Derbyshire AA Intergroup?

A while ago we received a series of emails emanating from the Derby area in relation to the activities of the local intergroup. It would seem from these that all is not well. Various allegations were made as to the conduct of this intergroup with reference to a number of meetings in the Derby City area. We visited the above mentioned intergroup's website to check some of the matters raised in our correspondents' emails and came across a number of features which we found somewhat surprising. We summarised these in one of our own responses. See below:

“Dear …...

Thank you for your email. Firstly we should begin by saying (and as a point of clarification) that our goal is as stated on the website and includes (although not overtly) our full support for the principles on which AA is based ie. the Steps, Traditions, Concepts, guidelines (albeit with some qualifications in the last instance) etc. We were somewhat dismayed therefore to note your reference to “genuinely autonomous” meetings since this in itself represents a misquote of Tradition Four, something which we have gone to considerable lengths to emphasise on our site. We quite categorically do NOT support groups that exercise their own autonomy BUT with a complete disregard for the impact this might have on other groups or AA as a whole, and moreover where such action undermines the effectiveness of the remainder of the Traditions. Although our primary focus is on “cult” groups (as we define them) there are plenty of instances where what might otherwise be described as legitimate AA groups also breach (and seriously) these Traditions, and not only to their detriment but also other groups and AA collectively.

With regard to the intergroup website we have checked through this and there are a number of areas of concern. Firstly the site itself does not seem itself to be directly linked into the main AA website (under Midlands region – Derbyshire). In connection with this we note the following:

Under the heading "Website" (Minutes Dec 2010):

"….. has received no further communication following the contact he made with GSO Electronic sub committee.

….. has also sent two emails to GSO asking if we could have our page back on the new site but has received no reply."

Also under same heading (Minutes Sept 2010)

"….. informed IG that the Derbyshire page had been removed from the G.S.O site because it has links to outside bodies- the body in question is Google maps, the page previously provided a link to Google maps so that a visitor to the page could see where exactly a meeting was located. He stated that he would re-organise the National page to comply with AA guidance, and asked the group whether the links should be taken off the Derbyshire website, which is separate to the national page on the AA website, or not?

It was agreed that the links to Google maps should be kept on the Derbyshire site."

Next: the templates available on the site do not have any indicated conference approved provenance. One of these (the 4th step inventory) seems to derive from the following site: http://aaworkshop.org/4th-step-inventory.php. [with “Back to Basics” connections. See here for more information on this grouping]. This site has no affiliation with AA as such (although it omits to mention this) and therefore the use of the material (and despite its relatively innocuous content) constitutes an implied endorsement (and affiliation) by Derbyshire Intergroup (a breach of the Traditions). Exactly the same may be said with regard to the 1944 sponsorship pamphlet (again no indication that this is conference approved). Most of the views expressed in this document are again relatively uncontroversial (although there are some with which we might take serious issue) but an AA intergroup really has no business carrying reference material which does not form part of the approved corpus of AA literature (and especially where the existing [AA] literature most adequately covers the areas under question). Under the section “What Happens at Meetings” again the content is relatively harmless but there are a number of statements included which seem to express the personal opinions (and preferences) of the author(s) rather than being purely observational. For example the view is expressed that: “We are not a religious organisation but we are spiritual and many of us (even the atheists among us) find this short prayer helpful.” Apart from the fact that this seems to be something of a broad assumption it is questionable how a prayer addressed directly to God could ever be regarded as “helpful” by someone who is a genuine atheist. Praying to something that you have no belief (or faith) in whatsoever would seem to us to be a rather bizarre activity. There is also something distinctly patronising about the qualifying condition ie. “EVEN the atheists....” (our emphasis). The only category of alcoholic in AA is – an alcoholic in AA! That is it! Again, the observation that: “..... we usually stand in a circle, join hands and say ….” is not as far as we're aware an accurate statement. It may be the case in the Derbyshire area but it is not “the norm” elsewhere. Further: “We do not talk or comment when someone is sharing and it is considered bad manners to comment negatively on an earlier share when it is your turn. (We call that "cross-sharing")”. The expression “cross-sharing” is a relatively recent 'fad' (or for those of us who have been around AA “for a little while” at least!) and we have found, on the contrary, a bit of “negative” sharing can be most instructive especially when it's somebody's life on the line! And of course the question arises: who is it precisely that considers it “bad manners” to “cross-share”? The author(s)? Other members? Who exactly are these “spokesmen for AA”? Indeed there is no guideline which may DIRECT how a member may or may not speak and therefore they should not be subjected to any form of censorship (implicit or otherwise) other than that governed by the relevant statutes. It seems quite unnecessary in our view to include such detailed “opinions” on an AA site which should contain only basic information relating to meeting lists, conventions, intergroup business and links to the relevant sections of the main AA website. This is a yet another example of unhelpful “micro management”!

With reference to the “Sobriety Breakfast” (advertised on the site) this is another clear breach of the Traditions (specifically Tradition Seven). Fund raising “events” (and we would include here profits derived from literature sales - an example of AA traditions being broken not only locally but even nationally!), raffles, dances, discos etc all represent “transactions” contributing to a profit. In exchange for the “goods” or “services” provided a specific charge is made (including generally that element of profit) and a contract comes into existence. There is no indication within the Traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous that such “contracts” are intended to be created between it, the Fellowship service structure and its members. The point of a “voluntary contribution” indeed is that no such contractual relationship is created. Both parties (if it may be put that way) are mutual donors and both are mutual beneficiaries, the rewards deriving solely from the relationship itself and not from any extrinsic and “superfluous” benefit.

Finally we would certainly be interested to hear whether the intergroup website has carried information about “informal” meetings (associated with a particular religious denomination) since this would be a clear (and extremely serious) breach of the Traditions. The only reference we can find in the minutes to such “informal” meetings relate to those held at the Derbyshire Royal Infirmary (and this seems to be due to some constraints on accessibility).

We would also be interested to hear specifically why the intergroup took the action you indicated with respect to your group(s) and what steps you have taken to remedy the situation, and what (if any) response you have had from the intergroup in this regard.

For our part we will pass on some of the above observations to both GSO York and also to Derbyshire Intergroup. In the meantime we would appreciate it if you would send us the group details (as they appear in the AA online Where to Find) of both your group(s) and also the groups you refer to as belonging to the cult. This will ensure that no confusion may ensue through misidentification. We will then follow up on the matter

Cheers

The Fellas”

We did subsequently contact Derbyshire Intergroup with regard to the above – no response. We also contacted GSO York who kindly acknowledged our communication.

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

(our thanks to the correspondents from Derby for drawing our attention to these issues)

Ealing again!

Well it would seem that Tim W has been elected (?) to the job of responding to South Middlesex IG's letter of complaint (see below: 31/07/11 “CULT THUG BULLIES DISABLED PENSIONER OUT OF EALING MEETING” for another of Tim W's initiatives!). Presumably the Happy One has been sent to convalesce somewhere else (or indeed anywhere else!) whilst a more “reasoned” defence for the cult groups' conduct is advanced. It all looks very impressive. The traditions are cited, bits of AA literature are mentioned, group autonomy is alluded to (but of course leaving out that inconvenient second part). All very reasonable … and all less than candid. And so …....

4. Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or A.A. as a whole.

and of course Tradition 3 (which is not mentioned at all in this disingenuous missive):

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 emphases)

The cult groups in Ealing were set up with absolutely no consultation with AA groups or intergroup, and with no regard whatsoever as to their impact on legitimate AA meetings. These groups produce (and promote) their own literature (in probable breach of AAWS copyright) and moreover circulate a version of the Where to Find which contains adverts for the cult website referred to in this “spokesman's” letter. We have in fact had ample opportunity to study this website and contrary to the assertions made in Tim W's response there is much in there which is NOT derived from the Big Book and other AA literature (ie. the section: Alcohol in Solid Form). Here a number of assertions are made about the employment of prescribed medication (specifically anti-depressants) in relation to mis-diagnosis (or otherwise) of a putative underlying condition (ie. alcoholism). None of these statements is made by anyone with any professional qualification, and in fact represent purely the opinions of the author. Apart from the questionable views expressed (and the misquotes from AA literature) what is of greater interest is the discrepancy between what is evident and what is “inferred”. This latter term is employed with great frequency in the course of Tim W's rebuttal. Naturally one might infer anything about anything – in its extreme form this might be termed “subjectivism” or even “solipsism” - or to put it another way – everything is open to interpretation. So for example some people might take the term “suggested” to mean:

1. To offer for consideration or action; propose.

2. To bring or call to mind by logic or association; evoke.
3. To make evident indirectly; intimate or imply.
4. To serve as or provide a motive for.

In the cult circles however the word assumes an entirely different guise - it is “inferred” as an imperative, and worse still something that may be imposed by one person upon another. Here we remind you of that central imperative about which all cult sponsorship revolves:

“Sponsor

It is suggested that you phone daily and do exactly what your sponsor tells you. If you don't have a sponsor, look upon every meeting you go to as a chance to find one.

NB If anything is unclear, ask your sponsor.”

(our emphasis).

(an excerpt from another cult website linked to the one cited above)

So although the position adopted by the cult groups is presented by Tim W as being quite reasonable and entirely in accord with the Traditions etc it is in fact far removed. This may be exemplified by contrasting what is currently included under the present 'redaction' of the aforementioned website with its previous version. This throws some light on the covert, intrusive and indeed voyeuristic (some might say perverted) tendencies of its authors.

Under the section Step Four “Sexual Conduct” the original version contained the following statement:

“In the inventory we should be prepared to include sex with: men, women, children, animals..... . and bottles”

This has now been edited out.

Now it might be “inferred” from the basic text of Alcoholics Anonymous that such matters should be included in the Step Four inventory. However we would assert that this is an inference that may not be drawn and on two fairly obvious grounds: legal and therapeutic. Two of the sex acts referred to would fall under criminal jurisdiction and if revealed to a “sponsor” would place both individuals at risk of prosecution; the “sponsee” for the criminal act itself, and the “sponsor” as an accessory should they fail to report the incident(s). These communications are not legally “privileged”. Therapeutically it does not require an enormous leap of the imagination to consider the impact that such revelations might have on both parties especially where the “sponsor” may not be trained to handle such disclosures.

We include this example here as indicative of the cult's underlying agenda in Great Britain and elsewhere (quite apart from their deliberate – and overt - manipulation of the Traditions to promote their objectives). The façade that is presented by Tim W et al is precisely that – a show of unity but one without any substance. The letter may sign off with the traditional “Yours in fellowship” but actions do in fact speak so much more eloquently than words......

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

(our thanks to our local reporter)

Happy Dennis departs reality almost completely!

Yes – this is the latest response from the Happy One to South Middlesex IG's letter (see below) – the chap seems to have been so far rocketed into another dimension that he has almost exited the galaxy completely! And so....

“Dear All, I pray that all at Intergroup and all who might read this, are happy, healthy, joyous and free, and enjoying all the beauty of this God given sober life.

I regularly attend the wonderful meetings at Bayham Road and Green Man Lane. I find them all tremendous, all carrying the beautiful Big Book message, in line with our tremendous Traditions, in fact I find all the lovely meetings in Ealing do the same thing, in fact I find all meetings I go to are aiming to carry our beautiful message of recovery, whether this be in other parts of London, other parts of the U.K., Ireland or other places in Europe.Why not come along to some of the meetings at both these lovely venues, like meetings everywhere they are fantastic. Look forward to seeing you there, or at other meetings in our lovely Intergroup or meetings elsewhere.

Anyway God bless you all, you are all always in my prayers, and may we pray that AA does happily and healthily grow and glow, God bless, Dennis.”

Comment: The medical term for his condition we believe is “barking” - or perhaps narcissist! There's a lot of them about in the cult! See following:

Hotchkiss' seven deadly sins of narcissism:

Hotchkiss identified what she called the seven deadly sins of narcissism:

1. Shamelessness: Shame is the feeling that lurks beneath all unhealthy narcissism, and the inability to process shame in healthy ways.

2. Magical thinking: Narcissists see themselves as perfect, using distortion and illusion known as magical thinking. They also use projection to dump shame onto others.

3. Arrogance: A narcissist who is feeling deflated may reinflate by diminishing, debasing, or degrading somebody else.

4. Envy: A narcissist may secure a sense of superiority in the face of another person's ability by using contempt to minimize the other person.

5. Entitlement: Narcissists hold unreasonable expectations of particularly favourable treatment and automatic compliance because they consider themselves special. Failure to comply is considered an attack on their superiority, and the perpetrator is considered an "awkward" or "difficult" person. Defiance of their will is a narcissistic injury that can trigger narcissistic rage.

6. Exploitation: Can take many forms but always involves the exploitation of others without regard for their feelings or interests. Often the other is in a subservient position where resistance would be difficult or even impossible. Sometimes the subservience is not so much real as assumed.

7. Bad boundaries: Narcissists do not recognize that they have boundaries and that others are separate and are not extensions of themselves. Others either exist to meet their needs or may as well not exist at all. Those who provide narcissistic supply to the narcissist are treated as if they are part of the narcissist and are expected to live up to those expectations. In the mind of a narcissist there is no boundary between self and other.

(Hotchkiss, Sandy & Masterson, James F. Why Is It Always About You?: The Seven Deadly Sins of Narcissism (2003)

This all sounds very familiar!

Over to South Middlesex IG

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

(our usual thanks to our reporter)

Yet another Jim B!

After our Stop Press article of yesterday a member from the UK kindly sent in the following, making some rather pertinent points about placing “principles before personalities”.

“Hi fellas,

I read your Stop press article today. Can you tell me, Is this the same Jim B. who breaks his anonymity on You Tube?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qey_WSBNP6E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPkisi-R0Jo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzHbj3UwmoY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR12Ph_grlc

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=alcoholics+anonymous+Jim+B&aq=f

[Comment: actually it isn't – although there does seem to be a bad outbreak of these “bleeding” “experts” at the moment – but you can catch the original elsewhere on the net “entertaining the troops”” Remember: “The show must go on”!]

If so, someone ought to educate him on Traditions Eleven and Twelve. He looks and sounds like the reincarnation of the alarming poser described in AA Comes of Age. If this is the same Jim B. who is on You-Tube, then I think you should print his email address so we A.A. members can email him strong emails……..emails of a kind his sponsor might not like to receive.

Bill W., “AA comes of Age” page 130-131: “This ultimatum was an 'alarming poser'.........We would loose control of our public relations......We assured him that if his ‘lectures’ went on air, we would advise every A.A. group of the circumstances and ask them to write strong letters ……….. letters of a kind the sponsor might not like to receive. The broadcast never went on air.”

Extract from Tradition Twelve: “We simply could not afford to take the chance of letting self –appointed members presenting themselves as messiahs representing A.A. before the whole public.… Moved by the spirit of anonymity, we try to give up our natural desires for personal distinction as A.A. members both among fellow alcoholics and before the general public”….. We are sure that humility, expressed by anonymity, is the greatest safeguard that Alcoholics Anonymous can ever have.”

Extract from Tradition Eleven: “This Tradition is a constant and practical reminder that personal ambition has no place in A.A. In it each member becomes an active guardian of our fellowship".

Bill W., “As Bill Sees It”, page 198: “They forget that, during their drinking days, prestige and the achievement of worldly ambition were their principle aims. They do not realize that, by breaking their anonymity, they are unconsciously pursuing those old and perilous illusions once more. They forget that the keeping of one’s anonymity often means the sacrifice of one’s desire for power, prestige, and money. They do not see that if these strivings became general in A.A., the course of our whole history would be changed; that we would be sowing the seeds of our own destruction”.

How many people are being put off A.A. by these Jim B. videos?

Bill W: “Of highest importance would be our relations with medicine and religion. Under no circumstances must we get into competition with either. If we appeared to be a new religious sect, we’d be done for. And if we moved into the medical field, as such, the result would be the same.” (Language of the Heart Page 150)

……....(Name deleted) UK”

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

(our thanks to this contributor)

"Someone or other" and “The Sponsorship Group”

From time to time we receive emails from people complaining about the site and the fact that: 1) they have been mentioned (although we tend to stick to the traditional first name plus initial or their nick name or even one we have assigned to them ourselves eg. The Venerable C – which “Honourable Member” incidentally is about to grace the Bristol Reunion with his august presence – but more on that later!); 2) their group has been alluded to; 3) the name of their cat has been misspelt etc, and, thereafter (and occasionally), flourishing the “(L)ibel ” word at us or even the “(D)efamation)” word, and, finally (and most recently), the “(S)lander” tag. However - and for the very first time - the "S" word has been waved in our direction and this without the person (or his group) even being mentioned on our site (until now that is!).

See the following interchange of mails:

---

“From: Jim B***
Subject: Slanderous statements on your blog
To: "aa_cultwatch.......
Date: Tuesday, 23 August, 2011, 21:33


Please remove all references to me and the alcoholics anonymous group i attend that have been posted on your site.

All references to: "Jim B***" or "Jim B." And "The Sponsorship Group"

They are not true.

These statements have caused me irreparable financial harm.

Yours truly,

Jim B***

908-***-****

On Aug 23, 2011, at 5:54 PM, aa cultwatch wrote:

Well the only reference we can find in the section to which you refer to a Jim B is to someone who is dead? Perhaps you'd care to elucidate

From: Jim B***

Subject: Re: Slanderous statements on your blog

To: "aa cultwatch"
Date: Tuesday, 23 August, 2011, 23:07

I am alive and well.

Jim B***

908-***-****

From: aa cultwatch

Subject: Re: Slanderous statements on your blog
To: "Jim B****”
Date: Wednesday, 24 August, 2011, 6:16

We repeat. The only references on our site are to a Jim B who was a contemporary of Bill W. However we have done a search of your name and the Sponsorship group and the results do incline us to further investigation.”

---

(our edits)

….. which of course we did. It seems there DOES exist a Jim B and he IS associated with something called the Sponsorship Group based in Chatham, New Jersey (Sunday nights 8:30pm, Chatham, NJ, at the Presbyterian church on Southern Boulevard), and, by and large (or so we discovered), the comments on the net are hardly flattering concerning this operation (some references to “Midtown” cropped up – hardly a recommendation!). Moreover (and perhaps not so coincidentally) we received an email shortly thereafter (from another source) which went into some detail on the activities of this group, and for all of which the expression “hardly flattering” would be something of an understatement! Of course we're always willing to be corrected on an error and it may well be that Jim B might in fact be quite entitled to be outraged by our previously non-existent “slanderous” comments. However you will note that we have not asserted that any of this is true – simply that we have received some rather odd emails from the Chatham New Jersey area concerning Jim B and the Sponsorship Group (or maybe someone does have a guilty conscience?).

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

(our thanks to our reporters in the US)

Ipswich Primary Purpose

“Hello,

My name is …... I am a member of AA , have been sober for nearly ….. years and regularly attend local meetings. I share your concern over the rise and development of cult groups and wish to offer my support to the efforts you are making.

I would like to make you aware of a group called Ipswich Primary Purpose. It was voted in by the local intergroup last summer at the first quarterly meeting which I attended….. There was little, if any, serious concern expressed and the only condition attached was that a link to a private therapists site from the groups site be removed. This has not been done but no further action has been taken by intergroup. The therapist is a retired senior staff member from the Priory. The Primary Purpose web site has other loose but visible links to other sites, one of which is to Dick B.* I have not attended any Primary Purpose meetings and cannot offer any evidence as to how they are conducted but the probability of a connection with the movement you have identified is sufficient for me to feel that I have grounds to raise the matter. I have spoken to one other member who did attend one of their meetings and found it disturbing. They can be found at ipswichprimarypurpose.co.uk.

I am one of the, I believe, growing number of people who feel that AA must change and adapt if it is to continue to be able to offer the compassionate support and understanding at group level that I have found to be so valuable. It is the perception of many people that AA has cult like characteristics. If the growth of the cult elements is allowed to grow unchecked this perception will be confirmed and almost certainly be exposed by the news media . AA is able to offer the only low cost (essentially free), long term,unconditional support service to people who cannot afford expensive private treatment and it would be a great sadness if complacency were to bring this to an end.

In fellowship,......”

(our edits)

* We received this communication some time ago and in the intervening period the above mentioned links have been removed. We note however some advertising for a Primary Purpose Mini Convention on the site (now past) and the use of a logo which again seems specific to this website. We have to assume that this is not an AA sponsored convention (ie. by the local intergroup) since it is not advertised as such (under AA Events on the AA website) nor does it carry the AA logo (which it may do if it falls under this category). For these reasons as well as its explicit use of the term “Primary Purpose” in the group title (although this is modified under the meeting list to “AA Primary Purpose”) its precise status as an AA meeting is questionable. If in fact this group is affiliated to the Primary Purpose movement we would say not (see here for a detailed analysis of this movement). Although the meeting is listed under the national Where to Find this does not imply that it is in fact an AA meeting (or run by an AA group). Under Tradition 3 (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)

This group falls under the Eastern Region: South East Anglian IG

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

(our usual thanks to our reporter)

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)