(Would you buy a used car from this man?)AlfonsoG left a comment on my recent post:
As someone who has taken a variety of Landmark programs, I would take issue with a couple of things that you said. You imply that Landmark doesn't care about the health of the people who take part, not warning people that a course that takes a long, hard look at one's life is not appropriate for everyone. In fact, Landmark's Education explicitly gives a health warning in its paperwork, saying the courses aren't right for some people. I also take issue with the idea that Landmark is in it only for the money - in all my life of dealing with various companies, they are probably the group that is least interested in making a fast buck off of people and most interested in people having happy, fulfilled lives.He has a blog called Transformation Musings but it's got nothing in it.
I thank AlfonsoG for taking the time. So let me respond.
Landmark has, for legal liability reasons, to place warnings about health risks in its paperwork. If it didn't it would be open day for personal injury lawyers. However, as we all know, the presence of risk management measures doesn't mean they are followed nor given any credence.
Much regulation and risk compliance is box ticking not active planning. And this is what Landmark does. For all its rhetoric, it does not take care of its devotees--certainly not their mental or psychological health.
Lars Berwick has talked about the danger of suicide through Landmark. And the "Inside Landmark Forum" by French television clearly shows the demeaning and crude tactics used by Forum leaders that can damage participants. The psychologist on the show argues that the Forum is psychologically risky and potentially harmful.
Again, the financial setup of Landmark is opaque and given what they do, there should be more transparency. Their over-use of so called volunteers has been criticized for failing minimum wage laws in some countries.
Thus on the basis of the evidence I think AlfonsoG has got it wrong.
