The thugs running the show! Hampton Wick Friday

Extracts from the aacultwatch forum (old):

“Interesting reading …..., I wonder if you've ever been to Hampton Wick? Don't get me wrong, most of the people who share at that meeting carry a good message of recovery, service and hope, but I was wondering if you had come across a chap called Billy McN? I know he used to do Tolworth Newcomers, but now he does Hampton Wick and Richmond Tuesday. If anyone is a cult thug it's him: he's a salesman by trade, and you can hear in his sharing that he sells the message well. He gets a lot of people asking his sponsorship because of his 'sales pitch'. He often shares about being spiritual and trying to help others, but once he's your sponsor, it's completely different. He has proved himself to be an incredibly angry, sick, controlling man. Newcomers listen to his share and want what he's got, but, the truth is, what he shares is NOT what he has got! I have personally been on the receiving end of some of his abuse as a newcomer, all because I wasn't 'phoning two newcomers each day! I mean, he wasn't even my sponsor! He will happily label other members of AA as 'sick' or 'half-measures' or 'not on the program', but never looks at himself. Worst of all, he consciously bullies both newcomers and members who he considers 'easy targets', and if any of them dare to stand up to him, or tell him he's upset them, he just tells them things like "I don't care, you're the one with the resentment, it's not my problem".

I am very sorry to say that he is incredibly influential, and, due to his high number of sponsees, more and more people are indoctrinated with his view of AA, which is 'you are going to drink and die because you don't call your sponsor every day!' My friend …...... was standing-in as secretary at Hampton Wick some weeks ago, and he dared to suggest that reading the Q&A on Sponsorship leaflet was a better option than speaking to Sponsorship Co-Ordinators (of which he is one), and Billy charged at him from the other end of the room, pulled him to one side and told him to 'stick to the script'! …..... withdrew from the Richmond Tuesday meeting completely (after Billy took over the group conscience and selected the new officers himself, rather than let the group decide) …....

The ego has landed, and he's at Hampton Wick!”

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Now you see her .. now you don't!

We quote:

“Dear Sirs,

I read your website recently and would like to (constructively, I hope) express my concerns about recent events as follows:-

Alex R sponsors most of the females at Hampton Wick, Ormond Road and Kingston Hill Monday. She has broken the long-established AA tradition/suggestion/best practice that men sponsor men and women sponsor women. Alex R has had two sponsors – Wally P and Rupert B – both male. This (she says) is fine because she is of a different sexual orientation. All well and good. However, the crucial “grand-sponsor” relationship has become distorted because Alex’s completely heterosexual army of (often attractive) female sponsees now have a completely heterosexual (and very attractive) male grand-sponsor (Rupert) and male great-grand-sponsor (Donald). Alex R also has broken another long-standing AA tradition/suggestion/best practice that a sponsor only have a number of sponsees that they may reasonably cope with. Usually the recommended number was between 3-5 sponsees, depending on the circumstances of the sponsor. Alex R married within her first year of sobriety, has a demanding full-time job AND is doing a postgraduate degree part-time. And in less than 5 years of sobriety, she is alleged to have sponsored close to 100 females, although many of them have relapsed. At the present time she has at least 30 sponsees, possibly more, the exact number isn’t known. She simply doesn’t have the time to sponsor such a large number of females.

The issue? Well, about 3 weeks ago Alex R upped sticks without any prior warning and decamped lock, stock & proverbial barrel to “somewhere in America” where “there aren’t any mobile phones” and/or other communication systems. Until “sometime in December”. She gave her 30 sponsees (well those she could be bothered to notify anyway) vague instructions to “call Rupert if there’s anything”. Well, the fallout from breaking AA traditions/suggestions/best practices began almost immediately. 30 females have been left rudderless. That’s why the best practice of a “manageable number of sponsees” was in place to begin with. Precisely to avoid something like this happening. Next, several of these females have feelings for the attractive Rupert B and have been ringing him up non-stop. Remember that Rupert B also has a double-digit number of male sponsees. He has been busily dodging their calls. And one sponsee who has managed to get through to Rupert has been suggestively telling him about her latest relationship breakup. Again, this is why the best practice of “men with men, women with women” was put into place. It remains to be seen how many of the “rudderless” female sponsees survive until “sometime in December” when Alex R returns. Bearing in mind that “sponsor dependence” has been bred into all of these women, most of whom have rung Alex R every day of their sobriety.

I once heard an Old-Timer tell a group to “please leave AA the way you found it”. Now I understand what they meant.”

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Our usual thanks to our correspondent

The Richmond “Camel”

“This prayer is being promoted by a guy called “Bernie” in the Richmond and Twickenham area [Surrey/Middlesex]. I know of at least two persons who have stopped attending meetings in that area because of Bernie and his annoying self-righteous preachy-lecturing style. The doctrine and practice implied in this “Camel Prayer” card is very misleading and does not accord with any suggestion to be found anywhere in AA literature. The card is not produced by AA and seems to originate from the same outside commercial enterprise that sells such trite trash as “newcomer chocolate bars” and “speaker sobriety water”. Just to get the record straight – AA does not suggest we “get on our knees twice a day” in imitation of a camel or any other animal. Nor does AA impose “One Master” (whoever that may be?) upon us. AA does suggest we acquire and access a “higher power” but that is a higher power OF OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING according to each person's individual conscience – see the Big Book chapter “Working with Others” for further details. Specific prayer postures are not suggested or implied in any AA book. Also please note that any AA group that allies itself with an outside enterprise and promotes its phoney message is no longer an AA meeting according to Tradition 3.

"Our membership ought to include all who suffer alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend upon money or conformity. Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group, provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation." Tradition 3, long form (with my emphasis)

Additionally AA specifically recommends that we do not preach or lecture – again see the Big Book for further details. Bernie preaches and lectures with gusto – often speaking in the first person plural “we” - a speech idiom sometimes referred to as the “royal we” or the “preacher's we”. Bernie successfully comes across as arrogant, dim, evasive, bullying and manipulative. He also carries the usual false information about early AA and success rates, no doubt acquired from non-AA sources. Camels have a reputation for being rather stupid, cantankerous and smelly. I don't think any sane human being would want to be like one. And I, like many others, in the Richmond/Twickenham area certainly don't want what Bernie has got ! “

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Our thanks to the contributor who sent this one in!

Billy the Kid Rides the Range! (or Hampton Wick Friday/Richmond Ormond Rd Tuesday anyway!)

“Dear ‘Fellas’,

“I am interested in your website, and have been encouraged to submit an email to you by other members. I currently live in …....... I attend intergroup meetings for the London (South West) Intergroup (LSWIG), which meets in St Mark’s Church Hall, Compton Road, Wimbledon, …...... I have witnessed the behaviours of the individual whom you refer to as ‘Billy the Kid’ at both group and intergroup levels, as well as outside AA.

Billy used to attend intergroup as GSR for Richmond Tuesday, and every time he would attempt to raise the same issues (usually revolving round compliance to his ideals; trying to make the six suggestion card conference-approved, trying to get conference to adopt Dr Bob’s ‘Back to Basics’ programme from the 1940s to combat “AA Shrinkage”). He invariably sat in the same corner of the room with his sponsor, a couple of his sponsees and a few other pals of his, and when everyone came to vote at intergroup or GSR, if they voted differently to him, Billy would sigh or roll his eyes, pull them to one side and try to explain them why they should be voting with him, and demand a recount. I also attend the Hampton Wick meeting on occasion with a friend who still lives in Kingston. I was in attendance when Billy grabbed the secretary by the arm to stop him from walking away while he told him to ‘stick to the crib sheet’ (for your information, grabbing someone by the arm in a manner like that is considered a form of common assault by UK law, not that this is a surprise – Billy fell out with a sponsee and became really aggressive towards him, and in Billy’s own words, the sponsee thought “...[Billy] was going to hit him”. Billy’s view, however, is that, in spite of the aggression and getting in the sponsee’s face, Billy claims it’s not his problem as the sponsee only thought he was going to hit him. Well, that’s alright then! Incidentally, this is the ethos behind Billy's manner - he behaves abusively and the blame lies with the other person for having the resentment).

I feel really sorry for the members of AA who fall foul of Billy’s actions. He appears to have a lot of ‘yes-men’ sponsees who are suggestible and do things because he tells them to. He also has a sponsee called D. (who from my understanding is better known in AA by his surname than his first name) who actively claims to promote the Tuesday meeting in a lot of other meetings using fliers (I do not have one). Billy also has a sponsee called S. who on two occasions called me to ask me if I was calling my sponsor every day; he called me once at around midnight and once at 1.30am. I also feel sorry for Billy – so convinced is he that AA has lost its way that he and his cohorts pre-screen chairs before allowing them to share (but only if they are from ‘outside’ groups rather than the politically-approved groups – Tottenham/North London, Strood etc) and ask every newcomer who their sponsee is, and often advise that they should change sponsors to one from the group. Then again, I am not surprised Billy is the way he is; his sponsor is an actor named R. who tells his sponsees not to pick their kids up from school and to leave them waiting until after the meeting because they need to be at their home group an hour before the meeting starts - one of his several 'Joys of Recovery' traits.

…..... there is a very ‘happy clappy’ meeting in Burnham on a Saturday morning. Someone from the area tells me the American woman who ‘runs’ the meeting formed the Joys of Recovery in Detroit with her husband (who is now the secretary at Hampton Wick). ….... I am willing to be of any assistance I can. I am also curious as to what other information you have on this meeting.

Yours in fellowship,

….... (Anonymously)”

(our edits)

Comment: Apparently Billy is clinging to the hope that we're just going to lose interest in his thuggery, and that aacultwatch is going to go away! Doesn't look like it does it! We've also been informed that our website has been proscribed by the cult hierarchy – and that on no account should their sponsees surf us. Fantastic! What an endorsement! But you know what they say about forbidden fruit? Tastes all the better!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS More to follow on the Detroit connection

Another encounter with the cult

“Thank you for your reply,

When you mentioned the term 'ex-cult members', it made me realise that I have never told you my story around all this - you might find it useful for either the website or your own information.

Having been in contact with AA for about six weeks, I had my last drink on December 30th, 1989. I am an accountant and have worked on a semi-freelance basis since the late seventies.

The first meeting I attended was in Kingston-Upon-Thames in Surrey in November 1989. My memory isn't what it used to be, but, for whatever reason, I have no difficulty in remembering my first meeting, or seeing my doctor with regards to my drinking - I remember the latter, because it was the day the Berlin Wall came down. My doctor suggested I attended a few AA meetings and see if I liked what I saw. After stalling on the idea for a while, I went into Kingston on a Tuesday evening and attended an AA meeting in the Quaker Hall on Eden Street; this meeting no longer takes place here, but now at St. Luke's Church, Gibbon Road (also in Kingston). A man called Bob (who would eventually become my sponsor) gave me his number (all landlines back then), and invited me back the following week.

Some time after this, I began doing some contract work for a friend's company, so was travelling to his company's office in Elvaston Place, SW7 on Mondays and Wednesdays. I was informed, by someone within my local meeting, that there was a meeting in the Scottish Episcopal Church on Pont Street on a Monday night. From here, I was encouraged to attend a meeting in Collingham Road the coming Wednesday. As both meetings were very close to my office at the time, I couldn't think of a reason not to. I was two months sober or so at the time and felt that it would help. By this point, I had heard talk of sponsorship and the steps in the meetings I had been to so far but felt it was better to get my feet on the ground in AA before venturing in that direction.

There was a much larger crowd in this and the Pont Street meetings than in Kingston and Staines where I had previously attended, but I figured that, as we were in Central London, this was inevitable. I walked down to the crypt and sat to the side of the speaker's table, facing inward. the rest is all a blur but I remember people asking me for my number. I remember at my first meeting people gave me their numbers - at this one they asked me to give mine. I didn't find this particularly ominous at the time. One thing I did notice was that the sharing was somewhat harmonious, somewhat seemingly word-for-word. I didn't share in this meeting; nevertheless I went home, glad for having been to a meeting.

Things became slightly awry when, at around six o'clock the following morning, I received a telephone call from a man called David (whom I now understand to be David C)[aka “The Icon” – see site for more info] telling me he was calling me on the advice of his sponsor. I asked him what I could do for him (I, for a moment, thought he'd been pointed in my direction because of an accounting query!) his response was "I was just told to call you". That was pretty much it. After a brief exchange of how-are-you-s, the conversation was over, with my wife and our young son dishevelled after being awoken abruptly. I was working at home this day, and as the morning went on I shrugged off the incident and carried on with my day, before receiving a telephone call from an individual called John C which essentially took the same course. I got a third call that day from someone whose name I can't remember (who was also quite new into the programme), and thought this was all rather odd and maybe there had been some sort of mistake and that they thought I was someone else.

I continued to attend both meetings, as well as the Tuesday meeting in Kingston and occasional others in my area and decided that this man called Bob (who passed away in 2001) was the man I wanted as a sponsor. Shortly after this, I attended the Vision meeting one Wednesday and I was asked if I had a sponsor yet. I affirmed and said the name 'Bob the Beard' (as was his name). The people I spoke to did not know who he was, thus insisted that it would probably be best if I found a sponsor from this meeting. Before I could answer, I was 'paired up' with this man called Tony and was informed he would sponsor me. I declined the polite offer and went home after the meeting. The next morning I got the usual 'phone calls (albeit later in the day after I asserted six o'clock was too early). This is where things became conspicuous: I was asked what I had been up to so far that day. My response was that I had been doing accounting work all morning. My 'correspondent' seemed quite surprised that I hadn't got on my knees that morning and prayed, or that I hadn't called a newcomer that day, or that I hadn't called my sponsor. I ended the 'phone call feeling like I'd been slapped in the face and decided to call my own sponsor to discuss this. My sponsor asserted that, seeing as his physical health prevented him from getting down on his knees anyway it would be wrong of him to tick me off for not doing so. By the next day I had disregarded the whole thing.

Six months into my sobriety, my wife left me. She decided that she wanted to make a fresh start in her home town in Staffordshire. In spite of my emotional upset, I remained sober and the divorce procedures were relatively smooth and we sold the house and I moved to a smaller house in Ashford, Middlesex. On some days I found this more difficult than others and embarked on a series of counselling sessions. At Collingham Road one Wednesday I shared towards the end of the meeting that I was struggling with the emotional side of the divorce and that I was receiving counselling and asserted that I had not felt like drinking in this time thanks to my Higher Power, and this set off a number of murmurs from those in attendance. Once the meeting ended I got up to head for the toilet and was literally grabbed by the arm and was told by David C and one other that I shouldn't be sharing about my emotions in the meeting. Two more 'Joys' folk joined this and one man called Paul asked me why I was seeing a counsellor when I had a 'so-called sponsor' who would perform this duty for me. I told him that it was, in fact, my sponsor who suggested I began counselling. I was then told that I was being fed a watered-down version of AA, and that I would never be well if I continued this. "Great", I thought, "I've been attending AA for six months only to find I'm not going to get well". I told them that I would continue the counselling for the time being, at which point a man called Tony told me that I was "probably going to turn up next week, pissed out of my fucking head" (quote). The next morning I spoke to my sponsor and he was genuinely shocked and I was sickened. I shortly received a verbal amend from David C, which he read off a piece of paper.

I never attended the Collingham Road meeting after that, but, about three years later (and long after my contract in SW7 expired), I was informed that a meeting had been formed in Eaton Square after some individuals had left the Joys meeting. I decided to attend, thinking that maybe these people had left for the same reason. This was around 1994 and I recognised some of the people there and got talking to a few. I only attended this particular meeting on occasion (maybe once a month) until around 2001, when I moved away to South Wales. I also attended the infamous Richmond meeting between 1998, the year of its creation, and when I moved. It was attended by four men in particular: John B, Donald, 'Billy the Post' and a man interestingly known as 'Skittles' and their sponsees. I also attended Kingston Hill (now Hampton Wick)[Hampton Wick Friday – to be distinguished from the Monday and Thursday AA meetings at the same venue]. These were very similar to the Joys meeting, but, from my observation, less intrusive (or so I thought). These men had attended the Joys meeting and Donald and I had kept in contact during my 'sabbatical period'. What I didn't realise was that these meetings had a similar agenda of both sponsorship idolatry and dictated meeting structures. There were strong links between these people and David C (from the Joys) with his sponsees, among others Happy Dennis and Rupert (later sponsored by Donald). I remember Rupert being told not to pick up his young children from an after-school activity because he needed to be at the meeting an hour early. David C said the only thing he could do was to leave them waiting until after the meeting to be picked up, as his sobriety depended on him being an hour early for the meeting.

I lived and worked in Cardiff, whilst attending meetings until 2006, when I returned. The only times I left Wales were to visit my son over Christmas and his birthday, and to attend my sponsor's funeral in Hampton Court in 2001. I moved back to Twickenham in 2006 to find nothing had changed. Rupert had set up a meeting on Twickenham Green on a Thursday called 'One Primary Purpose' (possibly called such as an aim to condition the sharing, but it would appear to be a mainstream meeting with no involvement from Rupert these days), and the Tolworth meeting had also been formed. I have attended both meetings in my time. The Tolworth meeting worried me more as I heard that Newcomers were being assigned sponsors from this meeting, regardless of where they were in their voyage into AA at the time.

I still attend Richmond and Hampton Wick on occasion, more for observation than anything else. For my recovery I prefer meetings in Teddington, Twickenham and Staines. I have not had a sponsor since Bob died in 2001, but I have many friends and confidantes within AA with whom I can share and seek advice.

I'm sure none of this is new to you, but you may find it useful for background or your stories section.

Best wishes as always,

R..........”

(our edits)

Comment: none required

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Update on Ealing: South Middlesex Intergroup's response

We quote:

 "This letter is addressed to everyone in South Middlesex Intergroup, particularly those who attend the Ealing A.A. meetings held at Bayham Road and the Green Man Lane Community Centre.

The South Middlesex Intergroup has received a letter from an adjacent Intergroup, who specifically complain about an Ealing A.A. meetings list, which promotes a non A.A. website. This website, which is available through www........ appears to give extremely dangerous advice to A.A. newcomers, suggesting that they should cease seeing psychiatrists and counsellors and stop taking prescribed medication for depression and associated illnesses, inferring that the 'Steps' will replace the drug treatment. This advice is a gross misrepresentation of A.A. practice and must cease forthwith.

Newcomers are in danger of interpreting the 'MESSAGE,' as given, to mean that they will not be able to participate in the 12 Step programme, unless they come off their medication and that as a consequence, may not be able to stay sober.

The promotion of this website breaches Guideline No.19 of the A.A. Service Handbook for Great Britain, which states: "There are no 'unofficial' A.A. Websites as such. The only websites which can truly be called A.A. websites, are those endorsed by an official A.A. body e.g. www.alcobolics-anonymous.org.uk.".

The "…......." website (as above) is not so endorsed.

Further concern has been expressed about member/s within these groups, who try to impose their personal views on a newcomer with detrimental effect.

We now ask that all individuals, particularly those involved with the Bayham Road and Green Man Lane Community Centre meetings, examine their consciences as to whether any aspect of this complaint is a reflection of their personal conduct and to ask themselves whether their actions breach any of the Traditions, set out below:

Tradition 1 talks about “our common welfare and A.A. unity."

Tradition 4 refers to the "autonomy of each group except in matters affecting other groups and [should be “or”] A.A. as a whole."

Tradition 6 suggests "An A.A. group ought never endorse an outside enterprise, lest we be diverted from our primary purpose."

Tradition 10 says "Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues, hence the A.A. name ought never to be drawn into public controversy.

It is helpful to us all to remember:

a) “as long as we recognise that religion is the province of the clergy and the practice of medicine is for doctors, we can helpfully cooperate with both."

(Bill W. Concept 12 warranty 5.)

b) "A good sponsor never tries to impose views on a newcomer, nor gives advice on medical, legal or work matter. We help the newcomer find an appropriate source of information"

(From Sponsorship: your questions answered / what will sponsors avoid doing.)

c) "A.A. does not .... Solicit members ... .... Follow up or try to control its members; make medical or psychological diagnosis or prognosis ..... provide domestic or vocational counselling .."

(From Members of the clergy asking about Alcoholics Anonymous …... What A.A. does not do.)

d) “On several occasions' I have had clients who were extremely suicidal and have sought professional help. Recently two clients threatened suicide and because A.A. members thought they knew more than the medical and psychological professions, the individuals almost died."

(Alcoholism Counsellor Printed in Grapevine May 1990.)

The content of this letter has been agreed by members of Alcoholics Anonymous who attended the South Middlesex Intergroup Meeting on Wednesday 31st August, 2011 and will be circulated. Copies will also be sent to S.S.0. Islington and G.S.O. York.”

Comment: For the background to this particular drama see website for coverage of the “Ealing Experiment”. Briefly this enterprise was born out of a desire on the part of a fellow named “Happy Dennis” (no we're not joking!) to emulate the so-called “New York” model of AA meetings (essentially this refers to a number of meetings all based at the same location but opening at different times on the same day). There is nothing particularly controversial here except for the fact that this “experiment” was also founded on another “model” ie. the “cult” version of the AA programme. The Visions cult (or Joys) was founded by David B (now deceased) in Great Britain in the late 70's/early 80's. Subsequent to David B's demise his “heir” David C took over the reins (after a bit of internal wrangling), and he has vigorously propagated the cult “message” ever since. He is a co-author of the above mentioned website and moreover (and quite coincidentally) sponsor to …. you guessed it..... Happy Dennis! David C is English by birth but currently residing in the US (although he still manages to direct operations in Ealing (and elsewhere) quite effectively even from afar!) (The WHOIS details for the site may be seen here. We will leave it to our readers to “join up the dots”). In its previous incarnation it was entitled miseryisoptional.org (a domain name now employed by quite another – and unrelated – organisation). It also links up with yet another cult website (directed specifically at newcomers) which coincidentally carries virtually identical registration details.

However - and not to forget “Happy Dennis” - ever since the “experiment” went a bit sour the “Pied Piper of Ealing” has fallen back on the “when the ordure hits the fan, do a runner and leave it to somebody else to clean up the mess” tactic...... a move which apparently is entirely in character. The rumour is that our loss is Ireland's gain! No doubt, though, and at some stage, he will return and make precisely the same mistakes again... and again.....and..... (Now remind us! What was that definition of “insanity” again?). But be in no doubt that the “brains” behind this outfit is David C and that the cult network goes way beyond Ealing (see our Cult: Where to Find). In the immediate area there are direct links between the Ealing “experiment” and the Ormond Road meeting (Tues) in Richmond, the Hampton Wick (Friday – Lower Teddington Rd) meetings, the Guildford Beginners meeting (Monday) (and where, we are reliably informed, another co-author of the website is in residence) and that members from the Bournemouth/Poole area are actively involved with the Sunday evening Bayham Road meeting. Apparently they are even more “fanatical” than Dennis!

South Middlesex IG are to be commended on the action they have taken so far. However there is one quite glaring omission to their cited list of Traditions ie. Tradition Three. We quote (long form):

3. Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend upon money or conformity. Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group, provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation.

(our emphasis).

These groups have overtly affiliated themselves with an outside organisation. Therefore (and according to this criterion alone) these groups may NOT call themselves AA groups.

Moreover now that South Middlesex IG has taken the action it has (and which it will hopefully follow through on) what about the adjacent intergroups who themselves currently host cult groups in their respective areas eg. South West London? These also avail themselves of the above mentioned information provided by this “outside enterprise” (albeit covertly) employing prompt sheets (directly copied from the website) which are then presented to newcomers in their meetings as the authentic AA message. Or perhaps it will be another case of “look the other way”, or perhaps until yet another newcomer dies because they've been told to “throw away” their prescribed medication (see DRA site: Medications and Recovery)

On a lighter note the aacultwatch site has been labelled as most unsuitable reading for newcomers in the cult groups, and we are BANNED by the High Command! Moreover the whole website has been dismissed as merely 'a resentment' according to these same sources! Their hope is that we're just going to fade away........ Dream on! Just dream on!

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

(our thanks to our reporter for the info)

The natives are “revolting”: dissent in the Hampton Wick ranks

“I am writing again, this time to inform you that I have been attending the Hampton Wick ‘cult’ meeting for the past number of weeks to observe what’s taking place, and there seems to be some dissent within the ranks.

As mentioned previously on your site, the secretary has a ‘prompt sheet’ saying that one could get a copy of the Q&A leaflet, or, “better still”, speak to a sponsorship co-ordinator. On an occasion where I was in attendance at HW, a young member called …... was standing-in for the secretary. I remember ….. when …. first came in at the age of ….. about four or five years ago. He fortunately appears to prefer the AA message to the cult’s (although he still attends these particular meetings). Anyway, on this occasion, …... decided that AA’s official publication should take precedence over the sponsorship co-ordinators …..., and decided to ‘swap them around’ and suggest that reading the Q&A leaflet was the “better-still” option. After the meeting, from my observation, Billy (the member I informed you about before) charged at him from the other end of the room, pulled him to one side and instructed him to stick to the script, and told him he was “going half-measures” by 'demoting sponsorship'. Also, Alex R (Plymouth-reared GSR and sponsor for practically all the female members of the group) instructs her sponsees not to even meet members of the opposite sex for coffee until they have reached a certain point in recovery. This concerns me; after all, controlling what people do in AA is one thing, but controlling what people do outside AA is quite cultish indeed. Alex was originally sponsored at the meetings in Plymouth , her sponsor’s sponsor being none other than Wayne P.” [see Plymouth Road to Recovery on website]

Some of the dramatis personae:

John B (founder of the group - circa 1999).

Billy M (often shares about being spiritual, but this only appears to go as far as sharing)
Rupert B (Billy’s sponsor – more mainstream-AA)
Alex R (sponsors all the women)
Colin (previously a group officer but relapsed after being instructed not to take prescribed medication by a certain happy man in Ealing, don’t know where he is now…)

I have also been informed of a similar incident at the Tuesday meeting in Richmond [Ormond Road], where, at a group conscience, instead of members nominating each other or themselves for service positions, Billy allegedly took over the group conscience and elected the group officers himself, rather than having the group decide, with most of them being his sponsees. This is a breach of traditions one, two and twelve. A group member told me that he was discouraged by Billy from putting his own name forward for the secretary position, being told that he was only putting himself forward because of his ‘ego’. Instead, the secretary is a young girl called C, who is a sponsee of Alex’s, and the poor girl has been influenced by members of the Ealing gang. Many of these younger (in the sense of clean time) members are completely unaware of the true AA message, with many of them saying that the AA message is “get a sponsor”. “

Editor's comment: And so “the show” must go on and on and on..... “Self-will run RIOT”

(our thanks to our reporter)

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS. More to come on this one! You can bet on it!

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

More on the cult "network" - Richmond, Tolworth ....

"Thank you for your reply,

John B does indeed attend Hampton Wick and he was one of the founders of the Richmond meeting along with a chap called Donald (who was sponsored by David B) and a few others. From my memory I remember Hampton Wick was opened on Kingston Hill shortly after the Richmond meeting was formed in 1997 or 1998. Another meeting was formed from the Richmond meeting: Tolworth Newcomers - a Thursday night meeting with printed literature cards containing 'the six suggestions' displayed on the top table where the secretary and chair sit. They also used to attend a restaurant after the meeting but they opted to have a food buffet in the hall after the meeting instead. Also, most worryingly, you are assigned a sponsor at this meeting. If you are new you have your number extracted from you and then told who your sponsor is going to be. When I was new to AA over 20 years ago I had great difficulty in saying no, so I can imagine how newcomers feel at this "newcomers" meeting.

I am personally fairly familiar with the Ealing meetings myself. What's been going on is Happy Dennis has made there be four meetings a day in Ealing, most of them being at either Bayham Road or Green Man Lane. Unfortunately some long-standing AA meetings have been dwindling and thinning-out to the point of closing as a result of an earlier meeting opening round the corner. Keep an eye on the Northfields meeting on Sunday morning; this meeting is a long-standing AA meeting, or should I say 'was', but it seems to be getting taken over by various sponsees of the Ealing brigade.

Keep an eye out for a guy called Richard E; he is the one who started the cult within CA and is famous (or infamous) in AA among West and South-West London. He is exactly like David B (I met David B on several occasions); when he attends AA meetings (which is uncommon now as he mainly does CA), he introduces himself as a 'recovered' alcoholic and then proceeds to tell the meeting that they're doing it wrong. He sponsors many individuals at once, and they are taken through the steps and begin sponsoring others after around four weeks of sobriety. Many of them relapse. He will point out to his sponsees who in the meeting is and is not alcoholic. He elects himself to sponsor others (i.e. "I will be your sponsor"). Every sponsee of his is required to attend a 'Big Book Study' at his house, where all he does is gets them to highlight the parts of the Big Book which he thinks are relevant (although he doesn't highlight the bit in The Family afterward which says "Now about health..." or the part in Working with Others that talks about not rushing the newcomer). He brainwashes his sponsees with the '3% recovery rate' (or is it 2%? I think he changes it each time), and as a result, his sponsees all attend meetings with chips on their shoulders and share that everyone else is doing it wrong, or 'not really an alcoholic'. His sponsees are not allowed to attend NA meetings, and the only AA meeting they are allowed to attend seems to be Hampton Wick Friday. He tells everyone (not just his sponsees) that they should not take medication. One of his sponsees was secretary at the Saturday morning meeting at Bayham Road and one time when I was there he shared "my sponsor told me what to do, he told me which meetings to go to and he told me how to recover" (does that sound like an oxymoron?). You people of aacultwatch would probably assume this is cult standard, but what worries me is that I was talking to one of Richard's sponsees after a meeting the other week in Ealing and he was telling me how Richard called him and said "pick me up and give me a lift into Kingston", and when the sponsee said he was busy, Richard apparently responded "I am your sponsor. You will give me a lift to Kingston". If there's anything that makes me think of a cult it's this; not only is controlling what people do in AA he's controlling what they do outside AA. There is unfortunately a lot of contempt towards him in the Richmond/Twickenham/Teddington area - an area that is otherwise harmonious within AA, with a wide fellowship.

Sorry I've waffled, but I thought it would be of interest, seeing as there wasn't any mention of Richard on the site. Some individuals have stood up to him, but most people shrug it off and say "I can only keep my side of the street clean".

Glad to be of service. May it continue.

... [name omitted]"

(our thanks again to this contributor)

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

The cult "network": Richmond, Ealing, Hampton Wick.....

"Dear aacultwatch,

Having read your information on what determines a 'cult' meeting, I have to say that the Tuesday evening meeting in Richmond [Richmond: How it Works Tuesday 20.00 Unitarian Church, Ormond Rd] is a bit of an odd one. I, personally, would not label it as a 'cult' group, but there does seem to be a 'group within a group' at that particular meeting that practises some 'cult-like' behaviour.

I have been around since 1989 and this meeting has been going for over 10 years. I used to attend regularly but then my attendance became more sporadic until I moved away from the area for a few years. I moved back to West London a year ago and the meeting is now very different. I still see many of the old faces, and most of these people I believe genuinely care about the newcomer and want what's best for them, but as for this 'core group', the ideal is you can't get well unless you have a sponsor, and suddenly it's all-too-obvious what's going on here. The 'core group' seems to be led by an individual (who I believe is a salesman by trade) and appears to have many sponsees who are all given the 'Six Suggestions' and I have heard of a couple of people (who weren't even sponsees of his) being almost 'shouted-down' by this man if they don't do every single item on the list, even if they don't call a newcomer that day. This sort of stuff is incredibly dangerous and off-putting for newcomers. My observation is that this 'core group' (and many of its newer members, such as the young female secretary) are heavily influenced by the nearby 'Ealing gang' (need I say more?). Before I moved away the aforementioned individual was the secretary and all his invited speakers came from Rochester/Strood, and the Tottenham area, plus a couple of people I recognised from 'A Vision for You' when I attended there. I know this website pertains to Alcoholics Anonymous, but an almost identical cult within Cocaine Anonymous has sprung up in the same area and has the same ideals, and it is believed that the 'ringleader' was at one time sponsored within this group.

You also mentioned the Friday meetings in Hampton Wick, and maybe it's worth mentioning that the same people go to this meeting as well. Again, same drill - the majority of those in attendance are working a good program and simply try to help the newcomer. But, quite worryingly, this meeting has some influence from a member from Plymouth (you know what I mean by that, I'm sure - from what I understand she relocated from Plymouth to the area, and no doubt she was told which meetings to go to!), who sponsors most of the women who attend the meeting. I can't help but wonder what kind of message gets carried - although I have heard her sponsees say "I've got to 'phone newcomers" and "I have to call my sponsor".

Once again, these two groups are undermined by the minority of its membership, but I've read on your website about the agenda the 'cult' groups follow (such as the 'politically-approved message' and 'sponsor dependence') and these meetings both spring to mind. Fortunately they don't seem interested on subverting intergroup (as I attend regularly and there has been nothing striking).

I hope this is useful for you. Feel free to publish any of it. I can be emailed for more information.

Regards,

.... [name omitted]"

(Our thanks to this contributor)

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Richmond cult meeting and update to Warneford Hospital meeting (Thurs)

SURREY

Richmond: How it Works
Tuesday 20.00 Unitarian Church, Ormond Rd

OXFORDSHIRE

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

We have been informed that this meeting should be distinguished from other meetings at the same address or in the adjacent area (and about which we have received no complaints). We quote (in part):

"Dear Fellas,

Just read about your concerns about the Oxford Thursday meeting which I'll take forward with other long term members in the area.

I need to correct your report in that AA members in Oxford do, by invitation, attend and contribute to the lecture series (2 hours) that medical students are given on alcoholism which is held at the Warneford Hospital but that's because it houses the Dept of Psychiatry. Medical students could attend any open meeting. Those that do tend to come to the Friday breakfast meeting......."

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)