings and in one-to-ones. People did try to help me but for some reason they could not get through. I refer to my condition as that of a dry drunk. It’s not that uncommon and with the benefit of hindsight I would now say that it is part of the process of coming to terms with the reality of recovery. I believe that I was trying my best to deal with my problems, but I do think that I underestimated the degree to which I had been traumatised by my active alcoholism and that what I was going through was a natural, although unpleasant, part of the healing process.

A friend of mine who I had known since I had arrived in AA spoke to me. I believe then and now that he was genuinely trying to help me. We are still friends and I was best man at his wedding. I don’t think I could find a bigger hearted or more generous man in the entire Fellowship. He had been attending the Joys of Recovery group for a little while and he suggested that I go there. The very name of the group made me feel somewhat nauseous but he persisted and in the end I reluctantly agreed. At that time the group met on a Wednesday evening at a venue in Collingham Road. The venue was very well appointed, a large room with a hatch to one side through which tea and coffee were served - I was particularly impressed by the Twiglets that were on offer. The meeting was well attended with at least 40 members, sometimes considerably more, regularly present. The format was more or less what I was familiar with and the chairs were usually very good. However what I found to be something of a novelty was the sharing back. It seemed to be quite uniformly positive and one speaker after another would express the usual appreciation for the chair, identify with a number of points and then go on to share in an encouraging way upon the value of doing the Steps with particular emphasis on the support that sponsorship offered to this process. I acknowledge that with my less than happy condition I found it almost offensive that I was in a room with so many apparently contented people. The phrase “happy, joyous and free” was employed with some enthusiasm and since I felt the exact opposite this jarred somewhat. I left the meeting with a considerable resentment quite convinced that they were all deluded. I didn’t return for some while but something tugged at me to look again. I could not deny that indeed these people did seem to have something that I didn’t and although I found it almost impossible to believe that any group of people could be that happy I just had to look again. I persisted with these efforts, quite fascinated by the allure of the message. Eventually I decided that I should give it a go. I had nothing to lose after all and possibly everything to gain. The group seemed to focus around one individual named David B and I subsequently discovered that this was indeed the case. He died a number of years ago and he died sober. He was a man of advanced years but alert and in reasonable health apart from an unpleasant back problem that gave him considerable pain. He had the stance of a military man which indeed had been his career before he retired. He lived in Chelsea in a flat by himself and he shared at each meeting that I attended. He fascinated me because he would say outrageous things like he “had never had a bad day since he stopped drinking” and that “misery is optional”. I thought that he was either completely deranged or a liar or maybe some kind of super being. I had problems mustering a good minute let alone a good day and nothing in my experience suggested that I had any say over whether I was miserable or not – for me misery was a way of life. He seemed very consistent. He spoke in a relaxed and charming fashion, with authority and he seemed very much at ease. He seemed very popular in the group and I envied him for he was everything that I was not. I then discovered that my friend who had introduced me to the group was sponsored by him. Naturally I concluded that I wasn’t going to be sponsored by just anyone – it had to be the big cheese and I finally plucked up the courage to ask him, which he agreed to do. I really believed that I had arrived in AA now I had such a sponsor and therefore had become part of the exclusive few. What I didn’t know is that he sponsored God knows how many other people in the Chelsea area, other bits of London, in other parts of the country and even people abroad. He always referred to me as “Laddie” and I believe the fact was that he was helping so many people that he probably couldn’t remember my name. I was invited to his flat and went there feeling quite nervous. He was very pleasant and we had a cup of tea and a conversation followed. I explained to him that I was feeling absolutely dreadful and was at the end of my tether. He suggested to me a course of action which essentially revolved around doing 6 things each day. As I recall they were: to ring a newcomer, say my prayers on my knees in the morning and evening, ring my sponsor (him) each day, write a gratitude list and a couple of other things that I can’t recall. He assured me that if I followed this advice I would feel much better very soon. I probably gave him the impression that I didn’t believe that this would work. He effectively challenged me by saying that if I didn’t feel better within 90 days following this regime I could come back to him and tell him exactly what I thought of him. Such was my angry state that strangely enough this approach worked really well. I determined that I would follow his suggestions to the letter and the more perverse side of my nature wanted to show him that he was wrong and that there was at least one alcoholic for whom this approach would not work. I was determined to go back to him after the 90 days were up and tell him precisely and in graphic terms what I thought of him and his programme. I continued to attend the meeting each week frequently sitting there with my teeth gritted against the relentless onslaught of what I considered almost obscene positivity. I carried out his instructions. During that period I did my Step 3 (as laid out in the Big Book) with my friend at his house. Although I had no belief in God (and still don’t) I did my Step 3 mostly believing that it was a load of rubbish but with a desperate hope that something would click. I then proceeded on with my Step 4 under the direction of David B. This broadly conformed with the lay out in the Big Book but a different set of criteria were applied to the defect analysis – they included those put forward in the text but included such things as envy, jealousy etc – essentially the Seven Deadly Sins and some additional refinements. I set out on my Step 4 determined to do a perfect version. I ended up writing 160 pages of resentments. This was a result partly of wanting to do a really good job of it because I still wanted to prove David B wrong and that I was beyond recall, plus a desperate desire not to drink, plus I heard someone share at a meeting that they had written 150 pages and I had to go one better. Eventually I decided that I was getting fed up with the whole thing – especially when one of the last resentments that I listed was against Esther Rantzen because I didn’t like her voice and her teeth stuck out – even I had to admit that this was getting ridiculous. So in the end that epic came to an end and I made an appointment with David to share my version of War and Peace with him. I went round to his flat clutching my sheaf of papers and sat down to read it out. Most of the time he listened without comment occasionally chuckling at one of my grudges but for the most part sat there with his eyes closed I imagine desperately trying not to fall asleep. However during the course of my reading I referred to my ex-wife who featured quite prominently amongst my “all burned up” catalogue and he asked me an odd question about her. At the time it felt slightly jarring because I couldn’t see what it had to do with my resentments but I assumed that he knew what he was doing and that it was in some way relevant. He asked me how I felt when I made love to her. At first I was quite at a loss how to respond because as I said it did not seem to fit into what we were doing. I floundered around for some kind of response, more than slightly embarrassed by the subject matter. Eventually I replied that I felt proud when I was making love to her (I won’t go on to describe the other feelings since I guess that you’re all probably familiar with that and anyway it’s none of your business). That was it and I just carried on reading the rest of my list. I should explain that I went away from that session mostly trying to figure out why he had chosen to pick that area. At my first interview with him after I had asked him to be my sponsor I recalled that one of the things he had asked me was to tell him something that I had never shared with another alcoholic. I figured that this was put to me to establish whether indeed I was prepared to be honest with him and also to gauge whether I trusted him or not. I had been in AA for 18 months by now and had already done a pretty heavy Step 4 and 5 with my first sponsor. I had shared a lot at meetings and on one-to-ones so by this time I was running out of deep secrets to tell anyone. I had been very open with people. Again I had floundered around trying to recall some of the few facts that I hadn’t disclosed to anyone. In the end the only thing that I could think of was that I regarded myself as a bit of a wimp drinker. I’d been in plenty of meetings where guys had shared about bar room fights, blackouts where they had come to in a different country from the one they had been in before, assignations with all sorts of weird and wonderful women, losing business empires, gaining business empires etc. All I had done was get blind drunk in my flat, year in year out and throw up every morning. I rarely if ever went out other than to an off licence and as for strange women, the only strange woman I had encountered was my ex-wife who put up with all my shit for 9 years. So I frequently had the feeling in meetings that even as a drunk I was a bit of an unimaginative failure. He laughed at that and confessed to have been a bit of wimp drinker himself.

All of the above I don’t regard as particularly ominous. The 6 things to do each day did seem to reflect what I knew about the programme. Sponsorship was widely employed in the fellowship in many forms and the Step 4 layout (apart from the 14 conditions) was pretty much aligned with what I knew from the literature. However as time I went by and my desperation levels started to subside (I never did get the opportunity to go back to him and tell him what I thought about him and his programme) I started to observe more closely what was taking place in the group. I had not only been attending Collingham Road but also the Pont Street meeting in London. It was not a Joys of Recovery meeting but a lot of their members attended it and it had a similar feeling. I have to admit that part of the attraction was that it was regularly attended by celebrities and the women were pretty hot – some things never change. Additionally an off shoot of the Joys meeting was opened in the Earls Court area on a Sunday – this was composed of a Beginners meeting that lasted an hour with a half hour break before an ordinary chaired meeting started. So I was travelling in from East London to the centre three times and week, on Mondays, Wednesdays and Sundays to these three meetings and a lot of the same members were present at each of these venues. The rest of the week I continued to attend local meetings. As time went by I tended to regard my local meetings with a degree of condescension. They didn’t quite measure up to the Joys – after all they were much smaller and the sharing was very varied. I felt critical of them because in my view they were carrying a mixed message to the newcomer and in my experience that could be very confusing. I really thought that they should get their act together and start being more uniform. One interesting thing about my sharing patterns should be revealed here. Up to my attendance at the Joys I guess that my contributions in meetings were pretty much average. I was quite open about how I felt, good, bad or indifferent. I felt quite unrestrained about what I said apart from not mentioning things that I regarded as too private. I attended the Joys meetings for it must have been about a year and during that time I did not share once at any of them. No one as I recall gave me any direction on this. I just felt so inadequate in them and intimidated by the size of the meeting that I just could not speak. I did do a chair once at the Sunday’s beginners meeting and really believed that I’d finally made it up the hierarchy. An interesting thing happened at that meeting after the chair. I had spoken for the usual time and people had shared back and I had mostly enjoyed the experience. A newcomer came up to me at the end of the session and said how much he had enjoyed my sharing. My ego quite naturally rose to the occasion. He asked me if I had ever worked for the BBC. I looked at him to check out if he was taking the piss but he seemed quite serious. I said no to which he commented that I should get a job in the media because I was such a good speaker. Instantly my imagination had transported me to the newsroom and there I was on national television presenting the Nine O’Clock news, or even better, David Dimbleby had been forced to take early retirement since I had been “discovered” and I was on Panorama subjecting prominent politicians to my insightful analysis and of course making them appear such fools, cowed by my superior intellect. The fantasy came and went in a matter of seconds but I left the encounter with that pleasurable warm glow of self-satisfaction. As my ego resumed its normal but still oversized state I reflected on what the guy had said. I was starting to feel a little uncomfortable. The chair had gone well but maybe it had been a bit too slick. One of the effects of being under the influence of someone who was undoubtedly quite charismatic as David B, was that my sense of inadequacy had grown if anything. My strategy had been to unconsciously mimic some of his mannerisms and indeed deploy some of his catch phrases. “Misery is optional” had now become my stock in trade and I too was now claiming to “never having a bad day” although I could not claim that condition right back to my arrival in AA. It seemed as if I had to drape his personality about me to feel confident in myself. It was quite a weird realisation and I felt that in the process I was losing my own identity; that I was not being true to myself. I made a quite dramatic and potentially dangerous decision at that point. I knew instinctively that this strategy could not continue if I were to develop as a human being. So I concluded to “undermine” the persona that I had adopted and try to get back to the “me” that was under it. So at the price of losing the polished performance I determined that my sharing had to more accurately reflect my true condition as opposed to the one that I wanted other people to see even if that meant that I had to express my doubt and fears again, even if it meant that maybe my voice would shake or I would stumble over my words. The mask would have to be dropped, maybe just a little bit, or I would never know myself. So that newcomer doesn’t know it but those few words had a major influence in the direction my recovery would take from that point onwards.

I continued to attend the 3 meetings and since I was not sharing I was in a better position to observe other people. The sponsorship system in the Joys was quite hierarchical. David B was undoubtedly the top dog with numerous sponsees. Amongst those was a most amusing and eloquent American who attended the group, a woman of some maturity (got to be careful with my words here) who was I think the only woman that he sponsored and various others. They represented in my mind the next rank down. They in turn had sponsees and I think that there may have been another rank below them. I saw myself at the bottom of this particular pecking order and I would fondly imagine that one day I would eventually get my own sponsee (after I had done Step 9 or got to Step 9 – I could never find out which) and then I would truly be part of the gang. This cascade of sponsors seemed to be exclusive to the group. The emphasis on the meeting was very much on getting a sponsor and doing your steps the way your sponsor had done them. I sat through one meeting hearing speaker after speaker virtually repeating the one before and was getting slightly bored by this time. I longed to hear someone share that they had had a maybe slightly off day rather than the endless procession of “happy, joyous and free”. For some reason it struck me after the meeting that there had been something missing. I couldn’t quite determine what it was but my mind is really quite tenacious and it was with some shock that I realised that I had sat through an entire meeting of AA without there being a single reference to a Higher Power of any kind other than in the Serenity prayer at the end; not one reference in the chair, not one speaker had alluded to the existence of the concept, and it struck me that this had been wholly replaced by that of sponsorship. Another effect of the sponsorship system was that it ensured that the direction of authority moved from top down rather than sideways in the group. It was frequently referred to in the meeting that “my best thinking had got me drunk” and the inference to be drawn from that was that the newcomer should not rely too much on their own judgement but instead trust their sponsor in not only matters relating to abstinence from drink but in other areas as well; not only was advice proffered on how to remain drink free but also shifted into other areas of the individual’s life. For example, it was strongly suggested that one refrain from making major decisions prior to getting to or doing Step 9. For those people who were not in sexual relationships one was strongly discouraged from getting involved in one until one had got to Step 9. The same advice applied to employment decisions, moving home, care of children, in fact any area that you care to think of. Everything seemed to revolve around getting to Step 9 at which point something magical was supposed to happen. Up to that that point you couldn’t tie your shoe laces without asking your sponsor (an exaggeration I admit) but that after it had been passed you were transformed into someone who could take on anything. If decisions were to be made it was strongly suggested that your sponsor should always be consulted and that you should follow that advice. After all, it was asserted, what was the point of wasting your sponsor’s time asking him/her to sponsor you and then not taking his/her advice. (I think that it needs to be remembered that not only did my best thinking get me drunk but it also got me to AA, it got me to put down the first drink one day at a time, it got me to apply myself to the recovery programme any way that I could and it got me through 20 years drink free so far – so I must be getting at least one thing right). This involvement in the minutiae of another human being’s conduct seems to reflect the view (widely held) that all sorts of things can occasion a relapse into drinking. As an example this was most colourfully advocated in the expression, now thankfully defunct, that “there’s a slip under every skirt”. The implication of this is that somehow a problematic romantic attachment may lead to a relapse and the solution is to avoid such attachments (presumably until one had done one’s Step Nine or whatever the variant was). So the responsibility for relapse was nicely shifted to an outside occasion rather than the internal spiritual condition of the individual concerned. The reason why I drank the way that I drank is because I’m an alcoholic. I used these events as a justification for my drinking - my wife doesn’t understand me, my boss doesn’t pay me enough for the job, the neighbour didn’t say hello to me this morning, the cat pissed in my shoe – ad infinitum - therefore I can now drink because I have a just reason – but even if I couldn’t find a good reason I still drank. So if the logic of the above approach is followed through to its end the only way that an alcoholic can absolutely assure that he/she doesn’t drink is to do nothing, go nowhere, be with no-one, say nothing, and maybe even think nothing. Now he may arrive in nirvana by these means but it might be a bit of a tedious journey and is slightly impractical. Just before I came into AA my wife left me. She left me because she’d had enough of my drinking. I had money, I had a flat, there was no-one to stop me drinking, and if anything I had the best possible reason that I’ve ever had in my life to drink – after all my wife’s just walked out on me. I had been to one meeting of AA some time before but did not remember much about it apart from being very angry – I knew nothing of Higher Powers, programmes of recovery, sponsors, picking up the phone and all the other stuff that you hear in meetings – but I didn’t pick up a drink – I’d never heard of Step One but I knew that if I drank that night I might kill myself, I might kill someone else – something terrible would happen and there would be nothing that I could do about it. All the rest is just a matter of circumstance – as long as I place Step One at the centre of my life I won’t drink regardless of anything around me – the rest of the Steps is to reinforce that fact and improve the quality of my existence. I must rely on a power greater than myself – and in my case that is not another human being, not a sponsor, not the group, not AA as a whole but the Great Reality deep within.

To continue the theme – this intrusion, and I do think it so, extends not only beyond the direct confines of AA but into AA as well, most specifically to one’s own conduct in the fellowship. I was advised that I should always share for the newcomer and share positively. In itself I couldn’t see much of a problem there since helping newcomers is central to AA's purpose but I couldn’t see how sharing negatively should have that much of a detrimental effect on their well-being. I had been present at plenty of meetings where I heard some extremely distressing things being talked about but it had not led me to believe that the programme didn’t work (with the exception of me of course) or had inclined me to drink. In fact it was something of a relief to hear someone was having a shit time because at least I didn’t feel that I had completely monopolised the condition. My attention was drawn to the Just For Today card and the reference to “not showing that our feelings had been hurt” as a rationale for positive sharing. I couldn’t challenge that argument at the time and went along with the prevailing view. At a later date I had a conversation with a wonderful man named Chingford Dennis who died quite young (and about as sober as you can get in AA). I discussed it with him and he explained that he thought that you could talk about things that were distressing you but in a constructive way. You could give vent to your emotion and cry if that was what it took and that this did not imply negativity but a true acknowledgement of your condition. Some of the best sharing I’ve heard in AA (and quite recently on two occasions) has been from people trying to deal with very frightening experiences, showing their anxiety and their distress but not the least trace of self pity. I find this kind of communication not only deeply moving almost to the point that I wanted to join them in their tears (and believe you me I’m not the type – I haven’t shed a tear in an AA meeting since I joined – but a few outside), but also inspiring to the greatest degree. I am quite awed by that level of honesty and can only commend them as admirable human beings. I will contrast that with one event that I witnessed at a Joys meeting which to this day makes me feel sick when I recall it. A girl called Louise had been asked to do the chair at the meeting. She was (and still is I hope) a lovely Irish girl, maybe in her late twenties or early thirties. She had bright eyes and a kind smile and she was very open. I did not know her particularly well but she always seemed vivacious and friendly. The meeting commenced and she began her chair. It was a fairly average and not at all controversial. She concluded her comments by bringing us up to where she was at now as people frequently do. I cannot remember the details but I can recall that she said that she was going through a bit of rough time at the moment and her voice broke a little. She regained her composure and concluded her talk. The secretary then opened the meeting for general sharing. At that point I was witness to the most appalling behaviour that I have ever seen at a meeting. I’ve been in meetings where I’ve been threatened by a drunk, on another occasion physically attacked by the same man, people have told me in meetings that they hated my guts, that I’m shit stirrer (probably true but someone needs to bring it to the surface), I’ve been dug out because I call myself a recovered alcoholic (read the book and don’t practice contempt prior to investigation) on more occasions than I can remember. I’ve been patronised frequently, cross shared against (subtly and not so subtly), been attacked in a group conscience meeting for being an ego maniac (certainly true – I thought that was the other membership requirement). I’ve been growled at, dumped on, back stabbed etc (and I’ve handed out a bit of this treatment myself – apart from the physical attack – yet)). In other words I’ve experienced in AA what anyone will if they stick around long enough – you take the lumps and grow from it. But I can honestly say that I have never seen anything so despicable as the treatment that Louise received that day. One member after another with varying styles laid into her taking her to task for sharing negatively. I watched this process with growing disbelief. I watched her face as this was going on and she was I believe in a state of shock. Her eyes were wide at first as she tried to comprehend what was going on and then I could see her face crumple under the strain. I don’t recall that she cried then but it was clear that she was in considerable distress. I still feel deeply ashamed that I was at that meeting and did nothing and said nothing and for that I apologise Louise. What I witnessed was the raw power of the group when an individual steps out of line and that, among other matters, led to me waking up to what was going on in the Joys.

Most of the time the pressure to encourage conformity was much more subtle. The most invidious characteristic of this process is the internalisation of group norms. My initial reaction to the Joys was due in part to a natural defensiveness when encountering an unknown area. Since I had been in AA I had decided that I should second-guess all my decisions before acting on them. That is not to say that I did not act impulsively frequently but that when I was more aware of what I was doing that I should not jump to conclusions too quickly without examining the issue in question carefully. Unfortunately where this strategy worked quite well when it came to reasoning things out I applied the same criteria to my gut reactions, or intuitions. I have subsequently discovered the hard way (which is sometimes the only way) that my intuitions are pretty well always spot on. My gut reaction to the Joys (discounting my natural defensiveness) was uneasiness. I felt the atmosphere in the group to be quite claustrophobic and controlling although the counter side of that is that it can seem very secure and protected. There seemed to be nothing questionable about their presentation of the programme, the way they ran the group, their sharing or indeed the sponsorship system. So why was it that I felt so uncomfortable in meetings? I could not pin it down then so I decided that I was probably out of step and that 60 or 70 other people could not all be wrong. So I overruled my instincts and tried to conform. At this point an interesting question poses itself. It is my view that the description of alcoholics generally as being wilful and individualistic with a moderate tendency towards self-destructive behaviour may have some weight. In my case these certainly apply. So why is it that someone with all those traits should strive so hard to comply with a group norm that he really had severe doubts about. I believe the psychological term is a reaction formation. I was aware of the dangers of my temperament, that this had been compounded since I’d been in AA by the not uncommonly expressed view that my “best thinking had got me drunk”, and therefore I should not trust my own judgement or feelings and if anything do the exact opposite to my own inclinations. So whilst I attended the group I was aware of an almost continual struggle between these two forces and in order to counterbalance my tendencies I made an enormous effort to comply and this I felt was best achieved by accepting everything that I was told and indeed following my sponsor’s direction. An expression of this internal conflict most fully manifested itself whenever I encountered another individual who had not bought into the collective – it was then that I was forced into one of two positions by my own warring nature. They had either to be brought into the “fold” or if they failed to comply be “cast forth”. In this kind of war there could be no compromise. I can remember quite clearly that warm sense of satisfaction as I managed to bring in a newcomer to the meeting. I can also remember my anger when another member of AA should dare to resist my blandishments and express a contrary view to the group norm. I can remember quite clearly trying to persuade another friend of mine in AA to attend the meeting. He came along and decided that it was not for him. I clearly recall berating him in the car for his short-sightedness and all but saying that if he didn’t get himself sorted out (my way) then he was in dire trouble. I’m glad to say that my intuitions lead me always to good friends and he is still my friend today.

On another occasion my friend and I had trawled the local AA meetings in the East End and between us had managed to convince three newcomers to come down with us to the Joys. We packed them into the back of my little Renault 5, with me driving and my friend in the front seat with our miserable cargo in the back. All three of them were still going through withdrawals and one of them threw up at the meeting when we arrived. We were quite convinced that we were doing absolutely the right thing in taking them all the way down to Gloucester Road. When they arrived at the meeting they were promptly descended upon by other members of the group. I remember being quite pleased at our catch – three newcomers in one go was an impressive score. It occurs to me that perhaps a more considerate line of action would have been to take them to their local groups where they would not have had to undergo what must have been an uncomfortable ride into the centre of London and where they could have established more accessible local contacts. What was more important to me was to be seen to have carried the message to newcomers and to display my trophies to the group. Maybe there’s some amends to be made here? Two of them never returned to that meeting. As far as I know one of them got sober elsewhere and now works in the States. Another just disappeared from view and I haven’t seen him since. The last of the three did return with me to the meeting on a couple of occasions. On one of those we had arrived at the meeting fairly early and I was chatting with someone while another person was talking to my “trophy”. I was approached by a member of the group who informed me that my “sponsee” stank of booze. Now the fact is that drunks love me because my sense of smell is so bad that you’d have to set light to their breath before I would know that they had picked up a drink. Another member of the group came up to me and conveyed the same information. I remember that they seemed quite shocked that someone had turned up at an AA meeting with booze on their breath – who would have thought it? Anyway I did confront him on the way home that he had been caught out. He swore blind that he hadn’t, that it was cough mixture etc. I knew the game and just asked him to be honest with me. I told him I could hardly get angry with him about it but it was better to be straight about these matters. He still maintained that he hadn’t touched a drop. Maybe he was telling the truth but … we parted company soon after that.

Another means of ensuring that cohesion and conformity was maintained by the sponsorship system can be summed up easily by something that David B communicated at one meeting. It was said in his usual charming way in reference to a conversation that he had apparently had with a recalcitrant sponsee. Quote “If I want an opinion from you I’ll give it to you”. This was delivered in a humorous fashion and was greeted with much merriment. Unfortunately he meant what he said. In terms of his personal traits I found him to be a man who was unable to deal with criticism especially from a sponsee. Finally it was for that reason that I was “sacked”. I had in the first instance commented on a telephone conversation that I overheard him having with another sponsee. I found it difficult to stomach the way in which he spoke to the man – patronising, arrogant and really quite rude. I was quite unable to refrain from expressing my view. He did not appear to appreciate my comments and I left the flat thinking that that was probably it. I told my friend what I had done and he advised me to ring up and apologise. I confess that I had undoubtedly overstepped the bounds of polite conduct to criticise someone in their own flat speaking to someone that they probably knew far better than me. I conceded that I was at fault and made my apologies over the phone. He seemed to accept these and all was well. However on a subsequent occasion I made the same error and was informed that I was no longer his sponsee. I was quite devastated by this news at the time and felt like I had been cast out into the wilderness. To compound the matter I was half way through my Step 5 with him at the time but apparently the dismissal was operative immediately – no term of notice to be served. I found someone else to hear the rest of my Step 5. From this I conclude that he was also a man lacking in continence with regard to his emotions. The façade was slipping away.

Another strategy reinforced by the sponsorship system was to maintain control over group decisions. The group was run by a steering committee which as I understand it was responsible for “day to day” running of the group, getting chairs etc. However as I recall policy proposals might be raised by any member of the committee and any member of the group. I don’t recall what the criteria for group membership were but I assumed that I was one. I remember that in line with the “follow your sponsors” direction this even included how one voted. In this way any group decisions could be ensured to be carried in the direction mandated by the hierarchy and not the membership. At one group conscience I was prompted to make a contribution to the matter under discussion. This had gone on for about ten minutes and since I do not make a good committee man my impatience had exceeded my reticence to speak. The weighty matter under consideration was whether it was appropriate to applaud a speaker at the conclusion of their chair. It was fairly common practice in some of the bigger meetings in central London although unheard of in the East End where the proper restraint was applied and the conclusion of the chair was usually greeted with cries of “Get him off” (a joke for those who don’t appreciate irony). The debate had reached the exciting crescendo as to whether in fact we were applauding the speaker themselves or their Higher Power. Additionally the vexed question was addressed about whether it was dishonest to applaud someone who had done a crap chair and whether this constituted a breach of AA principles. My experience of this dilemma is that generally speaking AA members are really good at communicating their feelings when they are listening to rubbish. Discontent is usually expressing by shifting of chairs, people getting up to make tea, scratching, yawning, farting exuberantly, having conversations with your neighbour and reading the paper. For the more thick-skinned shares the final blow is delivered in the response which usually includes coded comments like “that was an interesting chair” accompanied by effusive thanks for their efforts accompanied by the exhortation that they should keep coming back. In the end I decided to impress the group with my erudite knowledge of the 12 and 12 and cited rule 42 to the group – ie don’t take yourselves so seriously. The entire audience turned round to look at me with some astonishment, as if I had grown an additional head, and then completely ignored my viewpoint.

A group can be described as cohesive or controlled and the dividing line is slim. Generally the impression I received at the Joys was that this group considered itself to be much superior to other groups and that its message conformed more closely to the original and was in a purer form. References were made to the Oxford groups and the Four Absolutes adopted by them. I had no idea about what these were apart from the fact that they frightened the hell out of me – don’t ply me with absolutes because I’ll try and achieve them. I don’t recall any of this being present in AA literature and I tended to sidestep these issues. It would seem that the Big Book (and other AA approved literature) could no longer be regarded as the final authority on AA orthodoxy. However I adopted the belief that somehow the rest of AA had got it badly wrong and it would be necessary to work amongst the heathens if they were to be saved. Interestingly enough very few of the ungodly responded to my ministrations.

A characteristic of a controlled group is its self-preoccupation. The focus is mostly directed at how well we are doing and how badly they are doing. Promotion of self and denigration of others seem to go hand-in-hand. The others are regarded as the enemy to be absorbed or eliminated. Those who are critical of their efforts are identified as being troublesome and either ridiculed or slandered to diminish their impact. Similarly offenders can be undermined by adopting a patronising slant – “they don’t understand the poor things” accompanied by an expression of concern about their spiritual condition. I’m sure that everyone can supply their own examples of manipulative practices. In this way territories are defined and defended and the group seeks to expand into new regions, gain fresh recruits to “carry the message” - and the ends always justify the means.

I should say that I have observed this tendency in other groups throughout AA – it is not that rare but it is relatively sporadic. On one occasion I was engaged in a largely futile discussion with a disciple of a man in AA who had awarded himself apparently the nick name Gentle Mike. Generally speaking if nicknames are to be allocated then other members tend to decide them and they’re usually quite accurate. I’m not even going to begin to hint at what I was called. However let’s say that Mike was not Mike – it’s a name I’ve given him – and he was anything but gentle. However his acolyte sought to persuade me that as part of their mission I had to accept Christ into my life for he was the Only Way to salvation from drink. He cited the authority of one of the earlier drafts of the Big Book as the basis for his assertion. I pointed out that I was quite happy with the extant edition and would he kindly go away and stop bothering me. As far as I know he’s still sober and doesn’t seem inclined to mention that incident.

More recently there has been a sighting of the Messiah in – of all places – Dagenham. This particular individual – and to paraphrase Chaucer (had to put that in) – I cannot remember his name – caused a bit of a stir in the area when he founded his own little group. They rallied to his flag and the cause was truly taken up. A treatment centre was established and a bishop was invited in to open the enterprise. The saviour busied himself ministering to his flock – all of whom he apparently managed to sponsor single-handedly. Unfortunately he got pissed and that rather spoiled the whole effect. The last time I saw him at a meeting he was still on and off the drink but attributed his downfall to the fact that he had been so busy saving his flock that he had not spent enough time on himself – an element of the truth there.

The “meeting after the meeting” is a quite common event. Frequently after the Sunday meeting people would go down to the Stock Pot and other cafes in the Kings Rd to have something to eat and drink. It was a convivial occasion and generally pleasurable. However the not so unspoken rule of boys with boys and girls with girls was observed so I found myself frequently sitting at a table with a bunch of guys whilst occasionally stealing a glance over the room to another table where the girls were sitting and gently lusting (as is my nature). I found it quite incongruous at times that here I was at the age of thirty three acting as if I’d just joined the Boys Scouts. Although the occasion was generally diverting I did feel somewhat like an errant schoolboy if I should occasion a pleasantry with a member of the opposite sex. Clearly these fragile women needed to be protected from the lusty hordes of opportunist males whose only aim in life was to get into their knickers and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the only reason that I did not run rampant round Chelsea was that to do so would undoubtedly have led to me relapsing since this was the clear implication. As far as I aware AA is mostly composed of consenting adults and that if they should choose to shag each other senseless or not really is their business and not mine. For myself I have reached such a plane of spiritual enlightenment that these worldly matters are no longer of importance - yeah right! On a more serious note I believe that such a stance serves to reinforce the notion that essentially we are unable to monitor our own morality and that someone else should take responsibility for our ethical conduct – yeah wrong!

Beginners Meetings again are run throughout AA. I don’t believe that they should since I think that every AA meeting should be a Beginners meeting and I think that this term is yet another example of the so-called “non-restrictive” groups – as fine an example of Orwellian Newspeak as I can think of – I find it difficult to determine what could be a more explicit definition of a restrictive condition to group entry than the term “Women’s Group”. The word “Group” is pretty unambiguous and the qualifier “Women’s” seems fairly clear – the meaning - a group of women. So to add the term non-restrictive is to suggest that it is a group of women, presumably for women, but that non women can attend – therefore it is a group of women for women but it is not a group of women for women – the terminology I would apply to this is hypocrisy. It is pretty well the only bit about AA that is universally known throughout the fellowship that the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. There are no further conditions. For a group to call itself an AA group means that a meeting run by that group should abide by that requirement. If it doesn’t then as far as I’m concerned it isn’t an AA meeting. I would apply the same principles to gay/lesbian groups and to Men’s Groups, of which there are a few. I would be interested to hear what the response would be if I were to propose to set up a Whites Only, Male, Heterosexual and over 21s group since on the basis of groups past and present I have a precedent for each of those restrictions. My own experience is that my first meeting in AA in Leytonstone was a Step Meeting and they were on the first part of Step 12. They could see I was a newcomer and the guy did a good drunkalogue chair and the group carried the AA message to the still suffering alcoholic – which was what it was there to do. That’s the best beginners meeting I’ve ever been to.

I’ve already alluded to sponsorship but I believe that it would be well to consider its role in AA. There is a booklet in AA which covers this area. It’s some time since I read it but from what I can recall it points out that sponsorship can mean many different things and it’s essentially down to the two people concerned to sort it out. So if a sponsee wants an abusive sponsor in AA he or she can surely find one. For my part I don’t sponsor nor have I had a sponsor for at least 18 years now. There’s no reference to sponsorship in the Big Book and to the best of my knowledge there is certainly no suggestion that one needs to go through the programme (if one wants to in the first place) with another member of AA if one does not choose to. The only reference to the participation of another human being is in Step Five and again that does not have to be done with an AA member. It seems sensible to get help with this stuff from someone who’s familiar with the material and the likeliest source of help is from within AA but the foregoing should be considered. I have observed many sponsor/sponsees relationships that can only be described as co-dependent and seem to run counter to what our programme is about. The whole idea of the Steps is to create the conditions for a spiritual awakening to occur and for the individual concerned to find a power greater than themselves that will solve their problem – alcoholism. The second pertinent idea in Chapter 5 states: “That probably no human power could have relieved our alcoholism” followed by “That God could and would if He were sought”. The solution proposed by AA is precisely that. Most importantly Step Three explicitly states that we “Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.” I see no mention of replacing the word God with human being, member of AA, sponsor – just God. Yet the role of sponsor in some cases seems to be replacing that of God creating a situation where the sponsee becomes dependent on the sponsor and a destructive power relationship ensues. I’ve had some experience of this and now distance myself from the current expression of that function – sponsorship.

It has been argued that some people may need to have their lives directed and controlled since they are so vulnerable. I would say that if they are so vulnerable what they need least is that kind of attention. What they need is the autonomy to grow, to accept responsibility and take charge of their own lives under the only direction that they actually need which is derived from a power of their own choice (not another human being) and according to their own understanding. If AA can’t carry that message other than by the means that involve the deployment of manipulation, controlling behaviour, dogmatism and fear then AA isn’t really worth preserving.

I believe that there is an alternative to the above. I have experience of it as do many others and I will be quite happy to give an account to any member who wishes it. I went through the recovery programme without a sponsor, I gained my own understanding of the principles of the programme, took certain steps and recovered from a seemingly hopeless state of mind and body. There’s no mystery to it, no tricks, no magic, no conditions other than those lain out in the Big Book and I didn’t have to rely on a single personality to achieve it.

P.