What has gone wrong with the Spiritualists’ National Union (SNU), which claims on its website “to unite Spiritualists throughout the world”? First, it closed the weekly Spiritualist newspaper Psychic News but tried to hang onto its assets. Joint liquidators are currently bringing that unhappy episode to a conclusion. Now comes the shock news that Duncan Gascoyne, the Union’s most prominent officer over the past decade, has resigned as chairman of the SNU’s Arthur Findlay College, a position he held for 12 years. For most of that time, he was also the SNU’s president (2001-2010). When someone at that level walks out of an organisation, it’s time for its grassroots membership to start asking serious questions about the way it is run. News of the straight-talking 73-year-old’s resignation has so far appeared only in The Arthur Findlay College Newsletter (March 2011). No explanation was offered. The SNU has not issued a statement about his resignation and its website, and that of the AFC, still show Gascoyne as the chairman.
There has to be a very good reason why someone of Gascoyne’s standing would choose to depart abruptly, just four months before he was due to stand down. I called him as soon as I saw the Newsletter announcement but he would not talk about his reasons at that point because his resignation had not yet taken effect. He would, however, be happy to answer my questions after 31 March, when he no longer held that position. He did, however, stress that his decision had nothing to do with the announcement earlier in the month that the Union was planning to open a new Arthur Findlay Learning and Conference Centre in Stafford – a proposal that had his full support.
I caught up with Duncan Gascoyne again on the telephone this morning and, though he refused to name names and assured me there were no bad feelings between him and anyone else at the SNU, he explained in no uncertain terms that he had resigned because “the position of chairman of the Arthur Findlay College had become untenable”.
“The SNU National Executive Committee (NEC) were making decisions and these were not being relayed to me properly,” Gascoyne explained. “Normally, when the NEC makes a decision, it is communicated to you in writing. They’ll say they want something doing, or can you look at so-and-so.”
In the years when Gascoyne was both SNU president and AFC chairman he was, of course, fully aware of decisions made by the NEC and their impact on the AFC. “However, when I finished as president [David Bruton succeeded him in 2010], I was no longer on the NEC, so therefore I wasn’t party to what decisions they were making about the College.
“Now, for the past four months, although I sent reports in, very few decisions have been relayed directly back to me, as College chairman. It got to a point that I wasn’t receiving information, even when they’d made a decision; it was being done by another person.
“Then, things came to a head at the last committee meeting of the College and both I and the committee were told that some members of the NEC were unhappy at the way the College was being run and also disparaging statements were made about how I had run it in the past, and we learned they intended to take the College in a new direction.
“From that, I understood they want to take it up-market and do different things. And I said, well, it can’t be done. You’ve got a building that’s antiquated; you can’t make it a five-star hotel, and as it’s running successfully now and it’s making a profit for the Union, and people are happy, why change it?
“I was reminded that the AFC was a sub-committee of the Union, I was accused of being autocratic and we were told that the NEC were going to implement changes. I just felt that after 12 years of dragging it up from what it was and making it successful, that I didn’t want any part in it. I just felt that what had been achieved over the years is now not considered good enough and I also deplored the underhand ways in which matters were being dealt with. Besides, as chairman I was responsible for the College and it was not acceptable that things were being said and done without my knowledge. Therefore, I considered my position untenable and I decided to resign.
“I have not had a letter of acknowledgement from the Union in response to my resignation, but I have had a letter from David Bruton, which arrived on 31 March, thanking me for what I’d done. But there’s been no official acceptance of my resignation and, likewise, although I know who’s taking over, they haven’t even informed me as to who the new chairman is.”
In fact, the new chairman of the Arthur Findlay College is Andrew Hadley, a comparative newcomer to the upper echelons of the SNU who was also fundamental in setting up the working party that reviewed the Psychic News operation and ultimately led to its demise. And though Gascoyne refused to put the blame for the breakdown of communication between him and the NEC on anyone who he was prepared to name, the fact that Hadley is currently shown on the AFC sub-committee’s list of members as having responsibility for “NEC Liaison” will lead many observers to conclude that he could be the missing link.
Whoever it is whose actions persuaded Gascoyne to end his long service to the SNU on such a sour note, it is clear that the reasons should not be brushed under the carpet. The Union must investigate them thoroughly.
Certainly, the suggestion that Gascoyne and his committee have not run the AFC well over the years will surprise those who are aware that 12 years ago the SNU regarded the College as such a financial liability it contemplated selling it. Instead, Duncan Gascoyne’s dedicated team transformed its fortunes and, today, thanks in large part to their efforts and the considerable financial support received from a Spiritualist charity, the JV Trust, the AFC is not only in profit but also has substantial reserves.
A keen historian and researcher – he has written a book about Stansted Hall, the AFC building which was bequeathed to the SNU by famous Spiritualist author Arthur Findlay – Gascoyne has also been the Union’s museum curator for many years. “I haven’t resigned from that post,” he told me, “because it is a different position to that of AFC chairman, but evidently they are taking it as part of the College responsibilities and I believe it’s going to be taken over by somebody else. But I shall still do my research because I get a lot of enquiries asking about different people.”
Looking back over his 12 years at the College, Duncan Gascoyne, who is also a Spiritualist minister, says the most satisfying achievement has been “bringing it round to a successful, commercial proposition where we’ve got all the repairs done to the building”.
He adds: “It’s not a five star hotel, it never will be, but we’ve made it comfortable, achieved our objectives and brought it back to a state better than that in which Arthur Findlay left it to us in 1964, as a residential college for the training of competent mediums and speakers.
“So I think at the end of 12 years of hard work the College is in a better shape than it’s ever been. Also, it’s been very satisfying working with the staff down there, and the same is true of the College committee. Together we’ve succeeded.”
Sounding remarkably philosophical about the turn of events, he concluded with a chuckle: “As I’ve said, 12 years ago the Union was on the point of selling the Arthur Findlay College. Now it’s keeping the Union going.” Then, almost as an afterthought, he added: “The Union’s not good at running businesses!”
UPDATE: The SNU has now published a statement from David Bruton, its president, about Duncan’s resignation on its website (dated 5 April). In paying tribute to Duncan’s work over the last 12 years, Bruton describes him as “one of our greatest presidents in recent times”. Bruton is said to be “extremely sad at Duncan’s decision not to continue” but to “fully appreciate his reasons for taking this decision now”. He does not tell SNU members what those reasons were nor does he say whether he feels they should be investigated. His statement confirms that the NEC has agreed the appointment of Andrew Hadley, Ordinary Director, to take on the “new and challenging role” of chairman, Arthur Findlay College.
No tears were shed when Ian Lawman, a British TV psychic and exorcist, was laid to rest on a windswept hill in the West Midlands today. I was among those who attended his interment, which turned out to be a fun event for all involved, including Ian. In fact, he happily posed for photographs before his burial (that’s me, with him, left, an hour before he climbed into the coffin).
The buried-alive event took place in the ruins of Dudley Castle, which in parts is almost 1,000 years old and is regarded by some as one of the most haunted castles in England.
What happens when we die? That’s the question veteran actor and director Clint Eastwood sets out to answer in his latest movie, Hereafter. At the age of 80, it has been suggested that it must be something he asks himself most days. But that’s not as unkind as some of the movie critics have been about the film. Among the reviews I’ve read – Hereafter went on public release in the UK and Europe yesterday – one describes watching it as coming close to “a near-death experience”, another says “it’s a messily-structured, rambling film with stilted dialogue”, and a third dismisses it as “a baby-brained meditation on the afterlife”. I decided to make my own judgment.
Suggesting that such a young and vulnerable boy could wander alone around psychic and Spiritualist meetings, and have private sittings with mediums, without it ringing alarm bells with those involved is, frankly, laughable.