Predation – civil action in the US!

Extracts:

"Slain woman’s family alleges AA meetings point ‘financial, sexual, and violent predators’ to victims.

It's no secret that Alcoholics Anonymous attracts troubled individuals–and has helped many turn their lives around.

But the nonprofit organization known for its 12-step program also attracts some who find it a convenient place to meet targets for a so-called "13th step"–exploiting troubled women sexually and financially, claims a California lawsuit. …..” 

 

"AA meetings are repeatedly used by financial, sexual, and violent predators as a means to locate victims," alleges the civil wrongful death suit filed by ….... against .... Alcoholics Anonymous of Santa Clarita, Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Los Angeles County, and two attorneys, among other defendants.

It says AA had a “reckless disregard for, and deliberate indifference…to the safety and security of victims attending AA meetings who are repeatedly preyed upon at those meetings by financial, violent, and sexual predators …..

AA of Santa Clarita didn’t respond to Pro Publica's requests for comment. A public information officer for AA’s general service staff called the issues Pro Publica raised "distressing and disturbing.” However, each AA group operates autonomously, she said.”

Others apparently not involved in the case brought by the parents of the dead woman agreed that predatory behavior by individuals with a criminal history can be a problem concerning vulnerable members of AA.”

Source:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/slain_womans_family_alleges_aa_meetings_point_financial_sexual_and_violent_/

And similarly reported:

"Parents Accuse AA of Harboring a Predator

LOS ANGELES (CN) - Grieving parents say in court that their daughter was murdered by her sociopathic addict boyfriend because Alcoholics Anonymous concealed his history of domestic violence.”

“AA has known for years that meetings "are repeatedly used by financial, sexual, and violent predators as a means to locate victims," according to the lawsuit in Superior Court.

But nevertheless the organization has no "specific policies and guidelines concerning conduct of so-called 'sponsors'" and does little to supervise them.”

“The couple seeks punitive damages for wrongful death, conversion of money and property, professional negligence, violation of equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment, Monell violation, and Bane Act violation.

Alcoholics Anonymous World Services declined to comment.”

Source: https://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/28/50771.htm

Comment: This is what is heading our way sooner or later. It's simply a matter of time. All it takes is one more suicide, and a grieving family who won't be fobbed with yet another platitude issued by someone from the General Service office. AA groups are NOT autonomous. Our guidelines are crystal clear:

Tradition 4 (short form): “Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or A.A. as a whole.”

Tradition 4 (long form): With respect to its own affairs, each A.A. group should be responsible to no other authority than its own conscience. But when its plans concern the welfare of neighboring groups also, those groups ought to be consulted. And no group, regional committee, or individual should ever take any action that might greatly affect A.A. as a whole without conferring with the trustees of the General Service Board. On such issues our common welfare is paramount.”

(our emphases)

These statements really could not be more explicit. It is somewhat depressing therefore to read that a staff member for the general service office should so misquote this guideline. AA groups are NOT unconditionally autonomous. They are NOT at liberty to do whatever they like. They are supposed to be RESPONSIBLE for their own conduct and for that of their members. Moreover when a group fails in their duty of care it is CLEARLY the responsibility of other groups and members to intervene and take action, and not simply throw up their hands and raise the “autonomy” defence! Much is made in AA of inventory taking or taking stock. But those of us who have even a limited acquaintanceship with the recovery programme know that this is supposed to be followed by some form of remedial action. (Even better of course is not to 'f**k up' in the first place!). But there really is very little point in producing guidance on abuse etc if this is not accompanied by ACTION. Predators need to be exposed (and barred from meetings if necessary). Newcomers need to be warned in no uncertain terms who these people are. Cult groups (where most of the systematic abuse takes place) need to be removed from Where to Finds and steps taken to ensure that all relevant agencies are notified that they are no longer recognised as being part of AA. At the moment when someone approaches us with a grievance (genuine or otherwise) they're greeted with what must appear to be at best indifference, at worse callousness. It is not enough simply to (mis)quote Tradition 4 or even ignore people who may be suffering entirely unnecessarily. The choice - AND RESPONSIBILITY -  is ours. Do nothing and watch AA disintegrate into complete chaos - or take clear and determined action to prevent this abuse from happening ….. and then get on with what we're supposed to be doing … helping the still suffering alcoholic.

Over to you

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Thanks to the AA member for drawing our attention to these articles

Dealing with predators

“Predators are AA members who take advantage of other members in various ways, such as:

sexual harassment

sexual attack

pressuring members to join a particular religious group

borrowing money

selling goods for personal gain

offering investment schemes

theft of group funds”

Possible solutions:

“Talk to other members about it and raise the matter at a group conscience meeting. Take care that you aren't just passing on rumours. Make sure you have well-established facts to work with

Discuss the problem with the person suspected of preying on other members. Listen to their side of the matter. Let them know the group disapproves of predatory behaviour

Make sure other members stay with the suspected predator whenever he or she is talking to vulnerable new members

Raise your concerns with any of the members you think may be at risk from the predator

Don't think the matter ends with your group. The predator may leave your group and move to fresh hunting grounds. You may need to warn members in other groups

Barring someone from meetings is an extreme step and should only be taken when other steps have failed

In certain situations you may need to notify the police

Under no circumstances should members resort to vigilante action and use violence to try to solve the problem. This would be totally against the spirit of the Fellowship and could turn the situation into a worse problem”

Source: Central Region Forum, (Authorised for publication by The General Service Board of Alcoholics Anonymous Australia)

Comment: We could add to the above list considerably if one were to include cult members' exploitation/manipulation/coercion of newcomers.

By sexual predation what is clearly NOT being alluded to here is 'boy meets girl' in AA (or for that matter 'boy meets boy' etc) and falls in love (or even lust) but rather those individuals who serially and systematically target newcomers purely to satisfy their own sexual/ego desires. Members do form relationships of many types and some work out and some don't – much like the rest of society. What consenting adults get up to in their spare time is their business. But we're not talking about consenting adults here. We're talking about the deliberate exploitation of emotionally vulnerable people by those who know exactly what they're doing. Predators may well be sick people themselves but it's not a sickness that AA deals with. Maybe they do need help, and perhaps the best way to do that is to confront them with their behaviour. Failing to act not only places newcomers at risk but simply serves to exacerbate the problem for everyone concerned including the predator. Colluding with them or ignoring their conduct has precisely the same effect as for example enabling the alcoholic. One might think it's the compassionate thing to do but it isn't. It just leads to more and more trouble. The solution (and responsibility) lies in our hands ….. it just needs to be applied! And by whom? Take a guess!

Over to you

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Our thanks to the member who drew our attention to this AA document

Predators – their part – our part!

A member drew our attention to this case study (for want of a better expression) of predatory behaviour within AA entitled: Predators Lurk in Alcoholics Anonymous

Some extracts:

“The structure of AA actually serves to help the individual who wants to prey on people. New members are encouraged to seek out a “sponsor”, a person who has been clean and sober for some time and knows the 12-step program. This person must be of the same sex. This is ostensibly to prevent men from preying on women, but same sex predators can – and do – exploit the AA system.“

“Ironically, the regulars in the AA community are usually aware of who the predators are, in fact …... came under scrutiny from a local AA chapter, when their leadership council voted to ban him from their meeting place after accusations of inappropriate behavior with sponsees.“

“After …... was banned from that AA location, a general meeting was held which drew a standing-room-only crowd and resulted in heated debate. …... admitted he had engaged in homosexual behavior in his past but denied inappropriate actions with members of AA. Many were unconvinced, but the crowd voted to allow ….... back in the meetings. One member said, “Who are we to exclude anyone? Our program teaches us to be inclusive.””

Comment: What is interesting about the above is not so much what it says about the predator (he is what he is and must take responsibility for his actions) but rather what it says about some members of AA. Apparently it is acceptable (or tolerable) to the latter to allow certain individuals to sexually exploit (and otherwise) newcomers to the fellowship on the grounds that to bar them from meetings would not be “inclusive”. Here the rights of the predator are to be upheld but not those of their victims. One individual may prey upon literally scores of newcomers, perhaps driving them away from the fellowship and even condemning them to death, and apparently that's OK so long as the perpetrator's sobriety is safeguarded! Well guess what? It isn't OK! In fact it's an abdication of responsibility and indication of moral bankruptcy. We would remind these members here of AA guidelines (GB):

and in particular:

“Failure to challenge and stop inappropriate behaviour gives the offender permission to repeat the offensive behaviour and encourages others to follow suit”.

Bullying, harassment, intimidation, sexual predation undoubtedly exist in AA, an inevitable consequence perhaps of any social grouping. Inevitable maybe but NOT to be either condoned or ignored. Within the cult groups this kind of conduct is endemic, even systemic, and sanctioned under the guise of 'strong sponsorship' or so-called 'tough love'. The 'carrot and stick' approach with the 'twelve promises' dangled as an incentive to the sponsee to comply coupled with numerous reminders (sometimes explicit) that failure to accede to their sponsor's every “suggestion” (ie. direction) will inevitably result in relapse and perhaps death is a powerful combination to resist especially when presented as the 'authentic' AA message to the vulnerable newcomer. So how about the newcomer's rights! What happened to the concept of a 'duty of care'? The General Service Office (York) can't do anything about this problem nor can the General Service Conference. So guess where the bucks stops! ….... You got it!

So if you've got a bully/predator in your midst (and you're sure of your facts) confront them (preferably in front of the group). Ask them to account for their conduct. If they're unable to do so inform them of the consequences if they continue. ie. banned from attending the meeting. If they don't get the message go ahead and ban them. Inform other groups and members of your decision. If it's a cult group where such conduct is the norm then it's up to other groups in the area to apply sanctions. Exclude the group from the local intergroup and refuse to recognise them as an AA group - and then make sure to publicise the fact remembering to notify any outside organisations that may be in contact with them. Remember: Our first duty is to the alcoholic who wants to stop drinking not to facilitate those who have other motives for attending meetings – that's our primary purpose!

Over to you,

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Our thanks to the member who drew this essay to our attention

The Big Book makes a tidy little profit!

We quote: 

“Hi fellas

On 3 June you asked : 

‘Question: Why is the book not sold at "cost" anymore? Why is AA literature being sold at a profit?’

And what a profit!

The accounts for the year ended 30 September 2012 show at note 3 :
Literature income : £512,138

Literature expenses : £177,958

That means our books and pamphlets are being sold at almost THREE TIMES cost!

That’s not just ‘making a profit’. It’s certainly not what Bill W. had in mind when he defended book profits in Concept XII. It is downright racketeering.

While we’re on the subject of the accounts – and I have attached them as filed at Companies House for you – how are we supposed to reconcile the following:

Page 6 – plans for future periods

‘the future aim is to hold a reserve… equivalent to one year’s running costs.’

[A very sound aim. I have absolutely no problem with this.]

Page 10 – statement of financial activities

Total resources expended, 2012 total funds : £1,235,807

Net movement in funds, 2012 total funds [surplus] : £250,531

Total funds brought forward : £1,658,070

Total funds carried forward : £1,908,601

So, one year’s ‘costs’ is £1,235,000 although this includes literature sales – hardly a ‘running cost’ as these sums generate a significant profit. Despite holding well over a year’s costs in reserve at the end of the previous year, the Board made a surplus in excess of a quarter of a million pounds in the latest year! It now holds almost TWO years’ running costs in reserve!

AA GB is unquestionably ‘continuing to accumulate funds for no stated AA purpose’, in clear breach of Tradition 7. There is also Concept XII which warns against becoming ‘the seat of perilous wealth’.

A solution? The way forward is clear. Cut the price of literature to much nearer cost.

This has the following benefits :

Reduces the unnecessary surplus.

Helps groups carry and ‘preserve the integrity of the AA message’ (Foreword to 4^th Edition).

Makes local AA groups, rather than huge book warehouses via Amazon, the cheapest place to buy our literature, a fundamental part of a meeting’s attraction. 

…......

Also have a look at note 14 – Fixed Asset Investments. Much of our funds are being invested by Morgan Stanley in… the well-known tax haven that is Luxembourg! If this were widely known, would it risk ‘being drawn into public controversy’ in breach of Tradition 10?

In fellowship 

….......”

Our response: 

“Hi ….....,

Thanks for the mail – and the analysis. Needless to say we agree with your position. We had a look at the attached report you sent us.

It does state clearly there that (under the Reserves Policy) “free reserves ….should exceed 1 years expenditure …. £1,200,000 … At present free reserves amount to £1,824, 367”.

This wording implies that the 1 year figure is a minimum – an invitation perhaps to the economically insecure to continue to build these up to what level? How much is prudent? £2,000,000 …. £3,000,000... and so on. Later on in the report it is in fact stated that “the future aim is to hold a reserve of 1.5 million pounds – equivalent to one years' running costs”. In our view at a time of economic austerity the aim should rather be to plan for economies not increases.

With regard to literature the report explicitly states that the “literature plays an important role in terms of personal recovery, carrying the message and financial stability”

Even further on under Achievement and Performance reference is made to the traditions but in fact misquotes them ie. “the Fellowship is self- supporting through the contributions of its members” where it should read “voluntary contributions”

Moreover it's interesting to note in this connection that the accounts (again explicitly) distinguish between “voluntary income” ie. that generated by contributions, covenants, conventions and conference, and “activities for generating funds” ie. literature sales. Clearly for accounting purposes book sales are not considered to be “voluntary” - yet more evidence of this continuing breach of our traditions!

When it comes to the profit generated by literature sales we were quite surprised at its scale: £334,180 or a mark up of 188 per cent (of cost). We're not sure what the average profit on a book generally is (this seems to vary quite a lot) but of course AA shouldn't be making a profit on these at all.
(An additional problem is that part of these book sales will be to “outside organisations” eg. treatment centres. In this case we are clearly failing to “decline outside contributions”)

The solution to this problem (where conference – or groups - continue to be unwilling to act – which is all too frequently the case!) is for AA members themselves to take direct action. We encourage people to access the free online literature on the GB and AAWS sites and members of the team make a point of mentioning these facilities at meetings. This free literature includes pretty well all of the pamphlets and leaflets as well as the Big Book and the Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions. For those who are in the know the other books (As Bill Sees It etc) can also be found free online (although these editions are in breach of copyright).

It might be worth putting a question to conference on the matter. It has been done before but at least it keeps the issue alive.

We'd be quite happy to put your contribution on the site (suitably edited) since we agree that it's an important issue. Our failure to act according to our own principles presents AA in a bad light damaging both our reputation and integrity.

Thanks again for the mail”

(our edits and emphases)

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Alcohol research

Treatment-seeking populations and larger realities Room R 1980

Alcohol as an instrument of intimate domination Room, R 1979

Measurements of drinking patterns in the general population and possible applications in studies of the role of alcohol in cancer Room R 1979.

Governing images of alcohol and drug problems Robin Room's doctoral dissertation, 1978

Alcohol in casualties and crime: the current state of research and future directions Room R 1978

See also Links and downloads

“Chit” system + predators + newcomers = DISASTER!

Extracts:

“Each year, the legal system coerces more than 150,000 people to join AA, according to AA’s own membership surveys. Many are drunken drivers ordered to attend a few months of meetings. Others are felons whose records include sexual offenses and domestic violence and who choose AA over longer prison sentences. They mingle with AA’s traditional clientele, ordinary citizens who are voluntarily seeking help with their drinking problems from a group whose main tenets is anonymity. (When telling often-harrowing stories of their alcoholism, the recovering drinkers introduce themselves only by their first names.) 

 

Forced attendance seems at odds with the original traditions of the organization, which state that the “only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking.” So far, AA has declined to caution members about potentially dangerous peers or to create separate meetings for convicted criminals. “We do not discriminate against any prospective AA member, even if he or she comes to us under pressure from a court, an employer, or any other agency,” the public information officer at New York’s central office wrote in a June email. “

“Internal AA documents show that when questioned about the sexual abuse of young women by other members, the organization’s leadership decided in 2009 that it could not do anything to screen potential members.  AA, which is a nonprofit, considers each of the nearly 60,000 U.S. AA groups autonomous and responsible for supervising themselves. Board members argued that a group organized around anonymity could do nothing to monitor members without undercutting its basic principles.”

“Sexually exploitative actions toward newcomers in AA have long been detailed in AA’s history; biographies of founder Bill Wilson detail his sexual encounters with attractive female members. One associate of Wilson’s told a biographer that at one point, he and others feared Wilson’s womanizing would derail the group altogether. The actions, which range from inappropriate advances to rape, are known in AA circles as the  “13th Step.”

In 2007, stories in the Washington Post and Newsweek described the sexual and emotional abuse of young women at a cultlike AA group in Washington, D.C., called Midtown. The stories included the accounts of young women who said they were pressured to have sex with many AA members, but especially with the group leader, Michael Quinones, who has since died.

Police concluded that no crime had been committed, since the women involved were over the age of 16 and therefore consenting adults.”

AA groups abroad have also confronted the issue of sexual predation among its members. In 2001, Australian AA officials published guidelines for how to bar financial, spiritual, and sexual predators from the group, noting that older members had  a “moral obligation” to help protect vulnerable new members – and possibly a legal one. In 2002, 3,400 British AA groups voted to adopt a new code of conduct regarding predatory behavior, concluding, “Failure to challenge and stop inappropriate behaviour gives the offender permission to repeat the offensive behaviour and encourages others to follow suit."

Buoyed by these actions, and prompted by the news accounts, in 2007 a member of the board of Alcoholics Anonymous in the U.S. and Canada drafted a seven-page memo to his colleagues on the board that listed accounts of sexually predatory behavior for which he had direct evidence.

More than two years later, AA’s newly created Subcommittee on Vulnerable Members responded with a one-page letter. Its sentences were lawyerly but the intent was clear. It said: “The subcommittee members agreed that the General Service Board in its position at the bottom of the A.A. service structure would not have a role in setting any behavioral policy or guideline for the A.A. groups or members in regards to protecting any vulnerable member. … The General Service Board has no authority, legal or otherwise, to control or direct the behavior of A.A. members and groups.”

Source: Twelve Steps to Danger: How Alcoholics Anonymous Can Be a Playground for Violence-Prone Members

(our emphases)

Comment: As we have argued before any AA participation in the “chit” system (court mandated attendance) runs directly contrary to our own traditions (specifically Tradition 6). “Outside organisations” (courts, treatment centres etc) may have a policy of referring people to AA for any number of reasons. That's their business. However it is NOT our business to facilitate this policy by issuing chits as confirmation of attendance. This is not co-operation; this is endorsement. Small wonder that Iain Duncan Smith is rather keen on us. We represent a potential 'dumping ground' for anyone the courts - and for that matter Job Centre staff (potentially) - decide has some kind of alcohol problem. We're cheap (well free actually) and seemingly willing to overlook any kind of conduct (including, it would seem, sexual predation). In fact why bother with prisons any more? Why not just fast track everyone and their brother in our direction – we'll rehabilitate them, and at no extra cost! No more so-called 'life' sentences behind bars. Send them to your local AA meeting instead! (Mind you …. maybe the 'clink' is preferable to some of the cult meetings operating in our midst! A cult sponsor versus a prison officer ….. tough call!).

But sexual predation is not the only risk newcomers face when coming to AA. Abuse manifests itself in many forms and the cult have developed a whole repertoire of their very own including 'suggestions' (cult speak for 'directions') on: sexual conduct (rather ironic given the behaviour of some of their leaders eg. Wayne P – Plymouth Road to Recovery cult group - whose trousers quite inexplicably fall down from time to time!), discontinuing prescribed medication (ie. interfering in the patient/doctor relationship), dress code (formal wear only at meetings), whether to wear a beard or not (seriously!), employment, moving house, religious belief (Roman Catholicism is kosher..... but Jews and Buddhists are out!) .. or to summarise: “Do exactly what your sponsor tells you”. (Apparently the latest edict from Happy Denis (or rather David “Icons” C his sponsor) is that playing the lottery is off! It's not sober behaviour. Now the lottery has been described as many things (including a 'tax on the stupid') but we've never heard it described thus. But with the cult the rules always proliferate – and so does the abuse …ad infinitum .. and ad nauseam!

As the above extract makes clear the General Service Board can do nothing. The General Service Conference can issue guidelines but not implement them. So guess where the buck stops? Yep – looking right back at you!

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

For more on sexual predation see here

The Social Thought of Alcoholics

“Concern about alcoholism historically involves concern about the social thought of alcoholics. Alcoholics Anonymous "works" by changing the social thought of its members. Yet also for historical reasons, large differences exist between the wisdom-orientation of the social thought of Alcoholics Anonymous and the knowledge-orientation that characterizes the social thought of modern professionals. Empirical testing of these historical generalizations suggests that understanding those differences is essential to establishing rapport between treatment professionals and A.A. members.”

Source: The Social Thought of Alcoholics, Kurtz E, and Kurtz LF, Journal of Drug Issues, Vol. 15(1), 119-134, 1985

See also Links and downloads

'Big Book and Good Book' beginners meeting

Whilst ploughing our way merrily through the World Wide Web we came across this curious listing on the Plymouth Intergroup website:

The group details are indicated as having been submitted to the Intergroup website on the 15^th September 2012.

The group details also appear on the AA online meeting directory (but under a different address):

The term “Good Book” (as in “The Good Book”) refers generally to the Christian Bible. If this is the case we would remind this group of Traditions 3 and 10 (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.

10 No A.A. group or member should ever, in such a way as to implicate A.A., express any opinion on outside controversial issues—particularly those of politics, alcohol reform, or sectarian religion. The Alcoholics Anonymous groups oppose no one. Concerning such matters they can express no views whatever.

Also the AA preamble:

“Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism.

The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. There are no dues or fees for AA membership; we are self-supporting through our own contributions.

AA is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organisation or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy; neither endorses nor opposes any causes. Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety.”

(our emphases)

Clearly any group which espouses (or endorses) a particular religious belief system (either implicitly or explicitly, as this group seems to be doing) is in breach of these guidelines (we would include in this class all those groups which use the Christian prayer - the Pater Noster - as part of the format of their meetings)

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Conference Questions (2012) forum discussion (contd)

Committee No. 6

Question 2:

Would the Fellowship share experience and make recommendations on how a greater understanding of the Traditions and Concepts of AA might be increased among the Fellowship?

Background

Recommendation of Conference 2011, Committee 5, Question 2
Reports of disunity in some areas of the Fellowship
A noticeable lack of AA members to fill service positions at all levels The Declaration of Unity


Consider the contribution to the carrying of the message, financial and practical implications when deliberating each question.

See also:

The Traditions

Preamble

Concepts

Extract:

“If you wish to engage the membership in the workings of the fellowship (including the applicability of the traditions and concepts) it needs to function as an effective democracy (emphasis on the word “effective”). At present it doesn't. It operates more on the principles of a benign (thus far) oligarchy, the “trusted servants” currently filling that role. Most members don't know who their conference delegates are, what they do, and moreover don't particularly care either way! Most don't attend intergroup meetings and having been to a few myself I can wholly understand why. A disengaged membership is simply a symptom of poor communication, and clear and free communication is the basis of democracy.

We have at our disposal a medium which is ideal for that purpose and yet we barely use it ie. the internet. Access to information in AA is poor and still largely paper based. But the trend is evident. More and more of our members are computer/internet literate and are accustomed to rely on this medium to keep themselves up to date. Despite this a significant number of intergroups still have no web presence on the official AA website. This is an ideal opportunity to communicate with members and yet this facility is underutilised. Agendas, minutes etc could be published on these sites (available to all - and as provided by some intergroups already), document libraries expanded, SHARE magazine published online (as for example AA News already is) and so on. All AA literature (conference approved) should be made available free online (including books) so that the membership (and anybody else for that matter!) can easily review this information (hard copies can still be sold but at a price that covers costs only).

We could also do with far fewer 'lectures' on the virtues of service and a bit more practical example. Nothing is more off-putting than yet another harangue from the pulpit! If there's a job to be done then just do it! Don't parade this as some kind of saintly act or even try and sugar-coat the pill. Advertise the service position and what it entails. If no one comes forward then so be it. Past initiatives that haven't worked should be discarded rather than 'flogging that horse' completely to death! If workshops are poorly attended then stop running workshops. Use official AA internet forums (moderated) instead to present information and encourage debate. The variations are endless, and the facilities are already available (and at very low cost). AA members are already using these communication methods widely so why not within the context of AA? If this was the case then we might see fewer of those “non-affiliated” websites with their increasingly weird presentations of the AA (?) programme.”

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

aacultwatch launches its very own recovery group!

We are pleased to announce that by popular demand we are starting our own recovery group (the first of many we hope!):

Ferret Fanciers in AA (non-restrictive)

The meeting will commence on Wednesday 20^th July at 8.00pm at the Littlethorpe Working Men's Club. (When we say “Non-restrictive” what we actually mean is you can show up but you probably won't feel very comfortable what with us all being part of the ferret fanciers BROTHERhood ….. so it's probably better if you go to another meeting any way …... but otherwise …... all welcome!). (Dress code: flat caps, clogs - baggy trousers optional))

Perhaps it would be wise at this stage to make a few prefatory comments in order to clear up any misunderstandings which might arise. Firstly to those who might level at us the accusation we are a “dual purpose” group (a mistake perhaps easily made given our name) we would answer thus. Firstly we believe our “interest” in this area should be taken into account when establishing the context within which we are attempting to gain and maintain our sobriety as “RECOVERED” alcoholics. Rather surprisingly ferret fanciers are a much maligned group within society and our condition presents difficulties with which only other ferret fanciers might empathise. The ordinary common-or-garden variety of alcoholic may of course face enormous obstacles to their own recovery but their travails – with all due respect - are as nothing compared to those faced by the average ferret fancier. We don't wish to elaborate on these here because we cannot be certain of an entirely sympathetic audience. However our special “needs” (as distinguished from mere adventitious “wants) can only really be understood by those who have undergone the same kind of painful experiences as ourselves ('thigh rash”, “blue ball syndrome” etc). Naturally in the course of our discussions there will be some reference to matters “ferretorial” but not to the complete exclusion of alcohol, its attendant problems and recovery thereof. We believe that our recovery can best be served in an environment which is free of any such bias or prejudice. Who among us for example has not had to suffer the ignominy - and indeed in the very throes of our disease - of being posed the question: “Is that a ferret in your trousers or are you just pleased to see me?” Only those who have had to endure such crass observations can fully appreciate what sort of impact these might have on the newly recovered ferret fancying alcoholic.

We are, moreover, by definition a “minority” voice within the fellowship and therefore expect to be treated accordingly. In the interests of fairness and equality (and given our relatively small numbers) it seems only right that our wishes be accorded even greater prominence than those of the more privileged majority. We naturally assume therefore that our participation within intergroup is a 'given' as we are keen to carry the 'ferret fancying' alcoholic message to the wider fellowship.

[It may be of interest to those unversed in AA history that both Dr Bob and Bill W were keen ferret fanciers themselves. Indeed during their first and indeed seminal conversation at Henrietta Seiberling's house it is reported that most of the conversation revolved around the aforementioned beasts and their handling rather than on the question of alcoholism itself. So enthused was Bill by their conversation that he later recorded almost the entire discussion in his diary. When finally it came to drafting the Big Book Bill initially had the intention of devoting a chapter to this very issue and thus it appeared in the first multilith edition prepared for circulation amongst the neonate fellowship. Conceived as a chapter in its own right - As a Ferret Fancier Sees It – this was downgraded to a single appendix entitled “A Ferret Fancier's Opinion” before finally being omitted altogether. Some among us feel that the whole programme as it was subsequently presented suffered greatly from its absence. Although the work was in parts derivative (much of it influenced by the Frank Buchman's treatise “Ferrets: The Eternal Enigma”, whose principles were subsequently embodied in the movement he set up known generally as the Oxford Group (or “Ferrets – The ONLY Way Forward” amongst its most fervid adherents) many of the old timers (including Clarence S – another ferret fancier) believed that the programme in its original ferret oriented purity lost much of its efficacy as a consequence]

Any way we digress! Suffice to say that under Tradition 4 (each group is autonomous) we are of course entirely at liberty to do what we like - and the rest of you can take a running …...!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous …. and of ferrets everywhere!)

PS We would like to take this opportunity to express our warm appreciation to both Joe and Charlie for their unique (and expert) contribution to our own recoveries, and particularly their little publicised commentary on the above mentioned chapter. Their work book “A Vision for Ferret Fanciers” was an inspiration to us all!

What Is Freedom In AA? May, 1960, Bill W

Quotes:

“None can compel you to behave, or punish you if you do not”

“When we chose because we “must” this was not a free choice either”

See also Links and downloads

Alcoholics Anonymous: Problems in Affiliation

Extracts: 

Source: Alcoholics Anonymous: Problems in Affiliation, Bean M, Psychiatric Annals, Vol. 5(3), 46?51, March, 1975

See also Links and downloads

Linwood: Change Through Action BB [Big Book] Monday - update

An email (dated Monday 17/06/13)

“Good evening Mr ???????, It was brought to my attention that you have PUBLICLY named myself and the group I belong to on the World Wide Web. I have absolutely no intention of having any debate with you regarding your comments, the fact that someone passes on their opinion to you which goes to print tells me everything I need to know.
However, as I do have a partner and kids, I shall be seeking legal advice on this matter and only wish to afore warn you of my intentions.
You do now have the opportunity of course to remove this quote, and pass on the details of its author. To hide behind the status of anonymity, I must confess to having never come across such a cowardly act in such a long time.

Mr Lindsay …...”

(our edits)

Our reply (dated 18/06/13)

“Dear Mr …...,

With reference to our blog entry “Linwood: Change Through Action BB [Big Book] Monday”

(14^th June 2013)

Thank you for your mail. As you will note from the blog entry (and in accordance with AA tradition) your first name only has been identified. As for our names you may take your pick: Ebenezer, Zachariah, Sandra, Mike, John, Bruce (and Sheila), Uncle Tom Cobley and so on and so forth....

It is unfortunate that you have declined to enter into a debate but that of course is entirely your privilege. On previous occasions where groups and individuals have done so we have on occasion modified our entries accordingly. But the opportunity is there should you choose to avail yourself of it (you will note here our inclusion of an invitation on the blog entry itself: “Any further information welcome”)

As for your declared intention to seek legal advice again that is entirely your prerogative. An essential however to any action for defamation (which we infer) is that it must be demonstrated that the criticism is false. The allegations are:-

1. That members of the Linwood: Change Through Action BB [Big Book] Monday group sometimes refers to themselves as the “Black Panthers”;
2. That members of the Linwood: Change Through Action BB [Big Book] Monday group identify themselves in meetings with both first name and surname;
3. That members of the Linwood: Change Through Action BB [Big Book] Monday group berate the fellowship etc;
4. That members of the Linwood: Change Through Action BB [Big Book] Monday attempt to change the format of existing AA meetings;
5. That the “energy” of members of the Linwood: Change Through Action BB [Big Book] Monday is “very dark”;
6. That you yourself (as a member of the Linwood: Change Through Action BB [Big Book] Monday are “miserable, controlling”.

The question is: are the above true or false?

An alternative tack would be “public disclosure of private facts” (where the truth of the statement may not be used as a defence). This arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. It is difficult to envisage that a reasonable person would find the majority of the statements above offensive. Indeed the epithet “Black Panthers” might be regarded as a compliment in some circles (especially where it is apparently self-applied!). However we would admit that being “miserable” is hardly a matter for public concern but that “controlling” conduct certainly is (given the nature of our campaign)

(We must confess at this point we are somewhat puzzled by your reference to “a partner and kids” since we have made no mention of them in our original blog entry nor regard them as in any way relevant to our investigations. A cynic might infer that your introduction of them at this stage represents an attempt at deflection (a “red herring”) from the central issue)

Finally we thank you for warning us of your intentions. However we decline your invitation to remove the quote. Under no circumstances, moreover, would we disclose the identity of our correspondent as you request – or for that matter any other correspondent (although we do find it interesting – and perhaps significant – that you seem keen to seek such information since any action for defamation would necessarily be directed at us).

If however your email is simply an attempt on your part to silence criticism or evade exposure we can assure you now that it isn't going to work!

(our edits)

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Your email (with the customary edits to preserve anonymity) together with our response will appear on the blog today”

aacultwatch forum daily reflections

Extracts from our forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/aacultwatch under thread: “advice on how to report a cult meeting ”

“Hi ….....

Thanks for voicing your concern. I admire you for doing it, well done. I hope you carry on. I have been doing it since 2009. I think more people are beginning to do it a bit more now, but I think it will still take some time to swing things around so that vulnerable newcomers are protected from these BBS (Big Book Study or if you prefer Big Bullsh-t Study) controllers. It’s a pity there aren’t more in AA like you; especially among the ape guru oldtimers (Three wise monkeys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_wise_monkeys). According to this Wikipedia article, a fourth ape guru oldtimer is sometimes depicted folding his arms. They'll throw a few bananas as soon as there’s action requiring a bit of responsibility while chanting the AA slogan “Live and Let Live!” When they’ve got no bananas, they’ll scramble to hide behind the yellow card:

“Who you See Here,

What You Here Hear,

When You Leave Here,

Let it Stay Here”

– Nothing to do with me, or him, or her, so why don’t you stop interrupting our chimp’s tea party, pop a plum in your mouth, smile serenely and keep it shut like us? This attitude cannot be found in the Steps, Traditions or Concepts, which all call for social responsibility.

I can only suggest you email aacultwatch and ask them to flag the group as a cult group. If you have any questions or want any info please feel free to ask, I’ll do what I can to find any info you may want. I think you'll find a fair bit on this forum and the aacultwatch blog. The long and the short of it, I think, is that AA history and sponsorship has been perverted by outside publications by a variety of individuals who have combined their recovery with their ambitions for power and money. This has created a cultish “Tough Love” controlling type of sponsorship, originating mainly from USA treatment centre programmes derived from the Synanon cult and the Little Rock Group. These have also been combined with teachings of a dictator who has been elevated to the status of the “prophet” Clarence S. and self- appointed fundamentalist Christian historians [viz Dick B] who have distorted AA history to make it look like the pioneering days with the Oxford Group were successful, when they weren’t. Hence the USA bible study cult phenomena has also become a Big Book Study cult phenomena. I think it is a dangerous cult which has damaged AA public relations and has perhaps turned away several hundred thousand newcomers who have walked into this abusive sponsorship style which has been increasingly pervading AA since the 1970’s. It is unfortunate that AA history has been so cleverly twisted by cult literature that its proponents believe that the AA program has now been watered down, when in fact Big Book Study and Big Book Sponsorship is itself an outside AA published watered down program with a treatment centre program called ‘Recovery Dynamics’ authored by an alcoholic called Joe McQ.

Incidentally, I noticed a version of the yellow card pictured on the Wikipedia “Three Wise Monkeys” article, a WWII poster directed at participants in the Manhattan Project; the Manhattan Project created the first Atomic Bombs:

What You See Here.

What You Do Here

What You Hear Here

When You Leave Here

Let It Stay Here

Perhaps that’s where the original idea for the yellow card and big book study came from, the brain of a mad alcoholic nuclear physicist. One never knows.”

(our edits)

 

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)